This project was funded by:

Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs

South Coastal Watershed Action Plan

Chapter Six Plymouth Watersheds

Prepared by:

110 Winslow Cemetery Rd. Marshfield, MA 02050 (781) 837-0982

CHAPTER SIX: PLYMOUTH WATERSHEDS

Part I. Plymouth Watersheds Assessment 6-2 1.0 Watershed Characteristics 6-2 2.0 Water Quality Impairments 6-4 3.0 Aquatic Habitat Impairments 6-11 4.0 Water Withdrawal Impairments 6-15 Part II. Plymouth Watersheds Five Year Action Plan 6-19

List of Tables

Table 6-1. Plymouth South Coastal Watershed Characteristics 6-2 Table 6-2. Stormwater Impacts on Plymouth South Coastal 6-6 Table 6-3. Percent of Impervious Surface for each Plymouth South Coastal Watershed 6-16 Table 6-4. List of Plymouth Public Drinking Supply and Irrigation Wells located in South Coastal 6-23 Table 6-5. Plymouth South Coastal Waterbodies listed by Watershed 6-24 List of Figures Figure 6-1 Eel River Nitrogen Monitoring Sites 6-8 Figure 6-2 Ellisville Harbor Tidal Marsh 6-13 Figure 6-3 Plymouth Carver Aquifer 6-15 Figure 6-4 Plymouth Wannos Well Contributing Zone 6-17 List of Maps Map 6-1 Plymouth Water Resources Map 6-27 Map 6-2 Plymouth Watersheds Assessment Map 6-28 Map 6-3 Plymouth Watersheds Impervious Surface Vulnerability Map 6-29 Map 6-4 Plymouth Watersheds Action Map 6-30

Plymouth Watersheds in South Coastal Basin

Introduction

The public process involved in creating this document included two steps,1) an assessment of the Plymouth watersheds and 2) the development of a Five Year Action Plan. The assessment involved extensive literature review and interviews with stakeholders. Based on this process, information and a list of recommended actions were presented to the public at a public forum for additional input and priority ranking. The recommended actions generated as part of the assessment are listed at the end of the discussion of each goal. Based on the input and votes of those who attended the public forum, some of these recommendations were included in the Five Year Action Plan at the end of this chapter. Thus, this chapter consists of two parts; The Assessment and the Five Year Action. Please refer to Appendix A for a detailed description of the public process.

PART I. WATERSHED ASSESSMENT

1.0 Watershed Characteristics

Table 6-1 Plymouth South Coastal Watershed Characteristics Land Area 63 Square Miles Primary Municipality Plymouth Protected Open Space 3,915 Acres (9.8%) Limited Open Space 2,621 acres (6.5%) NHESP Priority Habitat for Rare Species 8,820 acres (20.4%) Top three land uses 56% Forest; 20% Residential; 6.8% Water/Wetlands # of NPDES Permits-4 # of Dams-39 Most Impaired Waterbodies Plymouth Harbor, , Ellisville Harbor, Russells Mill Pond

1.1 History: For most of its existence, Plymouth was an isolated seacoast community whose economic fortunes were closely linked to the sea and shipping. In the 19th century primary industries included Plymouth Cordage, shipbuilding, and fishing. Towards the end of the century as these industries declined, agriculture, particularly cranberry bogs emerged as a significant source of employment. The 1960’s brought the completion of Route 3, the building of the Nuclear Power Plant and the construction of the North Triangle and Camelot Industrial Parks. During the 1980’s Plymouth was one of the fastest growing communities in with a growth rate of 26% (Open Space Plan 2003).

1.2 Water Resources: Plymouth’s 12 Watersheds include 343 inland ponds (including 32 globally rare coastal plain ponds), 5 anadromous fish runs, and 21 miles of coastline. Please refer to Table 6-1 for waterbodies listed by Watershed.) Please refer to Plymouth Coastal Water Resources Map (Figure 6-5). The five anadromous fish runs are Town Brook, Eel River, Herring River (Bournedale run), (spawning at ) and Bartlett Pond. Estuaries include

South Coastal Watershed Action Plan 6-2 9/12/2006 Watershed Action Alliance

Plymouth Harbor, Plymouth Bay, and Ellisville Harbor all SA waterbodies with excellent habitat for fish, other aquatic life and suitable for primary and secondary recreation (Map 6-1). The most significant river system is the Eel River with a watershed of 15.4 square miles (9,856 acres). The watershed contains several coastal plain ponds that are fed primarily by the groundwater flowing through the aquifer. The Eel River Watersheds’ Coastal Plain Ponds are shallow ponds which were created by glaciers and form a unique wildlife habitat that supports many of Plymouth’s globally rare wildlife species. Over 30% of the Eel River watershed has been designated as BioMap Core Habitat under the Commonwealth’s Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (Open Space Plan, 2003).

There are two main branches of the river which join below Hayden and Howland Ponds. The northern branch flows southeast from the Town’s new Eel River Headwaters Preserve, and the southern branch, also known as Shingle Brook, flows northeast out of the Pinehills Development. . The Plymouth Carver Aquifer, the second largest in Massachusetts and designated as a sole source aquifer (requiring and EIS for federal projects), covers nearly 200 square miles, including all or part of six communities, and stores as estimated 500 billion gallons of fresh water (Plymouth’s Open Space Plan 2003). The boundaries of the groundwater contributing areas within the Plymouth Carver Aquifer are not coincident with the surface watershed boundaries mapped by EOEA. The groundwater contributing areas in the Plymouth Carver Aquifer are more significant then the surface watershed delineation because Plymouth’s surface water bodies — its rivers, streams and ponds— are largely fed by this groundwater aquifer rather than by run-off from rain. The direction and flow of groundwater through the aquifer is radially outward from the high point of the groundwater in the West Plymouth and is controlled by proximity to rivers and coastal discharge boundaries, as well as geologic heterogeneity, rather than the hills and valleys at the surface. The area of groundwater within a watershed system is the area that feeds the rivers, streams and ponds within that watershed. Therefore, watershed boundaries based on surface topography are very different from watershed boundaries defined by groundwater. Watersheds in Plymouth need to be delineated by the zone contributing groundwater to the surface waterbodies. The identification of accurate groundwater contributing zones is key to evaluating how the impact of both permitted groundwater discharges and water withdrawals will affect the surface water bodies in each of Plymouth’s watershed systems. (Neal Price, email correspondence, 2006). This has been done for one watershed, the Eel River Watershed, and the area of groundwater contribution to the watershed differs by over 2000 acres from the surface watershed area (Mettie Whipple, Eel River Watershed Association).

Plymouth maintains a thriving commercial fishing fleet that includes more than 65 lobster boats and 25 draggers that operate in the harbor. Providing a harbor that includes a high standard of water quality is central to preserving and enhancing a vital and vibrant local economy (Tri-town Application to EPA for No Discharge Zone, 2005).

1.3 Priority Land and Aquatic Habitats: Plymouth is unique in the region for the amount of open space, although on-going transportation improvements will erode this buffer. The area is rich with unique environments offering globally rare Pine Barrens and has the second highest incidence of rare species occurrence in the state with over 100 records in the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program database. Areas of critical ecological significance include the Great South Pond Complex for globally rare species including the triangle floater, blue-spotted salamander, comet South Coastal Watershed Action Plan 6-3 9/12/2006 Watershed Action Alliance

darner, spotted turtle, new england bluet, red-belly turtle, and eastern pondmussel. A range of fish can be found throughout the watershed including largemouth bass, small mouth bass, pickerel, alewife, white perch, yellow perch, blueback herring, rainbow smelt, and brook brown and rainbow trout (Open Space Plan, 2003).

The Ellisville Harbor Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC) comprises 600 acres of widely diverse habitats and vegetation including a sheltered harbor, sandy beaches, salt marsh, steep bluffs, holes (Center Hill and Black Ponds), a small sphagnum bog and scenic rural upland sites with woodland and meadow. The Herring River ACEC, comprises 4450 acres, contains eleven lakes and ponds (the largest ), numerous freshwater wetlands, productive cranberry bogs, over 250 acres of protected space and the most important anadromous fish run along the coast. (Open Space Report, 2003)

1.4 Hydrogeology: Deposits of fine to course sand and gravel with occasional, limited lenses of silts and clay predominantly underlie Plymouth Watersheds. The subsurface soils consist of the Carver-Gloucester and Carver-Peat soils as classified by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service (USDA 1969). The soil tends to be deep and dry with rapid permeability. The surficial geology in the watershed consists of unconsolidated stratified glacial materials deposited during the last retreat of glacial ice about 15,000 years ago. The lower portion of these stratified materials is saturated with water fed by direct infiltration of precipitation. Ground water table elevations range from sea level to 125 feet about sea level, with the saturated thickness of the aquifer greater than 160 feet in many areas (Eel River TAC).

2. 0 Water Quality Impairments

2.1 Stormwater

Nutrients: A primary threat to all waterbodies in Plymouth is the impact of pollution carried by stormwater which originates from rain that travels over the ground surface until it either enters a water body directly (surface run-off) or infiltrates into the groundwater and enters a water body from there (baseflow). Runoff collects pollutants from the ground surfaces it encounters between the source and the receiving body (i.e., agriculture, asphalt, fertilizers). Non-point pollution from surface runoff and discharges from storm water outfalls are the single largest source responsible for water quality problems in lakes, rivers, and marine waters (DEP Stormwater Management Policy Letter, 1996). Because of the permeability of the soil, pollutants are quickly absorbed. Phosphorus, a pollutant related to fertilizers, agriculture use, and laundry soap (failing septic), is the limiting nutrient in many fresh water ponds/lakes already impacted by some level of development, while other waterbodies are nitrogen-limited. The addition of a small amount of phosphorus or nitrogen can stimulate excess algal growth in ponds. Thus, the addition of a small amount of phosphorus can stimulate excess algal growth in ponds while other waterbodies are nitrogen limited. As vegetated buffers are lost and impervious surfaces increase due to development, the effectiveness of these natural filtering systems in removing phosphorus and nitrogen from stormwater is reduced.

Stormwater Impact on Ponds: The ponds in the table below are impacted by stormwater related nutrients from, road salt, inadequate septic, erosion/sediments, residential and commercial

South Coastal Watershed Action Plan 6-4 9/12/2006 Watershed Action Alliance

developments. Many are also hydrolically linked to the 800 acres of cranberry bogs in the Plymouth South Coastal watersheds which are an additional source of nutrients. Please refer to Plymouth Watershed Assessment Map (Map 6-2).

Road Salt: Road salt is also a significant problem in Bloody Pond as documented by the Six Ponds Association water sampling program. Sources listed at bottom of Table 6-2.

South Coastal Watershed Action Plan 6-5 9/12/2006 Watershed Action Alliance

TABLE 6-2 Stormwater Impacts on Plymouth South Coastal Ponds Waterbody Watershed Pollutants/Impairments Probable Source

Billington Sea Town Brook phosphorus, turbidity, Cranberry bogs, residential 303d # MA94007-Category 5 algae, noxious aquatic and commercial plants (1) development, illicit discharges, septic failures (2) Russell Mill Pond Eel River Nitrogen, noxious aquatic Stormwater (Camelot drive 303d #MA 94132-Category 5 plants (Lythrum salicaria) area), cranberry bogs, depth of pond and impoundment serve as nutrient trap (4), erosion (2) North Triangle Pond Town Brook phosphorus, pathogens (3) Stormwater outfalls (three noxious aquatic plants (2) large diameter outfalls), erosion (2) Island Pond Eel River pathogens, phosphorus (3) Unknown 303d#MA94075-4c non-native aquatic plants( 1) Indian Brook turbidity, oil-like sheen, Hydrolically connected with non-native aquatic plants- cranberry bogs (2) 75% (1) Bloody Pond Herring River road salt Direct Stormwater Outfalls- Route 3 (5) Cooks Pond Town Brook non-native aquatic plants Erosion at access point, 303d# MA94142-4c (1) runoff from school, cranberry bogs (2) Briggs Reservoir Indian Brook non-native aquatic plants Adjacent sand mining- 303d#MA94019-4c (1) erosion, cranberry bogs (2) Briggs Reservoir non-native aquatic plants Unknown 303d#MA94020-4c (1) Shallow Pond Indian Brook noxious aquatic plants (2) New Housing Development, Cranberry Bogs (2) Beaver Dam Beaver Dam non-native plants (1) Unknown 303d#MA94140-4c Long Island Pond 303d#MA94088-4c (1)DEP 2006 Water Quality Assessment (2)Geo Syntec 2002 NPS Pollution Assessment, Kingston, Plymouth, Pembroke (3)The Nature Conservancy 2002 Pondwatcher Study (4)Evaluation of Nutrient Inputs and the Health of the Eel River, 2000 (5)Six Ponds Watershed Association, 2005 Water Quality monitoring data.

Storm water Impacts on Eel River: Nitrogen, a pollutant present in animal/human waste and fertilizers is extremely soluble, does not bind with the soil and is very mobile in groundwater. Nitrogen tends to be the limiting nutrient controlling excess algal growth in pristine waterbodies as South Coastal Watershed Action Plan 6-6 9/12/2006 Watershed Action Alliance

well as in salt water and brackish ecosystems and is therefore, of significant concern in these areas. Due to the 2001 WWTP built at Camelot Park on the northern branch of the river, the Eel River system has been extensively studied during the facilities planning process for the plant and additional data was collected by the engineering firm working for the Pinehills, which occupies 1000 acres in the Eel River Watershed on the southern branch of the river.

The state Department of Environmental Protection sponsored a thorough analysis of the Eel River, and published the TAC (for Technical Advisory Committee) Report in January of 2000. Under the guidance of Dr. Brian Howes, a team of scientists and engineers collected new data, and compiled data from previous reports to give a more complete scientific picture of the Eel River System. The study determined that the Eel River had very high quality surface waters with very low levels of algae, known as chlorophyll a, typically below 5 micrograms per liter. This was attributed to the low levels of nutrients in the water.

The members of the committee also looked at whether nitrogen or phosphorus was most likely to cause additional algae growth in the Eel River, given its chemical composition. They found the Eel River system was predominantly nitrogen-limited, which means that more nitrogen in the water will cause the growth of more algae as well as aquatic plants (known as macrophytes). Excess algae and plant growth are a problem in rivers because they rob the water of the dissolved oxygen needed by fish and microorganisms to survive, and degrade the ecosystem.

At the time of the TAC report in 2000, the levels of nitrogen in the Eel River were generally near or even below the EPA recommended levels of .48 milligrams per liter. In the past five years, the nitrogen levels have doubled in some places according to one round of recent data collected from the monitoring program put in place by the Town for the wastewater treatment plant. A summary of the monitoring programs data follows.

1. At Warren Wells Brook, station S-1, the nitrogen concentrations doubled from .5 to 1. This is the location of the Gilbert Trout Hatchery, and in the past year hatchery owners report that they have lost $20,000 worth of trout, owing to polluted water, including silt. This location is close to the effluent plume of the wastewater plant, but it is upgradient of it, so the plant is an unlikely source for the nitrogen. However, stormwater run-off from the paved areas in Camelot Park drains directly into Warren Wells Brook, so that is a more likely explanation for the increase in nitrogen, as well as silt in the water

2. At the downstream end of Russell Mill Pond, S-2, the increase was more slight- from .5 to .6. It is likely that the additional nitrogen coming from Warren Wells Brook and the upstream end of the pond have been absorbed by plants and algae, perhaps causing some of the algae blooms that have been reported there.

South Coastal Watershed Action Plan 6-7 9/12/2006 Watershed Action Alliance

Figure 6-1 Eel River Nitrogen Monitoring Sites

3. The monitoring station at Hayden Pond, S-3, increased from roughly .45 to .9. Note that this is also an increase over the .6 milligrams per liter leaving Russell Mills Pond, just upstream. This monitoring location is in the path of the wastewater effluent plume, so that is a possible explanation that needs to be explored. Nitrogen isotopes have a distinctive “fingerprint” and can sometimes be used to identify the source of nitrogen.

4. Howland Pond (Station S-4) which is on the southern branch of the river, doubled from .3 to .6 milligrams per liter of nitrogen. This is downgradient of the Pinehills development, so we looked at their monitoring data to see if they were contributing additional nitrogen to the groundwater. However the measurement at station HW-50 in October 2005 was just .07 milligrams per liter, which is an order of magnitude less that the measurements at Howland Pond, and even lower than the .09 milligrams/l reported in 2001. Pinehills is not presently the source for an increase in nitrogen at Howland Pond. However, there has recently been extensive clearing of the vegetated wetland areas bordering Howland Pond and Hathaway Brook which flows into Howland Pond from the south, so it is possible that nutrients are washing into the pond and brook from adjacent fields and horse pastures.

5. The measurements at River Street (S-5) were virtually unchanged.

South Coastal Watershed Action Plan 6-8 9/12/2006 Watershed Action Alliance

Plymouth Harbor Stormwater Impacts on Plymouth Harbor Impaired by Pathogens Pathogens: Plymouth Harbor was included in the 2.5 miles Shellfish Beds Closed Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment of Plymouth, Kingston and Pembroke, 2001-2002 prepared by GeoSyntec. According to this study, there were 34 outfall pipes identified during the April 2001 field inspection from local streets that drain directly into the harbor, including 15 that had observed flow. Potential nonpoint sources identified in the report include runoff from impervious surfaces, possible illicit discharges into the storm drains and boat waste.

The Division of Marine Fisheries performed a Sanitary Survey in October 2000 that identified 13 pipes with dry weather flows. These pipes were sampled for fecal coliform concentration with the following results: 2 stations at Stephens Field and Howes Lane had bacterial concentrations too numerous to count (>1000 cfu/100 ml); the remaining 11 stations had results ranging from 20 – 160 cfu/100 ml (Churchill 2000b).

The Town of Plymouth has a comprehensive program to address bacterial pollution in Plymouth Harbor that utilizes funds from the DEP/EPA 319 and SRF Programs, the CZM Coastal Pollution Remediation Program and other sources. Early efforts addressed bacterial pollution from wastewater (upgrades of the WWTP) and boats (pump-out facilities). In 2001, a Stormwater Working Group comprised of town and state agency representatives was formed. They prioritized sites from the DMF Sanitary Survey based on the water quality impact and potential for successful mitigation and have received funding to address the top four priority sites. The Town was awarded a 319 grant in 2002 to install infiltration stormwater treatment devices at Stephens Field, Howes Lane and Lincoln Street. A CPR grant was awarded in 2003 for the fourth priority site (Samoset Street) that will assess the drainage area and design the most appropriate stormwater BMP. A 319 Grant was awarded in 2005 for the purpose of implementing the designs for the Samoset Street site. There will be water quality monitoring performed in accordance with an approved QAPP before and after installation of the 319 funded BMPs to measure project success. In addition the town has co-sponsored a 2005 application to EPA for a boat sewage No Discharge Zone for Duxbury/Kingston/Plymouth bays and harbors.

2.2 NPDES

The Town of Plymouth is authorized to discharge from the Plymouth Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) a flow of 1.75 MGD (average monthly) of treated effluent via outfall #001 to Plymouth Harbor consistent with the requirements of the Ocean Sanctuaries Act and to discharge the remainder of the treated volume into the ground within the Eel River sub-watershed. Because of concerns regarding nutrient enrichment, a technical advisory committee was established The WWTP on Water Street (which went online in March 1970) was abandoned after the new 5.2 MGD facility at Camelot Industrial Park became operational in May 2002. The Plymouth WWTP’s treated effluent is directed accordingly: (1) 88.2% average annual daily flow is discharged to Plymouth Harbor and (2) 11.8% average annual daily flow is discharged to the ground (Frizzell

South Coastal Watershed Action Plan 6-9 9/12/2006 Watershed Action Alliance

2004). This relatively new sequencing batch reactor facility performs year-round nitrification for ammonia-nitrogen reduction and denitrification for the reduction of total nitrogen (Carvello 2004). The previous facility only nitrified ammonia-nitrogen (DEP, 2006).

2.3 Industrial Impairments

A specific site advisory has been issued for Great Herring Pond and Great South Pond due to the bioaccumulation of atmospheric mercury (related to the burning of fossil fuels in the industrial Midwest) in fish tissues. Due to the popularity of Great Herring Pond and neighboring ponds (including Long Pond), residents are concerned that more ponds in the area should be assessed for this potential impairment.

Water Quality Recommended Actions

Goal 1: Improve water quality by addressing point and nonpoint source pollution.

¾ Revise construction sediment erosion control permitting to include design review and enforcement. ¾ Begin engineering study to determine groundwater boundaries for each of Plymouth’s watersheds to better determine and identify pollution sources. ¾ Prioritize stormwater remediation based on size of watershed, impervious surface and proximity to water bodies. ¾ Explore Fee based Stormwater Utilities to fund on-going storm water system improvements; develop an annual fund for stormwater integrated management projects. ¾ Adopt Stormwater Bylaws or improve existing bylaws to reduce stormwater impacts and meet Clean Water Act Phase II. ¾ Address stormwater/salt use controls along highways and commercial corridors. ¾ Provide incentives for Title V Septic upgrades in targeted areas and/or more treatment (i.e. nutrient removal) near sensitive surface waters. ¾ Oversight on construction sites-contractor approved by town developer fees or fund natural resource director. ¾ Strengthen wetlands regulation to include out of jurisdiction impacts with enforcement penalties.

¾ Strengthen aquifer protection measures by adding approved and prohibited activities for specific zones within the Aquifer Protection District and include these changes as rules and regulations so that can easily be revised as needed. Areas in need of strengthened protection measures are areas contributing surficial recharge to groundwater wells (zone 2), contributing areas for existing and potential future water supply (zone 3), and contributing areas to selected surface water resource of recreational or environmental significance. Contributing areas are the groundwater contributing area combined with the immediate surface water watershed to the resource area.

South Coastal Watershed Action Plan 6-10 9/12/2006 Watershed Action Alliance

3.0 Aquatic Habitat Impairments

3.1 Invasive Species:

Nutrient rich waters can help spread the growth of non-native species. Six ponds were assessed by DEP as category 4c (those listed in Table 6-2 with 303d list numbers with the exception of Billington Sea and Russell Mill pond) as impaired due to the proliferation of non-native species including Myriophyllum heterophyllum (Long Island Pond only), and Cabomba caroliniana.

Ivan Lipton is the Chief Operations Officer for Plimouth Plantation, a 130 acre museum located on the estuary of the Eel River commonly known as Eel River Pond. According to his report, the pond is overgrown with several acres of phragmites and the nearby banks also contain many other invasive species. In 2005, the museum was awarded a federal grant through the Environmental Protection Agency for their Environmental History Initiative (EHI), and they have begun the first phase of new pathways designed to provide visitors with education about land-use, stewardship, native plants and animals. Included in this project will be re-introduction of native species, restoration of wetlands, and reduced storm-water runoff. Phragmites are also prevalent in Center Hill Pond located in a 23 acre coastal open space acquisition project that the town of Plymouth is in the process of finalizing (phone interview with Scott Macfaden, Wildland Trust). Lastly, Spartina Aterniflora has also invaded the high marsh area of Ellisville Marsh associated with Ellisville Harbor, a restoration effort discussed in the Tidal Marsh Habitat section of this chapter.

3.2 Loss of Riverine Habitat: Since 1998, the number of new house lots in Plymouth has averaged 276 a year (Plymouth Strategic Plan, 2004). Through the Massachusetts River Protection Act, and the Wetlands Protection Act, the Conservation Commission has the authority to review work within 200 feet of the river and 100 feet of wetlands. Liz Sullivan, the conservation officer for the town, said that the number one change needed to protect water resources is the creation of a large (no disturb) buffer. The town has instituted a 25 ft set back from wetlands and has included wetland review at the planning board stage of site development, but it cannot require an open space buffer strip (Interview with Liz Sullivan and Nutrient Management Plan).

The Clean Water Act Phase II Final Rule requires small municipal separate storm operators (all municipalities in the South Coastal Basin including Plymouth) to develop, implement, and enforce a program to reduce pollutants in post-construction runoff from new development and redevelopment projects that result in land disturbance of greater than or equal to one acre. Non-structural best management practices used to achieve this measure includes planning procedures that guide growth away from sensitive areas, and site-based BMP’s that include buffer strip and riparian zone preservation. In addition, municipalities must have procedures for site plan review of construction plans that consider potential water quality impacts. (EPA Fact sheet 2.6 and 2.7 Stormwater Phase II Final Rule).

South Coastal Watershed Action Plan 6-11 9/12/2006 Watershed Action Alliance

The 2001 Nutrient Management Report for the Eel River proposes that such a buffer strip be mandated via the passage of a general bylaw. Given the Phase II requirements, and the sensitivity of the already impacted coastal ponds to additional nutrients, the report’s recommendation has town-wide import:

Buffer Strip: The Town should evaluate implementation of an open space buffer around the Eel river system and the method to implement such a buffer. An open buffer of 200 feet is recommended for consideration. New nutrient generating operations (lawns, gardens, septic systems) will not be allowed in the open space buffer. In addition, a setback of 300 feet (combined vertical and horizontal total) between all new on-site septic-system and the Eel River is recommended for consideration. The Town should also evaluate making the setback mandatory through the passage of a general bylaw.

In addition, the Town’s 2004 “Growing Smarter: a Strategic Action Plan for the Town of Plymouth” define overlapping Green/Blue Networks that link open spaces in a system of corridors that incorporate wetlands, ponds, streams, and aquifer connections. The Plan redirects development away from these corridors and towards town centers via the use of Transfer Development Rights and development standards with incentives for protection of large blocks of open space.

3.3 Shellfising in Plymouth Harbor and Plymouth Bay

Plymouth Harbor is the waters south of a line drawn from the tip of Plymouth Beach to High Cliff. Its aquatic life use is impaired because of the loss of eelgrass bed habitat since 1951. However, eelgrass beds have been stabilizing recently (1998-2001) possibly due to the upgrade of the WWTP and other pollution abatement activities (stormwater infiltration/BMP’s, boat pumpout facilities). According to DEP 2006 report, it is anticipated that future monitoring will show improvement in the eelgrass bed habitat due to current water quality conditions, including nitrogen and chlorophyll a concentrations.

Based on the Division of Marine Fisheries Status Report of July 2000, shellfishing in the entire harbor (2.5 square miles) is prohibited due to elevated fecal coliform bacteria counts. Although some of the harbor is closed as a safety zone (WWTP discharge and marinas), stormwater has historically contributed to the bacteria problem. There are scattered beds of soft-shell clams in low abundance along the Plymouth shoreline. Commercially viable quantities of blue mussel can be found between the two center tidal flats. Since May 2000 the Entergy Nuclear Generation Company (operated of Pilgrim Power plant located just south of Rocky Point on Plymouth Bay) has conducted efforts to support fisheries enhancement by releasing winter flounder spawned and reared in a hatchery from January to May into Plymouth Harbor near the Yacht Club (Environmental Protection Group, 2005 in DEP, 2006). In Manomet, several miles south of Plymouth Harbor, a 2005 technical memo raised the issue regarding the placement of intake pipes at the plant located on Plymouth Bay. The memo recommended that permitting agencies further evaluate the intake pipes impact on flounder as well as asses the need to relocated the discharge point for impinged fish farther from the water intake point (DEP, 2006).

Plymouth Bay is the waters southeast of line drawn from Saquish Head to the tip of Plymouth Beach, and west of a line from Gurnet Point, to Rocky Point (10.3 square miles). The Bay was

South Coastal Watershed Action Plan 6-12 9/12/2006 Watershed Action Alliance

listed on the 2002 303(d) list of impaired waters as a category 5 due to pathogens. However, the draft 2006 list indicates that the Bay supports all assessed uses (except fish consumption that wasn’t assessed). The aquatic life use is assessed as supported based primarily on best professional judgment, the apparent stability of the eelgrass bed habitat, and the high water quality conditions documented in the adjacent inner segment of Duxbury Bay (DEP 2006).

The DMF Shellfish Status Report of July 2000 indicates that shellfishing is supported indicative of low bacteria levels. Scattered populations of blue mussels are found along the shoreline, surf clams are found in waters between 10 and 30 feet and ocean quahogs are found beyond the 60- foot depth (Churchill, 2003 in DEP, 2006).

Plymouth Beach has been the focus of a 2003 ACOE effort to reconstruct the Plymouth Long Beach dike and replenishment the beach (DEP, 2006). The town has implemented an educational program to inform the public as to different uses allowed in the four management zones (Town of Plymouth Brochure, 2005).

3.4 Loss of Tidal Marsh

Figure 6-2 Ellisville Harbor Tidal Marsh

The Ellisville Harbor Salt Marsh is a unique coastal habitat supporting a diverse population of fish and wildlife. The channel, crucial to the salt marsh’s survival is frequently redirected southward by significant coastal storms. Dredging was done on several occasions to keep this channel open and maintain tidal flushing and the positive impacts on water quality. The channel was closed by the No Name storm of 1991 and the channel migrated 1500 feet to the south over the next several years significantly impacting flow, salinity, and water quality. It was last dredged in 2003 at the personal expense of an abutting land owner.

South Coastal Watershed Action Plan 6-13 9/12/2006 Watershed Action Alliance

The Mission of the Friends of Ellisville Marsh is to restore and maintain the fish and wildlife habitat of the Ellisville Marsh by permanently alleviating the problem of tidal flow restriction on water quality. The University of Mass is finishing a three-year water quality assessment with results to be released in 2006. Once that study is released, the Friends of Ellisville Marsh hope to develop a management plan of mutually agreeable goals with the Wildland Trust (owns one-half of the marsh) and pursue funding. Recently, portions of Ellisville Marsh have shown signs of sudden wetland dieback, a puzzling phenomenon being investigated by CZM at 17 suspected sites on Cape Cod and several additional sites on the North and South Shore (Boston Globe, 7/7/2006).

3.5 Loss of Fish Runs and Potential Spawning Grounds

The Plymouth Watersheds (including in part Bourne) has 39 recorded dams over six feet. This has had significant impact of the fish runs of the Town. The most productive herring run on the Monument (Herring River) has three obstructions to fish passage: 1) Cape Cod canal culvert (fair inefficient passage); 2) Benoits Pond Dam (good passable) and 3) Beal’s Pond Dam (poor inefficient passage). This system supports one of the Commonwealth’s most productive river herring population. The stream flows from Great Herring Pond (412 acres), and (80.7 acres), forms a small impoundment at Benoits Pond (4.9) acres and empties into Cape Cod canal. The Department of Marine Fisheries estimates of population size range from 91,000 fish in 1980 to 672,000 in 2000. Due to a significant drop in overall herring runs in the state over the last five years DMF has instituted a 3 year ban on catching river herring.

Indian Brook and Beaver Dam Brook both have one obstruction with no fish passage. Although the headwaters of the Beaver Dam Brook offer 91 acres of spawning ground, further development is questionable due to the need to insure passage through an extensive bog system.

Eel River and its tributary Shingle Brook have 5 obstructions: 1) Hayden Pond Dam (good, passable), 2) Russell Mills Pond Dam (defined as “high risk” by Dam Safety, poor, not passable), 3) Sawmill Pond Dam (no fishway), 4) Howland Pond Dam (no fishway) and 5) Cold Bottom Pond Dam (no fishway). Russell Mills Pond and Hayden Pond offer 62 acres of spawning habitat an currently funds are being pursued to construct a new ladder and provide access to Russell Mills Pond. Smelt eggs have been observed in the river, and Atlantic tomcod have also been reported spawning (Reback, 2004).

Town Brook has 6 obstructions: 1) Water Street Dam (good passage); 2) Jenny Grist Mill Dam (fair passage); 3)Newfield Street Dam (good passage); 4) Off-Billington Street Dam (poor passage); 5) Plymco Dam (fair passage) and 6) Morton Park bog sluice (no fishway-but passable when adjusted properly). One dam was removed in 2002 and future work is planned to evaluate dam removal at Off-Billington Street dam and Plimpton Dam so that fish can access 269 acres of spawning habitat in Billington Sea.

Habitat Restoration and Protection Recommended Actions.

Goal 2: Protect and restore natural aquatic habitats. Priority Actions:

South Coastal Watershed Action Plan 6-14 9/12/2006 Watershed Action Alliance

¾ Work with non-profit conservation organizations to identify, protect, and manage lands of significant ecological/habitat value, including overall assessment of priority areas. ¾ Designate Natural Heritage Biomap Core habitat as sending areas in a Transfer Development Rights. ¾ Improve bank riparian areas through institution of land protection measures, restoring bordering wetlands and increasing vegetated buffers. Fund soil surveys and native vegetation restoration projects. ¾ Restore natural flow to tidal marshes. ¾ Control invasive species via wash stations and informational signs, utilizing Weed watcher model (Michelle Robinson DCR) ¾ Recommend Massachusetts Endangered Species Act reviews of developments greater than three acres in State Biomap Core Habitat areas.

4. Water Withdrawal Impairments Figure 6-3 Plymouth Carver Aquifer

The Town public water supply consists of 10 active well supplies, 10 storage tanks and 4 booster pumping stations and approximately 202 miles of distribution mains together providing service to an estimated 35,171 people or 65% of the total population (3-17 Master Plan for Plymouth Water System, 2005). Fifteen additional private drinking/irrigation wells are in listed in the MassGIS (see list at the end of chapter and assessment map for location). Thirty-four percent (20,880 acres) of Plymouth’s land is private vacant buildable with just over half of these acres located outside of existing service zones. There appears to be a slight downward trend for year-round population served by public water sources, suggesting that the population growth is already occurring in un- served areas of the community with the private provision of drinking water. The town is concerned about the increasing demand on the aquifer by private sources and is considering steps to protect the aquifer from unsustainable withdrawals (interview, George Crombie, Water Department Director).

South Coastal Watershed Action Plan 6-15 9/12/2006 Watershed Action Alliance

Water Withdrawal Impacts on the Aquifer

In anticipation of adding a new well to serve the south-central section Plymouth, the Town partnered with The Nature Conservancy to look at new water supply options that minimized potential impacts to critical water resources. The consultants involved in the study (Wright-Pierce and Horsley-Witten) updated the 1985 USGS hydrolic model of the Plymouth-Carver Aquifer (Figure 6-3) and in doing so modified the model to reflect the current usage from the 10 Plymouth wells and included 31 additional large volume wells (irrigation wells for 10 golf courses, PWS wells for Kingston and Wareham). The total withdrawal volume from the PCA using the updated hydrolic groundwater model (15.08 MGD) represents a two-fold increase over the 1985 conditions simulated in the original USGS model (5-17 Wright-Pierce Well Site Study, 2006).

Given the growing demand on the aquifer, it is imperative that steps are taken by the six towns withdrawing water from the aquifer to manage sustainable withdrawal rates and to maximize its recharge. The town’s 2004 Strategic Action Plan identifies 6 town centers (North Plymouth, Plymouth Center, West Plymouth, Pinehills, Manomet and Cedarville) upon which to focus growth via infill development, redevelopment, mixed-use development and compact development at Village edges. Four of these area (excluding Manomet and Cedarville) are targeted economic opportunity centers.

Table 6-3 Percent of Impervious Surface For Each Plymouth South Coastal Watershed

Plymouth Watersheds Percent As development occurs, the percent of impervious in South Coastal Basin Impervious surface in a watershed increases and water is Plymouth Harbor 22% channeled into stormwater outfalls instead of recharging the aquifer. According to the Center for Town Brook 10.5% Watershed Protection, an area with less than 8% Great South Pond 2.4% impervious surfaces is considered "sensitive"; 12- Eel River 6.2% 20% is considered "threatened"; and more than 20% Plymouth Bay 10% is considered "non-supporting" or urbanized. This Manomet Point (part of Indian table depicts the percentage of impervious surfaces Brook) in each of Plymouth’s South Coastal Watersheds Beaver Dam 8.8% based on 1999 MIS GIS data. As you can see, Indian Brook 6.4% Plymouth Harbor and Cedarville are threatened and Ellisville Harbor 6.1% Town Brook (including Manomet) and Plymouth Bay Herring river 6.9% are approaching that threshold. Please refer to Cedarville 14.9% Plymouth Watersheds Impervious Surface Sagamore Beach 11.9% Vulnerability Map (Map 6-3).

The Town of Plymouth needs to take proactive measures to protect its “sensitive” watersheds, particularly the western region of Indian Brook Watershed and to prevent watershed’s from becoming threatened. The CWA Phase II post-construction stormwater management for new/redeveloped sites over 1 acre requires that low impact site planning techniques focus on maximizing hydrologic functioning of existing land cover on each lot, minimizing the hydrolic impacts of clearing and grading, reducing the need for stormwater storage volume and reducing the need for conventional storm drainpipe conveyance techniques. : South Coastal Watershed Action Plan 6-16 9/12/2006 Watershed Action Alliance

Water Withdrawal Impacts on the Coastal Plain Ponds

Coastal Ponds have natural cycles of relative high water and low water which is essential to the pondshore communities and it is important that this cycle not be impacted. Low levels allow for the seeding of the globally rare flower, the Plymouth Gentian and other globally rare plants. All the water available for withdrawal in the PCA is ultimately derived from direct aerial precipitation on the ground surface that infiltrates to recharge the underlying aquifer. As such, the contributing area for water supply must include enough area (and corresponding volume of aquifer recharge) to balance the well’s withdrawal volume. The geometry of a contributing area to wells tends to vary with a well’s relative position between the peak of the groundwater mound and the coast. Those wells located near the groundwater peak (near the eastern boundary of Myles Standish State Park), will need a more laterally expansive recharge area when compared to the more tear dropped shape of contributing areas of wells located closer to the coast. The contributing area on this map (yellow) demonstrates the size and tear-drop shape of a contributing zone of Wannos well, located relatively close to the coast. The identification of accurate groundwater boundaries is critical to evaluating the impact of both permitted groundwater discharges and water withdrawals will affect the surface water bodies in each of Plymouth’s watershed systems

Figure 6-4 Plymouth Wannos Well Contributing Zone

Water Withdrawal Impacts on the Eel River

The Eel River has experienced low flow volumes in recent years, compared to historic measurements. With the help of the State’s Riverways Program, and the United States Geological Survey low flow volumes are being documented. Of particular concern are the impacts of water withdrawals for the irrigation of five golf courses in the watershed, many of whom are operating without a water withdrawal permit. One of these courses, Waverly Oaks, has been pumping as

South Coastal Watershed Action Plan 6-17 9/12/2006 Watershed Action Alliance

much as 65 million gallons a year from the groundwater without a permit, since it was built in 1988.

The Town of Plymouth is seeking to recycle/reuse wastewater from their WWTP within the Eel River Watershed to irrigate golf courses and recreational fields. The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection currently allows reclaimed water to be used for golf courses and toilet flushing and will issue in the summer of 2006 draft guidelines that will include the use of reclaimed water for irrigation on fields, playgrounds and ballparks. The treated effluent from the WWTP would require additional infiltration and disinfection and CDM recommends the construction of a groundwater recover wells downstream of the infiltration basins as a cost-effective means of extracting the treated reclaimed water.

Water Flow and Aquifer Recharge Recommended Actions:

Goal3: Maintain and Restore the natural hydrology of watersheds.

¾ Develop water budgets and withdrawal tolerance levels for each watershed based on groundwater boundaries. ¾ Adopt Low Impact Development Bylaws to minimize impervious surfaces, recharge treated stormwater and increase the use of pervious pavement town-wide. ¾ Encourage the implementation of landscaping bylaws that promote wise use of water into development and redevelopment. ¾ Fund WWTP effluent reuse for irrigation of recreational areas. ¾ Calculate water withdrawal volume totals for all private wells and create a water budget. ¾ Develop regional aquifer management agreements between municipalities. ¾ Develop water budgets and withdrawal tolerance levels for each watershed based on groundwater boundaries. ¾ Fund water budget assessment with groundwater flow taken into consideration to sustain aquifer.

Stewardship Recommended Actions

Goal 4: Strengthen local capacity to protect and enjoy watersheds

¾ Provide state technical assistance to communities to develop and implement stormwater bylaws, stormwater utilities, LID bylaws, and landscaping bylaws. Financial assistance for community outreach is needed. ¾ Funding for enforcement of local bylaws. ¾ In-service education for municipal staff. ¾ Develop public education materials about the environmental impacts from the use of personal care products, detergents and fertilizers (utilize cable).

South Coastal Watershed Action Plan 6-18 9/12/2006 Watershed Action Alliance

¾ Organize volunteers to collect species inventories and water quality data for targeted waterbodies for input into Watershed/Pond Management Restoration Action Plan. Work with Riverways to develop stream teams and expand the Six Ponds Model. ¾ Enforce Buffers ¾ Increased fines for trespassing and increase funding for environmental police enforcement to protect coastal pond shores from all terrain vehicles.

South Coastal Watershed Action Plan 6-19 9/12/2006 Watershed Action Alliance

PART II. Plymouth Watersheds Five Year Action Plan (Please refer as well to Plymouth Watersheds Action Plan Map 6-4). Priority Actions Lead parties Funding sources Calendar Years Subwatersheds Plymouth Watersheds 12345 Goal #1 Improve Water Quality by addressing point and non-point sources of pollution Proposed Actions for the next five years:

1.1 Determine groundwater boundaries for each of Plymouth's USGA, Town of Plymouth watersheds to better understand pollution impacts. Environmental Watershed Improvement Management Office, DEP Grants 1.2 Adopt model stormwater bylaw developed by Marshfield, EOEA Smart Growth TA Duxbury and Plymouth in 2005. Prioritize stormwater remediation Municipalities, Riverways, Grants, Riverways, Lakes and Plymouth Harbor, based on size of watershed, the percent of impervious surface and DEP, Regional Planning Ponds Program, 604(b) Water North Triangle proximity to waterbodies. Include a program of water quality Agencies Watershed Quality Planning Grants, Pond, Billington testing to track progress and improvements. Develop a TMDL for Associations, CZM Coastal Pollution Remediation Sea, Island Pond, pathogen impacted 303(d) list waters. Grants Municipal Planning 1.3 Revise construction control permitting to include drainage Boards, Conservation Municipal funds for design review and on-site enforcement by a designated municipal Shallow Pond Commissions, Building enforcement official for all development and redevelopment projects. Inspectors 1.4 Develop a Storm Water Utility or some means to fund on-going Municipalities Smart Growth TA Grants stormwater remediation efforts. DEP, MHD, Municipal 1.5 Adopt guidance and specification for de-icing controls along Public Works State Revolving Fund, Section highways based on impacts to sensitive receptors. Fund Pilot Bloody Pond Departments, Six Ponds 319 Grants programs for Liquid Calcium Chloride. WA Towns of Plymouth, 1.6 Support passage of the federally approved boat sewage No Duxbury, Kingston, EPA, Discharge Area for the Plymouth, Duxbury, Kingston Bays CZM Billington Sea, Municipal Conservation 1.7 Assess and prioritize restoration efforts for highly degraded Rivers and Harbors Grant Island Pond, North Commissions, TNC, ponds including dredging. Program Triangle Pond, BOS, ACOE, DEP Russell Mill Pond

South Coastal Watershed Action Plan 6-20 9/12/2006 Watershed Action Alliance

Priority Actions Lead parties Funding sources Calendar Years Subwatersheds Plymouth Watersheds 12345 Goal #2 Protect and Restore Natural Aquatic Habitats Proposed Actions for the next five years

Eel River:Russell ConComms, Watershed 2.1 Create town committees (inter-town when needed) to inventory Mills Pond, Howland Associations, DEP, all flow impediments (impoundments, culvert, cranberry bog and Watershed Improvement Pond, Hayden Office of Dam Safety, PWS diversions), identify flooding issues, prioritize dams for Grants, Army Corps of Pond; Town Brook: Board of Selectmen, removal, and support owners in the permitting process for flow Engineers (Sec 22) Morton Park Bog MEMA, Riverways, impediment removal. sluice, Off-Billington AgComms Street Dam

Water Suppliers, Land Trusts, CPA Committees, CPA, Land Trusts, Self Help 2.2 Protect and restore aquatic habitats by acquiring land adjacent The Nature Conservancy Grants, Drinking Water Supply to waterways or in aquifer protection districts. Enforce protective Ecologically ConComms, Planning Protection Grants, DFG Land set-backs as defined by local ordinances, the WPA, and the RPA. Sensitive Area; Board, Env. Management Protection Program, Update intermittent stream designations, and promote local zoning OSC's "Blue/Green Office, Open Space CZM/NOAA-habitat ordinances to protect NHESP habitats by requiring a natural Networks" Committees, DEP, Dept assessments. Municipal funds resource assessment prior to permitting. of Fish and Game, for enforcement, Developers Developers

CZM, Mass Bays 2.3 Develop a plan to manage/control spread of invasive species Eel River, Cooks Program, Plimoth and restore native species. Map and identify invasive plants that Pond, Briggs Plantation, ERWA, Six CZM, MIT Sea Grant Program pose a threat to native species; fund soil surveys and native Reservoirs, Shallow Ponds WA, TNC, Env. vegetation restoration projects. Pond Management Office Watershed Associations, 2.4 Develop a fish restoration program in each community that MA Environmental Trusts Conservation assesses, designs, and implements restoration plans for prioritized Grants, Watershed Town Brook, Eel Commissions, Riverways, sites. Part of this effort will include "Adopt a Fish Run" initiative Improvement Grants, NOAA, River Mass Bays Program, that engages the broader public in its implementation. Gulf of Maine Council ERWA 2.5 Restore tidal wetlands by removing restrictions or using the Municipalities, CZM, most appropriate methodology determined by adaptive Wetlands Restoration Program Ellisville Harbor MAPC management restoration efforts.

South Coastal Watershed Action Plan 6-21 9/12/2006 Watershed Action Alliance

Priority Actions Lead parties Funding sources Calendar Years Subwatersheds Plymouth Watersheds 12345 2.6 Implement farm plans with management guidance for bogs that Ship Pond, Shallow Agriculture Commissions, New Tax Incentives, NRCS, will minimize agricultural impacts to water quality and aquatic Pond, Cooks Pond, Watershed Associations Cape Cod Cranberry Growers habitats including pesticide control. Briggs Reservoirs Goal #3 Maintain and Restore the Natural Hydrology of Watersheds Proposed Actions for next five years Water Suppliers, 3.1 Develop water budgets by subwatershed in which habitat Watershed Associations, needs, water supply capacity availability and water management Watershed Improvement Riverways, USGA, Eel River actions are defined and implemented to protect stream flow and Grants EOEA, WRC, DEP, sustainability of watershed. ERWA 3.2 Develop locally integrated waste water, water supply and DEP, Water Suppliers, stormwater plans based on subwatershed budgets and incorporate Watershed Associations, such budgets into the WMA and DEP permitting decisions. The Smart Growth TA Grants Riverways, Regional plans will define measures to reduce I/I and maximize stormwater Planning Agencies recharge. 3.3 Use the currently funded USGA study to define the sustainable yield USGA, DEP, Regional for Plymouth Carver Aquifer, define groundwater boundaries for PCA Planning Agencies, Already funded; Study underway watersheds, and implement a recharge budget for each community Watershed Associations, accordingly. Municipalities 3.4 Implement landscaping bylaws that promote the conservative DEP, Municipalities, use of water by defining guidelines for irrigation systems with soil Regional Planning moisture sensors, limiting size of lawns in new developments, and Smart Growth TA Grants Agencies, Watershed encouraging the use of indigenous plants with less intensive water Associations needs. 3.5 Evaluate feasibility of recycling WWTP effluent for irrigation Municipal Planning purposes in development and redevelopment projects and for the Boards, DPWs, BOH, Watershed Improvement Eel River irrigation of community golf courses and recreation fields in each DEP, Regional Planning Grants South Coastal Community Agencies, ERWA

South Coastal Watershed Action Plan 6-22 9/12/2006 Watershed Action Alliance

Priority Actions Lead parties Funding sources Calendar Years Subwatersheds Plymouth Watersheds 12345 Goal #4 Strengthen local capacity to protect and enjoy watersheds Proposed Actions for next five years Regional Planning 4.1 Develop regionally consistent smart growth bylaws and Agencies and Watershed regulations by town that focus on water protection measures Associations to write Smart Growth TA Grants, inclusive of stormwater bylaws, stormwater utilities, low impact regional grant for state 604(b) grants, Private development bylaws, landscaping bylaws, integrated water agency budget (CZM) to Foundations conservation plans. Provide circuit rider for technical assistance, fund circuit riders. All and target municipal funds for bylaw enforcement. municipal boards (including fire dept.).

Governor, EOEA, State 4.2 Strengthen state leadership on watershed protection measures Representatives and Watershed Improvement by engaging Federal and State elected officials and advocacy/user Senators, WRC, Grants groups in watershed activities. Watershed Associations Gulf of Maine Council, MA 4.3 Develop and Implement in-school and after-school Local Schools Environmental Trust, Private programming for hands-on watershed curriculum. Foundations 4.4 Continue regional "Greenscapes" education on landscaping Watershed Associations, Water Suppliers practices that protect water. Water Suppliers 4.5 Increase town capacity to implement applicable actions of this plan by hiring CPA planner with CPA administrative funds. Also Municipal Planning encourage communities to use Massachusetts General Law Boards and Boards of Community Preservation Act Chapter 53(h) that requires developers to fund an independent Selectmen review of proposed projects. 4.6 Improve public education efforts on cable TV Access by Access Cable TV, Mass targeting message to region's demographic regarding water Watershed Improvement Bays Program, conservation, lawn chemical applications, aquifer protection, and Grants Watershed Associations wetlands/watershed ecology. Six Ponds Watershed 4.7 Expand Six Ponds Watershed Association model to organize Association, Private Foundations volunteers for water quality assessments and species inventories Environmental Management Office

South Coastal Watershed Action Plan 6-23 9/12/2006 Watershed Action Alliance

Table 6-4 List of Plymouth Public Drinking and Irrigation Wells located in South Coastal Basin

Public Drinking and Irrigation Wells in Plymouth

Well_ID Location Darby_Pond Darby Station Road Savery_Pond South_Pond_Well1 South_Pond_Well2 Federal_Furnace Federal Furnace Road N_Plymouth Industrial Park Road Bradford Long Pond Road Wannos (Manoment) Ship_Pond Ship Pond Road Ellisville State Road Ponds_of_Plymouth Raymond Road/Lynns Circle Pinehills_PWS Pinehills Pinehills_Golf_Irr Pinehills OS_Golf_Irr Pinehills Waverly_Irr Long Pond Road Cross_Winds_Irr Long Pond Road Forge's Ballfield Jordon Road Atl_CC_Irr Road White_Cliffs_Irr Cliff Drive Ply_South_High_DW Obery Street Ply_CC_Irr Little Sandy Pond Road Squirrel_Run_Irr Elderlyberry Rd GP Well Forestry Camp Halfway Pond Road Southers_Marsh_Irr Southers Marsh Lane Watercourse Rd

South Coastal Watershed Action Plan 6-24 9/12/2006 Watershed Action Alliance

Table 6-5 Plymouth South Coastal Waterbodies listed by Watershed Watershed Assessed Impairment WBID # Category Beaver Dam Watershed

Ponds Bartlett Pond No 3 MA94005 Beaver Dam Pond Yes 4c MA94006 Fresh Pond Partial 2 MA94040 Long Island Pond yes 4c MA94088 Rabbit Pond No Warner Pond No

Eel River Watershed

Rivers and Streams Shingle Brook No Hadaway Brook No Warren Wells Brook No

Ponds Boot Pond No Cold Bottom Pond No Crooked Pond No Eel River Pond No Forge Pond Partial 2 MA94036 Gunners Exchange Pond No 3 MA94055 Great South Pond Yes 4b MA94054 Hallfield Pond No Hayden Pond No Howland Pond No Little South Pond Partial 2 MA94085 Island Pond No 3 MA94076 Powderhorn Pond No Russell Mills Pond Yes 5 MA94132 Talcott Pond No Turtle Pond No

Ellisville Harbor Watershed

Black Pond No Black Jimmy Pond Partial 2 MA94008 Center Hill Pond No Partial 2 MA94065 Savery Pond Partial 2 MA94136

South Coastal Watershed Action Plan 6-25 9/12/2006 Watershed Action Alliance

Watershed Assessed Impairment WBID # Herring River Watershed

Bloody Pond No 3 MA94015 WaterBody Assessed Impairment Elbow Pond Partial 2 MA94035 Grassy Pond No Great Herring Pond Yes 4b MA94050 Hathaway Pond No Island Pond Partial 2 MA94074 Little Herring Pond No Pickerel Pond No

Indian Brook Watershed Watershed Assessed Impairment WBID # River/Stream Indian Brook No Pond Briggs Reservoir Yes 4c MA94020 Briggs Reservoir Yes 4c MA94019 Clam Pudding Pond No Cotton Pond No Dugaway Pond No Island Pond Yes 4c MA94075 Lily Pond No Morey Hole No 3 MA94102 No Savery Grassy Pond No Shallow Pond No 3 MA94140 Ship Pond Yes 3 MA94142

Manomet Point Watershed Scokes Pond No

Plymouth Harbor Watershed Hedges Pond Partial 2 MA94065 Leach Pond No Spooner Pond No

Town Brook Watershed

River/Stream Town Brook No

Watershed Assessed Impairment WBID # South Coastal Watershed Action Plan 6-26 9/12/2006 Watershed Action Alliance

Arms House Pond No Billington Sea Yes 5 MA94007 Cooks Pond Yes 4c MA94027 Goose Pond No Grassy Pond No Harlow Pond No Little Pond Partial 2 MA94182 Little Muddy Pond No Lout Pond Partial 2 MA94090 Negro Pond No No Bottom Pond No South Triangle Pond No 3 MA94149 Trask Pond No Triangle Pond Partial 2 MA94160 Impairment Category Definitions 2-Support uses for which they were assessed 3-Insufficient data to assess 4-Impaired but do not require a TMDL; 4b-other pollutant measures were expected to resulted in use attainment; 4c-impairment due to habitat alteration or flow alteration

Impairment Category Source: DEP South Coastal Quality Assessment Report, 2005 Appendix C

South Coastal Watershed Action Plan 6-27 9/12/2006 Watershed Action Alliance