DOCSLIB.ORG

Management Plan for Sandy Neck Barrier Beach

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Management Plan for Sandy Neck Barrier Beach LONG RANGE NATURAL RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR SANDY NECK BARRIER BEACH February 2003 Long Range Natural Resource Management Plan for Sandy Neck Barrier Beach February 2003 Prepared for: Town of Barnstable Office of Marine and Environmental Affairs 1189 Phinneys Lane Centerville, MA 02632 Prepared by: Woods Hole Group 81 Technology Park Drive East Falmouth MA 02536 (508) 540-8080 and Watershed Institute at Boston College 140 Commonwealth Avenue Chestnut Hill, MA 02167 (617) 552-1563 Woods Hole Group February 2003 Table of Contents LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................ v LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................ vii 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 2.0 NATURAL RESOURCES AND HISTORY OF SANDY NECK ...................... 4 2.1 Geology ................................................................................................................. 4 2.2 Hydrology.............................................................................................................. 4 2.3 Wetland Resource Areas ....................................................................................... 7 2.3.1 Land Under the Ocean ................................................................................ 7 2.3.2 Coastal Beaches.......................................................................................... 7 2.3.3 Coastal Dunes............................................................................................. 7 2.3.4 Barrier Beaches......................................................................................... 11 2.3.5 Coastal Banks............................................................................................11 2.3.6 Salt Marshes.............................................................................................. 11 2.3.7 Land Containing Shellfish ........................................................................ 11 2.3.8 Estimated Habitats of Rare Wildlife (for coastal wetlands) ..................... 11 2.3.9 Bordering Vegetated Wetlands................................................................. 12 2.3.10 Estimated Habitats of Rare Wildlife (for inland wetlands) ...................... 12 2.4 Rare and Endangered Species.............................................................................. 12 2.5 Other Biological Resources................................................................................. 17 2.6 Archaeology and Recent Human History............................................................ 20 2.7 Organizing Sandy Neck Into Management Zones............................................... 20 3.0 APPLICABLE ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATIONS................................... 25 3.1 Local Permitting Process..................................................................................... 25 3.2 State Permitting Process ...................................................................................... 27 3.3 Federal Permitting Process .................................................................................. 28 4.0 STAKEHOLDERS ASSOCIATED WITH SANDY NECK............................. 30 5.0 MANAGEMENT OF ORV USE AND ACCESS CORRIDORS ..................... 32 5.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................. 32 5.2 Management Alternatives.................................................................................... 33 5.2.1 No Action.................................................................................................. 33 i Woods Hole Group February 2003 5.2.2 Reducing or Prohibiting ORV Use on Sandy Neck.................................. 33 5.2.3 Improvements to the Existing Trail Network ........................................... 37 5.2.3.1 Enhanced Beach Trail Access............................................................. 38 5.2.3.2 Movement of Access Trail.................................................................. 38 5.2.3.3 Inland Trail to Trail 2.......................................................................... 38 5.2.3.4 Spur Trails and Corral Parking ........................................................... 39 5.2.3.5 Bi-pass for Nickerson Property........................................................... 39 5.2.3.6 Inland Trail East of Sugar Foot to Trail 5........................................... 40 5.2.3.7 Marsh Trail Fortification.....................................................................40 5.3 Management Implications ................................................................................... 40 6.0 MANAGEMENT OF OTHER ACCESS CORRIDORS.................................. 42 6.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................. 42 6.1.1 Parking ...................................................................................................... 42 6.1.2 Boat Access............................................................................................... 42 6.1.3 Emergency Access.................................................................................... 42 6.2 Management Alternatives.................................................................................... 43 6.2.1 Parking Improvements.............................................................................. 43 6.2.2 Regulation Recreational Boating.............................................................. 43 6.2.3 Improved Boat Access (Ferry Service)..................................................... 43 6.2.4 Emergency Access.................................................................................... 43 6.3 Management Implications ................................................................................... 44 6.3.1 Parking ...................................................................................................... 44 6.3.2 Boat Access............................................................................................... 44 6.3.3 Emergency Access.................................................................................... 44 7.0 MANAGEMENT OF COTTAGE SITES .......................................................... 45 7.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................. 45 7.2 Management Alternatives.................................................................................... 46 7.3 Management Implications ................................................................................... 46 7.3.1 Environmental........................................................................................... 46 7.3.2 Regulatory................................................................................................. 46 7.3.3 Town Resources and Staff ........................................................................ 46 ii Woods Hole Group February 2003 7.4 Economic............................................................................................................. 47 8.0 MANAGEMENT OF RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES........................ 48 8.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................. 48 8.2 Management Alternatives.................................................................................... 48 8.3 Management Implications ................................................................................... 49 8.3.1 Environmental........................................................................................... 49 8.3.2 Regulatory................................................................................................. 49 8.3.3 Town Resources and Staff ........................................................................ 49 8.4 Economic............................................................................................................. 49 9.0 MANAGEMENT OF NATURAL COMMUNITIES........................................ 50 9.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................. 50 9.2 Management Alternatives.................................................................................... 51 9.2.1 Beach front and foredune.......................................................................... 51 9.2.2 Primary and secondary dunes ................................................................... 52 9.2.3 Interdune communities (vernal pools & bogs).......................................... 52 9.2.4 Maritime forests........................................................................................ 52 9.2.5 Salt marsh.................................................................................................. 52 9.2.6 Establishing biodiversity oversight........................................................... 52 9.3 Management Implications ................................................................................... 54 9.3.1 Environmental........................................................................................... 54 9.3.2 Regulatory................................................................................................. 54 9.3.3 Town Resources and Staff .......................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Massachusetts Estuaries Project
    Massachusetts Estuaries Project Linked Watershed-Embayment Model to Determine Critical Nitrogen Loading Threshold for the Barnstable Great Marshes-Bass Hole Estuarine System Town of Barnstable & Dennis, Massachusetts University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Massachusetts Department of School of Marine ScienceMassachusetts and Technology Estuaries Environmental Project Protection DRAFT REPORT – June 2017 Linked Watershed-Embayment Model to Determine Critical Nitrogen Loading Threshold for the Barnstable Great Marshes -Bass Hole Estuarine System Town of Barnstable & Dennis, Massachusetts DRAFT REPORT – June 2017 Brian Howes Roland Samimy Ed Eichner David Schlezinger Trey Ruthven John Ramsey Phil "Jay" Detjens Contributors: US Geological Survey Don Walters and John Masterson Applied Coastal Research and Engineering, Inc. Elizabeth Hunt and Sean Kelley Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Charles Costello and Brian Dudley (DEP project manager) SMAST Coastal Systems Program Jennifer Benson, Michael Bartlett, Sara Sampieri Cape Cod Commission Tom Cambareri ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Massachusetts Estuaries Project Technical Team would like to acknowledge the contributions of the many individuals who have worked tirelessly for the restoration and protection of the critical coastal resources of Barnstable and Dennis and drove for the completion of the Linked Watershed-Embayment Model to Determine the Critical Nitrogen Loading Threshold for the Barnstable Great Marshes - Bass Hole Estuarine System. Without these stewards and their efforts, this project would not have been possible. First and foremost we would like to recognize and applaud the commitment shown by both the Town of Dennis and the Town of Barnstable in carrying forward with the Massachusetts Estuaries Project and the protection/restoration of all the estuaries of the Towns. Significant time and attention has been dedicated to this effort by Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes of the Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard And
    MINUTES OF THE WOODS HOLE, MARTHA’S VINEYARD AND NANTUCKET STEAMSHIP AUTHORITY The Meeting in Public Session February 2, 2017 The Members of the Woods Hole, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket Steamship Authority met this 2nd day of February, 2017, beginning at 9:30 a.m., in the Falmouth Art Center, located at 137 Gifford Street, Falmouth, Massachusetts. All five Members were present: Chairman Moira E. Tierney of New Bedford; Vice Chairman Robert F. Ranney of Nantucket; Secretary Robert R. Jones of Barnstable; Marc N. Hanover of Dukes County (who participated remotely by Skype); and Elizabeth H. Gladfelter of Falmouth. Port Council member Robert S. C. Munier of Falmouth was also present, as were the following members of management: General Manager Wayne C. Lamson; Treasurer/ Comptroller Robert B. Davis; Director of Information Technologies Mary T. H. Claffey; Director of Marketing Kimberlee J. McHugh; Director of Engineering and Maintenance Carl R. Walker; Woods Hole Terminal Manager Kevin Smith; Reservations and Community Relations Manager Gina L. Barboza; Operations Manager Mark K. Rozum; Director of Human Resources Phillip J. Parent; and General Counsel Steven M. Sayers. Mr. Hanover’s Remote Participation in the Meeting: Ms. Tierney announced that she had been notified by Mr. Hanover that he desired to participate remotely in this meeting because his geographic distance from Falmouth made his physical attendance today unreasonably difficult. Ms. Tierney stated that she agreed with Mr. Hanover and that, as the Authority’s Chairman, she had determined that Mr. Hanover’s physical attendance was unreasonably difficult due to his geographic distance from Falmouth and that, therefore, he may participate remotely in this meeting, which includes voting on all matters.
    [Show full text]
  • Secretarycertificate-Barnstable CWMP Special Review Procedures
    The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs 100 Cambridge Street, Suite 900 Boston, MA 02114 Charles D. Baker GOVERNOR Tel: (617) 626-1000 Karyn E. Polito Fax: (617) 626-1081 LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR http://www.mass.gov/eea Kathleen A. Theoharides SECRETARY January 8, 2021 CERTIFICATE OF THE SECRETARY OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ESTABLISHING A SPECIAL REVIEW PROCEDURE PROJECT NAME : Barnstable Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan PROJECT MUNICIPALITY : Barnstable PROJECT WATERSHED : Cape Cod EEA NUMBER : 16148 PROJECT PROPONENT : Town of Barnstable DATE NOTICED IN MONITOR : November 23, 2020 Pursuant to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA; M.G. L. c. 30, ss. 61- 62I) and Section 11.09 of the MEPA regulations, I hereby establish a Special Review Procedure (SRP) to guide the implementation of the Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan (CWMP) for the Town of Barnstable. Notice of the issuance of this SRP will be published in the next edition of the Environmental Monitor on January 22, 2021. Project Description As previously described in the Expanded Environmental Notification Form (EENF)/Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan (CWMP), the CWMP describes the Town of Barnstable’s plan to address water quality management concerns resulting from population growth and increased development. The CWMP is a 30-year plan focused on traditional sewering solutions to replace the current dependence on septic systems; these solutions will be implemented in three 10-year phases. The plan has been designed to address multiple goals and needs of the community, specifically: nutrient removal, pond protection, drinking water protection, economic development and other related concerns regarding wastewater management.
    [Show full text]
  • Massachusetts Estuaries Project
    Massachusetts Estuaries Project Linked Watershed-Embayment Model to Determine Critical Nitrogen Loading Thresholds for Popponesset Bay, Mashpee and Barnstable, Massachusetts University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Massachusetts Department of School of Marine Science and Technology Environmental Protection FINAL REPORT – SEPTEMBER 2004 Massachusetts Estuaries Project Linked Watershed-Embayment Model to Determine Critical Nitrogen Loading Thresholds for Popponesset Bay, Mashpee and Barnstable, Massachusetts FINAL REPORT – SEPTEMBER 2004 Brian Howes Roland Samimy David Schlezinger Sean Kelley John Ramsey Jon Wood Ed Eichner Contributors: US Geological Survey Don Walters, and John Masterson Applied Coastal Research and Engineering, Inc. Elizabeth Hunt and Trey Ruthven Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Charles Costello and Brian Dudley (DEP project manager) SMAST Coastal Systems Program Paul Henderson, George Hampson, and Sara Sampieri Cape Cod Commission Brian DuPont Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Massachusetts Estuaries Project Linked Watershed-Embayment Model to Determine Critical Nitrogen Loading Thresholds for Popponesset Bay, Mashpee and Barnstable, Massachusetts Executive Summary 1. Background This report presents the results generated from the implementation of the Massachusetts Estuaries Project’s Linked Watershed-Embayment Approach to the Popponesset Bay System a coastal embayment within the Towns of Mashpee and Barnstable, Massachusetts. Analyses of the Popponesset Bay System was performed to assist the Towns with up-coming nitrogen management decisions associated with the Towns’ current and future wastewater planning efforts, as well as wetland restoration, anadromous fish runs, shell fishery, open-space, and harbor maintenance programs. As part of the MEP approach, habitat assessment was conducted on the embayment based upon available water quality monitoring data, historical changes in eelgrass distribution, time-series water column oxygen measurements, and benthic community structure.
    [Show full text]
  • Report from Cape Cod Cooperative Extension
    Report from Cape Cod Cooperative Extension Cape Cod Cooperative Extension Deeds and Probate Building PO Box 367 - 3195 Main Street Field Station-3675 Main Street Barnstable, MA 02630-0367 Telephone: 508-375-6690 Facsimile: 508-362-4518 Website: www.capecodextension.org Hours: 8:00 a.m. – 4:30 p.m. Administration Marine Education William F. Clark, Extension Director •Eileen Sonnenberg, Extension Educator Telephone: 508-75-6701 Telephone: 508-375-6694 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Kalliope Egloff, Administrative Supervisor/ Marine Resources and Aquaculture Web Administrator William Burt, Marine Resources Specialist Telephone: 508-375-6698 Telephone: 508-375-6702 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Tasha Ramos, Administrative Assistant Diane Murphy, Fisheries & Telephone: 508-375-6697 Aquaculture Specialist Email: [email protected] Telephone: 508-375-6953 Email: [email protected] Christine St. Pierre, Administrative Assistant- part time Joshua Reitsma, Marine Program Specialist Telephone: 508-375-6690 Telephone: 508-375-6950 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] 4-H Youth Development Dr. William Walton, Aquaculture Specialist Judith Vollmer, Extension Educator (retired) Telephone: 508 375-6696 Email: [email protected] Recycling, Household Hazardous Waste & Water Quality Education Kerry Bickford, Extension Educator Michael Maguire, Extension Educator Telephone: 508-375-6695 Telephone: 508-375-6699
    [Show full text]
  • Barnstable County Freight Study
    Barnstable County Freight Study February 13, 2015 Executive Summary This 2015 Cape Cod Freight Study is the first attempt by the Cape Cod Metropolitan Planning Organization to bring a comprehensive assessment of issues facing freight haulers to, from and within Barnstable County. The information in this study will help to identify the methods used to transport freight and provide recommendations to improve freight flexibility, speed-efficiency, fuel- efficiency, and safety. The study provides details regarding existing infrastructure, for each movement type (trucking, rail, and waterborne). Truck freight issues are focused on on-time reliability and routing options. The Cape’s arterial road and bridge network forms the backbone of freight routing – with significant constraints at the Cape Cod Canal area. Rail infrastructure is far more limited – with its own unique constraints at the rail bridge over the Cape Cod Canal. Waterborne freight is currently very limited, but the many ports and harbors of the Cape provide opportunities unique to the area. The study features data from a survey presented to local freight businesses. Respondents indicated their particular freight use and needs and support for investments to improve freight infrastructure. In order continue to make progress in improving freight safety and reliability, the following strategies are offered: Identify “Critical” Freight Commodities Encourage Specific Types of Freight Transportation Make Infrastructure Improvements for Freight Industry Update Truck Routes for MassDOT
    [Show full text]
  • Popponesset Bay HIGH
    WATERSHED REPORT: UPPER CAPE WATER THREAT LEVEL Popponesset Bay HIGH MASHPEE, BARNSTABLE & SANDWICH Introduction to the Watershed Reports In 2001, the Massachusetts Estuaries Project (MEP) was established to evaluate the health of 89 coastal embayment ecosystems across southeastern Massachusetts. A collaboration between coastal communities, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP), the School of Marine Science and Technology (SMAST) at the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA), and the Cape Cod Commission, the purpose of the MEP is to identify nitrogen thresholds and necessary nutrient reductions to support healthy ecosystems. The Cape Cod 208 Plan Update, certified and approved by the Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the US EPA in 2015, provides an opportunity and a path forward to implement responsible plans for the restoration of the waters that define Cape Cod. On Cape Cod there are 53 embayment watersheds with physical characteristics that make them susceptible to nitrogen impacts. In its 2003 report, “The Massachusetts Popponesset Bay Watershed Estuaries Project – Embayment Restoration and Guidance for Implementation Strategies”, MassDEP identifies the 46 Cape Cod embayments included in the www.CapeCodCommission.org Implementation Report: Watershed Report October 2017 1 MEP. Thirty-three embayments studied to date require nitrogen reduction to could be evaluated. The Watershed Reports use the MEP recommendations for the achieve healthy ecosystem function. A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) has required nitrogen load reductions necessary to meet the threshold loads (that serve been established (or a draft load has been identified and is under review) for these as the basis for nitrogen management), and then use the wMVP and the regionally watersheds.
    [Show full text]
  • BRP WPA Form 3 - Instructions and Supporting Materials
    Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Resource Protection – Wetlands & Waterways Notice of Intent BRP WPA Form 3 - Instructions and Supporting Materials acecli TOWNS WITH ACECs WITHIN THEIR BOUNDARIES Town ACEC NAME Town ACEC NAME Ashby Squannassit Lunenburg Squannassit Ayer Petapawag and Squannassit Lynn Rumney Marshes Barnstable Sandy Neck/Barnstable Harbor Mansfield Canoe River Aquifer Bolton Central Nashua River Valley Mashpee Waquoit Bay Boston Rumney Marshes Melrose Golden Hills Fowl Meadow and Ponkapoag Bog Milton Fowl Meadow and Ponkapoag Bog Neponset River Estuary Neponset River Estuary Bourne Pocasset River Mt Washington Karner Brook Watershed, Herring River Watershed Schenob Brook Bourne Back River Newbury Parker River/Essex Bay Braintree Cranberry Brook Watershed Norton Hockomock Swamp Brewster Pleasant Bay, Inner Cape Cod Bay Canoe River Aquifer Bridgewater Hockomock Swamp Norwood Fowl Meadow and Ponkapoag Bog Canton Fowl Meadow and Ponkapoag Bog Orleans Inner Cape Cod Bay, Pleasant Bay Chatham Pleasant Bay Pepperell Petapawag and Squannassit Cohasset Weir River Peru Hinsdale Flats Watershed Dalton Hinsdale Flats Watershed Plymouth Herring River Watershed, Dedham Fowl Meadow and Ponkapoag Bog Ellisville Harbor Dunstable Petapawag Quincy Neponset River Estuary Eastham Inner Cape Cod Bay Randolph Fowl Meadow and Ponkapoag Bog Wellfleet Harbor Raynham Hockomock Swamp Easton Canoe River Aquifer Revere Rumney Marshes Hockomock Swamp Rowley Parker River/Essex Bay Egremont Karner Brook Watershed Sandwich
    [Show full text]
  • 1) Subwatershed Fact Sheet
    Barnstable Harbor Subwatershed Barnstable, Cape Cod, Massachusetts The Barnstable Harbor Subwatershed is located in the towns of Barnstable, Yarmouth, and Sandwich. It has an area of 17,073 acres. Historic Route 6A (Old King’s Highway) runs through the center of the area. Residential areas are concentrated along Route 6A and in the eastern part of the subwatershed. The land is flat to the north with a wide salt marsh bordering Cape Cod Bay. The Barnstable Harbor system possesses deep channels, shallow intertidal flats, and vegetated salt marsh plains. The inlet to the system is to Cape Cod Bay and a 30-45 foot deep channel cuts through intertidal flats. The west harbor areas are relatively shallow and contain peat islands and this portion of the system is dominated by the Great Marsh. A study of flushing rates conducted in 1999 concluded that Barnstable Harbor and its five sub-embayments may be considered rapidly flushing. The study also found that the tidal characteristics in the system inherently cause the Great Marsh to accumulate sediment. The Cape Cod Commission’s Surface Water Management Study (2002) found that in the Barnstable Harbor subwatershed, nitrogen loading does not exceed any of the critical nitrogen loads for most of the five subembayments. The Huckins Creek subsystem, however, was found to be overloaded with nitrogen under both existing and buildout conditions. A portion of this subwatershed is designated as the Sandy Neck Area of Critical Environmental Concern (ACEC). The ACEC supports recreation, aquaculture, and is one of the state’s best examples of biodiversity with approximately 300 species of birds and over 160 species of vascular plants, including 85 species of wildflowers and numerous rare and endangered species.
    [Show full text]
  • 00-01 604 Cape Cod Surface Water Nutrient Mang. Study
    I G.pt,td> I I Cape Cod Surface Water I Nutrient Management Study I Final Report I June, 2002 · I Prepared by Cape Cod Commission I Water Resources Office I CAPE COD COMMISSION I Barnstable Harbor t I Pocasset Harbor I I I I I I I I I I I Cape Cod Surface Water Management Study I Project 2000-01/604 FINAL REPORT I Barnstable Harbor, Pocasset Harbor, and Megansett Harbor I Prepared by: Cape Cod Commission Eduard M. Eichner, Water Scientist/Project Manager Scott C. Michaud, Hydrologist I Thomas C. Cambareri, Water Resources Program Manager Ben Smith, GIS Analyst Gary Prahm, GIS Program Manager I Margo Fenn, Executive Director I Prepared for: MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENV~RONMENTALPROTECTION I BUREAU OF RESOURCE PROTECTION AND U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY I REGION I MASSACHUSETTS EXECU'J'IVEOFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTALAFFAIRS I Robert Durand, Secretary DEPARTMENTOF ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION Lauren Liss, Commissioner I BUREAU OF RESOURCE PROTECTION Cynthia Giles, Assistant Commissioner DIVISION OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES I Michael Rotondi, Director June, 2002 I This project has been financed partially with Federal Funds from the Environmental Protection Agency {EPA} to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) under a S604b Competitive Grant. The contents of this report do not ·nec·essarily reflect the views and policies of EPA or of DEP, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute I endorsement or recommendation for use. I I I I I I Table of Contents Final Report I Cape Cod Surface Water Management Project June2002 I I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1 II. GENERAL EVALUATION PROCESS ....................................................................................... 2 I A.
    [Show full text]
  • MASSACHUSETTS AREAS of CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN September 2008
    MASSACHUSETTS AREAS OF CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN September 2008 Total Approximate Acreage: 255,275 acres Approximate acreage and designation date follow ACEC Neponset River Estuary names below. (1,300 acres, 1995) Boston, Milton, and Quincy Bourne Back River Parker River/Essex Bay (1,850 acres, 1989) Bourne (25,500 acres, 1979) Essex, Gloucester, Ipswich, Newbury, and Rowley Canoe River Aquifer and Associated Areas (17,200 acres, 1991) Easton, Foxborough, Petapawag Mansfield, Norton, Sharon, and Taunton (25,630 acres, 2002) Ayer, Dunstable, Groton, Pepperell, Tyngsborough Central Nashua River Valley (12,900 acres,1996) Bolton, Harvard, Lancaster, Pleasant Bay and Leominster (9,050 acres, 1987) Brewster, Chatham, Harwich, and Orleans Cranberry Brook Watershed (1,050 acres, 1983) Braintree and Holbrook Pocasset River (150 acres, 1980) Bourne Ellisville Harbor (600 acres, 1980) Plymouth Rumney Marshes (2,800 acres, 1988) Boston, Lynn, Revere, Saugus, Fowl Meadow and Ponkapoag Bog and Winthrop (8,350 acres, 1992) Boston, Canton, Dedham, Milton, Norwood, Randolph, Sharon, and Westwood Sandy Neck/Barnstable Harbor (8,850 acres, 1978) Barnstable and Sandwich Golden Hills (500 acres, 1987) Melrose, Saugus, and Wakefield Schenob Brook Drainage Basin (13,750 acres, 1990) Mount Washington and Herring River Watershed Sheffield (4,450 acres, 1991) Bourne and Plymouth Squannassit Hinsdale Flats Watershed (37,450 acres, 2002) Ashby, Ayer, Groton, Harvard, (14,500 acres, 1992) Dalton, Hinsdale, Peru, and Lancaster, Lunenburg, Pepperell, Shirley,
    [Show full text]
  • Barnstable Harbor LOW
    WATERSHED REPORT: MID CAPE WATER THREAT LEVEL Barnstable Harbor LOW BARNSTABLE, YARMOUTH & SANDWICH Introduction to the Watershed Reports In 2001, the Massachusetts Estuaries Project (MEP) was established to evaluate the health of 89 coastal embayment ecosystems across southeastern Massachusetts. A collaboration between coastal communities, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP), the School of Marine Science and Technology (SMAST) at the University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth, the US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA), and the Cape Cod Commission, the purpose of the MEP is to identify nitrogen thresholds and necessary nutrient reductions to support healthy ecosystems. The Cape Cod 208 Plan Update, certified and approved by the Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the US EPA in 2015, provides an opportunity and a path forward to implement responsible plans for the restoration of the waters that define Cape Cod. On Cape Cod there are 53 embayment watersheds with physical characteristics that make them susceptible to nitrogen impacts. In its 2003 report, “The Massachusetts Barnstable Harbor Watershed Estuaries Project – Embayment Restoration and Guidance for Implementation Strategies”, MassDEP identifies the 46 Cape Cod embayments included in the www.CapeCodCommission.org Implementation Report: Watershed Report October 2017 1 MEP. Thirty-three embayments studied to date require nitrogen reduction to could be evaluated. The Watershed Reports use the MEP recommendations for the achieve healthy ecosystem function. A Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) has required nitrogen load reductions necessary to meet the threshold loads (that serve been established (or a draft load has been identified and is under review) for these as the basis for nitrogen management), and then use the wMVP and the regionally watersheds.
    [Show full text]