Documentation of Installation and Pumping Records Available at Various Town Board of Health Offices, an Effort Which Is Beyond the Scope of This Project

Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program Estuary Delineation and Assessment 2.0

Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program Final Report August 2017

Estuary Delineation and Assessment 2.0

Prepare d for and Edited by: Prepared by:

Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program Estuary Delineation and Assessment 2.0

Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1

1. PROJECT BACKGROUND ...... 2

2. DELINEATION OF ESTUARINE BOUNDARIES ...... 3

2.1 Determination of Seaward Boundary ...... 3

2.2 Determination of Landward Boundary ...... 4

2.3 Delineation of Remaining Estuarine Watershed Boundary...... 6

2.4 Delineation of Cape Cod Groundwater Contributing Areas (GWCA) ...... 6

3. SELECTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ATTRIBUTES...... 7

4. ANALYSIS OF ATTRIBUTES...... 17

4.1 Summary of Analysis ...... 17

4.2 Limitations, Data Gaps, and Next Steps ...... 25

FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program Planning Area ...... 2

Figure 2.2 Salem Sound Estuarine Watershed: Freshwater Tributary Inclusion vs. Exclusion ...... 5

TABLES

Table 3.1 List of new attributes ………………………………...... 7

Table 2.2 List of Attributes and associated statistics applied ...... 14

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Methodology for Estimating Annual Stormwater Runoff Volume

Appendix B: Watershed Delineation Maps Appendix C: Results of Estuarine and Inter-Estuarine Watershed Characterization

Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program Estuary Delineation and Assessment 2.0

Executive Summary

In 2012, The Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program (MassBays) was in the process of updating its Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) with new, expanded focus on near- shore estuaries and embayments. To facilitate analysis, MassBays undertook an Estuarine Assessment and Delineation (EDA1.0) to accomplish the following:

1. Delineate estuarine watershed boundaries, encompassing all tributary areas that are tidally influenced, as well as open water regions of the estuary that contain important ecological resources;

2. Develop a set of geospatial attributes that can be used to assess the ecological health of each estuarine watershed; and

EDA 1.0 resulted in the delineation of 47 estuarine embayments. In response to comments, and recognizing the importance of the role that inter-estuarine habitats (rocky shore areas, dunes, bluffs, and beaches, e.g.) play in the health of estuarine ecosystems, MassBays initiated EDA 2.0. The scope and implementation of EDA 2.0 was as follows:

1. Delineate any inter-estuarine coastal watersheds such that the entire Massachusetts Bays coastline can be assessed, updating existing estuarine watershed boundaries as needed. EDA 2.0 produced a set of 69 estuarine and inter-estuarine assessment areas. The delineations were prepared using topography, attributes of tidal influence, existing USGS and MassGIS watershed boundary lines, and comments and input from MassBays Regional Coordinators.

2. Identify updates to datasets used in EDA1.0 and use these new data to characterize each assessment area.

3. Incorporate a new set of attributes that characterize human uses.

New attributes include:  Beach closure days  Mooring fields  Marinas  Dredging projects  Seawalls and related structures  Coastal dunes, coastal beaches, and rocky intertidal shores  Public and semi-public beach length  Boating access  Coastal beach water quality

Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program

Estuary Delineation and Assessment 2.0

1. Project Background

The Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program (MassBays) is one of 28 designated Estuaries of National Significance in in the National Estuary Program which is authorized by Section 302 of the Clean Water Act and administered by t he U.S. E n v i r o nmental Protection Agency (EPA). The MassBays Planning area covers more than 1000 miles of coastline a l ong I p s w i c h , Massachusetts and Cape Cod Bays and serves 50 coastal communities from Salisbury, on the New Hampshire border, to Provincetown at the tip of Cape Cod (Figure 2.1). The planning area is divided into five management regions: Upper North Shore, Lower North Shore, Metro Boston, South Shore, and Cape Cod.

In 2012, MassBays published the first Estuarine Delineation and Assessment (EDA1.0) which defined and characterized 47 estuarine embayments within the MassBays planning area using ecosystem-based landward and seaward boundaries, and metrics for which data were available across the planning area.

With the ongoing revision of the MassBays Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan Figure 2.1: Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program Planning Area (CCMP), MassBays is focusing on priority needs and changing ecosystem conditions at the embayment level. To support this effort, MassBays contracted with Geosyntec Consultants (Geosyntec) to conduct a comprehensive update of the 2012 EDA1.0.

EDA 2.0 will serve as a tool for assessing and tracking localized trends and changing conditions of estuarine and inter-estuarine species and habitats, providing information for use by resource managers and decision- makers to improve ecosystem health and alleviate the impacts of stressors.

The goals of EDA 2.0 were to:

1. Delineate any inter-estuarine coastal watersheds such that the entire Massachusetts Bays coastline can be assessed, updating existing estuarine watershed boundaries as needed.

2. Identify updates to datasets used in EDA1.0 and use these new data to characterize each assessment area.

3. Incorporate a new set of attributes that characterize human uses.

Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program

Estuary Delineation and Assessment 2.0

2. Delineation of Assessment Units

The basis for the delineation in EDA 2.0 was the set of 47 estuarine assessment units produced in 2012 in EDA1.0. The original process of estuarine watershed delineation generally consisted of the following three steps:

1. Determine a seaward boundary that encompassed the assessment area and any nearby major estuarine ecological resources;

2. Determine a landward boundary that is reflective of the extent of tidal influence within the estuary; and

3. Delineate the watershed that is dictated by the boundaries established in steps 1 and 2.

Given the variety of embayment characteristics across the estuaries, the process described above was sometimes varied on a case-by-case basis. For instance, some assessment areas may not have a major freshwater tributary on which to establish a landward boundary. Instead, these watersheds were delineated simply by determining the proximal area contributing to the embayment using topography. Also, several of the areas are located on Cape Cod and are influenced by a groundwater contributing area rather than a typical watershed defined by surficial topography. Where special circumstances dictated a deviation from the general delineation process, best professional judgment was used to determine what the most informative and useful “estuarine watershed” would be.

For EDA 2.0, areas of the coast that were not previously characterized during EDA1.0 were delineated and assessed. These areas were generally near-shore stretches of beach or headland that existed between estuaries. The process for identifying and delineating these assessment units was as follows:

Step 1: The MassGIS “Drainage Sub-basins” was intersected with the existing estuarine assessment units from EDA1.0. The resulting subbasins and subbasin segments that did not overlap EDA1.0 assessment units and that were also coastal, were selected as the draft basis for the inter-estuarine assessment units.

Step 2: The extent of Chapter 91 Jurisdiction was determined by overlaying the MassGIS “Tidelands Jurisdiction Datalayer” on the new EDA 2.0 assessment units. As with EDA1.0, Chapter 91 Jurisdiction is used to indicate the landward extent of tidal influence. In any cases where an inter-estuarine assessment unit from Step 1 extended beyond the Chapter 91 Jurisdiction extent, the assessment unit was trimmed (See section 2.2).

Step 3: Some stretches of coastline were divided into multiple sub-basins by the MassGIS “Drainage Sub-basins” layer. When multiple sub-basins were contiguous between existing EDA1.0 assessment units, these sub-basins were merged into a single assessment unit.

After completing this process, the draft delineations were reviewed with MassBays Regional Coordinators and revised based on their comments. Some existing estuarine assessment units from EDA1.0 were also updated based on MassBays review (e.g., the Merrimack River assessment unit was split into Black Rock Creek and Merrimack River).

2.1 Determination of Seaward Boundary

The basis for the determination of the ED1.0 seaward boundaries began by using the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) 2010 Integrated List of Waters, also known as the 305(b) list. These data are made available as a spatial data set by the Massachusetts Office of Geographic Information (MassGIS). The data provide a spatial representation of the entire river, lake, and estuary segments assessed as part of the Integrated List of Waters.

Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program

Estuary Delineation and Assessment 2.0

This starting point was, in some cases, insufficient to describe the seaward extent of the assessment unit for the purposes of this project. Because the goal of the project is to assess the ecological resources present in each estuary and its contributing watershed, a simplistic downstream boundary, such as that provided by the 305(b) listing, would sometimes be insufficient to encompass important natural resources that may exist just outside the boundary. When appropriate, the seaward boundary was expanded to include important adjacent resources such as tidal flats, eelgrass beds, and shellfish suitability zones.

As the original 47 estuarine assessment units were expanded to include all estuarine and inter-estuarine regions along the Massachusetts Bay coastline, a new determination of the seaward boundary was needed. Unlike estuarine areas which often had a specific waterbody to use as the basis for the seaward boundary, newly assessed regions along beaches, linear coastlines, and other inter-estuarine areas directly bordered the ocean with no apparent seaward boundary that could be dictated by geography or e features. It was determined through discussion with MassBays staff that the 10-meter bathymetric contour would be a suitable basis for the new seaward boundaries. This depth was chosen because it encompasses the photic zone, which likely includes many of the near-shore marine ecological resources of interest. As in the original EDA1.0, where necessary, seaward boundaries were expanded outward from the 10-meter bathymetric contour in order to include any marine ecological resources that existed at greater depths within the vicinity of the assessment unit.

2.2 Determination of Landward Boundary

The intent of EDA 2.0 is to define not only the boundary of the assessment unit itself, but the relevant areas that contribute to or exist within a coastal watershed. Watershed extent was determined for both estuarine and non-estuarine assessment units as follows.

Estuarine Assessment Units In some cases, estuarine units are fed by large rivers whose contributing areas reach far inland and could be comprised of several hundred square miles (e.g. Merrimack or Charles River). In these cases, large portions of the watershed are tributary to a major body of fresh water. While these freshwater portions of the watershed are important when considering hydrologic budgets or complete nutrient or bacterial budgets, their effects on the estuary are beyond the scope of this project. To this end, a practical landward extent of the estuarine environment was used to limit the upstream extent of the watershed and remove portions of the watershed that were not directly coastal in nature.

For estuaries with one or more significant freshwater tributary rivers, the furthest extent of tidal influence was used to determine the location of the landward boundary. Two data sources were primarily used to interpret this location:

• Maps of salt marsh locations; and

• Massachusetts General Law Chapter 91 Tidelands Jurisdiction maps.

Salt marshes were mapped using the MassDEP Wetlands data layer. The dataset was produced using interpretation of color-infrared photography and field checked by the MassDEP Wetlands Conservancy Program. The data represent wetlands as of 2000.

The Chapter 91 Tidelands Jurisdiction dataset was prepared by The BSC Group, Inc. and the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) to aid state regulatory agencies with determination of Chapter 91 tidelands jurisdiction. The set of linework contains several classifications, including contemporary and inferred high water marks, landward marsh boundaries, and other historically non-landlocked tidelands that fall under Chapter 91 jurisdiction. The extent of this data was taken as an indication of the farthest upstream extent of tidal influence.

Of these two datasets, the one that extended farther inland was used to determine the landward boundary along any major freshwater tributaries of the estuary. In some cases, an estuarine assessment unit did not

Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program

Estuary Delineation and Assessment 2.0 have any major freshwater tributaries. In these cases, the watershed was directly proximal to an estuary or coastline. Some smaller freshwater, non-tidal tributaries were clearly present within this proximal area and, according to the process described above, would be excluded as non-tidal. However, because they drained directly to a salt marsh or to the ocean, rather than into a fresh water body, they were included within the assessment unit watershed.

Figure 2.2 shows the north coast of the Salem Sound watershed and demonstrates the difference between exclusion/inclusion of these smaller tributaries. In this case, the dashed line shows the watershed as it would be delineated by strictly excluding all tributary area beyond the extent of tidal influence. The solid line shows the watershed boundary if smaller freshwater streams are included. The solid line is in approximate agreement with the watershed boundary shown in the report “Planning for Effective Pond Management in the Salem Sound Watershed, 2010,” produced by Tufts University and Salem Sound Coastwatch.

Watershed Boundary including (solid) and excluding (dashed) smaller freshwater tributaries

Figure 2.2: Salem Sound Estuarine Assessment Unit Boundary: Freshwater Tributary Inclusion vs. Exclusion

Where such questions arose, pre-delineated sub-basin watersheds prepared by MassGIS and vetted by the United States Geologic Survey (USGS), Massachusetts Water Resource Commission and the Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA), were used to determine whether a given tributary warranted inclusion within the estuarine assessment unit. If a questionable body of water did not have its own sub-basin delineated by MassGIS, and was tributary to the estuary or embayment, it would be included within Geosyntec’s estuarine assessment unit boundary.

Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program

Estuary Delineation and Assessment 2.0

2.3 Delineation of Non-Estuarine Assessment Unit Boundaries

For non-estuarine assessment units not located on Cape Cod, the landward watershed boundary was delineated using topography. The primary source of topographic information was the National Elevation Dataset (NED) 1/3-arc-second topographic data produced by USGS. Topographic data were supplemented by 3-m interval elevation contours produced from the MassGIS Massachusetts Digital Elevation Model (DEM).

In certain cases, the elevation data described above were not detailed enough to determine the location of a watershed boundary, for example around low-lying salt marshes. In these cases, aerial photography was used to interpret the watershed divide using apparent ditches and channels.

The draft watershed boundaries were then compared to pre-delineated sub-basins prepared by MassGIS as described in Section 2.2. Where discrepancies occurred, Geosyntec’s watershed boundary was adjusted to follow the MassGIS sub-basin boundary if the MassGIS boundary was determined to be a more accurate or practical representation of the watershed.

2.4 Delineation of Cape Cod Groundwater Contributing Areas (GWCA)

Hydrologic basins on Cape Cod are dominated by groundwater flow and cannot be delineated using surface topography. The primary source of groundwater contributing areas (GWCAs) on Cape Cod is a data layer created by USGS in cooperation with EPA using regional MODFLOW groundwater models of the Cape Cod aquifer system. In some cases, the seaward boundary was further modified to better tie into these existing basin boundaries.

Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program

Estuary Delineation and Assessment 2.0

3. Selection of Environmental Attributes

In collaboration with MassBays staff and Regional Coordinators, Geosyntec developed a list of attributes that can be used to describe and characterize estuaries/embayments and inter-estuarine areas. These attributes will be used subsequently as the basis for assessing ecosystem health under the CCMP. The attributes include estuarine species and habitats, water quality parameters, and human uses.

In addition to the attributes used in EDA 1.0 nine new attributes were characterized in EDA 2.0 and are listed below.

Attribute Raw Statistic Normalized Statistic

Sandy Beaches/Dunes Area acres per mile of coastline

Rocky Intertidal Shores Area acres per mile of coastline

Mooring Fields Area Area per estuary water area

Marinas Count (marina boat slips) Count per estuary water area

Dredge Projects Area Area per estuary water area

Seawalls and related structures Length miles per mile of coastline

access points to public # of access points per mile of beach Public Coastal Beaches and semi-public beaches

Marine Beach Quality beach "action days" # of closures and advisories per beach

Coastal Boat Access boat access points # of parking spaces per boat access point

Table 3.1 List of new attributes

Salt Marsh: Salt marshes are coastal wetlands that provide important water quality benefits via filtering of upstream waters, as well as habitat for shorebirds, crustaceans, and other biota. Salt marshes have been impacted by pollution, encroachment, filling, and restriction of normal tidal flushing. The extent of salt marsh was quantified using the MassDEP wetlands data layer. The attribute metric is calculated as the area of salt marsh per area of the assessment unit (land and water).

Source: http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-and-support/application-serv/office-of- geographic-information-massgis/datalayers/depwetlands112000.html

Tidal Flats: Tidal flats are muddy or sandy areas that are exposed to air at low tide. They are habitat for invertebrates and crustaceans that serve at the basis of the food chain for many species of fish and shorebirds. The extent of tidal flats was quantified using the MassDEP wetlands data layer. The attribute metric is calculated as the area of tidal flats per area of the assessment unit (land and water).

Source: http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-and-support/application-serv/office-of geographic-information-massgis/datalayers/depwetlands112000.html

Rocky Intertidal Shores: Rocky intertidal shores are dynamic, high-stress areas that provide an important link between marine and terrestrial systems. These areas provide habitat for marine life and act

Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program

Estuary Delineation and Assessment 2.0 as a nursery for various forms of crustaceans and fish. They also provide food sources for marine birds and fish, and act as stabilization for shoreline sediment. The extent of rocky intertidal shores was quantified using the MassDEP wetlands data layer. The attribute metric is quantified as the area of rocky intertidal shore divided by the area of the assessment unit (land and water).

Source: http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-and-support/application-serv/office-of- geographic-information-massgis/datalayers/depwetlands112000.html

Sandy Beaches/Dunes: Beaches and dunes provide habitat to marine life (birds, invertebrates, etc.) as well as protecting against erosion and buffering against extreme weather events. The extent of sandy beaches and dunes was quantified using the MassDEP wetlands data layer, using the categories “coastal beach,” “coastal dune,” and “coastal bank, bluff, or sea cliff”. The sandy beach and dune attribute was quantified as the area of sandy beaches and dunes divided by the area of the assessment unit (land and water).

Source: http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-and-support/application-serv/office-of- geographic-information-massgis/datalayers/depwetlands112000.html

Eelgrass: Eelgrass (Zostera marina) form habitat areas comprised of flowering marine plants that typically grow in wide continuous expanses, or meadows, in shallow, protected estuarine waters. Eelgrass provides habitat for fish and other species, providing cover, food, and spawning habitat in Massachusetts waters. Eelgrass beds have historically been degraded due to disease as well as the light-limiting effect of increased turbidity and eutrophication. MassDEP has mapped eelgrass extent in 1995, 2001, 2006, and 2012 using aerial imagery analysis and field confirmation.

Five attribute metrics are calculated. The first four metrics are the area of eelgrass for a given year of observation divided by the open water area within the assessment unit. The fifth metric was calculated using the average eelgrass area over the observed record.

Source: http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-and-support/application-serv/office-of- geographic-information-massgis/datalayers/massdep-eelgrass-project.html

Shellfish Habitat: Shellfish beds – assemblages of bivalves in areas otherwise dominated by soft sediments – provide many habitat services including refuge for smaller organisms such as polychaete worms, juvenile crabs, snails, and sea stars. Shellfish habitat within each estuary was determined using shellfish suitability areas delineated in the Massachusetts Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI). These habitat areas are distinct from the Designated Shellfish Growing Areas described below, in that they represent the best estimate of potential habitat of shellfish species present on the Massachusetts coast. Species listed in the dataset include American Oyster, Bay Scallop, Blue Mussel, European Oyster, Ocean Quahog, Quahog, Razor Clam, Sea Scallop, Soft-shelled Clam, and Surf Clam. The dataset was derived by the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) with input from local shellfish constables, fishermen, and historic maps and studies of shellfish. Shellfish habitat was measured in species-acres for this study, meaning multiple species could be counted for the same area if their potential habitats overlapped, and allowing for species diversity to be accounted for in the analysis. Attribute statistics are calculated as the habitat area of a given species divided by the open water area of the assessment unit.

Source: http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-and-support/application-serv/office-of- geographic-information-massgis/datalayers/shlfshsuit.html

Shorebird Habitat and Nesting Sites: Shorebird habitat is closely related to other estuarine habitats like salt marsh and tidal flats, which provide food, cover, and nesting sites for shorebirds. Shorebird habitat was determined using habitat areas delineated in the Massachusetts ESI. A complete listing of all species and categories of species included in the ESI is provided in Appendix E, which includes shorebirds, wading birds, waterfowl, gulls, terns, cormorants, etc. ESI geospatial data was downloaded from the CZM MORIS viewer (http://maps.massgis.state.ma.us/map_ol/moris.php). Shorebird habitat was measured in species- acres for this study, meaning multiple species could be counted for the same area if their potential habitats 8

Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program

Estuary Delineation and Assessment 2.0 overlapped, and allowing for species diversity to be accounted for in the analysis. Nesting sites were also identified in the ESI and counted for their presence in each estuarine watershed. Shorebird habitat attribute statistics are calculated as the habitat area of a given species divided by the total area of the assessment unit. Shorebird nesting site attribute statistics are calculated as the number of nesting sites per total area of the assessment unit.

The complete list of ESI source publications and related metadata can be found at: http://www.researchplanning.com/_esi/metadata/MAmdata.pdf

Source: http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-and-support/application-serv/office-of- geographic-information-massgis/datalayers/morislayers.html

Anadromous Fish Runs: Connections between saltwater and freshwater spawning areas are critical to maintaining populations of anadromous fish. Massachusetts DMF has developed a database listing the beginning and end points of various known anadromous fish runs on the Massachusetts coast. In order to quantify the length of these runs, the hydraulic length between each start and end point was traced using a linear representation of hydraulic features (Networked Hydro Centerlines for non-Cape Cod areas, and the National Hydrography Dataset for Cape Cod). Runs were traced on a per-species basis, and accounted for the following species: Alewife, American Shad, Atlantic Sturgeon, Blueback Herring, and Rainbow Smelt. The length of the fish run was considered to be the total length both outside and inside the estuarine watershed, unlike other attributes in this study which were calculated based only on the attribute’s presence within the estuarine watershed boundary. The rationale for this difference was that fish runs could extend miles upstream, and a very large and ecologically important fish run could start in a relatively small estuarine watershed, meaning the full size and importance of the run would not be captured by only quantifying the portion lying within the watershed boundary. Anadromous fish runs were measured in species-miles for this study, meaning multiple species could be counted for the same length of stream if their runs overlapped, and allowing for species diversity to be accounted for in the analysis.

The attribute metric is calculated as the total fish run length per species of any run intersecting the assessment unit (including in waterways that extend beyond the landward boundary of the assessment unit).

Source: http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-and-support/application-serv/office-of- geographic-information-massgis/datalayers/anadromous-fish-.html

High Intensity Land Use. High intensity land use is characterized by anthropogenic influence and often lead to high rates of stormwater runoff, bacterial and nutrient contamination, and other types of non-point- source pollution. These land uses include all residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, and transportation areas as delineated in the 2005 Massachusetts Land Use dataset (MassGIS), and thus this attribute is related to others in the EDA analysis, such as road crossings and restrictions (due to the increased presence of roads in these land use areas), encroachment upon wetlands, and increased presence of wastewater discharges. The attribute is quantified as the area of high intensity land use divided by the land area of the assessment unit.

Source: http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-and-support/application-serv/office-of- geographic-information-massgis/datalayers/lus2005.html

Annual Stormwater Discharge: High rates of stormwater runoff can lead to increased transport of silt, sediment, and nutrients (especially from agricultural and residential areas), and bacteria (especially from highly developed, impervious areas). In some cases, stormwater runoff can have an effect on the frequency of combined sewer overflows, a significant source of bacterial and nutrient contamination in the receiving waters. The rate of stormwater runoff is determined by several factors including land use type, soil hydrologic group, and rainfall amount. Geosyntec utilized the NRCS Curve Number method and 50 years of local rainfall statistics to estimate the annual volume of stormwater discharge in each estuary. The attribute metric is calculated as the volume of stormwater runoff divided by the assessment unit land area (i.e., the average annual stormwater depth). 9

Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program

Estuary Delineation and Assessment 2.0

Source: See methodology in Appendix A.

Impervious Area: Impervious area is closely associated with increased stormwater runoff and higher concentrations of pollutants in the runoff. By preventing infiltration, impervious areas also increase the volume, and often the erosive velocities, of stormwater. Impervious area is also closely associated with other attributes in the EDA analysis, such as high intensity land use and population density.

The attribute metric is calculated as the impervious area divided by the assessment unit land area (i.e., percent impervious cover).

Source: http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-and-support/application-serv/office-of- geographic-information-massgis/datalayers/impervioussurface.html

Population: Population and population density are direct attributes of the extent of anthropogenic influence on an estuarine watershed. This attribute is closely related to others in the EDA analysis, including high intensity residential and commercial land uses, impervious area, stormwater runoff, and wastewater discharge. Population was determined using 2010 U.S. Census data.

The attribute metric is calculated as the population density, or, the total population divided by the assessment unit land area.

Source: http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-and-support/application-serv/office-of- geographic-information-massgis/datalayers/census2010.html

Wastewater: Wastewater is a direct source of nutrient and bacterial pollution to an estuarine receiving body. Sources of wastewater can include wastewater treatment plant direct discharges to surface water, discharges to groundwater, and septic systems. Some wastewater treatment plant systems may receive wastewater from areas outside of the estuarine watershed in which they are located. As a result, the impact from these wastewater sources may be greater than the population within the watershed would indicate.

For wastewater sources, the attribute metric is simply the total discharge volume of all sources within the assessment unit.

o Wastewater discharges to surface water: These sources of wastewater take the form of wastewater treatment plants that directly discharge to a surface water body. Permitted treatment plants associated with sewerage systems were identified using the EPA’s Envirofacts Warehouse database. Permitted flow rates for each system were also obtained from the database and considered to be an attribute of the magnitude of the discharge, although typical flows from a given treatment plant may be less than the permitted flow rate. Locations of outfall pipes were determined using coordinates provided in the pipe schedule portion of the EPA database or from descriptions of the receiving waters, and these locations were used to determine whether the plant discharges to the estuary in question.

Source: https://www3.epa.gov/enviro/facts/multisystem.html

o Wastewater discharges to groundwater: These sources of wastewater result from community septic systems, institutional septic systems, or wastewater treatment plants that discharge to the groundwater rather than surface water. They are distinct from residential septic systems in that they are large enough to require an individual permit and are thus more readily quantifiable. These systems were identified using MassDEP Groundwater Discharge Permits database and represent systems with discharges in excess of 10,000 gallons per day.

Source: http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-and-support/application-serv/office- of-geographic-information-massgis/datalayers/gwp.html

o Septic systems: Septic systems can contribute to estuarine eutrophication via transport of 10

Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program

Estuary Delineation and Assessment 2.0 nitrogen, a limiting nutrient in saline environments, from septic systems into the groundwater. A specific estimate of the presence of septic systems within a given estuarine watershed would require significant documentation of installation and pumping records available at various town board of health offices, an effort which is beyond the scope of this project. Instead, towns were surveyed by MassBays regarding whether there was no, some, or total use of septic systems for onsite wastewater treatment. These results were combined with estimates of population density to estimate the number of residents within a given area that may be using a septic system. An average per-capita water use of 69.3 gal/day, provided in the EPA “Onsite Wastewater Treatment System Manual,” was used to estimate a daily flow rate of wastewater into the groundwater.

Source: MassBays data based on community surveys.

303(d) Impairments: The Federal Clean Water Act, Section 303(d), requires states to identify rivers, streams, lakes, and estuaries that are impaired or threatened by pollutants, compromising the ecological capabilities of the water body. MassDEP provides spatial representation of its 2012 303(d) list of impairments in two ways: linear representation for rivers and streams, and areal representation for lakes and estuaries. Water bodies can be listed for a wide range of impairments, of which a subset was selected to represent the specific management priorities (bacterial and nutrient contamination) of this project. A water body listed as impaired for “Ammonia,” “Phosphorus,” “Chlorophyll-a,” “Excess Algal Growth,” or “Nutrient/Eutrophication Biological Attributes” was considered to be impaired with respect to nutrients, while a water body listed as impaired for “Fecal Coliform” was considered to be impaired with respect to bacteria.

Attribute metrics are calculated for both estuarine areas and tributaries, and for both nutrient and bacteria-related impairments. Metrics for estuaries are calculated as the area of impaired water divided by the total area of classified waters within the assessment unit. Metrics for streams and tributaries are calculated as the length of the impaired waters divided by the length of classified waters within the assessment unit.

Source: http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-and-support/application-serv/office-of- geographic-information-massgis/datalayers/wbs2012.html

Designated Shellfish Growing Area Classification: Like the 303(d) impairment attribute, shellfish growing area classification is an indication of water quality impairment. DMF classifies coastal waters of Massachusetts relative to their suitability for shellfish harvest for human consumption in six categories ranging from “Approved” to “Prohibited.” The extent of prohibited or restricted Designated Shellfish Growing Area (DSGA) within an estuary is considered to be an indication of an existing stressor on the system. The most recent available data reflect conditions in 2015.

The attribute metrics are calculated as the area of each DSGA class divided by the open water area of the assessment unit.

Source: http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-and-support/application-serv/office-of- geographic-information-massgis/datalayers/dsga.html

Number of Impoundments Causing Fish Passage Barriers: Impoundments along streams and waterways can restrict or prevent the passage of anadromous fish. Impoundments can also cause increased stream temperatures and a disruption of natural sediment transport.

The number and location of each impoundment within each estuarine watershed was determined using an inventory provided by the Massachusetts Office of Dam Safety, with several updates based on review by MassBays staff. An estuarine watershed boundary often ends just downstream of an impoundment due to the impoundment’s restriction of tidal flow, which was used as an attribute of the furthest upstream extent of the estuarine watershed. In these cases, a dam or impoundment was counted in the estuarine watershed due to its direct impact, even though it technically was located just outside of the watershed boundary.

Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program

Estuary Delineation and Assessment 2.0 Some fish passage impacts of impoundments may have already been addressed by the implementation of fish ladders or other fish passage structures. In such cases, the impoundment was removed from the count of impoundments within the estuarine watershed. Dams with fish passage structures were identified using a fish passage structure inventory prepared by the Department of Fish and Game.

The attribute metric is calculated as the number of impoundments causing fish passage barriers divided by the assessment unit land area.

Sources:

Dam Locations - http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-and-support/application- serv/office-of-geographic-information-massgis/datalayers/dams.html

Anadromous Fishways - http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-and-support/application- serv/office-of-geographic-information-massgis/datalayers/anadromous-fish-.html

Number of Stream Crossings: Road crossings over streams and rivers can cause impediments to anadromous fish passage. Elevated culverts, blocked culverts, strong velocities, and other factors can prevent the upstream migration of fish. Significant field work is necessary to document and verify all road crossings within an estuarine watershed, and is beyond the scope of this project (however, it has been performed by watershed groups in select watersheds, such as the North and South River). Instead of field documentation of all road crossings, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation statewide roads shapefile was intersected with a linear representation of hydraulic features (Networked Hydro Centerlines for non-Cape Cod areas, and the National Hydrography Dataset for Cape Cod). Identified potential road crossings were checked against USGS topographic maps and aerial imagery to determine if a potential road crossing was likely to exist or was an artifact of the intersection method (such as a road and stream running parallel which may intersect in their spatial data due to mapping inaccuracies, but not representing an actual stream crossing).

If a road crossing intersected an area of salt marsh, it was also given the additional classification of a road crossing within a tidal area. Beyond the aforementioned effects of road crossings on fish passage, these road crossings within tidal areas may cause additional stress due to their restriction on the natural exchange of tidal flows upstream of the crossing. The attribute metric is calculated as the number of stream crossing per assessment unit land area.

Sources:

MassDOT Roads - http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-and-support/application- serv/office-of-geographic-information-massgis/datalayers/eotroads.html

Hydrography (Networked Hydro Centerlines) - http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv- and-support/application-serv/office-of-geographic-information-massgis/datalayers/watrshed.html

Hydrography (National Hydrography Dataset) - https://nhd.usgs.gov/data.html

Public Coastal Beaches: Public coastal beaches represent both highly valued societal benefits and the potential for ecological stresses associated with human use and management of beaches (e.g., habitat disruption caused by beach raking). Geosyntec quantified the length of public and semi-public beaches along the Massachusetts Bays coastline. These polyline features were combined with EPA Beach Advisory and Closing records for the number of ‘action days’ taken at each beach from 2012-2015. Action days consist of closures, rain advisories, and contamination advisories. Two attribute statistics were calculated for beaches. The first is the total number of action days or beach closure days at public beaches within the assessment unit, which is representative of marine beach water quality. The second is the number of public access points divided by the length of public beaches within the assessment unit.

Sources:

Public Beach locations - http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-and-

Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program

Estuary Delineation and Assessment 2.0 support/application-serv/office-of-geographic-information-massgis/datalayers/marinebeaches.html

Beach Closures/Action Days - https://watersgeo.epa.gov/beacon2/reports.html

Marinas: Marinas represent an environmental and societal impact on aquatic health via fuel and heavy metal pollution, boat- related turbulence, trash and debris, and other impacts. Data regarding marinas provide not only insight into the frequency and extent of boat traffic and storage in the area, but also the beneficial use of coastal areas for recreation.

Marina boat slip data were compiled by CZM staff from public lists, databases, and visual inspection of orthoimagery. While not fully comprehensive, these data constitute a majority of the marina-type resources available to recreational yachtspersons. Marinas are generally defined by CZM for these data as facilities that cater to recreational yachtspersons and provide berths, moorings, maintenance and repair, hauling, storage, fuel, and/or other supplies.

The attribute metric for marinas is quantified as the number of marina boat slips divided by the area of open water within the estuarine assessment unit.

Source: http://maps.massgis.state.ma.us/czm/moris/metadata/moris_marinas_pt.htm

Mooring Fields: Mooring fields represent potential impacts on the aquatic environment that are similar to marinas. Mooring field areas were created by CZM staff by digitizing visible mooring areas (ten or more moorings) using 2001 and 2005 aerial photography.

The mooring fields attribute is quantified as the area of the mooring field divided by the area of open water within the estuarine assessment unit.

Source: http://maps.massgis.state.ma.us/czm/moris/metadata/moris_mooring_fields_poly.htm

Dredge Projects: Dredge projects are indicative of areas that are impacted by equipment and access concerns and have potential impacts on estuarine benthic habitat. CZM provided a polygon coverage of federal (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) dredge projects along the Massachusetts coastline. These projects consist of historical dredge projects up to December 1998.

The dredge projects attribute is quantified as the area of the dredge project divided by the area of open water within the estuarine assessment unit.

Source: http://maps.massgis.state.ma.us/czm/moris/metadata/moris_dredge_usace_poly.htm

Seawalls and Related Structures: Shoreline stabilization projects represent anthropogenic influence on shoreline geomorphology. The presence of public or private stabilization projects is indicative of human habitation and related infrastructure and/ or access issues present within the assessment area. CZM provides a range of sources for public and private shoreline stabilization projects in 2007, 2009, and 2013 along the Massachusetts Coast through the MORIS data viewer. This attribute is quantified as the length of various stabilization projects divided by the area of the estuarine assessment unit.

Source: http://maps.massgis.state.ma.us/czm/moris/metadata/moris_csi_private_arc.htm

Boating Access Sites: This attribute indicates the extent of potential recreational use in assessment units. The Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game Office of Fishing and Boating Access (OFBA) provides a point dataset listing 268 sites of public access to waterways and waterbodies. The point file includes the total number of boat ramps at the site, as well as the total number of parking spaces located nearby. The attribute metric is calculated as the total number of access point parking spaces within an assessment unit divided by the total number of boat ramps in that assessment unit.

Source: http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-and-support/application-serv/office-of- geographic-information-massgis/datalayers/morislayers.html

TABLE 3.2 List of attributes and associated statistics applied

Raw Normalized Attribute Statistic Statistic Status Source Details

Percentage of total watershed Not Salt Marsh Area MassGIS MassGIS Land Use (2005) layer used to determine the extent of salt marsh. area updated

Percentage of total watershed Tidal flat areas obtained from Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) Shoreline Tidal Flat Area Not CZM MORIS area Classification Layer, available from CZM MORIS updated

Updated Percentage of estuary open- MassDEP/ Eelgrass bed locations from 1995, 200, 2006, and 2012 as mapped by Eelgrass Area with water area MassGIS MADEP and available via MassGIS 2012 data.

Area per Percentage of estuary open- Not Shellfish Habitat Shellfish Suitability Areas, available via MassGIS species water area per species updated DMF

Area per Percentage of total watershed Not Shorebird habitat is obtained from Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI), available from CZM Shorebird Habitat CZM MORIS species area per species updated MORIS

Count per total watershed Not Shorebird nesting sites are obtained from Environmental Sensitivity Index Shorebird Nesting Sites Count CZM MORIS area updated (ESI), available from CZM MORIS

Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries has developed a collection of points describing various MassGIS/ features of anadromous fish habitat. A subset of these points is classified as beginnings or ends of Anadromous Length per Not Mass Fish anadromous fish runs. Geosyntec used these start/end points, as well as the MA state hydrography NA Fish Runs species updated and Game/ network and the National Hydrography Dataset, to trace the anadromous fish runs that intersect the Geosyntec study area. Length of a fish run will include any segments of run that extend beyond the estuarine watershed boundary.

New data set Rocky Intertidal Shore Area Acres per mile of coastline MassDEP Rocky intertidal shore is delineated in the MassDEP wetlands inventory. for EDA 2.0

Sandy Beaches/Dunes Area Acres per mile of coastline New data set MassDEP Coastal Beaches and Coastal Dunes are delineated in the MassDEP wetlands inventory. for EDA 2.0

Attribute Raw Statistic Normalized Statistic Status Source Details

High Intensity Land Use All residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, and transportation polygons from the Land Use (2005) data Area % of watershed land area Not updated MassGIS (Residential, Commercial, set will be classified as high intensity Agricultural, etc)

Annual stormwater discharge was estimated using the Curve Number method. Curve numbers were be chosen based on soil hydrologic group and land use type for each watershed. The MassGIS Land Use (2005) layer was Approximate Annual MassGIS/ Annual Volume Volume per watershed land area Not updated intersected with the USDA soils map to create polygons with land use and hydrologic group attributes. These Stormwater Discharge USDA polygons were assigned appropriate curve numbers and an annual storm water discharge for each polygon was calculated. Finally, all storm water discharges from individual polygons in each watershed were summed to estimate the total watershed annual runoff.

Data is a composite of MassGIS Impervious Surface rasters: imp_cape1, imp_cape2, imp_cape3, imp_se1, Impervious Area Area % of watershed land area Not updated MassGIS imp_se2, imp_se4, imp_ne1, imp_ne2, imp_ne3, imp_ne4, imp_ne5

U.S. Census Population Count Density (Population per area) Not updated Census2010 blocks were used to create a population density raster. The average population density value will Bureau be multiplied by the land area to estimate a watershed population.

Dataset was created by searching EPA's Envirofacts Warehouse. The data was obtained by doing a search of Wastewater Treatment Count and the Permit Compliance System (PCS) database. Facility information was selected for the state of NA Updated USEPA Plants Permitted Flowrate Massachusetts. All facilities with the SIC code "4952: SEWERAGE SYSTEM" were selected. Latitudes and Longitudes supplied by the PCS database were used to create a shapefile of these facilities. The PCS data also contains permitted discharge rate for each plant. Approximate Town Sewering information has been provided by MassBays. Shapefile classifies Towns based on their amount population served MassBays, of sewering as "all", "some", or "none." This will be used to determine a percentage of the estuarine watershed Septic System Use by on-site NA Not updated U.S. Census that is serviced by on-site treatment systems. Population data will then be used to determine the approximate treatment systems Bureau population served by septic systems and other on-site treatment systems.

MADEP 303(d) Impairment for Area of impaired Area of impaired waters per 2012 Nutrients (Estuary) waters area of classified waters Updated 305(b) MADEP 303(d) Impairment for Area of impaired Area of impaired waters per 2012 Bacteria (Estuary) waters area of classified waters Updated 305(b) MADEP 303(d) Impairment for Length of impaired Length of impaired waters per 2012 Nutrients (Tributaries) waters length of classified waters Updated 305(b) MADEP 303(d) Impairment for Length of impaired Length of impaired waters per 2012 Bacteria (Tributaries) waters length of classified waters Updated 305(b) The status for the estuary was determined using the DMF’s "Designated Shellfish Growing Designated Shellfish Area of each % open water covered by each Not updated DMF Area (DSGA)" classification polygons. DSGAs fall into six categories ranging from Approved to Restricted. Growing Area Classification DSGA class DSGA class

Number of Impoundments MA Office of The Massachusetts Office of Dam Safety dam inventory was used to locate impoundments. In many cases, the causing fish passage Count Count per watershed land area Not updated Dam Safety / dam location may be just outside of the estuarine subwatershed boundary. A small buffer was applied to the barriers MA Fish and watershed polygons to ensure that these dams are counted. Then, fish passageway information from DFG was Game used to determine which of the dams do not pose a fish passage barrier.

Indicator Raw Statistic Normalized Statistic Status Source Details

Massachusetts DOT road centerlines were intersected with the National Hydrography Dataset Flowlines to Number of Stream MassGIS/ Count Count per watershed land area Updated produce a stream crossings layer. Quality control and verification of this data will commence after finalization of Crossings USGS/ the watersheds. Geosyntec

Beach Action Days (also a New EDA 2.0 Public and semi-public beach locations and IDs from MassGIS database. USEPA BEACON system reports Count Average from 2012-2015 MassGIS/ Social Indicator) dataset number of action days for each monitored beach. USEPA New data set Public and semi-public beach locations and IDs from MassGIS database. Access points are contained in a point Beach Access (also a Count Count per mile of beach for EDA MassGIS data file along with sampling locations, pollution sources, posting locations, and other point data. Social Indicator) 2.0 Mooring fields were digitized by CZM staff using 2001 and 2005 aerial imagery. New EDA 2.0 Mooring Fields Area % of open water MassGIS dataset Dredge Projects New EDA 2.0 CZM and USACE provide polygon coverage of dredging project locations through 1998. Area % of open water dataset CZM MORIS/ USACE CZM provides polyline shapes of known shoreline stabilization projects in 2007 and 2009. Seawalls and related New EDA 2.0 Length Miles per miles of coastline CZM structures dataset MORIS

Boating Access Number of parking spaces per MA Fish and Office of Fishing and Boating Access (OFBA) in the MA Dept. of Fish and Game provides point coverage of Count New EDA 2.0 boat ramp Game boating access sites with numbers of parking spaces and boat ramps at each. dataset

Count Marina boat slip count per open New EDA 2.0 CZM Data provided by MassBays, including marina location and number of boat slips available. Marinas water area dataset

Count per mile of beach New EDA 2.0 MassGIS Public and semi-public beach locations and IDs from MassGIS database. Access points are contained in a point Beach Access Count dataset data file along with sampling locations, pollution sources, posting locations, and other point data.

Average from 2012-2015 MassGIS/ Public and semi-public beach locations and IDs from MassGIS database. USEPA BEACON system reports New EDA 2.0 Beach Action Days Count dataset USEPA number of action days for each monitored beach. Number of parking spaces per New EDA 2.0 boat ramp dataset MA Fish and Office of Fishing and Boating Access (OFBA) in the MA Fish and Game provides point coverage of boating Boating Access Count Game access sites with numbers of parking spaces and boat ramps at each.

Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program Estuarine Assessment and Delineation 2.0

4. Analysis of Attributes

Attributes were analyzed using spatial analysis (GIS) to determine the extent of their presence within each watershed. First, the raw quantity of a given attribute was measured (for instance, acres, miles, count, etc.). Then, the quantity was normalized to some aspect of the estuarine watershed size in order to compare values between the watersheds and not favor larger estuarine watersheds:

• Attributes that were solely dependent on water (such as shellfish habitat, eelgrass extent) were normalized to the area of open water within the estuarine watershed boundary;

• Attributes that were solely dependent on land (land use, impervious area, population density, etc.) were normalized to the area of land within the estuarine watershed boundary;

• Attributes that existed in both open water and on land, or in transitional areas, were normalized to the entire area within the estuarine watershed boundary (such as salt marsh, tidal flat, shorebird habitat);

• The three types of wastewater sources were quantified in millions of gallons per day (MGD) to allow for comparison between them, but were not normalized for any aspect of estuarine watershed size; and

• Anadromous fish runs were not normalized for any aspect of estuarine watershed size.

4.1 Summary of Analysis

The following section summarizes the major findings for each assessment area. For more detail, please refer to the assessment results in Appendix E. The areas described below are listed in geographic order, starting at the Massachusetts/New Hampshire border and progressing to the south and east to the tip of Cape Cod at Provincetown.

1. BLACK ROCK CREEK: Black Rock Creek assessment unit is located at the northern end of the Massachusetts Bay Coastline. Assessed streams and waterbodies in the region are not impaired for bacteria or nutrients. Most impervious cover in this assessment area is located along Salisbury Beach, a public beach, and there appears to be little to no boating access in the region. Salt marsh is a predominant ecological resource in the region (33% of land area).

2. MERRIMACK RIVER: Merrimack River assessment unit contains several attributes of note. The estuary has been dredged to aid boating access and contains mooring fields and multiple marinas. Additionally, the Amesbury Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF), Salisbury WWTF, and Newburyport WWTF discharge into this estuary. Impervious cover is moderately high in this assessment area (10%). The assessment unit contains a high coverage of salt marsh (22%) and tidal flats and is used by alewife, Atlantic sturgeon, and rainbow smelt. Salisbury Beach is located on the northern side of the estuary, and Plum Island Beach is located on the southern side. The Merrimack River estuary is impaired for bacteria.

3. PARKER RIVER: The Parker River assessment unit contains a high proportion of salt marsh (29%), and the river is used by alewife and rainbow smelt. The river is listed as impaired for bacteria. Impervious cover is low (4.5%).

4. ROWLEY RIVER: The Rowley River assessment unit contains a highest proportion of salt marsh (42%) of all areas assessed in this study, and impervious cover is low (4.5%). The river is used by alewife and rainbow smelt. The river is listed as impaired for bacteria.

Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program Estuarine Assessment and Delineation 2.0

5. IPSWICH RIVER: The majority of impervious cover/development in the Ipswich River assessment unit is located in the upstream reaches of the region. The estuary and several of its tributaries are impaired for both bacteria and nutrients. The Ipswich WWTF discharges into this estuary. The seaward portions of the assessment area contain high amounts of salt marsh and tidal flats

6. PLUM ISLAND SOUND: The Plum Island Sound estuary is inclusive of Parker, Rowley, and Ipswich River assessment areas. Bacterial impairments are common for the estuary and its tributaries. Impervious cover is low (1%). The region provides a high amount of shorebird habitat and anadromous fish habitat. Salt marsh and tidal flats are common, as well as a significant region of coastal dunes/beaches along Plum Island. Some eelgrass restoration initiatives are ongoing in this area.

7. ESSEX RIVER / ESSEX BAY: Essex River/Essex Bay is listed as impaired for bacteria. It contains some mooring fields as well as a dredged channel in the Essex River. Salt marsh, tidal flats, and coastal dunes are highly prevalent in and around the bay. Eelgrass restoration is ongoing in this area. The Essex River is used by alewife and rainbow smelt.

8. ANNISQUAM RIVER: Annisquam River is listed as impaired for bacteria. It contains several mooring fields as well as a dredged channel in the river. Tidal flats predominate in the estuary system, and some sea grass beds are present along the northern coast. The river is used by alewife and rainbow smelt. Impervious cover and population density are moderately high at 12% and 2 persons/ac, respectively. The region also contains a high number of stream crossings. Septic system use appears to be a major source of wastewater treatment in this region.

9. LANESVILLE COAST/HALIBUT POINT: The predominant coastal feature in this region is rocky intertidal shore, which is present along the majority of the coastline. Eelgrass is present along the southwest portions of the coast. The presence of salt marsh and shorebird habitat/shorebird nesting sites is relatively low within this region.

10. ROCKPORT HARBOR (SANDY BAY): The predominant coastal feature in this region is rocky intertidal shore, which is present along the majority of the coastline. Seawalls and other stabilization structures are common along this coastline, and development and impervious cover in the region is high (12%). Rockport WWTF discharges into this embayment. Shorebird and shellfish habitat are present in the majority of open-water areas in the bay.

11. LONG BEACH: This region is characterized by the high presence of rocky intertidal shores. The presence of salt marsh is low, predominantly located in the southern portions of the region. Waterbodies in the area do not appear to be impaired for bacteria or nutrients. Shorebird and shellfish habitat are present in the majority of open-water areas in the coastline.

12. GOOD HARBOR: Much of the coastline around Good Harbor is characterized by rocky intertidal shores. Some salt marsh and coastal dunes exist in the vicinity of Good Harbor itself. Impervious cover in the region is high, at 14%.

13. GLOUCESTER HARBOR: Impervious area is high, at 15%. A large portion of the harbor has been dredged, and mooring fields and marinas are common. Much of the coast is characterized by seawalls and other retaining structures. The harbor itself is impaired for both nutrients and bacteria, and is the receiving water for the Gloucester WWTF (. Some eelgrass beds are present. The presence of salt marsh, shorebird habitat, and shellfish habitat is relatively low within this region.

14. MAGNOLIA COAST: The Magnolia Coast area contains relatively few ecological resources; predominantly rocky intertidal shores and some eelgrass beds. Impervious cover is moderate at 8%, mostly located within the town of Magnolia itself.

Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program Estuary Assessment and Delineation 2.0

15. KETTLE COVE: The Kettle Cove area is moderately developed, with a high prevalence of high intensity land use and moderately high impervious cover (10%).. Rocky intertidal shores and salt marshes exist along the relatively short stretch of coastline at the cove itself.

16. MANCHESTER COAST: This region is a sparsely developed stretch of shoreline with some seawalls and stabilization structures. The coastline is characterized by rocky intertidal shore and some beaches. Shellfish habitat is prevalent within the open water areas of the assessment area.

17. MANCHESTER HARBOR: Manchester Harbor and its tributaries are impaired for bacteria. Mooring fields cover a large portion of the open water within the harbor. The area is highly developed and impervious cover is moderately high (10%). Much of the open water zone includes eelgrass beds, and rainbow smelt appear to utilize tributaries to the harbor.

18. BEVERLY HARBOR: Beverly Harbor is a heavily developed assessment unit with very high impervious cover (29%). Several tributaries and estuarine waterbodies are listed as impaired for both bacteria and nutrients. Multiple impoundments exist within the region. Some tidal flats are present in the open water zones, and some eelgrass beds exist at the seaward end of the harbor.

19. DANVERS RIVER: The Danvers River assessment unit is similar in most respects to the Beverly Harbor assessment unit, of which it is a component part (its seaward boundary ends slightly further upstream than Beverly Harbor). This heavily developed area has very high impervious cover (33%).

20. FOREST RIVER / SOUTH RIVER/ SALEM HARBOR: This heavily developed area has very high impervious cover (30%). A portion of Salem Harbor is dredged, and a large portion of the open water zone is used for mooring fields. The harbor itself is impaired for bacteria. Much of the coastline is heavily developed and salt marshes, tidal flats, and beaches are rare. Eelgrass beds are present within the harbor.

21. MARBLEHEAD HARBOR: Marblehead Harbor is highly developed, with very high impervious cover (27%). The harbor is listed for bacterial impairment, and a majority of the open water zone is devoted to mooring fields. Some eelgrass beds are present but the extent of ecological resources within the region is relatively low.

22. SALEM SOUND: The Salem Sound assessment unit is comprised of Manchester Harbor, Beverly Harbor, Danvers River, Forest River/South River/Salem Harbor, and Marblehead Harbor assessment units, as well as other areas directly tributary to Salem Sound. Most estuarine water bodies in the region are impaired for bacteria. Mooring fields and marinas are common. Eelgrass is present but the extent of other ecological habitats is relatively low.

23. MARBLEHEAD NECK/SWAMPSCOTT COAST: This region is heavily developed and contains 20% impervious cover,. The coastline itself is characterized by the high presence of seawalls and stabilization structures. Most of the open water zone contains shellfish habitat.

24. NAHANT BAY: Much of the land area around Nahant Bay is heavily developed. The bay itself is impaired for bacteria. Shellfish habitat is a major feature of the open water zones, and the majority of the coast consists of beaches and some rocky intertidal shore.

25. SAUGUS RIVER / PINES RIVER / LYNN HARBOR: This region is heavily developed and has very high impervious cover (28%). A portion of Lynn Harbor is dredged, and the harbor and other

Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program Estuary Assessment and Delineation 2.0

tributary estuaries are impaired for bacteria. The Lynn Regional WWTF discharges into Lynn Harbor. Seawalls are common along the coastline. Eelgrass beds are present in the eastern portion of the harbor. Revere Beach is a major feature of the coastline. Extensive salt marsh and tidal flats exist along Pines River.

26. BELLE ISLE CREEK / WINTHROP BAY: This region is a segment of the greater Boston Harbor assessment unit. It is highly developed and contains portions of Logan International Airport. The estuary is impaired for bacteria. Tidal flats are a predominant feature in the open water zone, and some eelgrass beds exist at the mouth of the embayment.

27. CHELSEA CREEK / MYSTIC RIVER / CHARLES RIVER: This region is a segment of the greater Boston Harbor assessment unit. It is highly developed, with impervious cover of 19%. The estuarine portion of the Charles River is dredged, and is also impaired for both bacteria and nutrients. Marinas are common along the coastline. The Mystic River is home to alewife, and rainbow smelt and shad use estuarine portions of the Charles River.

28. NEPONSET RIVER / DORCHESTER BAY: This region is a segment of the greater Boston Harbor assessment unit. Like other regions within the Boston Harbor area, it is highly developed. A dredged channel is located within the embayment. Dorchester Bay is impaired for bacteria, and the Neponset River is impaired for both bacteria and nutrients. Shad is the predominant anadromous fish species found in this area. Some tidal flats and salt marsh exist along the Neponset, but otherwise the presence of ecological resources is relatively low.

29. BLACKS CREEK / QUINCY BAY: This region is a segment of the greater Boston Harbor assessment unit. Compared to other Boston Harbor regions, it is relatively lightly developed (impervious cover is 10%). Quincy Bay itself is listed for bacterial impairment, and some portions of Blacks Creek are impaired for nutrients. Much of the coastline is characterized by seawalls and beaches (including Wollaston Beach), and shellfish habitat is prevalent in the near-shore areas.

30. BACK RIVER / FORE RIVER / HINGHAM BAY: This region is a segment of the greater Boston Harbor assessment unit. The embayment is impaired for bacteria and is characterized by a large dredged navigation area and several mooring fields. Many of the tributaries are utilized by alewife and rainbow smelt, and some eelgrass is present.

31. WEIR RIVER / STRAITS POND: This region is a segment of the greater Boston Harbor assessment unit. The Weir River is listed for bacterial impairment. Development in the region is lower than most other parts of the Boston Harbor area, with an impervious cover of 11%. The seaside coastline is characterized by beaches and some rocky intertidal shores.

32. BOSTON HARBOR: The Boston Harbor assessment unit contains several other previously discussed segments, from Belle Isle Creek/Winthrop Bay in the north to Weir River/Straits Pond in the south. Impervious cover is very high (27%) within this heavily urbanized area. Several portions of the harbor are dredged, and marinas and mooring fields are common. Bird habitat and nesting sites are common, especially in open water regions further from the coast.

33. LITTLE HARBOR: The Little Harbor region is relatively sparsely developed. Its northern coastline is comprised predominantly of rocky intertidal shore, and the harbor itself contains extensive tidal flats and a large area of shorebird habitat. Salt marshes fringe the harbor.

34. COHASSET HARBOR: Cohasset Harbor is the discharge point for Cohasset WWTF, and the harbor is impaired for bacteria. A small dredged channel is present in the harbor. The harbor is characterized by extensive tidal flats and a large eelgrass bed.

35. SCITUATE/COHASSET COAST: This inter-estuarine assessment unit is a moderately developed stretch of shoreline primarily characterized by coastal beach and rocky intertidal shore. Much of the coastline is affected by seawall/stabilization structures. 20

Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program Estuary Assessment and Delineation 2.0

36. SCITUATE HARBOR: Scituate Harbor is characterized by a large dredged region and a high extent of the open water zone is occupied by mooring fields. The seaside coastline is predominantly rocky intertidal shore, and within the harbor includes an extensive tidal flat and several eelgrass beds. Salt marshes are present in the southern portion of the assessment area.

37. NORTH RIVER / SOUTH RIVER: This assessment area is characterized by moderate levels of development (impervious cover = 9%). The estuarine waterbodies are impaired for bacteria. Septic system use appears to be common throughout this region. Several impoundments exist along tributaries to the two rivers. Salt marsh coverage is extensive, and the majority of the seaside coastline consists of coastal beach. Alewife and rainbow smelt use the rivers for spawning.

38. GREEN HARBOR: The Green Harbor River is impaired for nutrients. Due to tidal restriction, the extent of salt marsh in the region is relatively low. Much of the coastline is characterized by seawalls and coastal beaches. Bird habitat is extensive in the freshwater wetlands along Green Harbor River. Septic system use appears to be common throughout this region.

39. BLUEFISH RIVER / BACK RIVER / DUXBURY BAY: Shorebird habitat, shellfish habitat, and eelgrass beds are all predominant ecological resource features present in Duxbury Bay. An extensive salt marsh system exists in the northern portion of the assessment area. The seaside coastline is dominated by Duxbury Beach. Septic system use appears to be common throughout this region.

40. JONES RIVER / KINGSTON BAY: Shorebird habitat, shellfish habitat, and eelgrass beds are all predominant ecological resource features in Kingston Bay. Tributaries in this area are used by alewife, shad, and rainbow smelt. Wastewater discharge to groundwater from the Kingston WWTF is a significant stressor, as well as septic system use which is common throughout the region. The region is moderately urbanized, with impervious cover of 13%.

41. EEL RIVER / PLYMOUTH HARBOR: Shorebird habitat, shellfish habitat, and eelgrass beds are all predominant ecological resource features present in Plymouth Harbor. Tributaries in this region are used by alewife, rainbow smelt, and herring. The seaside coastline is dominated by Plymouth beach. A small portion of the harbor is dredged, and some mooring fields exist. The Plymouth WWTP discharges into Plymouth Harbor. The region is moderately urbanized, with impervious cover of 17% and a population density of 2.8 persons/ac..

42. ROCKY POINT: This assessment unit is a lightly developed stretch of coastline characterized by beaches and rocky intertidal shores. The presence of ecological resources is relatively low, although much of this stretch of coastline is suitable for shellfish habitat. The Pilgrim Power Station, which is scheduled to close down in 2019, discharges wastewater to the groundwater in this region.

43. BEAVER DAM BROOK/BARTLETT POND: This assessment unit contains relatively low amounts of marine ecological resources. Alewife are present, and the coastline is predominantly beach (White Horse Beach). Development in the area is moderately high, with impervious cover of 11%.

44. MANOMET / INDIAN BROOK: The predominant ecological stressors in this region consist of wastewater discharges to groundwater, with several permitted facilities located in the area. Much of the coastline has seawalls and other structures. Marine ecological resources appear to be sparse, except for shellfish habitat away from the shoreline.

Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program Estuary Assessment and Delineation 2.0

45. ELLISVILLE HARBOR: Ellisville Harbor is a lightly developed stretch of coastline. The harbor itself is impaired for bacteria. Salt marsh exists directly around the harbor, and some eelgrass beds lie off the shore. The predominant coastal feature consists of coastal dunes.

46. NAMELOC HEIGHTS: This stretch of coastline is fairly densely populated (2.9 persons/ac), although the extent of development with respect to intensity of land use and impervious cover is fairly low.. The coastline consists primarily of beaches, and a large eelgrass bed is present in the northern portion of the offshore area.

47. SCUSSET BEACH: Scusset Beach assessment area is moderately developed with an impervious cover of 11%. Septic system use appears to be the predominant stressor in the region. The coastline is characterized by the presence of beaches, although the extent of other ecological resources is relatively low.

48. GREAT HERRING POND / BOURNEDALE: The predominant ecological resources within this region are the herring and alewife runs present from the Cape Cod Canal to Great Herring Pond via the Herring River. Few other resources appear within the assessment area. Some impoundments exist, although they are associated with fish passage structures. The region is relatively lightly developed.

49. WEST SANDWICH: The West Sandwich assessment area contains some urbanized areas along the Cape Cod Canal but is otherwise lightly developed. There are few ecological resources in the area.

50. SANDWICH HARBOR: Sandwich Harbor is impaired for bacteria and septic system use is common in the region. Several impoundments are present on tributaries to the harbor. Much of the region around the harbor consists of salt marsh and associated bird habitat. The coastline consists of coastal beaches and dunes.

51. SCORTON CREEK: Salt marsh is the predominant ecological resource in this area, located directly around Scorton Creek itself. The coastline consists of coastal beaches and dunes. Wastewater discharge to groundwater is a predominant stressor, with several permitted facilities located in the assessment area. Septic system use is also common in the region.

52. BARNSTABLE HARBOR: Sandy Neck Beach is a predominant feature along the seaside coast of the Barnstable Harbor assessment area. Coastal dunes are prevalent along the coastline, and salt marsh, tidal flats, shorebird habitat, and shellfish habitat are extensive within the harbor itself. The harbor is impaired for bacteria. Development in the region is relatively low, although septic system use is common.

53. CHASE GARDEN CREEK: The assessment area is characterized by a high prevalence of salt marsh and shorebird habitat. The coastline contains a large coastal dune system and extensive tidal flats. The area is moderately developed, and wastewater discharges to groundwater, both from septic systems and permitted facilities, are the major stressors in the region.

54. NOBSCUSSET HARBOR: The Nobscusset Harbor coastline is characterized by extensive tidal flats and coastal dunes. Eelgrass is also present in the offshore areas. Several seawalls are found along the coast, and the area is moderately developed,

55. SESUIT CREEK / SESUIT HARBOR: The predominant ecological resources in the region are the alewife run and salt marsh system along Sesuit Creek. The harbor mouth is characterized by tidal flats and some coastal dunes. The navigable channel through the harbor appears dredged,

Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program Estuary Assessment and Delineation 2.0

and several marinas are located in the vicinity. The area is heavily developed, with 17% impervious cover. Septic system use is common.

56. QUIVETT CREEK: The Quivett Creek assessment area contains an extensive tidal flat in the offshore area. The coastline is comprised primarily of beaches and coastal dunes, and salt marsh stretches along the length of Quivett Creek. The creek is impaired for bacteria. Development in the region is moderately low

57. PAINE'S CREEK / STONY BROOK: This area contains extensive tidal flats and some eelgrass beds in the offshore area. Additional resources of note include alewife and herring runs along Stony Brook. Although multiple impoundments exist along Stony Brook, they appear to allow for anadromous fish passage. The region is lightly developed, but does contain moderate wastewater discharge to groundwater via permitted facilities and septic systems.

58. BREWSTER COAST: The shoreline of the Brewster Coast is characterized by extensive tidal flats, eelgrass beds, and shellfish habitat. Beaches and dunes predominate along the coastline. The area is moderately developed and contains several sources of permitted wastewater discharge to groundwater.

59. NAMSKAKET CREEK / LITTLE NAMSKAKET CREEK: The shoreline of the Namskaket Creek/Little Namskaket Creek assessment area is characterized by extensive tidal flats, eelgrass beds, and shorebird/shellfish habitat. Salt marsh surrounds the streams and estuarine waterbodies near the shore. Wastewater discharge to groundwater is a predominant stressor in the region, with several permitted facilities located in the assessment area. The area is sparsely developed except for the vicinity of the Rt. 6/Rt. 6A intersection.

60. BOAT MEADOW CREEK / ROCK HARBOR: This assessment area contains a high prevalence of many coastal resources and habitat, especially salt marsh and tidal flats. Alewife are present in Rock Harbor Creek. The region is sparsely developed except for areas around Rt. 6 in the southern portion of the watershed. The estuarine waterbodies are impaired for bacteria.

61. HERRING RIVER / HERRING POND: The offshore area of this assessment unit contains a high prevalence of tidal flat and eelgrass beds. Salt marsh is extensive in the inland portions of the assessment area. The region is lightly developed.

62. FIRST ENCOUNTER BEACH: The offshore area of this assessment unit contains a high prevalence of tidal flats and eelgrass beds. The coastline is exclusively classified as beach. The region is lightly developed.

63. HERRING BROOK / GREAT POND: The Herring Brook/Great Pond assessment area contains moderate levels of development, with 11% impervious cover. Great Pond itself is listed as impaired for nutrients. Few ecological resources exist in the assessment area except for the presence of alewife.

64. KINGSBURY BEACH TO COOKS BROOK BEACH: The predominant ecological resources in this area are offshore tidal flats and shellfish habitat. Much of the coastline is characterized by beaches accessible to the public, and the coastline includes several seawalls and other stabilization structures. Development within the area is relatively high and impervious cover is 13%.

65. WELLFLEET HARBOR: The Wellfleet Harbor assessment area contains extensive eelgrass beds outside the mouth of the harbor. Salt marshes surround the harbor and provide habitat for shorebirds. The overall assessment area is lightly developed, with a 3% impervious cover.

Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program Estuary Assessment and Delineation 2.0

Septic system use and other wastewater discharges to groundwater are the predominant stressors in the area.

66. PAMET RIVER / LITTLE PAMET RIVER: The coastline of this area is characterized by extensive coastal dunes. A moderate amount of salt marsh exists inland along the Pamet River. The offshore area contains both eelgrass beds and shellfish habitat and the watershed is characterized by low levels of development (6.2% impervious).

67. TRURO COAST: This rural assessment unit contains coastline on both sides of Cape Cod. The northern coastline features Head of the Meadow National Seashore and extensive dune systems. The southern coastline includes multiple publically accessible beaches with eelgrass beds in the nearshore area.

68. PROVINCETOWN HARBOR. Provincetown Harbor is moderately developed in and around Provincetown, but lightly developed elsewhere. The coastline is characterized by seawalls and other structures including multiple piers and a large jetty in the eastern portion of the harbor, as well as many publically accessible beaches. Wastewater discharge to groundwater is a predominant stressor due to the Provincetown WWTF. Eelgrass beds are prevalent within the harbor.

69. PROVINCETOWN COAST: The major ecological resource along the Provincetown Coast is the extensive coastal dune systems along Race Point Beach/National Seashore. The majority of the offshore area is occupied by shellfish habitat. The region is sparsely developed.

Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program Estuary Assessment and Delineation 2.0

4.2 Limitations, Data Gaps, and Next Steps

As discussed below, several limitations, data gaps, and opportunities for future analyses were identified over the course of the EDA 2.0 project.

a. Limited New Data for Trend Analysis

An initial goal for EDA 2.0 was to calculate observed temporal trends in the assessment areas that had been characterized in both EDA1.0 and EDA 2.0. There were two primary barriers to achieving this goal:

1. Many of the data sources used as attribute metrics have not been updated in the time between this EDA 2.0 effort and the original EDA1.0 in 2012. For example, census data is collected every 10 years, so population metrics could not be updated at this time and related trends could not be observed.

2. Due to updates in the delineation methods (particularly the use of the 10-meter bathymetric contour as the seaward boundary), assessment units that were part of the original 47 EDA1.0 estuarine watershed delineations were changed during the course of EDA 2.0. As a result, any comparison of temporal changes that occurred between the EDA1.0 and EDA 2.0 reports would include artificial differences due to the change in assessment unit shape, size, and extent of ocean included.

b. Data Availability for New Attribute Metrics

Over the course of the EDA 2.0 project, Geosyntec and MassBays determined that some proposed new attribute metrics should not be included, either because they did not align with the goals of the project, were lacking sufficient data, had limited data sets, or had data sets that are currently being updated. For example:

1. Kelp beds were intended to be included as a new resource metric. However, the kelp bed data available from MassGIS consists only of point locations. Without information about the areal extent of the kelp beds, the existing point data leads to equal weighting of very small and very large kelp beds. As such, it is not currently possible to provide a meaningful evaluation of the relative value and importance of this ecological resource between assessment areas.

2. Recreational boating use is primarily reflected in the attribute metrics for marinas (boat slips per area of estuarine water) and mooring fields (mooring field area as percentage of estuarine water). The metrics are based on dated and incomplete data that is currently being updated for the MassBays region by the Urban Harbors Institute.

3. Beach access data needs improvement. “Access points” are provided as point locations for each beach. However, this metric provides a very incomplete reflection of the true nature of public beach accessibility. Some beaches have multiple pedestrian access points, such as paths through coastal dunes, but may have very little public parking or other accommodations. Other beaches, such as Revere Beach, may be accessible to the public along their entire length, and access point data would not reflect this broad accessibility. At minimum, beach access data should be on par with the boating access data, which includes both parking spaces (i.e. accommodations for non-locals) and ramps (i.e. direct access once one is at the site).

4. As recommended by the MassBays Science and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC), the analyses of changing conditions in embayments would benefit from information on mean water depth, water volume (at mean tide), and flushing/residence time. STAC recognizes that these parameters (1) involve multiple variables and are difficult to

Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program Estuary Assessment and Delineation 2.0 estimate, and (2) may never have been estimated for many of the embayments in the MassBays region. Development of a coast-wide data set and methodology for calculating embayment flushing is recommended as a key next step to refine the usefulness and robustness of EDA analyses.

Tidal exchange and river inputs are the two primary processes on which a flushing estimate can be based. Tidal exchange can be estimated is a simple manner by the tidal prism method, where total embayment volume at mean sea level is divided by the volume of water in a layer as deep as embayment’s tidal range. For river inputs, the total volume of the embayment could be divided by the total estimated annual river discharge volume. This simplified approach could provide a reasonable starting point for characterizing embayment flushing/residence time and allowing for comparison among embayments. Such simplified estimates could certainly be refined over time with more intensive and costly modeling efforts, or replaced where such modeling estimates already exist for a limited subset of embayments. Important considerations for such an effort will include the availability of detailed bathymetry for embayments. Coastwide NOAA data currently available via MORIS are limited to 5-meter contours. Although usable as a starting point, more detailed bathymetric data would greatly help in refining the flushing/residence time estimates.

5. Septic system use data, provided by MassBays, should be improved over time with more detailed and location-specific data. c. Social/Economic Attributes:

Over the course of the EDA 2.0 project, there was considerable discussion regarding incorporation of new metrics to reflect the social and economic values of estuarine and inter- estuarine areas. For EDA 2.0, Geosyntec and MassBays ultimately focused on several metrics that reflect social values derived from accessibility and use of coastal resources. These metrics (public coastal beach access, coastal boat access, and marine beach quality) were incorporated into EDA 2.0 because they represent social attributes that had readily available data sets for the entire MassBays region.

A wide variety of other metrics were discussed as potentially useful, but ultimately abandoned due to lack of a coast-wide data set, and/or because the metric introduced complex social and economic factors that went beyond the physical boundaries of the MassBays region. For example, commercial fishing wharfs located within an embayment have clear economic value. More complicated is determining how much of that value is derived from the embayment itself, and how much is derived from fishing activities beyond the embayment in deeper ocean waters.

For other aspects of societal value, such as the non-extractive values derived from wildlife viewing or watching a sunset at the beach, there are simply no region-wide and region-specific data sets that exist. Determining such values typically involves intensive region-specific studies that were beyond the scope of the EDA 2.0 project. Such efforts may provide useful information for planning and properly recognizing societal valuation of coastal resources within the MassBays region, or within any of the five MassBays sub-regions. An example of this kind of investigation would be a hedonic valuation study that looks at housing prices. Hedonic valuation is based on the theory that, all else being equal, there is a consistent relationship between the value of homes and their proximity to an environmental good such as an ocean view or close walking distance to a beach. Although such studies may reveal useful information at the region or sub-regional level, it is worth noting that this approach may not provide data that would allow for relative comparison among the 69 estuarine and inter-estuarine assessment areas defined in EDA 2.0.

Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program Estuary Assessment and Delineation 2.0

Appendix A

Method for Estimating Annual Stormwater Runoff Volume

289 Great Road, Suite 105 Acton, Massachusetts 01720 PH 978.263.9588 FAX 978.263.9594 www.geosyntec.com

M emo ra ndum

Date: 04 September 2012

To: Prassede Vella, Massachusetts Bays Program (MBP)

From: Chad Yaindl, Geosyntec Consultants Robert Hartzel, Geosyntec Consultants

Subject: Estuary Assessment and Delineation Method for Estimating Annual Stormwater Runoff

Massachusetts Bays Program (MBP) has selected Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. (Geosyntec) to prepare an Estuary Assessment and Delineation that will lay the groundwork for MBP to periodically assess the health of estuarine systems within its planning area. This project is part of MBP’s overall process of reviewing and updating its Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP). The focus of the CCMP is 47 estuaries and embayments along the eastern coast of Massachusetts.

As part of the project, Geosyntec collected geospatial data representative of a number of indicators of estuarine ecologic health. In most cases, the data is readily available through public agencies such as MassDEP, USGS, USDA, etc. However, in the case of one important indicator, volume of stormwater runoff, no such data source exists. This memo outlines the method by which Geosyntec estimated stormwater runoff volume using other available data sources.

The general process to estimate stormwater runoff volume consisted of the following:

1. Create polygons that contain the intersected attributes of land use and hydrologic soil group (HSG); 2. Assign a Curve Number to each unique land use/HSG pairing; 3. Using a historic record of rainfall events over the past 50 years for the Boston area, determine the depth of annual runoff in inches for each Curve Number; 4. Assign annual runoff depth to each land use/HSG polygon; and 5. Calculate total annual runoff volume for each estuarine watershed using spatial analysis.

Land use types and polygons were obtained from the MassGIS Land Use 2005 data layer. Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) was determined using soil survey polygons and a soil properties database available from the USDA NRCS Soil Data Mart. The two polygon layers were

intersected in GIS to create a new polygon shapefile that contained the attributes of the original two datasets.

Curve Numbers are empirically-derived quantities used in the Soil Conservation Service Rainfall-Runoff model to represent the land use and soil type of a given area. Curve Numbers generally range from the mid 30’s (for a highly pervious, good condition forested area) to 98 (for a fully impervious, paved surface). Table 1 lists the various combinations of land use and HSG obtained from the intersection of the two data layers, and the Curve Numbers that were assigned to each. Curve Numbers were chosen from a listing of published values presented in Hydrologic Analysis and Design (Richard H. McCuen, 2005).

The SCS Rainfall-Runoff method is used to predict the amount of runoff generated by a given storm event. Geosyntec obtained records of individual precipitation events from the National Climatic Data Center precipitation monitoring station at Logan International Airport in Boston. The data lists the precipitation depth for all rainfall events from 1957-2008 (no data for year 1990), for a total of 51 years. Figure 1 shows the precipitation depth associated with the collection of events. The sum of all event depths divided by the number of years on record (51) resulted in an average annual precipitation of 46 inches.

Figure 1. Precipitation Event Depth, Logan International Airport, 1957-2008.

Table 1. Curve Numbers assigned to land use/hydrologic soil group pairs.

Hydrologic Soil Group Land Use Description A A/D B B/D C C/D D Brushland/Successional 35 56 56 67 70 74 77 Cemetery 49 69 77 79 82 84 Commercial 89 92 92 94 94 95 95 Cranberry Bog 35 56 56 67 70 77 Cropland 64 75 75 80 82 84 85 Forest 30 54 55 66 70 74 77 Forested Wetland 35 56 56 67 70 74 77 Golf Course 39 60 61 71 74 77 80 High Density Residential 77 85 85 87 90 91 92 Industrial 81 87 88 91 91 92 93 Junkyard 81 87 88 91 92 93 Low Density Residential 46 64 65 74 77 80 82 Marina 89 92 92 94 95 95 Medium Density Residential 51 68 68 76 79 82 84 Mining 81 87 88 91 91 92 Multi-Family Residential 77 85 85 87 90 91 92 Non-Forested Wetland 35 56 56 67 70 74 77 Nursery 89 92 92 94 95 95 Open Land 49 67 69 77 79 82 84 Orchard 72 81 86 88 89 91 Participation Recreation 89 92 92 94 94 95 95 Pasture 49 67 69 77 79 82 84 Powerline/Utility 49 67 69 77 79 82 84 Saltwater Wetland 35 56 56 67 70 74 77 Spectator Recreation 89 92 92 94 95 95 Transitional 49 67 69 77 79 82 84 Transportation 98 98 98 98 98 98 98 Urban Public/Institutional 89 92 92 94 94 95 95 Very Low Density Residential 46 64 65 74 77 80 82 Waste Disposal 49 67 69 77 79 82 84 Water-Based Recreation 89 92 92 94 94 95 95

For each event, i, runoff depth was calculated assuming a given curve number, j, using the SCS rainfall-runoff formula:

where Qi,j is the runoff depth in inches for event i and curve number j, Pi is the precipitation depth in inches for event i, and

where CNj is the curve number.

Annual runoff depth for a given curve number was calculated by adding together all the individual event runoff depths for that curve number and dividing by the number of years on record. Each annual runoff depth was then compared to the annual precipitation depth as shown in Figure 2, resulting in a ratio of annual runoff to annual precipitation, Q/P.

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

Annual Precipitation Annual Ratio of of Ratio Annual Runoff to 0 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Curve No.

Figure 2. Ratio of Annual Runoff to Annual Precipitation for a range of Curve Numbers.

Values of the ratio Q/P were then assigned to each land use/HSG polygon according to the Curve Number associated with each polygon. These polygons were converted to a raster whose value was the Q/P ratio. Annual Precipitation for Massachusetts was determined using a dataset from USDA, shown below in Figure 3. This dataset was also rasterized. The multiplication of the Q/P raster and the Annual Precipitation raster created a resulting raster whose value was annual

runoff depth in inches (Figure 4). Spatial analysis was used to calculate the zonal mean value of the annual runoff depth raster for each watershed. Multiplying the average runoff depth of a watershed by its area resulted in an estimate of the total annual stormwater runoff volume for the watershed.

Figure 3. USDA Annual Precipitation, inches (http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/)

Figure 4. Example of annual stormwater runoff raster, Salem Sound.

Annual runoff depths for the 47 estuarine watersheds ranged from 0.8 inches per year (Pamet River/Little Pamet River) to 14.5 inches per year (Chelsea Creek/Mystic River/Charles River). As a comparison, USGS provides maps of mean annual runoff for the northeastern United States (Randall, 1996). The ‘runoff’ estimates displayed on these maps include both stormwater runoff and groundwater infiltration (i.e., any water that is not lost through evapotranspiration). The general value for eastern Massachusetts is 22-26 inches. In other words, in the Chelsea Creek/Mystic River/Charles river estuarine watershed, approximately 45 inches of precipitation occurs per year. Approximately half of that is lost to evapotranspiration, and of the remaining 22 inches, 14.5 inches is direct stormwater runoff and 7.5 inches infiltrates and enters the groundwater. Comparison of the annual stormwater runoff estimates to the USGS mean annual runoff estimates provides a good qualitative check on the results, in that none of the estimates of stormwater runoff exceed the USGS estimate of mean annual runoff.

Massachusetts Bays Program Estuarine Assessment and Delineation 2.0

Appendix B: Watershed Delineation Maps

Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program Estuarine Delineation and Assessment 2.0

Appendix C

Results of Estuarine and Inter-Estuarine Watershed Characterization

Page 1 of 11 APPENDIX E 6/1/2017 Results of Estuarine Watershed Characterization Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.

High Intensity Land Use Stormwater Runoff Imperviousness Population Wastewater Discharge to Surface Water

Area of High Estimated Number of Wastewater Wastewater Total Area of Open Intensity High Intensity Estimated Population Treatment Plants Treatment Plant Watershed Coastal Land Water Land Use Land Use (% of Estimated Stormwater Stormwater Volume Impervious Estimated Density discharging to surface Permitted Flow Rate Id Estuarine Watershed Name Area Length (m) (acres) (acres) (acres) Land Area) Volume (ac-ft/yr) (in/yr) Impervious Area (acres) Area (%) Population (persons/ac) water (MGD) 1 BLACK ROCK CREEK 3276 5504 2768 508 609 18.6% 1298 4.75 269 8.2% 3158 0.96 0 0.0 2 MERRIMACK RIVER 11902 34369 9065 2837 2637 22.2% 6303 6.36 1182 9.9% 25041 2.10 3 28.7 3 PARKER RIVER 7660 12868 7198 463 1548 20.2% 3177 4.98 341 4.5% 2588 0.34 0 0.0 4 ROWLEY RIVER 3185 10700 2935 250 414 13.0% 1174 4.42 142 4.5% 887 0.28 0 0.0 5 IPSWICH RIVER 6024 21599 5638 387 1995 33.1% 2854 5.68 488 8.1% 7557 1.25 1 1.8 6 PLUM ISLAND SOUND 28834 128453 23847 4987 4651 16.1% 12093 5.03 193 0.7% 5710 0.20 0 0.0 7 ESSEX RIVER / ESSEX BAY 12633 63531 11239 1394 1885 14.9% 4270 4.06 470 3.7% 4580 0.36 0 0.0 8 ANNISQUAM RIVER 5650 51281 4884 766 1529 27.1% 2979 6.33 669 11.8% 11328 2.00 0 0.0 9 LANESVILLE COAST/HALIBUT POINT 2380 10221 1907 473 611 25.7% 588 2.97 166 7.0% 2483 1.04 0 0.0 10 ROCKPORT HARBOR (SANDY BAY) 2477 8401 1554 923 739 29.8% 1311 6.35 302 12.2% 7187 2.90 1 0.8 11 LONG BEACH 2503 12586 1552 951 527 21.1% 970 4.65 156 6.3% 2232 0.89 0 0.0 12 GOOD HARBOR 2639 9178 2015 624 862 32.6% 1380 6.27 367 13.9% 4491 1.70 0 0.0 13 GLOUCESTER HARBOR 3142 18631 1604 1538 911 29.0% 2584 9.87 466 14.8% 18557 5.91 1 7.2 14 MAGNOLIA COAST 1022 6718 381 641 227 22.2% 450 5.28 84 8.2% 1803 1.76 0 0.0 15 KETTLE COVE 1512 1862 1437 75 387 25.6% 540 4.28 147 9.7% 1503 0.99 0 0.0 16 MANCHESTER COAST 603 6100 269 334 139 23.1% 174 3.47 27 4.5% 415 0.69 0 0.0 17 MANCHESTER HARBOR 4296 6840 3966 329 1112 25.9% 1603 4.48 430 10.0% 4494 1.05 0 0.0 18 BEVERLY HARBOR 21690 64340 20366 1324 13506 62.3% 25728 14.23 1 0.0% 6405 0.30 0 0.0 19 DANVERS RIVER 19457 28038 18734 724 12400 63.7% 16872 10.41 6341 32.6% 99817 5.13 0 0.0 20 FOREST RIVER/ SOUTH RIVER/ SALEM HARBOR 4798 15877 3659 1139 2250 46.9% 4502 11.26 1453 30.3% 35473 7.39 0 0.0 21 MARBLEHEAD HARBOR 1740 10550 1194 546 934 53.7% 1891 13.04 474 27.3% 13446 7.73 0 0.0 22 SALEM SOUND 41241 172546 32992 8248 18961 46.0% 17673 5.14 996 2.4% 138769 3.36 2 30.9 23 MARBLEHEAD NECK/SWAMPSCOTT COAST 2911 10956 1712 1199 1369 47.0% 3077 12.68 579 19.9% 17244 5.92 0 0.0 24 NAHANT BAY 4769 13346 1625 3144 1213 25.4% 6253 15.73 708 14.9% 72962 15.30 0 0.0 25 SAUGUS RIVER / PINES RIVER / LYNN HARBOR 17132 51526 10864 6269 7167 41.8% 18750 13.13 4705 27.5% 222479 12.99 1 25.8 26 BELLE ISLE CREEK / WINTHROP BAY 4469 28504 3427 1042 2468 55.2% 6670 17.91 1456 32.6% 43353 9.70 0 0.0 27 CHELSEA CREEK / MYSTIC RIVER / CHARLES RIVER 16522 71007 13865 2657 12629 76.4% 26156 19.00 9764 59.1% 315879 19.12 0 0.0 28 NEPONSET RIVER / DORCHESTER BAY 11823 36760 9666 2157 7917 67.0% 15881 16.12 5346 45.2% 230260 19.48 0 0.0 29 BLACKS CREEK / QUINCY BAY 5331 14417 1825 3506 1091 20.5% 4442 10.00 553 10.4% 60491 11.35 0 0.0 30 BACK RIVER / FORE RIVER / HINGHAM BAY 19155 89076 10434 8721 5870 30.6% 14698 9.21 3038 15.9% 127180 6.64 1 3.1 31 WEIR RIVER / STRAITS POND 4321 22771 2990 1331 1139 26.4% 1939 5.39 484 11.2% 8655 2.00 0 0.0 32 BOSTON HARBOR 77331 561526 43285 34046 31303 40.5% 58453 9.07 101 0.1% 96267 1.24 0 0.0 33 LITTLE HARBOR 1704 13827 1048 656 496 29.1% 827 5.82 114 6.7% 2832 1.66 0 0.0 34 COHASSET HARBOR 6005 24664 4369 1636 2005 33.4% 2876 5.75 589 9.8% 10174 1.69 1 0.1 35 SCITUATE/COHASSET COAST 1168 3141 583 586 381 32.6% 886 9.10 142 12.2% 4903 4.20 0 0.0 36 SCITUATE HARBOR 2554 9971 1724 830 968 37.9% 1503 7.06 312 12.2% 6468 2.53 0 0.0 37 NORTH RIVER / SOUTH RIVER 14946 51701 12999 1946 4274 28.6% 5702 4.58 1376 9.2% 15722 1.05 1 1.6 38 GREEN HARBOR 5011 8915 2865 2146 1119 22.3% 2975 7.12 450 9.0% 11189 2.23 0 0.0 39 BLUEFISH RIVER / BACK RIVER / DUXBURY BAY 12928 56170 5202 7727 1587 12.3% 3869 3.59 499 3.9% 12349 0.96 0 0.0 40 JONES RIVER / KINGSTON BAY 7861 14323 4923 2938 2461 31.3% 3911 5.97 980 12.5% 16070 2.04 0 0.0 41 EEL RIVER / PLYMOUTH HARBOR 5343 14600 3666 1677 2004 37.5% 2482 5.57 909 17.0% 15070 2.82 1 1.8 42 ROCKY POINT 1903 6478 1105 798 290 15.2% 578 3.64 137 7.2% 1382 0.73 0 0.0 43 BEAVER DAM BROOK/BARTLETT POND 4165 2615 3490 675 1366 32.8% 788 2.27 473 11.4% 6235 1.50 0 0.0 44 MANOMET / INDIAN BROOK 7915 8848 5643 2273 1193 15.1% 990 1.50 509 6.4% 7488 0.95 0 0.0 45 ELLISVILLE HARBOR 3579 3805 2329 1251 464 13.0% 492 1.65 229 6.4% 2208 0.62 0 0.0 46 NAMELOC HEIGHTS 2236 3846 556 1680 283 12.7% 349 1.88 95 4.2% 6500 2.91 0 0.0 47 SCUSSET BEACH 3413 6584 2519 894 885 25.9% 931 3.27 392 11.5% 4580 1.34 0 0.0 48 GREAT HERRING POND / BOURNEDALE 3498 0 2884 614 799 22.8% 575 1.97 329 9.4% 2911 0.83 0 0.0 49 WEST SANDWICH 3448 3881 3421 27 627 18.2% 752 2.62 362 10.5% 1645 0.48 0 0.0 50 SANDWICH HARBOR 8723 12165 7781 942 1523 17.5% 2046 2.81 736 8.4% 4927 0.56 0 0.0 51 SCORTON CREEK 7671 3126 6871 800 1780 23.2% 1369 2.14 648 8.4% 6694 0.87 0 0.0 52 BARNSTABLE HARBOR 22298 64868 19735 2563 3846 17.2% 6152 3.31 1509 6.8% 10713 0.48 0 0.0 53 CHASE GARDEN CREEK 5484 7338 5083 402 1788 32.6% 1377 3.01 656 12.0% 6586 1.20 0 0.0 54 NOBSCUSSET HARBOR 1486 6239 1371 116 648 43.6% 269 2.17 199 13.4% 979 0.66 0 0.0 55 SESUIT CREEK / SESUIT HARBOR 1695 2178 1587 108 760 44.8% 301 2.13 287 16.9% 1667 0.98 0 0.0 56 QUIVETT CREEK 2247 4318 2154 93 423 18.8% 323 1.72 171 7.6% 1348 0.60 0 0.0 57 PAINE'S CREEK / STONY BROOK 4704 2444 4076 628 843 17.9% 694 1.77 344 7.3% 3077 0.65 0 0.0 58 BREWSTER COAST 6078 5101 4519 1559 1591 26.2% 1125 2.22 531 8.7% 5705 0.94 0 0.0 59 NAMSKAKET CREEK / LITTLE NAMSKAKET CREEK 4051 4039 3318 733 744 18.4% 1038 3.07 337 8.3% 2306 0.57 0 0.0 60 BOAT MEADOW CREEK / ROCK HARBOR 1781 4765 1583 198 451 25.3% 634 4.27 173 9.7% 1733 0.97 0 0.0 61 HERRING RIVER / HERRING POND 1212 3785 907 304 291 24.1% 263 2.61 46 3.8% 541 0.45 0 0.0 62 FIRST ENCOUNTER BEACH 331 1081 237 94 47 14.1% 44 1.61 13 4.0% 180 0.54 0 0.0 63 HERRING BROOK / GREAT POND 884 53 677 207 138 15.6% 108 1.47 96 10.9% 543 0.61 0 0.0 64 KINGSBURY BEACH TO COOKS BROOK BEACH 2043 4692 1947 96 883 43.2% 201 1.18 270 13.2% 1710 0.84 0 0.0 65 WELLFLEET HARBOR 31968 53808 13788 18179 1963 6.1% 4174 1.57 975 3.1% 8576 0.27 0 0.0 66 PAMET RIVER / LITTLE PAMET RIVER 5108 8402 3674 1434 525 10.3% 443 1.04 319 6.2% 1002 0.20 0 0.0 67 TRURO COAST 5557 8694 3463 2094 808 14.5% 613 1.32 426 7.7% 1838 0.33 0 0.0 68 PROVINCETOWN HARBOR 7821 18615 3634 4187 664 8.5% 3406 5.23 460 5.9% 6243 0.80 0 0.0 69 PROVINCETOWN COAST 8031 27323 4410 3621 85 1.1% 1371 2.05 112 1.4% 17 0.00 0 0.0

Page 2 of 11 APPENDIX E 6/1/2017 Results of Estuarine Watershed Characterization Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.

Wastewater Discharge to Groundwater Septic System Use Designated Shellfish Growing Area Status

Estimated Facilities discharging Flowrate from Estimated Percentage of flowrate Percentage wastewater to facilities discharging Population population from septic Conditionally Conditionally Conditionally groundwater wastewater to using septic using septic systems Approved Prohibited Approved Restricted Management Restricted Approved or Id Estuarine Watershed Name (>10,000 gal/day) groundwater (MGD) systems systems (MGD) (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Close (acres) (acres) TOTAL (acres) Approved 1 BLACK ROCK CREEK 0 0.000 1322 42% 0.092 0.0 525.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 525 0% 2 MERRIMACK RIVER 1 0.036 2136 9% 0.148 0.0 1856.8 686.9 1222.3 0.0 0.0 3766 18% 3 PARKER RIVER 1 0.015 1389 54% 0.096 155.2 300.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 456 34% 4 ROWLEY RIVER 0 0.000 701 79% 0.049 243.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 244 100% 5 IPSWICH RIVER 0 0.000 3522 47% 0.244 284.0 92.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 377 75% 6 PLUM ISLAND SOUND 1 0.015 783 14% 0.054 3665.5 485.3 920.9 51.4 0.0 0.0 5123 90% 7 ESSEX RIVER / ESSEX BAY 0 0.000 1885 41% 0.131 1877.9 107.1 82.6 0.0 0.0 29.7 2097 93% 8 ANNISQUAM RIVER 0 0.000 4383 39% 0.304 816.2 169.9 141.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1128 85% 9 LANESVILLE COAST/HALIBUT POINT 0 0.000 991 40% 0.069 0.0 85.8 378.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 464 82% 10 ROCKPORT HARBOR (SANDY BAY) 0 0.000 2307 32% 0.160 0.0 765.5 149.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 915 16% 11 LONG BEACH 0 0.000 702 31% 0.049 0.0 281.5 692.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 974 71% 12 GOOD HARBOR 0 0.000 1783 40% 0.124 0.0 480.2 113.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 594 19% 13 GLOUCESTER HARBOR 0 0.000 4744 26% 0.329 0.0 1557.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1557 0% 14 MAGNOLIA COAST 0 0.000 535 30% 0.037 0.0 408.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 408 0% 15 KETTLE COVE 0 0.000 450 30% 0.031 0.0 66.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 66 0% 16 MANCHESTER COAST 0 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.0 348.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 348 0% 17 MANCHESTER HARBOR 0 0.000 68 2% 0.005 0.0 329.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 329 0% 18 BEVERLY HARBOR 0 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.0 1361.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1362 0% 19 DANVERS RIVER 0 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.0 712.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 713 0% 20 FOREST RIVER/ SOUTH RIVER/ SALEM HARBOR 0 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.0 1133.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1133 0% 21 MARBLEHEAD HARBOR 0 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.0 562.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 562 0% 22 SALEM SOUND 0 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.0 8322.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8323 0% 23 MARBLEHEAD NECK/SWAMPSCOTT COAST 0 0.000 0 0% 0.000 123.7 1094.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1218 10% 24 NAHANT BAY 0 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.0 3187.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3187 0% 25 SAUGUS RIVER / PINES RIVER / LYNN HARBOR 0 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.0 6600.0 0.0 432.1 0.0 0.0 7032 0% 26 BELLE ISLE CREEK / WINTHROP BAY 0 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.0 1188.6 0.0 405.6 0.0 0.0 1594 0% 27 CHELSEA CREEK / MYSTIC RIVER / CHARLES RIVER 0 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.0 2740.9 0.0 127.7 0.0 0.0 2869 0% 28 NEPONSET RIVER / DORCHESTER BAY 0 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.0 2405.6 0.0 185.3 0.0 0.0 2591 0% 29 BLACKS CREEK / QUINCY BAY 0 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.0 3354.2 0.0 486.7 0.0 0.0 3841 0% 30 BACK RIVER / FORE RIVER / HINGHAM BAY 0 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.0 8455.5 0.0 1158.1 0.0 0.0 9614 0% 31 WEIR RIVER / STRAITS POND 0 0.000 536 6% 0.037 0.0 1002.1 0.0 307.1 0.0 0.0 1309 0% 32 BOSTON HARBOR 0 0.000 0 0% 0.000 0.0 33720.9 0.0 2912.9 0.0 0.0 36634 0% 33 LITTLE HARBOR 0 0.000 808 29% 0.056 0.0 477.2 244.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 721 34% 34 COHASSET HARBOR 1 0.019 3523 35% 0.244 0.0 292.4 1585.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1878 84% 35 SCITUATE/COHASSET COAST 0 0.000 1322 27% 0.092 0.0 0.0 594.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 594 100% 36 SCITUATE HARBOR 0 0.000 2166 33% 0.150 0.0 193.3 712.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 905 79% 37 NORTH RIVER / SOUTH RIVER 1 0.013 7549 48% 0.523 606.3 366.1 1264.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2237 84% 38 GREEN HARBOR 0 0.000 3331 30% 0.231 0.0 265.9 1788.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2054 87% 39 BLUEFISH RIVER / BACK RIVER / DUXBURY BAY 1 0.031 3969 32% 0.275 106.1 19.8 7945.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 8071 100% 40 JONES RIVER / KINGSTON BAY 1 0.500 6145 38% 0.426 715.0 521.1 1675.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 2912 82% 41 EEL RIVER / PLYMOUTH HARBOR 1 0.014 5208 35% 0.361 0.0 1488.4 179.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1668 11% 42 ROCKY POINT 1 0.038 364 26% 0.025 0.0 296.4 523.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 819 64% 43 BEAVER DAM BROOK/BARTLETT POND 1 0.02 2754 44% 0.191 0.0 455.1 27.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 482 6% 44 MANOMET / INDIAN BROOK 4 0.736 2773 37% 0.192 0.0 84.5 1968.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 2053 96% 45 ELLISVILLE HARBOR 0 0.000 747 34% 0.052 0.0 7.9 1153.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1162 99% 46 NAMELOC HEIGHTS 0 0.000 956 15% 0.066 0.0 0.0 1679.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1680 100% 47 SCUSSET BEACH 1 0.022 3388 74% 0.235 0.0 9.9 879.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 889 99% 48 GREAT HERRING POND / BOURNEDALE 1 0.080 1662 57% 0.115 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0% 49 WEST SANDWICH 1 0.026 1631 99% 0.113 0.0 17.3 8.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 25 32% 50 SANDWICH HARBOR 0 0.000 4402 89% 0.305 43.8 54.2 821.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 919 94% 51 SCORTON CREEK 3 0.066 6129 92% 0.425 0.0 74.6 549.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 624 88% 52 BARNSTABLE HARBOR 0 0.000 5381 50% 0.373 659.2 92.6 3135.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 3888 98% 53 CHASE GARDEN CREEK 1 0.165 5706 87% 0.395 63.9 54.9 667.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 786 93% 54 NOBSCUSSET HARBOR 0 0.000 768 78% 0.053 0.0 0.0 289.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 290 100% 55 SESUIT CREEK / SESUIT HARBOR 0 0.000 1625 97% 0.113 41.1 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 45 100% 56 QUIVETT CREEK 0 0.000 1052 78% 0.073 0.0 16.2 422.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 439 96% 57 PAINE'S CREEK / STONY BROOK 1 0.032 2470 80% 0.171 0.0 7.9 902.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 911 99% 58 BREWSTER COAST 2 0.048258 3274 57% 0.227 0.0 0.0 2567.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 2568 100% 59 NAMSKAKET CREEK / LITTLE NAMSKAKET CREEK 4 0.135 1356 59% 0.094 108.1 15.7 820.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 945 98% 60 BOAT MEADOW CREEK / ROCK HARBOR 1 0.012 853 49% 0.059 10.9 32.4 418.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 462 93% 61 HERRING RIVER / HERRING POND 0 0.000 289 53% 0.020 0.0 29.1 502.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 532 95% 62 FIRST ENCOUNTER BEACH 0 0.000 42 24% 0.003 0.0 0.0 247.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 248 100% 63 HERRING BROOK / GREAT POND 1 0.029 547 101% 0.038 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 100% 64 KINGSBURY BEACH TO COOKS BROOK BEACH 0 0.000 1205 70% 0.084 0.0 0.0 596.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 597 100% 65 WELLFLEET HARBOR 2 0.056 3180 37% 0.220 193.5 86.1 19351.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 19631 100% 66 PAMET RIVER / LITTLE PAMET RIVER 0 0.000 707 71% 0.049 35.7 16.7 1383.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1436 99% 67 TRURO COAST 0 0.000 1133 62% 0.079 0.0 0.0 2081.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2082 100% 68 PROVINCETOWN HARBOR 1 0.650 1483 24% 0.103 136.5 595.4 3625.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 4357 86% 69 PROVINCETOWN COAST 0 0.000 4 25% 0.000 55.7 27.6 3596.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 3680 99%

Page 3 of 11 APPENDIX E 6/1/2017 Results of Estuarine Watershed Characterization Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.

303(d) listed impairments (waterbodies) 303(d) listed impairments (streams) Crossings/Impoundments

Total Number of Number of Road Nutrient Bacteria Total Nutrient Bacteria Assessed Impoundments Number of Road Number of Road Crossings in Tidal Listing Listing Assessed Nutrient Bacteria Listing Listing Length Nutrient Bacteria without fish Number of Road Crossings per Crossings in Tidal Areas per square Id Estuarine Watershed Name (acres) (acres) Area (ac) Listing (%) Listing (%) (miles) (miles) (miles) Listing (%) Listing (%) passage structure Crossings square mile Areas mile 1 BLACK ROCK CREEK 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 1 8 1.8 7 1.62 2 MERRIMACK RIVER 0.0 2669.7 2669.7 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 0 67 4.7 42 2.97 3 PARKER RIVER 0.0 485.0 487.3 0.0% 99.5% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0% 1 53 4.7 4 0.36 4 ROWLEY RIVER 0.0 181.4 181.4 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0% 0.0% 0 7 1.5 7 1.53 5 IPSWICH RIVER 0.0 301.5 301.5 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 3.7 6.2 0.0% 59.5% 3 33 3.7 28 3.18 6 PLUM ISLAND SOUND 0.0 4315.8 4318.1 0.0% 99.9% 0.0 3.7 7.1 0.0% 52.0% 4 107 2.9 52 1.40 7 ESSEX RIVER / ESSEX BAY 0.0 947.3 947.3 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0% 100.0% 1 51 2.9 42 2.39 8 ANNISQUAM RIVER 3.3 587.4 618.9 0.5% 94.9% 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0% 0.0% 6 48 6.3 41 5.37 9 LANESVILLE COAST/HALIBUT POINT 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 0 14 4.7 7 2.35 10 ROCKPORT HARBOR (SANDY BAY) 0.0 221.4 228.8 0.0% 96.7% 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 2 4 1.6 4 1.65 11 LONG BEACH 0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 0 8 3.3 7 2.89 12 GOOD HARBOR 0.0 0.0 77.4 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 1 16 5.1 16 5.08 13 GLOUCESTER HARBOR 0.0 1486.6 1491.0 0.0% 99.7% 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 3 9 3.6 5 1.99 14 MAGNOLIA COAST 7.1 0.6 7.7 92.5% 7.5% 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 1 5 8.4 4 6.73 15 KETTLE COVE 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 0 14 6.2 11 4.90 16 MANCHESTER COAST 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 0 53 126.0 0 0.00 17 MANCHESTER HARBOR 0.0 309.4 309.4 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 2.8 2.8 0.0% 100.0% 4 53 8.6 18 2.90 18 BEVERLY HARBOR 0.0 1349.4 1490.7 0.0% 90.5% 6.2 9.1 14.2 43.9% 63.9% 19 218 6.9 62 1.95 19 DANVERS RIVER 0.0 701.2 842.5 0.0% 83.2% 6.2 9.1 14.2 43.9% 63.9% 18 180 6.1 43 1.47 20 FOREST RIVER/ SOUTH RIVER/ SALEM HARBOR 0.0 1100.3 1116.8 0.0% 98.5% 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 0 41 7.2 28 4.90 21 MARBLEHEAD HARBOR 0.0 560.9 560.9 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 0 7 3.8 7 3.75 22 SALEM SOUND 0.0 8254.1 8411.8 0.0% 98.1% 6.2 11.8 17.0 36.8% 69.8% 23 364 7.1 128 2.48 23 MARBLEHEAD NECK/SWAMPSCOTT COAST 0.0 4.6 4.6 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 0 5 1.9 3 1.12 24 NAHANT BAY 0.0 3271.5 3271.5 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 0 5 2.0 5 1.97 25 SAUGUS RIVER / PINES RIVER / LYNN HARBOR 0.0 5870.7 5870.7 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0% 100.0% 2 70 4.1 69 4.06 26 BELLE ISLE CREEK / WINTHROP BAY 0.0 1619.1 1620.2 0.0% 99.9% 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 0 15 2.8 15 2.80 27 CHELSEA CREEK / MYSTIC RIVER / CHARLES RIVER 0.0 2651.0 2654.7 0.0% 99.9% 5.0 5.0 5.0 100.0% 100.0% 4 138 6.4 129 5.95 28 NEPONSET RIVER / DORCHESTER BAY 0.0 2658.2 2658.2 0.0% 100.0% 1.5 1.8 1.8 81.4% 100.0% 1 42 2.8 38 2.52 29 BLACKS CREEK / QUINCY BAY 0.0 3802.9 3802.9 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0% 0.0% 0 19 6.7 19 6.66 30 BACK RIVER / FORE RIVER / HINGHAM BAY 0.0 8953.1 8953.1 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 1.1 1.1 0.0% 100.0% 0 50 3.1 50 3.07 31 WEIR RIVER / STRAITS POND 0.0 532.3 532.3 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0% 100.0% 3 21 4.5 17 3.64 32 BOSTON HARBOR 0.0 30650.1 30654.9 0.0% 100.0% 6.5 8.4 8.6 75.3% 97.2% 8 289 4.3 271 4.01 33 LITTLE HARBOR 0.0 153.9 153.9 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 1 12 7.3 12 7.33 34 COHASSET HARBOR 69.8 651.0 651.0 10.7% 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0% 0.0% 1 25 3.7 23 3.37 35 SCITUATE/COHASSET COAST 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 0 1 1.1 1 1.10 36 SCITUATE HARBOR 0.0 206.2 206.2 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 0 11 4.1 11 4.08 37 NORTH RIVER / SOUTH RIVER 0.2 921.0 921.2 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0% 0.0% 8 47 2.3 25 1.23 38 GREEN HARBOR 0.0 50.2 56.7 0.0% 88.6% 4.6 0.0 4.6 100.0% 0.0% 1 12 2.7 11 2.46 39 BLUEFISH RIVER / BACK RIVER / DUXBURY BAY 0.0 5298.0 5904.4 0.0% 89.7% 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 2 19 2.3 15 1.85 40 JONES RIVER / KINGSTON BAY 0.0 2912.6 2919.9 0.0% 99.8% 1.0 0.0 1.0 100.0% 0.0% 10 50 6.5 24 3.12 41 EEL RIVER / PLYMOUTH HARBOR 0.0 1634.7 1638.6 0.0% 99.8% 0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0% 0.0% 3 29 5.1 28 4.89 42 ROCKY POINT 0.0 0.0 424.5 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 0 0 0.0 0 0.00 43 BEAVER DAM BROOK/BARTLETT POND 0.0 0.0 155.4 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 3 16 2.9 3 0.55 44 MANOMET / INDIAN BROOK 0.0 0.0 155.4 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 4 40 4.5 14 1.59 45 ELLISVILLE HARBOR 0.0 7.5 72.1 0.0% 10.4% 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 0 7 1.9 4 1.10 46 NAMELOC HEIGHTS 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 0 0 0.0 0 0.00 47 SCUSSET BEACH 0.0 19.4 19.4 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 0 10 2.5 6 1.52 48 GREAT HERRING POND / BOURNEDALE 0.0 0.0 582.9 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 2 28 6.2 0 0.00 49 WEST SANDWICH 0.0 27.9 27.9 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 0 6 1.1 2 0.37 50 SANDWICH HARBOR 0.0 86.0 131.5 0.0% 65.4% 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 6 23 1.9 18 1.48 51 SCORTON CREEK 0.0 21.7 186.5 0.0% 11.6% 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 2 14 1.3 9 0.84 52 BARNSTABLE HARBOR 0.0 2082.3 2093.3 0.0% 99.5% 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 1 0 0.0 27 0.88 53 CHASE GARDEN CREEK 0.0 85.0 91.5 0.0% 92.9% 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 1 16 2.0 11 1.39 54 NOBSCUSSET HARBOR 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 0 13 6.1 8 3.74 55 SESUIT CREEK / SESUIT HARBOR 0.0 8.0 62.3 0.0% 12.8% 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 0 10 4.0 8 3.23 56 QUIVETT CREEK 0.0 24.5 24.5 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 0 8 2.4 8 2.38 57 PAINE'S CREEK / STONY BROOK 45.1 0.0 295.5 15.3% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 1 16 2.5 14 2.20 58 BREWSTER COAST 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 1 17 2.4 0 0.00 59 NAMSKAKET CREEK / LITTLE NAMSKAKET CREEK 0.0 22.5 213.3 0.0% 10.5% 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 1 5 1.0 5 0.96 60 BOAT MEADOW CREEK / ROCK HARBOR 16.6 50.0 66.6 24.9% 75.1% 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 0 12 4.9 11 4.45 61 HERRING RIVER / HERRING POND 0.0 0.0 42.4 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 0 1 0.7 1 0.71 62 FIRST ENCOUNTER BEACH 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 0 0 0.0 0 0.00 63 HERRING BROOK / GREAT POND 109.2 0.0 135.2 80.8% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 1 4 3.8 3 2.83 64 KINGSBURY BEACH TO COOKS BROOK BEACH 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 0 0 0.0 0 0.00 65 WELLFLEET HARBOR 0.2 347.1 5904.1 0.0% 5.9% 0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0% 0.0% 0 46 2.1 25 1.16 66 PAMET RIVER / LITTLE PAMET RIVER 0.0 89.2 89.2 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 0 9 1.6 8 1.39 67 TRURO COAST 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 0 1 0.2 1 0.18 68 PROVINCETOWN HARBOR 0.0 3090.2 3129.8 0.0% 98.7% 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 1 5 0.9 1 0.18 69 PROVINCETOWN COAST 0.0 1.3 1.3 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 0 2 0.3 0 0.00

Page 4 of 11 APPENDIX E 6/1/2017 Results of Estuarine Watershed Characterization Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.

Tidal Restriction Beach Action Days Mooring Fields Marinas

CAPS Area of Tidal 2012-2015 Count of Boat CAPS Area of Tidal Restriction per Action Days - Action Days - Action Days - Action Days - Average Mooring Field Area % Mooring Field per Number of Boat Slips per Estuary Id Estuarine Watershed Name Restriction (acres) watershed area 2012 2013 2014 2015 Action Days/yr (acres) Water Area Slips Water Area 1 BLACK ROCK CREEK 1.1 0.0% 0 0 2 0 0.5 0.0 0.00% 0 0.00 2 MERRIMACK RIVER 2292.1 19.3% 0 0 2 0 0.5 94.4 3.33% 635 0.22 3 PARKER RIVER 3381.5 44.1% 0 0 0 0 0 34.2 7.40% 0 0.00 4 ROWLEY RIVER 812.8 25.5% 0 0 0 0 0 6.1 2.45% 0 0.00 5 IPSWICH RIVER 658.5 10.9% 2 0 0 0 0.5 16.0 4.14% 0 0.00 6 PLUM ISLAND SOUND 5362.0 18.6% 5 0 0 0 1.25 252.5 5.06% 0 0.00 7 ESSEX RIVER / ESSEX BAY 392.5 3.1% 1 0 0 0 0.25 39.0 2.80% 80 0.06 8 ANNISQUAM RIVER 748.8 13.3% 2 0 0 0 0.5 66.1 8.64% 275 0.36 9 LANESVILLE COAST/HALIBUT POINT 12.0 0.5% 0 2 0 0 0.5 11.4 2.41% 0 0.00 10 ROCKPORT HARBOR (SANDY BAY) 2.2 0.1% 0 6 0 0 1.5 13.8 1.50% 0 0.00 11 LONG BEACH 3.3 0.1% 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00% 0 0.00 12 GOOD HARBOR 20.2 0.8% 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00% 0 0.00 13 GLOUCESTER HARBOR 6.2 0.2% 0 1 0 0 0.25 119.1 7.74% 55 0.04 14 MAGNOLIA COAST 1.0 0.1% 0 0 0 0 0 10.4 1.63% 0 0.00 15 KETTLE COVE 64.6 4.3% 1 12 0 0 3.25 0.0 0.00% 0 0.00 16 MANCHESTER COAST 0.0 0.0% 12 0 0 0 3 0.0 0.00% 0 0.00 17 MANCHESTER HARBOR 129.0 3.0% 8 18 7 2 8.75 77.2 23.44% 46 0.14 18 BEVERLY HARBOR 585.1 2.7% 7 16 19 17 14.75 126.6 9.56% 193 0.15 19 DANVERS RIVER 585.1 3.0% 1 1 0 0 0.5 46.4 6.42% 0 0.00 20 FOREST RIVER/ SOUTH RIVER/ SALEM HARBOR 325.2 6.8% 7 34 1 18 15 346.3 30.40% 228 0.20 21 MARBLEHEAD HARBOR 1.3 0.1% 1 17 0 0 4.5 283.7 51.93% 6 0.01 22 SALEM SOUND 1200.3 2.9% 26 95 37 37 48.75 866.4 10.50% 473 0.06 23 MARBLEHEAD NECK/SWAMPSCOTT COAST 0.0 0.0% 1 0 0 0 0.25 0.0 0.00% 0 0.00 24 NAHANT BAY 0.2 0.0% 12 16 7 0 8.75 52.8 1.68% 0 0.00 25 SAUGUS RIVER / PINES RIVER / LYNN HARBOR 3609.4 21.1% 32 14 7 14 16.75 51.9 0.83% 200 0.03 26 BELLE ISLE CREEK / WINTHROP BAY 648.9 14.5% 55 42 26 71 48.5 86.9 8.34% 375 0.36 27 CHELSEA CREEK / MYSTIC RIVER / CHARLES RIVER 1266.7 7.7% 0 0 0 0 0 41.4 1.56% 881 0.33 28 NEPONSET RIVER / DORCHESTER BAY 743.1 6.3% 26 69 28 65 47 66.8 3.10% 685 0.32 29 BLACKS CREEK / QUINCY BAY 146.6 2.8% 16 11 4 0 7.75 0.0 0.00% 0 0.00 30 BACK RIVER / FORE RIVER / HINGHAM BAY 1383.9 7.2% 33 18 12 14 19.25 256.7 2.94% 684 0.08 31 WEIR RIVER / STRAITS POND 237.5 5.5% 0 2 0 0 0.5 40.5 3.04% 0 0.00 32 BOSTON HARBOR 4426.6 5.7% 130 142 70 150 123 492.4 1.45% 2625 0.08 33 LITTLE HARBOR 270.0 15.8% 0 3 0 0 0.75 0.0 0.00% 0 0.00 34 COHASSET HARBOR 793.1 13.2% 1 52 7 2 15.5 19.2 1.17% 75 0.05 35 SCITUATE/COHASSET COAST 0.0 0.0% 12 2 3 2 4.75 0.0 0.00% 0 0.00 36 SCITUATE HARBOR 155.2 6.1% 6 4 20 20 12.5 59.8 7.21% 289 0.35 37 NORTH RIVER / SOUTH RIVER 2395.3 16.0% 0 1 4 0 1.25 65.9 3.39% 85 0.04 38 GREEN HARBOR 13.7 0.3% 9 2 0 0 2.75 9.2 0.43% 321 0.15 39 BLUEFISH RIVER / BACK RIVER / DUXBURY BAY 182.4 1.4% 5 0 3 0 2 28.3 0.37% 0 0.00 40 JONES RIVER / KINGSTON BAY 145.4 1.9% 0 0 5 14 4.75 4.2 0.14% 54 0.02 41 EEL RIVER / PLYMOUTH HARBOR 107.9 2.0% 0 0 0 0 0 78.6 4.69% 110 0.07 42 ROCKY POINT 0.0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00% 0 0.00 43 BEAVER DAM BROOK/BARTLETT POND 284.0 6.8% 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00% 0 0.00 44 MANOMET / INDIAN BROOK 1.1 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00% 0 0.00 45 ELLISVILLE HARBOR 0.7 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00% 0 0.00 46 NAMELOC HEIGHTS 0.0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00% 0 0.00 47 SCUSSET BEACH 484.4 14.2% 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00% 0 0.00 48 GREAT HERRING POND / BOURNEDALE 0.0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00% 0 0.00 49 WEST SANDWICH 0.0 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00% 200 7.37 50 SANDWICH HARBOR 126.7 1.5% 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00% 0 0.00 51 SCORTON CREEK 689.1 9.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00% 0 0.00 52 BARNSTABLE HARBOR 352.0 1.6% 0 1 0 0 0.25 28.3 1.10% 35 0.01 53 CHASE GARDEN CREEK 160.2 2.9% 0 1 0 0 0.25 1.2 0.29% 0 0.00 54 NOBSCUSSET HARBOR 73.7 5.0% 2 3 0 0 1.25 0.0 0.00% 0 0.00 55 SESUIT CREEK / SESUIT HARBOR 167.6 9.9% 0 2 0 1 0.75 3.7 3.41% 370 3.44 56 QUIVETT CREEK 2.4 0.1% 0 2 0 1 0.75 0.0 0.00% 0 0.00 57 PAINE'S CREEK / STONY BROOK 201.1 4.3% 6 0 0 0 1.5 0.0 0.00% 0 0.00 58 BREWSTER COAST 0.6 0.0% 8 0 0 0 2 16.2 1.04% 0 0.00 59 NAMSKAKET CREEK / LITTLE NAMSKAKET CREEK 0.7 0.0% 2 0 0 1 0.75 0.0 0.00% 0 0.00 60 BOAT MEADOW CREEK / ROCK HARBOR 13.7 0.8% 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00% 39 0.20 61 HERRING RIVER / HERRING POND 64.1 5.3% 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00% 0 0.00 62 FIRST ENCOUNTER BEACH 0.2 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00% 0 0.00 63 HERRING BROOK / GREAT POND 46.6 5.3% 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00% 0 0.00 64 KINGSBURY BEACH TO COOKS BROOK BEACH 0.2 0.0% 2 1 0 0 0.75 0.0 0.00% 0 0.00 65 WELLFLEET HARBOR 97.3 0.3% 0 1 0 0 0.25 66.7 0.37% 250 0.01 66 PAMET RIVER / LITTLE PAMET RIVER 159.7 3.1% 0 2 0 0 0.5 0.0 0.00% 0 0.00 67 TRURO COAST 0.0 0.0% 2 0 0 0 0.5 0.0 0.00% 0 0.00 68 PROVINCETOWN HARBOR 0.0 0.0% 32 7 17 3 14.75 110.7 2.64% 44 0.01 69 PROVINCETOWN COAST 0.7 0.0% 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.00% 0 0.00

Page 5 of 11 APPENDIX E 6/1/2017 Results of Estuarine Watershed Characterization Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.

Dredging Seawalls and Related Structures

Length of Public Shoreline Length of Public Shoreline Length of Public Shore Sum of Length of Public Miles of PSSP per mile of Id Estuarine Watershed Name Dredging Area (acres) % Dredging Area Stabilization, 2007 (miles) Stabilization 2009 (miles) Stabilization 2013 (miles) Shore Stabilization Projects coast 1 BLACK ROCK CREEK 0.0 0.00% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.04 0.01 2 MERRIMACK RIVER 263.5 9.29% 0.0 2.8 0.7 3.53 0.17 3 PARKER RIVER 0.0 0.00% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 4 ROWLEY RIVER 0.0 0.00% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 5 IPSWICH RIVER 3.8 0.99% 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.51 0.04 6 PLUM ISLAND SOUND 3.8 0.08% 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.25 0.02 7 ESSEX RIVER / ESSEX BAY 23.3 1.67% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.04 0.00 8 ANNISQUAM RIVER 69.4 9.06% 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.76 0.02 9 LANESVILLE COAST/HALIBUT POINT 0.2 0.05% 0.0 1.0 1.6 2.61 0.41 10 ROCKPORT HARBOR (SANDY BAY) 12.3 1.33% 0.0 1.9 3.5 5.40 1.04 11 LONG BEACH 0.0 0.00% 0.0 0.6 1.5 2.15 0.27 12 GOOD HARBOR 0.0 0.00% 0.0 0.0 2.1 2.09 0.37 13 GLOUCESTER HARBOR 87.6 5.70% 0.0 2.2 3.9 6.17 0.53 14 MAGNOLIA COAST 0.0 0.00% 0.0 0.0 1.6 1.64 0.39 15 KETTLE COVE 0.0 0.00% 0.0 0.2 0.7 0.91 0.78 16 MANCHESTER COAST 0.0 0.00% 0.0 0.6 1.0 1.53 0.40 17 MANCHESTER HARBOR 0.0 0.00% 0.0 0.6 1.1 1.64 0.39 18 BEVERLY HARBOR 31.1 2.35% 0.0 2.4 3.0 5.43 0.14 19 DANVERS RIVER 0.0 0.00% 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.31 0.02 20 FOREST RIVER/ SOUTH RIVER/ SALEM HARBOR 56.6 4.97% 0.0 1.5 6.4 7.94 0.80 21 MARBLEHEAD HARBOR 0.0 0.00% 0.0 1.1 4.1 5.24 0.80 22 SALEM SOUND 116.5 1.41% 0.0 5.6 18.3 23.88 0.22 23 MARBLEHEAD NECK/SWAMPSCOTT COAST 0.0 0.00% 0.0 0.6 4.3 4.93 0.72 24 NAHANT BAY 0.0 0.00% 0.0 3.1 2.9 6.00 0.72 25 SAUGUS RIVER / PINES RIVER / LYNN HARBOR 109.7 1.75% 0.0 8.3 5.1 13.42 0.42 26 BELLE ISLE CREEK / WINTHROP BAY 5.9 0.57% 0.0 4.3 3.8 8.09 0.46 27 CHELSEA CREEK / MYSTIC RIVER / CHARLES RIVER 921.7 34.69% 0.0 7.3 0.0 7.30 0.17 28 NEPONSET RIVER / DORCHESTER BAY 76.5 3.55% 0.0 8.5 1.5 10.06 0.44 29 BLACKS CREEK / QUINCY BAY 0.0 0.00% 0.0 7.3 2.3 9.59 1.07 30 BACK RIVER / FORE RIVER / HINGHAM BAY 462.3 5.30% 9.9 5.9 8.7 24.41 0.44 31 WEIR RIVER / STRAITS POND 0.0 0.00% 3.4 0.0 2.2 5.55 0.39 32 BOSTON HARBOR 2896.0 8.51% 13.2 41.8 19.7 74.69 0.21 33 LITTLE HARBOR 0.0 0.00% 0.4 0.0 1.2 1.52 0.18 34 COHASSET HARBOR 35.4 2.16% 2.5 0.0 1.3 3.79 0.25 35 SCITUATE/COHASSET COAST 0.0 0.00% 1.2 0.0 0.2 1.40 0.72 36 SCITUATE HARBOR 58.2 7.01% 3.1 0.0 0.9 3.96 0.64 37 NORTH RIVER / SOUTH RIVER 0.0 0.00% 1.4 0.0 2.7 4.15 0.13 38 GREEN HARBOR 11.1 0.52% 4.0 0.0 0.6 4.56 0.82 39 BLUEFISH RIVER / BACK RIVER / DUXBURY BAY 41.8 0.54% 0.8 0.0 3.7 4.48 0.13 40 JONES RIVER / KINGSTON BAY 26.3 0.89% 0.6 0.0 3.2 3.83 0.43 41 EEL RIVER / PLYMOUTH HARBOR 118.5 7.07% 3.5 0.0 2.5 6.00 0.66 42 ROCKY POINT 0.0 0.00% 0.6 0.0 1.6 2.23 0.55 43 BEAVER DAM BROOK/BARTLETT POND 0.0 0.00% 1.0 0.0 0.4 1.35 0.83 44 MANOMET / INDIAN BROOK 0.0 0.00% 2.5 0.0 3.7 6.23 1.13 45 ELLISVILLE HARBOR 0.0 0.00% 0.7 0.0 0.2 0.82 0.35 46 NAMELOC HEIGHTS 0.0 0.00% 0.4 0.0 0.5 0.92 0.38 47 SCUSSET BEACH 0.1 0.01% 0.0 1.0 0.2 1.19 0.29 48 GREAT HERRING POND / BOURNEDALE 0.0 0.00% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 - 49 WEST SANDWICH 0.0 0.00% 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.18 0.08 50 SANDWICH HARBOR 0.9 0.10% 0.0 1.6 0.4 2.00 0.26 51 SCORTON CREEK 0.0 0.00% 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.27 0.14 52 BARNSTABLE HARBOR 0.0 0.00% 0.0 0.3 0.7 1.06 0.03 53 CHASE GARDEN CREEK 0.0 0.00% 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.29 0.06 54 NOBSCUSSET HARBOR 0.0 0.00% 0.0 0.4 1.8 2.26 0.58 55 SESUIT CREEK / SESUIT HARBOR 4.6 4.32% 0.0 0.7 0.3 0.99 0.73 56 QUIVETT CREEK 0.0 0.00% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.01 57 PAINE'S CREEK / STONY BROOK 0.0 0.00% 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.54 0.36 58 BREWSTER COAST 0.0 0.00% 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.95 0.30 59 NAMSKAKET CREEK / LITTLE NAMSKAKET CREEK 0.0 0.00% 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.08 0.03 60 BOAT MEADOW CREEK / ROCK HARBOR 0.0 0.00% 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.25 0.09 61 HERRING RIVER / HERRING POND 0.0 0.00% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 62 FIRST ENCOUNTER BEACH 0.0 0.00% 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.25 0.37 63 HERRING BROOK / GREAT POND 0.0 0.00% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 64 KINGSBURY BEACH TO COOKS BROOK BEACH 0.0 0.00% 0.0 0.2 1.3 1.50 0.51 65 WELLFLEET HARBOR 23.7 0.13% 0.0 1.9 3.7 5.66 0.17 66 PAMET RIVER / LITTLE PAMET RIVER 0.0 0.00% 0.0 0.3 0.2 0.52 0.10 67 TRURO COAST 0.0 0.00% 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.51 0.09 68 PROVINCETOWN HARBOR 0.0 0.00% 0.0 5.1 2.4 7.49 0.65 69 PROVINCETOWN COAST 0.0 0.00% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00

Page 6 of 11 APPENDIX E 6/1/2017 Results of Estuarine Watershed Characterization Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.

Salt Marsh Extent Tidal Flat Extent Seagrass Extent Salt Seagrass Seagrass Seagrass Seagrass Average Marsh area per area per area per area per Seagrass Salt Extent (% Seagrass open Seagrass open Seagrass open Seagrass open Acreage Marsh of Tidal Flat Tidal Flat Extent water Extent water Extent water Extent water Average per open Extent Watershe Extent (ac/mi of (1995) area (2001) area (2006) area (2012) area Seagrass water Id Estuarine Watershed Name (acres) d Area) (acres) coast) (acres) (1995) (acres) (2001) (acres) (2006) (acres) (2012) Acreage area 1 BLACK ROCK CREEK 1078 33% 22.3 6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 MERRIMACK RIVER 2587 22% 888.8 41.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 PARKER RIVER 2219 29% 3.6 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 ROWLEY RIVER 1345 42% 11.3 1.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 IPSWICH RIVER 1302 22% 72.8 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6 PLUM ISLAND SOUND 9598 33% 303.6 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 ESSEX RIVER / ESSEX BAY 3072 24% 726.0 18.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8 ANNISQUAM RIVER 639 11% 381.2 12.0 17.0 0.0 11.4 0.0 14.3 0.0 11.6 0.0 13.5 0.0 9 LANESVILLE COAST/HALIBUT POINT 2 0% 1.6 0.3 12.2 0.0 10.8 0.0 13.9 0.0 13.7 0.0 12.7 0.0 10 ROCKPORT HARBOR (SANDY BAY) 0 0% 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 2.2 0.0 2.2 0.0 2.3 0.0 2.3 0.0 11 LONG BEACH 40 2% 1.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12 GOOD HARBOR 80 3% 3.3 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 13 GLOUCESTER HARBOR 18 1% 1.1 0.1 45.8 0.0 37.1 0.0 59.8 0.0 53.4 0.0 49.0 0.0 14 MAGNOLIA COAST 0 0% 0.0 0.0 8.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.3 0.0 4.0 0.0 15 KETTLE COVE 30 2% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 16 MANCHESTER COAST 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 17 MANCHESTER HARBOR 13 0% 7.2 1.7 147.6 0.4 116.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 119.9 0.4 96.0 0.3 18 BEVERLY HARBOR 98 0% 297.8 7.4 72.3 0.1 72.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 73.1 0.1 54.3 0.0 19 DANVERS RIVER 96 0% 240.5 13.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 20 FOREST RIVER/ SOUTH RIVER/ SALEM HARBOR 36 1% 20.9 2.1 103.6 0.1 19.1 0.0 31.0 0.0 18.7 0.0 43.1 0.0 21 MARBLEHEAD HARBOR 7 0% 10.6 1.6 36.6 0.1 18.6 0.0 4.8 0.0 29.4 0.1 22.4 0.0 22 SALEM SOUND 198 0% 352.1 3.3 691.1 0.1 528.2 0.1 35.9 0.0 566.2 0.1 455.3 0.1 23 MARBLEHEAD NECK/SWAMPSCOTT COAST 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 24 NAHANT BAY 1 0% 0.0 0.0 11.6 0.0 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.8 0.0 10.9 0.0 25 SAUGUS RIVER / PINES RIVER / LYNN HARBOR 1012 6% 544.0 17.0 751.1 0.1 667.2 0.1 693.9 0.1 761.4 0.1 718.4 0.1 26 BELLE ISLE CREEK / WINTHROP BAY 367 8% 347.4 19.6 20.6 0.0 27.7 0.0 47.7 0.0 42.8 0.0 34.7 0.0 27 CHELSEA CREEK / MYSTIC RIVER / CHARLES RIVER 48 0% 207.2 4.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 34.8 0.0 9.8 0.0 28 NEPONSET RIVER / DORCHESTER BAY 379 3% 338.0 14.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 29 BLACKS CREEK / QUINCY BAY 163 3% 104.1 11.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 30 BACK RIVER / FORE RIVER / HINGHAM BAY 522 3% 0.0 0.0 180.7 0.0 38.9 0.0 64.1 0.0 2.9 0.0 71.6 0.0 31 WEIR RIVER / STRAITS POND 143 3% 3.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 32 BOSTON HARBOR 1629 2% 1917.3 5.5 201.3 0.0 66.6 0.0 116.3 0.0 89.3 0.0 118.4 0.0 33 LITTLE HARBOR 58 3% 48.0 5.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 34 COHASSET HARBOR 563 9% 235.3 15.4 112.8 0.1 117.7 0.1 112.0 0.1 103.4 0.1 111.5 0.1 35 SCITUATE/COHASSET COAST 5 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 36 SCITUATE HARBOR 103 4% 49.8 8.0 12.0 0.0 10.3 0.0 10.3 0.0 8.4 0.0 10.3 0.0 37 NORTH RIVER / SOUTH RIVER 2359 16% 351.8 10.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 38 GREEN HARBOR 134 3% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 39 BLUEFISH RIVER / BACK RIVER / DUXBURY BAY 1353 10% 390.7 11.2 1558.6 0.2 1369.8 0.2 1035.4 0.1 1135.9 0.1 1274.9 0.2 40 JONES RIVER / KINGSTON BAY 234 3% 30.5 3.4 348.0 0.1 313.1 0.1 547.5 0.2 397.0 0.1 401.4 0.1 41 EEL RIVER / PLYMOUTH HARBOR 31 1% 3.9 0.4 320.2 0.2 251.6 0.2 326.5 0.2 324.2 0.2 305.6 0.2 42 ROCKY POINT 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 43 BEAVER DAM BROOK/BARTLETT POND 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 44 MANOMET / INDIAN BROOK 0 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 45 ELLISVILLE HARBOR 67 2% 0.0 0.0 33.8 0.0 25.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.8 0.0 22.6 0.0 46 NAMELOC HEIGHTS 0 0% 0.0 0.0 95.6 0.1 74.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 47.0 0.0 54.4 0.0 47 SCUSSET BEACH 1 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 48 GREAT HERRING POND / BOURNEDALE 0 0% 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 49 WEST SANDWICH 3 0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 50 SANDWICH HARBOR 576 7% 25.6 3.4 5.2 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.4 0.0 51 SCORTON CREEK 405 5% 6.4 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 52 BARNSTABLE HARBOR 3895 17% 1525.9 37.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 53 CHASE GARDEN CREEK 907 17% 473.3 103.8 45.8 0.1 61.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 67.7 0.2 43.8 0.1 54 NOBSCUSSET HARBOR 0 0% 175.2 45.2 22.2 0.2 20.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 27.9 0.2 17.6 0.2 55 SESUIT CREEK / SESUIT HARBOR 61 4% 6.2 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 56 QUIVETT CREEK 227 10% 382.7 142.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 57 PAINE'S CREEK / STONY BROOK 76 2% 682.6 449.4 54.1 0.1 81.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 30.5 0.0 41.6 0.1 58 BREWSTER COAST 4 0% 1073.7 338.7 1034.3 0.7 950.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 648.7 0.4 658.3 0.4 59 NAMSKAKET CREEK / LITTLE NAMSKAKET CREEK 274 7% 518.9 206.8 150.5 0.2 102.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 14.4 0.0 66.8 0.1 60 BOAT MEADOW CREEK / ROCK HARBOR 288 16% 280.2 94.6 58.4 0.3 18.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.2 0.1 61 HERRING RIVER / HERRING POND 289 24% 274.0 116.5 126.8 0.4 112.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 17.5 0.1 64.3 0.2 62 FIRST ENCOUNTER BEACH 2 0% 153.9 229.2 41.0 0.4 60.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 28.1 0.3 32.4 0.3 63 HERRING BROOK / GREAT POND 0 0% 0.0 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 64 KINGSBURY BEACH TO COOKS BROOK BEACH 1 0% 501.0 171.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 65 WELLFLEET HARBOR 1243 4% 1670.1 50.0 4674.2 0.3 1314.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 1440.3 0.1 1857.3 0.1 66 PAMET RIVER / LITTLE PAMET RIVER 248 5% 18.0 3.5 441.1 0.3 533.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 553.8 0.4 382.0 0.3 67 TRURO COAST 0 0% 4.0 0.7 219.0 0.1 228.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 225.9 0.1 168.2 0.1 68 PROVINCETOWN HARBOR 254 3% 255.0 22.0 902.9 0.2 881.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 982.0 0.2 691.6 0.2 69 PROVINCETOWN COAST 122 2% 63.7 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Page 7 of 11 APPENDIX E 6/1/2017 Results of Estuarine Watershed Characterization Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.

Shellfish Habitat (values in acres)

Total Total Shellfish Shellfish Shellfish Habitat Habitat Habitat per Open American Bay Blue European Ocean Razor Sea Soft-shell Area (species- Water Id Estuarine Watershed Name Oyster Scallop Mussel Oyster Quahog Quahog Clam Scallop clam Surf Clam (acres) acres) Area 1 BLACK ROCK CREEK 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 75.1 67.5 373.5 144.6 0.28 2 MERRIMACK RIVER 0.0 0.0 1333.7 0.0 8.1 0.0 681.5 81.1 1183.7 503.8 902.2 3288.2 1.16 3 PARKER RIVER 199.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 48.8 0.0 219.7 0.0 828.9 468.4 1.01 4 ROWLEY RIVER 1.1 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 195.9 0.0 209.1 0.0 294.4 409.6 1.64 5 IPSWICH RIVER 0.7 0.0 31.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.9 0.0 308.6 0.0 98.6 367.3 0.95 6 PLUM ISLAND SOUND 310.8 0.0 346.8 23.6 0.0 10.2 1382.5 0.0 2589.9 702.2 3.9 4663.9 0.94 7 ESSEX RIVER / ESSEX BAY 151.0 0.0 243.6 0.0 47.0 8.1 109.8 0.0 1418.2 209.8 387.0 1977.7 1.42 8 ANNISQUAM RIVER 9.6 0.0 403.5 79.1 132.2 38.2 134.3 0.0 654.6 174.7 638.4 1451.5 1.90 9 LANESVILLE COAST/HALIBUT POINT 0.7 0.0 117.1 0.0 144.4 0.0 3.9 61.8 14.4 7.8 342.2 0.72 10 ROCKPORT HARBOR (SANDY BAY) 0.0 0.0 195.2 585.1 0.0 0.0 578.8 4.8 597.9 261.1 1363.8 1.48 11 LONG BEACH 3.6 0.0 105.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 70.0 3.6 212.3 182.8 0.19 12 GOOD HARBOR 0.0 0.0 103.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 53.6 107.9 0.17 13 GLOUCESTER HARBOR 0.0 0.0 135.2 138.3 0.0 5.4 12.0 0.0 56.2 19.6 44.4 347.0 0.23 14 MAGNOLIA COAST 0.0 0.0 47.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.6 6.1 57.5 0.09 15 KETTLE COVE 0.0 0.0 19.4 8.1 8.1 0.0 5.5 8.1 22.3 5.5 71.5 0.96 16 MANCHESTER COAST 0.0 0.0 49.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 130.0 62.1 0.19 17 MANCHESTER HARBOR 4.0 0.0 68.0 5.6 0.0 15.5 0.0 0.0 30.6 0.0 2053.8 123.7 0.38 18 BEVERLY HARBOR 0.0 0.0 208.7 85.3 0.0 98.1 0.0 0.0 481.7 55.8 44.7 873.9 0.66 19 DANVERS RIVER 0.0 0.0 74.6 2.6 0.0 28.8 0.0 0.0 339.8 0.0 1351.0 445.7 0.62 20 FOREST RIVER/ SOUTH RIVER/ SALEM HARBOR 0.0 0.0 109.1 131.4 60.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 180.1 0.0 538.9 482.2 0.42 21 MARBLEHEAD HARBOR 24.8 0.0 42.3 0.0 0.0 23.8 0.0 0.0 59.7 0.0 212.5 150.6 0.28 22 SALEM SOUND 28.8 0.0 546.1 223.9 0.0 199.3 1.0 739.8 806.3 111.3 20.5 2545.2 0.31 23 MARBLEHEAD NECK/SWAMPSCOTT COAST 0.0 0.0 78.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 544.9 78.9 0.07 24 NAHANT BAY 0.0 0.0 1820.7 19.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 314.6 31.0 318.8 2185.8 0.70 25 SAUGUS RIVER / PINES RIVER / LYNN HARBOR 0.0 0.0 770.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 57.5 0.0 634.9 25.3 620.1 1463.1 0.23 26 BELLE ISLE CREEK / WINTHROP BAY 0.0 0.0 139.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 539.7 0.0 660.2 679.0 0.65 27 CHELSEA CREEK / MYSTIC RIVER / CHARLES RIVER 0.0 0.0 84.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 212.5 0.0 2340.1 307.6 0.12 28 NEPONSET RIVER / DORCHESTER BAY 0.0 0.0 370.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 146.9 0.0 604.2 0.0 383.7 1121.9 0.52 29 BLACKS CREEK / QUINCY BAY 0.0 0.0 527.1 473.3 0.0 63.8 309.5 0.0 642.6 0.0 5438.9 2016.3 0.58 30 BACK RIVER / FORE RIVER / HINGHAM BAY 0.0 0.0 1381.2 302.9 26.6 0.0 252.1 0.0 1985.0 694.2 50.6 3947.8 0.45 31 WEIR RIVER / STRAITS POND 0.0 0.0 426.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 348.9 180.8 201.4 775.4 0.58 32 BOSTON HARBOR 0.0 0.0 3205.6 783.9 26.6 63.8 755.5 236.3 4765.9 875.9 9837.5 0.29 33 LITTLE HARBOR 0.0 0.0 31.2 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 16.2 0.0 294.1 54.1 0.08 34 COHASSET HARBOR 0.0 0.0 147.4 0.0 0.0 0.7 6.0 0.0 69.8 36.4 1438.2 224.0 0.14 35 SCITUATE/COHASSET COAST 0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 33.3 0.06 36 SCITUATE HARBOR 0.0 0.0 36.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 210.2 36.2 0.04 37 NORTH RIVER / SOUTH RIVER 12.4 0.0 377.4 0.0 0.0 69.3 116.4 0.0 201.2 616.2 308.6 776.7 0.40 38 GREEN HARBOR 0.0 0.0 74.9 0.0 0.0 1.1 4.5 0.0 30.8 246.3 39.5 111.3 0.05 39 BLUEFISH RIVER / BACK RIVER / DUXBURY BAY 72.8 128.9 2159.0 0.0 0.0 2400.1 815.6 142.3 1231.0 1075.9 29.4 6949.7 0.90 40 JONES RIVER / KINGSTON BAY 0.0 0.0 1646.0 15.2 0.0 1274.9 105.3 0.0 591.1 450.4 462.4 3632.4 1.24 41 EEL RIVER / PLYMOUTH HARBOR 0.0 103.9 611.5 0.0 0.0 191.6 232.2 0.0 295.4 8.7 2202.9 1434.7 0.86 42 ROCKY POINT 0.0 0.0 148.9 0.0 125.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.0 0.0 318.5 0.40 43 BEAVER DAM BROOK/BARTLETT POND 0.0 0.0 64.8 0.0 10.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.4 75.2 0.11 44 MANOMET / INDIAN BROOK 0.0 0.0 25.9 0.0 1274.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.1 1274.8 1325.9 0.58 45 ELLISVILLE HARBOR 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 422.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.9 468.7 719.6 429.0 0.34 46 NAMELOC HEIGHTS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 669.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 836.7 669.5 0.40 47 SCUSSET BEACH 0.0 0.0 96.7 0.0 313.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 378.1 410.1 0.46 48 GREAT HERRING POND / BOURNEDALE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 49 WEST SANDWICH 0.0 0.0 25.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.8 0.95 50 SANDWICH HARBOR 0.0 0.0 420.0 0.0 0.0 34.9 0.0 0.0 59.0 180.1 3194.4 513.9 0.55 51 SCORTON CREEK 0.0 0.0 392.1 0.0 4.5 22.5 0.0 5.0 22.5 356.7 1461.6 446.5 0.56 52 BARNSTABLE HARBOR 6.8 118.6 252.8 0.0 0.0 752.5 180.6 0.0 1826.8 850.2 46.5 3138.0 1.22 53 CHASE GARDEN CREEK 0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 648.5 11.7 0.03 54 NOBSCUSSET HARBOR 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 77.3 0.0 0.00 55 SESUIT CREEK / SESUIT HARBOR 6.5 0.0 14.1 0.0 0.0 14.8 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 73.1 39.3 0.37 56 QUIVETT CREEK 15.5 0.0 15.5 0.0 0.0 15.5 0.0 0.0 461.5 259.5 45.8 508.1 5.47 57 PAINE'S CREEK / STONY BROOK 4.6 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 74.0 0.0 0.0 863.5 773.2 15.4 946.7 1.51 58 BREWSTER COAST 17.6 474.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 864.8 0.0 0.0 1128.0 2292.7 2966.5 2484.4 1.59 59 NAMSKAKET CREEK / LITTLE NAMSKAKET CREEK 0.0 45.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 49.0 148.4 0.0 332.8 593.2 2890.9 575.3 0.78 60 BOAT MEADOW CREEK / ROCK HARBOR 44.8 39.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 84.2 106.2 0.0 77.5 97.9 169.9 352.1 1.78 61 HERRING RIVER / HERRING POND 37.5 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.5 132.2 0.0 74.4 91.7 5397.0 287.5 0.94 62 FIRST ENCOUNTER BEACH 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 104.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 104.2 1.11 63 HERRING BROOK / GREAT POND 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 49.0 0.0 0.00 64 KINGSBURY BEACH TO COOKS BROOK BEACH 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 452.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 452.3 4.72 65 WELLFLEET HARBOR 1699.4 8397.3 26.5 0.0 0.0 9845.0 50.5 0.0 427.0 11112.7 1973.3 20445.7 1.12 66 PAMET RIVER / LITTLE PAMET RIVER 6.5 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 49.6 0.0 18.1 22.2 1212.6 35.6 97.0 0.07 67 TRURO COAST 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 63.2 0.0 28.1 0.0 1715.7 91.3 0.04 68 PROVINCETOWN HARBOR 16.8 22.0 17.0 0.0 0.0 677.5 0.0 0.0 126.2 2216.7 31.1 859.5 0.21 69 PROVINCETOWN COAST 0.0 0.0 5.2 0.0 99.3 24.6 0.0 83.8 26.2 3350.0 239.1 0.07

Page 8 of 11 APPENDIX E 6/1/2017 Results of Estuarine Watershed Characterization Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.

Black- Double- Great Black- crowned crested black- American American bellied night- Canada Common Common Diving cormoran backed Great Id Estuarine Watershed Name bittern black duck Arctic tern Bald eagle plover heron Brant goose moorhen tern ducks t Dunlin Eiders gull egret 1 BLACK ROCK CREEK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1108 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 MERRIMACK RIVER 876 1766 0 1632 890 0 0 876 876 1832 0 0 890 0 0 0 3 PARKER RIVER 317 317 0 0 0 0 0 317 317 317 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 ROWLEY RIVER 891 891 0 0 0 0 0 891 891 891 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 IPSWICH RIVER 397 1346 0 0 0 0 0 397 397 1346 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 PLUM ISLAND SOUND 6706 7655 0 0 0 0 0 6706 6706 7655 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 ESSEX RIVER / ESSEX BAY 0 3108 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3108 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 ANNISQUAM RIVER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 LANESVILLE COAST/HALIBUT POINT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 112 0 0 10 ROCKPORT HARBOR (SANDY BAY) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 620 0 0 11 LONG BEACH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 920 0 0 12 GOOD HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 545 0 0 13 GLOUCESTER HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 0 0 14 MAGNOLIA COAST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 KETTLE COVE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 MANCHESTER COAST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 MANCHESTER HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 BEVERLY HARBOR 0 1010 0 0 0 0 0 1010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 DANVERS RIVER 0 927 0 0 0 0 0 927 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 FOREST RIVER/ SOUTH RIVER/ SALEM HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 848 0 0 0 0 0 21 MARBLEHEAD HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 SALEM SOUND 0 1010 0 0 0 0 0 1010 0 0 848 0 0 0 0 0 23 MARBLEHEAD NECK/SWAMPSCOTT COAST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 540 0 0 24 NAHANT BAY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 SAUGUS RIVER / PINES RIVER / LYNN HARBOR 0 127 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 142 0 0 0 1528 0 0 26 BELLE ISLE CREEK / WINTHROP BAY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 CHELSEA CREEK / MYSTIC RIVER / CHARLES RIVER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 NEPONSET RIVER / DORCHESTER BAY 0 140 0 0 0 0 140 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 BLACKS CREEK / QUINCY BAY 0 113 0 0 0 0 113 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 BACK RIVER / FORE RIVER / HINGHAM BAY 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 13 0 4 0 357 4 4 31 WEIR RIVER / STRAITS POND 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 BOSTON HARBOR 0 252 0 0 0 4 252 0 0 37 0 4 0 7630 4 4 33 LITTLE HARBOR 0 165 0 0 0 0 0 165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 COHASSET HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 986 0 0 35 SCITUATE/COHASSET COAST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 156 0 0 36 SCITUATE HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 NORTH RIVER / SOUTH RIVER 0 605 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 548 0 0 38 GREEN HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1197 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 BLUEFISH RIVER / BACK RIVER / DUXBURY BAY 0 5444 0 0 0 0 5444 0 0 0 0 0 0 5444 0 0 40 JONES RIVER / KINGSTON BAY 0 2863 0 0 0 0 2863 0 0 0 0 0 0 2863 0 0 41 EEL RIVER / PLYMOUTH HARBOR 0 1633 11 0 0 0 1633 0 0 11 0 0 0 1633 0 0 42 ROCKY POINT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 BEAVER DAM BROOK/BARTLETT POND 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 MANOMET / INDIAN BROOK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 ELLISVILLE HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 NAMELOC HEIGHTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 SCUSSET BEACH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 48 GREAT HERRING POND / BOURNEDALE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 WEST SANDWICH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 SANDWICH HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 406 0 0 0 154 0 0 51 SCORTON CREEK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 BARNSTABLE HARBOR 0 7840 0 0 0 0 0 7840 0 77 0 0 0 7840 0 0 53 CHASE GARDEN CREEK 0 1775 0 0 0 0 0 1775 0 69 0 0 0 1775 0 0 54 NOBSCUSSET HARBOR 0 63 0 0 0 0 0 63 0 0 0 0 0 63 0 0 55 SESUIT CREEK / SESUIT HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 QUIVETT CREEK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 PAINE'S CREEK / STONY BROOK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 BREWSTER COAST 0 0 0 0 0 0 129 129 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 NAMSKAKET CREEK / LITTLE NAMSKAKET CREEK 0 0 0 0 0 0 628 628 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 BOAT MEADOW CREEK / ROCK HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 350 350 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 HERRING RIVER / HERRING POND 0 0 0 0 0 0 385 385 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 FIRST ENCOUNTER BEACH 0 0 0 0 0 0 196 196 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 HERRING BROOK / GREAT POND 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 KINGSBURY BEACH TO COOKS BROOK BEACH 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 WELLFLEET HARBOR 0 2488 0 0 0 0 2022 0 0 0 0 0 0 2022 0 0 66 PAMET RIVER / LITTLE PAMET RIVER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 TRURO COAST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 PROVINCETOWN HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 PROVINCETOWN COAST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Page 9 of 11 APPENDIX E 6/1/2017 Results of Estuarine Watershed Characterization Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.

Shorebird Habitat (values in acres) Shorebird Total Habitat Shorebird per Semipalm Short- Habitat Watershe Harlequin Herring Hudsonia Least Lesser Little blue Pied-billed Piping Roseate ated billed Snowy Wading (species- d Area Id Estuarine Watershed Name duck gull n godwit King rail bittern Least tern yellowlegs heron Mallard grebe plover Red knot tern Scoters sandpiper Shorebirds dowitcher egret birds Waterfowl acres) (species- 1 BLACK ROCK CREEK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1108 0 2 MERRIMACK RIVER 0 0 55 1832 876 19 890 0 0 876 19 890 0 0 890 895 890 0 0 1632 19403 2 3 PARKER RIVER 0 0 0 317 317 0 0 0 0 317 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 2575 0 4 ROWLEY RIVER 0 0 0 891 891 0 0 0 0 891 0 0 0 0 0 41 0 0 0 0 7170 2 5 IPSWICH RIVER 0 0 0 397 397 30 0 0 0 397 30 0 0 0 0 212 0 0 0 0 5343 1 6 PLUM ISLAND SOUND 0 0 0 6706 6706 391 0 0 0 6706 391 0 0 0 0 1615 0 0 0 0 57946 2 7 ESSEX RIVER / ESSEX BAY 0 0 0 0 0 88 0 0 0 0 88 0 0 0 0 911 0 0 0 208 7513 1 8 ANNISQUAM RIVER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 LANESVILLE COAST/HALIBUT POINT 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 115 0 10 ROCKPORT HARBOR (SANDY BAY) 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 622 0 11 LONG BEACH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 920 0 12 GOOD HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 545 0 13 GLOUCESTER HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 0 14 MAGNOLIA COAST 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 15 KETTLE COVE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 MANCHESTER COAST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 MANCHESTER HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 BEVERLY HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3030 0 19 DANVERS RIVER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 927 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2782 0 20 FOREST RIVER/ SOUTH RIVER/ SALEM HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 848 0 21 MARBLEHEAD HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 SALEM SOUND 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3878 0 23 MARBLEHEAD NECK/SWAMPSCOTT COAST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 553 0 24 NAHANT BAY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 SAUGUS RIVER / PINES RIVER / LYNN HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1798 0 26 BELLE ISLE CREEK / WINTHROP BAY 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 0 27 CHELSEA CREEK / MYSTIC RIVER / CHARLES RIVER 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 28 NEPONSET RIVER / DORCHESTER BAY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 279 0 29 BLACKS CREEK / QUINCY BAY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 225 0 30 BACK RIVER / FORE RIVER / HINGHAM BAY 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 529 0 925 0 31 WEIR RIVER / STRAITS POND 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 261 0 261 0 32 BOSTON HARBOR 0 4 0 0 0 107 0 4 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 790 0 9120 0 33 LITTLE HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 495 0 34 COHASSET HARBOR 132 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 986 0 0 0 0 0 0 2104 0 35 SCITUATE/COHASSET COAST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 156 0 0 0 0 0 0 311 0 36 SCITUATE HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 NORTH RIVER / SOUTH RIVER 0 0 0 0 0 164 0 0 605 0 164 112 0 0 0 112 0 0 0 0 2311 0 38 GREEN HARBOR 0 0 0 0 1197 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2394 0 39 BLUEFISH RIVER / BACK RIVER / DUXBURY BAY 0 0 0 0 0 330 0 0 0 0 330 0 0 5444 0 3631 0 0 0 0 26067 2 40 JONES RIVER / KINGSTON BAY 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2863 0 1996 0 0 0 0 13452 2 41 EEL RIVER / PLYMOUTH HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 81 0 0 0 0 81 162 11 1633 0 643 0 0 0 0 7530 1 42 ROCKY POINT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 BEAVER DAM BROOK/BARTLETT POND 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 MANOMET / INDIAN BROOK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 ELLISVILLE HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 46 NAMELOC HEIGHTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 SCUSSET BEACH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 48 GREAT HERRING POND / BOURNEDALE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 WEST SANDWICH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 SANDWICH HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 51 0 0 0 0 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 662 0 51 SCORTON CREEK 0 0 0 0 0 51 0 0 0 0 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102 0 52 BARNSTABLE HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 4973 0 0 0 0 237 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28805 1 53 CHASE GARDEN CREEK 0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 60 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5541 1 54 NOBSCUSSET HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 188 0 55 SESUIT CREEK / SESUIT HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 QUIVETT CREEK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 PAINE'S CREEK / STONY BROOK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 BREWSTER COAST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 129 0 0 0 0 386 0 59 NAMSKAKET CREEK / LITTLE NAMSKAKET CREEK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 628 0 0 0 0 1885 0 60 BOAT MEADOW CREEK / ROCK HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 350 0 0 0 0 1049 1 61 HERRING RIVER / HERRING POND 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 385 0 0 0 0 1156 1 62 FIRST ENCOUNTER BEACH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 196 0 0 0 0 589 2 63 HERRING BROOK / GREAT POND 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 KINGSBURY BEACH TO COOKS BROOK BEACH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 103 0 65 WELLFLEET HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 115 0 0 0 0 115 0 0 0 0 2488 0 0 0 0 9251 0 66 PAMET RIVER / LITTLE PAMET RIVER 0 0 0 0 0 63 0 0 0 0 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 126 0 67 TRURO COAST 0 0 0 0 0 102 0 0 0 0 102 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 205 0 68 PROVINCETOWN HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 399 0 69 PROVINCETOWN COAST 0 0 0 0 0 767 0 0 0 0 767 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 1568 0

Page 10 of 11 APPENDIX E 6/1/2017 Results of Estuarine Watershed Characterization Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.

Shorebird Nesting Sites

Black- Great Yellow- American crowned Double- black- crowned Total American Oystercatc night- Canada Colonial Common Common crested backed Great Herring Laughing Little Blue Snowy night- Nesting Nesting Sites Id Estuarine Watershed Name black duck her heron goose waterbirds eider tern cormorant Glossy Ibis gull Egret gull gull Least tern Heron Mallard Egret heron Sites per Acre 1 BLACK ROCK CREEK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 MERRIMACK RIVER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8.40226E-05 3 PARKER RIVER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 ROWLEY RIVER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 IPSWICH RIVER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 PLUM ISLAND SOUND 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 ESSEX RIVER / ESSEX BAY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 ANNISQUAM RIVER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 LANESVILLE COAST/HALIBUT POINT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 ROCKPORT HARBOR (SANDY BAY) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 LONG BEACH 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0.003596037 12 GOOD HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 GLOUCESTER HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.000636534 14 MAGNOLIA COAST 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 10 0.009786947 15 KETTLE COVE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 MANCHESTER COAST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 0.008290819 17 MANCHESTER HARBOR 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.000465591 18 BEVERLY HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19 DANVERS RIVER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 FOREST RIVER/ SOUTH RIVER/ SALEM HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 MARBLEHEAD HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 SALEM SOUND 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 3 0 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0.000339468 23 MARBLEHEAD NECK/SWAMPSCOTT COAST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.000343545 24 NAHANT BAY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.000629087 25 SAUGUS RIVER / PINES RIVER / LYNN HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5.83688E-05 26 BELLE ISLE CREEK / WINTHROP BAY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 CHELSEA CREEK / MYSTIC RIVER / CHARLES RIVER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0.000242105 28 NEPONSET RIVER / DORCHESTER BAY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0.000338334 29 BLACKS CREEK / QUINCY BAY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.000375158 30 BACK RIVER / FORE RIVER / HINGHAM BAY 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 0.000522052 31 WEIR RIVER / STRAITS POND 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.000694269 32 BOSTON HARBOR 2 1 6 0 1 1 1 6 3 15 1 16 0 0 0 0 2 1 56 0.000724162 33 LITTLE HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.001760836 34 COHASSET HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.00033306 35 SCITUATE/COHASSET COAST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 SCITUATE HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 NORTH RIVER / SOUTH RIVER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 GREEN HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 BLUEFISH RIVER / BACK RIVER / DUXBURY BAY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.000232046 40 JONES RIVER / KINGSTON BAY 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 EEL RIVER / PLYMOUTH HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 0.000748683 42 ROCKY POINT 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.001050904 43 BEAVER DAM BROOK/BARTLETT POND 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 MANOMET / INDIAN BROOK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 ELLISVILLE HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 NAMELOC HEIGHTS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 47 SCUSSET BEACH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 GREAT HERRING POND / BOURNEDALE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 WEST SANDWICH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 SANDWICH HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51 SCORTON CREEK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 BARNSTABLE HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 8.96927E-05 53 CHASE GARDEN CREEK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 54 NOBSCUSSET HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 SESUIT CREEK / SESUIT HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 QUIVETT CREEK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 PAINE'S CREEK / STONY BROOK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 BREWSTER COAST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 59 NAMSKAKET CREEK / LITTLE NAMSKAKET CREEK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 BOAT MEADOW CREEK / ROCK HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 HERRING RIVER / HERRING POND 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 62 FIRST ENCOUNTER BEACH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63 HERRING BROOK / GREAT POND 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 KINGSBURY BEACH TO COOKS BROOK BEACH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 WELLFLEET HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 PAMET RIVER / LITTLE PAMET RIVER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 TRURO COAST 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 PROVINCETOWN HARBOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.000127859 69 PROVINCETOWN COAST 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0.000498069

Page 11 of 11 APPENDIX E 6/1/2017 Results of Estuarine Watershed Characterization Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.

Beach Sandy Beaches/Dunes Anadromous Fish Run Length Length Extent Rocky Intertidal Extent Beach Access Boating Access

Rocky Rocky Sandy Sandy Beach/ Intertidal Intertidal Number Number of Access Beach Beaches/Du Dune Extent Shores Shore Beach of Beach Points per Number Parking American Atlantic Blueback Rainbow Length nes Area (ac/mile of Area (ac/mile of Length Access Mile of Number of Parking Spaces of Id Estuarine Watershed Name Alewife Shad Sturgeon Herring Smelt Total Miles (mi) (acres) coast) (acres) coast) (mi) Points Beach Ramps Spaces per Ramp 1 BLACK ROCK CREEK 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 116.5 34.1 0.0 0.0 2.0 16 7.9 0 0 0 2 MERRIMACK RIVER 7.4 0.0 7.4 0.0 7.4 22.2 3.8 420.7 19.7 8.9 0.4 3.8 62 16.1 4 200 50 3 PARKER RIVER 9.5 0.0 0.0 9.5 3.8 22.7 0.0 10.5 1.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 1 4 4 4 ROWLEY RIVER 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.2 11.7 0.0 7.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0 5 IPSWICH RIVER 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 6.2 0.1 57.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 3 32.6 1 48 48 6 PLUM ISLAND SOUND 15.2 0.0 0.0 15.6 10.4 41.2 2.2 1130.8 14.2 1.9 0.0 2.2 8 3.7 1 52 52 7 ESSEX RIVER / ESSEX BAY 3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 7.2 2.2 776.0 19.7 2.5 0.1 2.2 10 4.6 0 0 0 8 ANNISQUAM RIVER 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.3 138.3 4.3 18.4 0.6 0.3 5 16.6 3 64 21.33333 9 LANESVILLE COAST/HALIBUT POINT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 48.5 7.6 32.3 5.1 0.1 3 36.2 1 6 6 10 ROCKPORT HARBOR (SANDY BAY) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 37.0 7.1 22.5 4.3 0.4 8 19.2 0 0 0 11 LONG BEACH 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 72.7 9.3 44.2 5.7 1.2 20 16.1 0 0 0 12 GOOD HARBOR 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 92.9 16.3 58.4 10.2 0.5 8 14.6 0 0 0 13 GLOUCESTER HARBOR 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 38.2 3.3 26.4 2.3 0.3 16 47.9 0 0 0 14 MAGNOLIA COAST 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 35.6 8.5 20.9 5.0 0.4 3 7.2 0 0 0 15 KETTLE COVE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 8.1 7.0 5.0 4.3 0.3 2 6.5 0 0 0 16 MANCHESTER COAST 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 49.6 13.1 14.9 3.9 0.6 5 8.5 0 0 0 17 MANCHESTER HARBOR 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.1 10.8 2.5 9.9 2.3 0.1 2 21.7 0 0 0 18 BEVERLY HARBOR 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 5.1 1.0 36.5 0.9 4.8 0.1 1.0 27 26.6 2 106 53 19 DANVERS RIVER 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 5.1 0.1 17.9 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 4 29.1 2 106 53 20 FOREST RIVER/ SOUTH RIVER/ SALEM HARBOR 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 16.1 1.6 6.1 0.6 0.4 16 42.0 1 45 45 21 MARBLEHEAD HARBOR 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 23.2 3.5 9.1 1.4 0.1 6 85.4 1 25 25 22 SALEM SOUND 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 6.0 1.9 142.5 1.3 56.3 0.5 1.9 64 34.5 4 176 44 23 MARBLEHEAD NECK/SWAMPSCOTT COAST 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 59.9 8.8 25.6 3.8 1.2 7 6.1 0 0 0 24 NAHANT BAY 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.7 206.9 25.0 44.9 5.4 3.7 96 26.0 0 0 0 25 SAUGUS RIVER / PINES RIVER / LYNN HARBOR 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 4.2 3.2 443.1 13.8 47.5 1.5 3.2 62 19.5 1 37 37 26 BELLE ISLE CREEK / WINTHROP BAY 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 81.7 4.6 4.8 0.3 1.6 47 29.9 1 80 80 27 CHELSEA CREEK / MYSTIC RIVER / CHARLES RIVER 4.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 5.6 0.1 65.6 1.5 10.5 0.2 0.1 6 90.7 0 0 0 28 NEPONSET RIVER / DORCHESTER BAY 0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 1.0 5.3 1.9 171.4 7.5 7.0 0.3 1.9 26 13.4 0 0 0 29 BLACKS CREEK / QUINCY BAY 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.2 2.9 284.1 31.7 2.9 0.3 2.9 41 14.2 0 0 0 30 BACK RIVER / FORE RIVER / HINGHAM BAY 4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.3 15.6 5.4 446.5 8.1 15.6 0.3 5.4 135 24.8 3 131 43.66667 31 WEIR RIVER / STRAITS POND 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 3.8 1.4 66.3 4.7 10.1 0.7 1.4 28 20.5 0 0 0 32 BOSTON HARBOR 11.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 15.8 31.7 13.9 1468.7 4.2 113.1 0.3 13.9 295 21.2 4 211 52.75 33 LITTLE HARBOR 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 39.0 4.5 21.3 2.5 0.3 6 20.2 0 0 0 34 COHASSET HARBOR 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.1 1.2 94.1 6.1 25.6 1.7 1.2 9 7.5 0 0 0 35 SCITUATE/COHASSET COAST 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.4 26.2 13.4 12.9 6.6 0.4 5 13.4 0 0 0 36 SCITUATE HARBOR 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 59.1 9.5 27.0 4.4 0.2 3 15.6 1 55 55 37 NORTH RIVER / SOUTH RIVER 17.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.3 26.7 3.7 243.9 7.6 4.6 0.1 3.7 38 10.2 0 0 0 38 GREEN HARBOR 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 38.8 7.0 2.8 0.5 2.2 26 12.0 1 74 74 39 BLUEFISH RIVER / BACK RIVER / DUXBURY BAY 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3 4.0 360.0 10.3 14.5 0.4 4.0 19 4.8 0 0 0 40 JONES RIVER / KINGSTON BAY 5.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 1.4 9.4 0.1 27.2 3.1 1.0 0.1 0.1 5 35.8 0 0 0 41 EEL RIVER / PLYMOUTH HARBOR 3.9 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.9 6.0 3.6 130.8 14.4 0.1 0.0 3.6 11 3.1 1 117 117 42 ROCKY POINT 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 62.9 15.6 21.3 5.3 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0 43 BEAVER DAM BROOK/BARTLETT POND 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 29.4 18.1 0.0 0.0 1.0 10 9.9 0 0 0 44 MANOMET / INDIAN BROOK 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 99.3 18.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 25.3 0 0 0 45 ELLISVILLE HARBOR 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 43.7 18.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0 46 NAMELOC HEIGHTS 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 63.1 26.4 0.0 0.0 0.3 4 11.7 0 0 0 47 SCUSSET BEACH 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 1.0 103.3 25.2 0.3 0.1 1.0 2 1.9 0 0 0 48 GREAT HERRING POND / BOURNEDALE 4.1 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 - 0.0 - 0.0 0 0.0 1 6 6 49 WEST SANDWICH 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.8 2.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0 50 SANDWICH HARBOR 2.4 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8 0.7 140.6 18.6 5.6 0.7 0.7 4 5.5 0 0 0 51 SCORTON CREEK 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 123.0 63.3 0.0 0.0 1.6 3 1.8 0 0 0 52 BARNSTABLE HARBOR 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 6.4 1031.0 25.6 0.0 0.0 6.4 8 1.2 1 34 34 53 CHASE GARDEN CREEK 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 110.8 24.3 0.0 0.0 1.2 4 3.3 0 0 0 54 NOBSCUSSET HARBOR 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 97.6 25.2 7.9 2.0 0.6 10 15.8 0 0 0 55 SESUIT CREEK / SESUIT HARBOR 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0.0 10.0 7.4 10.1 7.4 0.0 0 0.0 1 74 74 56 QUIVETT CREEK 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 1.2 61.0 22.7 0.0 0.0 1.2 4 3.2 0 0 0 57 PAINE'S CREEK / STONY BROOK 3.3 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 4.8 0.8 33.9 22.3 0.0 0.0 0.8 5 6.7 1 18 18 58 BREWSTER COAST 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 54.0 17.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 25 14.8 0 0 0 59 NAMSKAKET CREEK / LITTLE NAMSKAKET CREEK 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 56.3 22.4 0.0 0.0 0.9 0 0.0 2 20 10 60 BOAT MEADOW CREEK / ROCK HARBOR 1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0.8 19.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.8 7 8.4 1 55 55 61 HERRING RIVER / HERRING POND 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.5 32.5 13.8 0.0 0.0 0.5 5 10.1 0 0 0 62 FIRST ENCOUNTER BEACH 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 8.2 12.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 1 6.5 0 0 0 63 HERRING BROOK / GREAT POND 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 2.7 81.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 21.5 0 0 0 64 KINGSBURY BEACH TO COOKS BROOK BEACH 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 37.3 12.8 0.0 0.0 0.9 14 15.3 0 0 0 65 WELLFLEET HARBOR 5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7 1.5 548.2 16.4 0.0 0.0 1.5 20 13.0 1 60 60 66 PAMET RIVER / LITTLE PAMET RIVER 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.5 0.3 135.1 25.9 0.0 0.0 0.3 6 17.5 1 30 30 67 TRURO COAST 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 190.6 35.3 0.0 0.0 2.4 15 6.2 0 0 0 68 PROVINCETOWN HARBOR 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 4.8 730.5 63.2 5.4 0.5 4.8 50 10.4 0 0 0 69 PROVINCETOWN COAST 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.7 1881.7 110.8 0.0 0.0 12.7 0 0.0 0 0 0