Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutSelect Board Meeting Packet - 01.27.2022Integrated Water Resource Management Plan 2022 Update Town of Brewster Brewster Town Hall 2198 Main Street Brewster, Massachusetts 02631 Table of Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 2 Overview of Water Quality in Brewster ........................................................................................ 3 Brewster’s Public Drinking Water Supply .................................................................................. 4 Pleasant Bay Watershed ........................................................................................................... 5 Herring River and Bass River Watersheds ................................................................................. 5 Other Coastal Estuaries ............................................................................................................. 5 Fresh Water Ponds .................................................................................................................... 6 IWRMP Summary .......................................................................................................................... 6 Implementation of the IWRMP ..................................................................................................... 7 Pleasant Bay Watershed ........................................................................................................... 8 Golf Course Fertilizer and Wastewater Management ............................................................... 9 Golf Course Fertilizer Leaching Rate Evaluation ...................................................................... 10 Install a Neighborhood Wastewater Treatment and Collection System .................................. 10 Onsite Septic System Treatment Upgrades ............................................................................. 11 Nitrogen Trading ..................................................................................................................... 11 Buildout Nitrogen Management ............................................................................................. 12 Fresh Water Ponds .................................................................................................................. 13 Stormwater Management ....................................................................................................... 15 Herring River Watershed ......................................................................................................... 16 Summary of Potential Costs & Funding Sources ......................................................................... 16 Conclusions – Summary of Next Steps ........................................................................................ 17 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................ 18 2 BREWSTER’S INTEGRATED WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN - 2022 UPDATE Introduction Since the 1980’s, Brewster has actively focused on protecting and restoring the Town’s water resources. This includes significant investments to protect undeveloped land to prevent the pollution of groundwater and surface waters associated with residential and commercial development. In 2009, the Town of Brewster began a detailed study (known as the Integrated Water Resource Management Plan or IWRMP) to identify the issues associated with the Town’s water systems and propose strategies to protect and restore water quality. This planning process led to a series of recommendations related to groundwater, freshwater ponds, stormwater management and coastal estuaries, with a focus on Pleasant Bay. In the last 10 years, significant work has been done to advance these recommendations. The purpose of this updated report is to summarize the goals of the Town’s planning process, describe the actions that have been taken to date and present the current plans for continued water management in Brewster, including the costs needed to implement these plans. As will be described throughout this report, the Town’s investments in protecting open space have preserved drinking water quality throughout Brewster and have significantly reduced the future investments needed to restore the quality of freshwater ponds as well as Pleasant Bay and other coastal estuaries. Integrated Water Resource Management Groundwater and surface waters, throughout Brewster, are interconnected. Rainfall is the source of Brewster’s groundwater and surface waters. Rainwater lands on the ground surface and either infiltrates through the soil into groundwater or flows over the ground surface to a freshwater pond, Cape Cod Bay or one of the coastal estuaries in or near Brewster. These interrelationships led to the decision to develop the IWRMP to evaluate the quality of the groundwater that provides drinking water to Brewster’s residents, as well as the quality of the Town’s many freshwater ponds and coastal estuaries. This planning process recognized that individual plans or actions are needed for specific watersheds in town; those areas that contribute groundwater or surface water to freshwater ponds, or coastal estuaries (Figure 1). The IWRMP process also recognizes ongoing planning is needed for those areas that contribute groundwater to the Town’s public drinking water wells. These areas are known in Massachusetts as Zone II’s, or wellhead protection areas, and are shown in Figure 2. In £¤6 UV137UV124 UV6A DENNIS HARWIC H YARMOUTH ORLEANS CHATHAM Cape Co d Bay Stony BrookQuivett Creek Ple asa nt Bay Bass River Herring River Namskaket Swan Pond Little Namskaket Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community / 0 10.5 Miles Date: 1/18/2022 Path: H:\Projects\2011\11109 Brewster Int.Wtr.Res.Mgt Plan\GIS\Maps\Report\Figure B-2.mxd Figure 1. Brewster's Water Reso urces C apeC odB ayP l e a s a n t B a y Cape Cod Bay Legend Ponds Streams Subwatersheds Wetlands Town of Brewster Watersheds !A !A !A !A !A !A UV6A £¤6 UV137 UV124 WELL # 6 WELL #5 WELL # 4 WELL # 1 WELL # 2 WELL # 3 DENNIS HARWICH ORLEAN S CHATHAMYARMOUTH / 0 10.5 Miles Date: 1/26/2022 Path: H:\Projects\2011\11109 Brewster Int.Wtr.Res.Mgt Plan\GIS\Maps\Report\Figure 2.mxd Figure 2. Brewster Conservation Lan ds and Zone II Are as C apeC odB ayPleasantBayCape Cod Bay !A Publi c Wells Legend Conservation Lands Ponds Brewter Zone II Town of Brewster Other Zone II 3 addition, the areas contributing groundwater and surface water to freshwater ponds must also be assessed and the sources of pollution to these ponds managed. The interrelationships between groundwater, surface water and different sources of pollutants can be seen in Figure 3. The graphic shows how day-to-day activities of town residents impact the quality of drinking water and the quality of freshwater ponds and coastal estuaries. What is flushed down a toilet into a septic system can impact water quality in downgradient wells, ponds or coastal estuaries. Pollutants on town roadways (e.g., automobiles, fertilizers, and pet wastes) are collected in stormwater runoff that flows into waterways or soaks into the ground and impacts groundwater quality. Figure 3 – Integrated Connections Between Water Resources and Pollutants Overview of Water Quality in Brewster Brewster is fortunate to have a public water system that provides high quality drinking water. However, there are ongoing issues with the water quality in many of the freshwater ponds in town, in Pleasant Bay and in Herring River in the adjacent town of Harwich. While Brewster only has frontage on a small portion of Pleasant Bay, and none on the Herring River, a portion of the watersheds that contribute pollutants to them are located in Brewster and the Town has a regulatory obligation to manage these watersheds. An overview of the regulatory requirements for managing the Town’s water resources, and the protection and restoration strategies the Town is currently evaluating, are summarized below. The status of the Town’s actions to restore these waters is then discussed in the following report sections. 4 Brewster’s Public Drinking Water Supply Most Brewster residents get their drinking water from the Town’s public water supply system. Brewster’s public water supply provides high quality drinking water pumped from six wells withdrawing groundwater from the area surrounding each well. The Zone II protection areas to these wells are shown on Figure 2. The protection of undeveloped open space around the Town’s wells serves to minimize the potential for contaminants to impact drinking water quality. In 2012, 40% of the Town’s Zone II areas were protected open space (See IWRMP Phase II Report). The extent of protected open space has grown since then, with further acquisitions by the Town and the Brewster Conservation Trust. Public supply wells using groundwater are typically threatened by nitrogen from septic systems, lawn fertilizers, road runoff, hazardous material releases from fuel storage tanks, and accidental spills from roadway accidents. The open space protection in Brewster has significantly reduced the number of onsite septic systems potentially affecting drinking water quality. The Town’s Water Quality Review Bylaw also prohibits hazardous materials use, or storage at volumes above those typically used in a household, in the Zone II areas. The Town’s wells are tested regularly, and the tests confirm there are no contaminants exceeding federal and state drinking water standards. This data is reported annually in the Consumer Confidence Report, which the Water Department is required to produce. As can be seen in the 2020 report (Town of Brewster Water Department, June 2021), the nitrogen concentration in the Town’s drinking water averaged less than 1 part per million (mg/L). The drinking water standard for nitrogen is 10 mg/L. Nitrogen is an indicator of contamination from septic systems, fertilizers and runoff. The low value is reflective of the extent of protected open space in the Zone II areas around the town wells. Emerging contaminants are an ongoing concern for every drinking water system. One of the emerging contaminants of concern for many drinking water systems is per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). PFAS compounds are found in firefighting foams, a variety of personal care products, food wrappings, Teflon coated cookware, and clothing. The recently updated state drinking water standard for six of these PFAS compounds is now 20 parts per trillion. Note, this drinking water standard is six orders of magnitude lower than the standard for nitrogen. Small releases of these compounds to soil and groundwater can create issues for public water systems, so ongoing testing and evaluation is needed. Tests conducted in 2021 showed no PFAS compounds have been detected in the Town’s public water supplies. There are properties in Brewster that use private wells for drinking water, and they are located in various locations across the Town. These wells face the same water quality issues as the Town wells and often also benefit from nearby protected open space. One issue with private wells is their placement relative to an onsite septic system on the same property or an abutting property. Even if a septic system is outside the required 100-foot setback from a private well, if groundwater is flowing from the septic system towards the well it can bring nitrogen and other contaminants to the well. For this reason, it is important for residents to test the water quality in their private wells on a regular basis. 5 Pleasant Bay Watershed The majority of the IWRMP implementation work over the last four years has focused on Brewster’s portion of the Pleasant Bay watershed. Nitrogen inputs from the land uses within the watershed that contributes groundwater to the bay is the major water quality concern. Excess concentrations accelerate the growth of algae and invasive plants leading to the loss of fish and shellfish habitat. A main concern is the loss of eelgrass that provides habitat for fish to lay eggs and threatens protection of bay scallops. Brewster occupies approximately 25% of the overall watershed shared by Orleans, Harwich, and Chatham, but only contributes to 13% of the total nitrogen load entering the Bay. Brewster still needs to reduce its load by 981 kg/year and has agreed to do this under the Watershed Permit issued by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to the four Pleasant Bay Towns. Herring River and Bass River Watersheds Portions of the watersheds to Herring River in Harwich and Bass River in Dennis and Yarmouth are located in Brewster. Like Pleasant Bay, nitrogen is the pollutant of concern for these estuaries. Brewster’s portion of the Bass River Watershed is quite small, at 160 acres (Univ of MA Dartmouth, April 2011). Given this small area and the fact most of the watershed land within Brewster is protected open space there are no nitrogen management requirements for this watershed. For the Herring River watershed there is likewise no need to reduce the existing nitrogen load within Brewster. However, any additional load resulting from new development in the watershed will need to be managed to minimize the extent of additional nitrogen entering the Herring River system (Univ of MA Dartmouth, May 2013). Recent open space acquisitions in the watershed have reduced the potential for additional nitrogen impacts and the Town will be updating the quantity of nitrogen that needs to be managed in this watershed in the future. Other Coastal Estuaries Nitrogen management for the Namskaket Creek and Quivett Creek watersheds has also been evaluated in Brewster. These estuaries are located on the north shore of Brewster and drain into Cape Cod Bay. Namskaket Creek is different from the estuaries discussed above as the current and future nitrogen load to this estuary is lower than the threshold established by DEP. So, there is no current need to develop a management plan for this system (Univ of MA Dartmouth, December 2008). The Quivett Creek watershed was evaluated by the Cape Cod Commission (October 2018), and it determined there is no need for nitrogen management at this time. Recent data for Quivett Creek developed by the Association to Preserve Cape Cod (APCC) is currently being reviewed by the Brewster Natural Resource Advisory Commission to determine if water quality has changed. The tidal range in Cape Cod Bay and within these 6 estuaries is much higher than in Pleasant Bay, Herring River or Bass River. Therefore, nitrogen entering these systems is quickly flushed out into Cape Cod Bay and does not have the same impact on the health of the estuaries. Fresh Water Ponds Brewster is home to over 80 freshwater ponds located throughout the Town. Unlike coastal waters, pond water quality is impacted by both phosphorus and nitrogen. Excess inputs of these nutrients fuel the growth of algae which, when they die and decay, reduce the oxygen level in the water. Fish kills can result if algae blooms get too big and result in anoxic conditions in the water. In addition, the mixture of nitrogen and phosphorus can promote the growth of toxic organisms like cyanobacteria which were found in three ponds in the summer of 2021 based on testing conducted by APCC. Warmer temperatures and drought conditions over the last year have extended the growing season in the ponds, exacerbating some of these water quality issues. Many ponds are experiencing water quality impairment as shown in Figure 4. The main sources of these nutrients to ponds are septic systems, lawn fertilizers and road runoff. Since phosphorus does not travel extensive distances in groundwater, the concern with septic system discharges is only related to those within approximately 300 feet of the pond shore, especially on the upgradient side of the pond, as mapped on the Water Resource Atlas described later in this report. IWRMP Summary As mentioned above, Brewster’s IWRMP development began in 2009. Since then, a series of reports specific to Brewster have been prepared to outline specific water quality issues and recommend actions to address them. The majority of them can be viewed on the Town’s Website at www.brewster-ma.gov (click on the Water Planning button on the home page). A summary of the main reports that continue to direct the IWRMP process is provided below. • Integrated Water Resource Management Plan Phase II Report, January 2013. This report provided a review of the regulatory process governing water quality management in Brewster and made specific recommendations for restoring and protecting water quality for drinking water, freshwater ponds and coastal estuaries. • Pleasant Bay Nitrogen Management Alternatives Analysis Report, March 2015. This report focused on strategies to reduce nitrogen loading from Brewster’s portion of the Pleasant Bay Watershed to help achieve the nitrogen reduction goals to restore water quality in the Bay. The alternatives considered included a neighborhood sewer system, changes in fertilization practices at the Captain’s Golf Course, the use of innovative septic treatment systems and other potential solutions. • Pleasant Bay Watershed Permit and Targeted Watershed Management Plan, 2018. Brewster entered into an agreement with the DEP and the three other Pleasant Bay £¤6 UV137 UV124 UV6A Long Pond Cliff Pond Upper Mill Pond Seym our Pond Sheep Pond Walkers Pond Flax P ond Low er Mill Pond Elbow Pond Slough Pond Cahoon Pond Griffiths P ond Bakers Pond Greenland Pond Pine Pond Little Cliff Pond Higgins Pond Cobbs Pond Mill PondSmalls Pond Blueberry Pond Canoe Pond Grassy PondMud Pond Smith Pond Black P ond Sols Pond Owl PondMyricks Pond Eel PondSchoolhouse Pond Round Pond Lees Pond Widger Hole No Bottom Pond HARWIC H ORLEANS DENNIS CHATHAM / 0 10.5 Miles Path: H:\Projects\2011\11109 Brewster Int.Wtr.Res.Mgt Plan\GIS\Maps\Report\Figure 1_20171002.mxd Figure 4. Water Quality in Brewste r's Po nds C apeC odB ayPleasantB ayCape Cod Bay Legend Ponds Town of Brewster Ponds Health Assessment Water Q uality Category 1 - High Quality 2 - Meets Most Uses 3 - Some Im pairment 4 - ImpairedMassDOT Major Roads Wetlands No Data Date: 1/14/2022 7 Watershed towns to restore water quality in Pleasant Bay (DEP, August 2018). The Permit specifies specific requirements to reduce nitrogen loading to the bay. The Pleasant Bay Alliance prepared a companion report, the Targeted Watershed Management Plan, outlining the strategies proposed by each town to meet the nitrogen reduction goals in the Permit. (Pleasant Bay Alliance, March 2018) • Meeting the Nitrogen Reduction Goals for Pleasant Bay, October 2020. This report provides an update to the Pleasant Bay Nitrogen Management Alternatives Analysis Report mentioned above. The update was prepared for the Select Board and incorporates updated information on the nitrogen management alternatives available to Brewster based on the requirements of the DEP Permit issued in 2018. • Mill Ponds Management Plan, November 2014. This report, prepared by the School for Marine Science and Technology (SMAST) at the University of Massachusetts, provided recommendations for the restoration of Upper Mill, Lower Mill and Walkers Pond. Based on these recommendations, the Town purchased a weed harvester to help manage Walkers Pond. They also conducted an alum treatment in Upper Mill Pond to reduce water quality impacts from phosphorus historically discharged to the pond, which is now contained in the sediment on the pond bottom. • Water Resource Atlas – Fresh Water Ponds. This Atlas provide maps of the surface watersheds and groundwater recharge areas to each pond in Brewster, and provides the areas proposed for additional septic system management within 300 feet on the upgradient side of each pond, and 100 feet on the downgradient side of the pond. Additional reports have been prepared as part of the Massachusetts Estuaries Project and on behalf of the Pleasant Bay Alliance and these are referenced in the following section of this report. Implementation of the IWRMP The Town’s actions to implement recommendations in the IWRMP are currently focused on the following topics: • Nitrogen reduction in the Pleasant Bay Watershed, as required in the watershed permit issued by DEP. • Actions to protect and restore water quality in the Town’s freshwater ponds. • Implementation of the recently adopted stormwater management bylaw to protect water quality. • Plans to reduce future nitrogen loading in the Herring River watershed. An update on the status of each of these topics is provided below, summarizing the actions being considered, the associated costs, and the work needed to make final decisions. 8 Pleasant Bay Watershed Brewster has collaborated on managing nitrogen in Pleasant Bay with the other towns in the watershed through the Pleasant Bay Alliance. This has included documenting the nitrogen removal responsibilities for each town and establishing the Pleasant Bay Watershed Permit with DEP that provides a framework to meet these nitrogen reduction goals over a 20-year period. The details of these plans are summarized in the Pleasant Bay Targeted Watershed Management Plan, prepared by the Alliance and referenced in the DEP Permit. Much of the data in this plan was obtained from the 2006 Linked Watershed Model, developed by SMAST, as part of the Massachusetts Estuaries Program (Univ of MA Dartmouth, May 2006). It documents the existing nitrogen loading from each town, divided up by the watersheds contributing groundwater to the Bay. It then establishes the nitrogen reduction requirements for each town in each watershed. The Permit requires Brewster to remove of 2,262 kg N/year from the watershed and to address nitrogen impacts from future development. At the time it was issued, the Town had already removed 56% of this load, taking advantage of fertilizer and irrigation management at Captains Golf Course as well as the adoption of a town-wide fertilizer management bylaw (Table -1). This was done with minimal cost to the Town. Total Nitrogen Reduction Required 2,262 kg N/year Golf Fertilization Reduction -930 kg N/year Golf Irrigation Recapture -230 kg N/year Town-wide Fertilizer Bylaw -121 kg N/year Total Nitrogen Removed to Date -1,281 kg N/year Remaining Reduction Needed 981 kg/N/year Table -1 Pleasant Bay Nitrogen Load Summary The permit also requires that the Town address nitrogen inputs from future development in the watershed. Based on an assessment in 2018 (HW, April 2018), this could include an additional 1,209 kg N/year. The Pleasant Bay Alliance will be working over the next year to update this buildout number to assist with the planning needed to manage this additional load. Any future load created will have to be offset by further reductions in existing loads. The Pleasant Bay Alliance is currently working with SMAST to evaluate and revise the nitrogen reduction requirements for each Town based on updated land use information since the initial report was prepared in 2006 and considering the changes in hydrology in Pleasant Bay given the new inlet that was formed in 2007 that increases the tidal flushing in the estuary. The extent of nitrogen entering Pleasant Bay from the Tar Kiln portion of the watershed is currently being reviewed and is an important issue for the Town. If groundwater containing 9 nitrogen enters a freshwater pond or wetland, some of the nitrogen is attenuated, or taken up by the algae and plants, and less is transferred back into groundwater which then flows to Pleasant Bay. No attenuation was attributed to the Tar Kiln watershed in the initial SMAST Model, but recent studies by SMAST led them to conclude that there is attenuation in this marsh system. As such, the existing nitrogen impact from this watershed is reduced, meaning that septic systems, lawns and stormwater in this area of the watershed do not have as much impact on Pleasant Bay. However, a portion of Captains Golf Course lies in this watershed, and the plans for managing further nitrogen reductions may be somewhat offset by the new attenuation attributed to the Tar Kiln Marsh. The Town is working with the Pleasant Bay Alliance to quantify how this affects Brewster’s requirements under the Watershed Permit. However, the effects should not be significant enough to require major changes in the plans developed to date. The options to fully comply with the Watershed Permit are summarized below. One major opportunity is continued fertilizer management at Captains Golf Course. The extent to which this will reduce nitrogen loading will affect the scale and cost of the other options the Town is considering. Each option is discussed below, with an initial estimate of the cost for implementation. Golf Course Fertilizer and Wastewater Management In 2020, the Town has collaborated with the U.S. Golf Association to identify additional strategies to further reduce nitrogen inputs at Captains Golf Course. Proposed changes at the golf course include: • Changes in fertilization practices to reduce applications on the fairways and roughs, incorporating sprayed applications of liquid fertilizers that can be readily adsorbed by the turf. These new practices began in 2020. • Reductions in the size of fairways by a total of approximately 2.5 acres by converting this turf to rough and reducing fertilizer demand. The areas selected are based on an inspection by the U.S. Golf Association and would not hinder the way the course is used. • Installation of a nitrogen treatment system to the septic system at the course that would reduce the nitrogen concentration in the effluent to 10 mg/L or less. If implemented, these actions would further reduce nitrogen loading by 458 kg/year, such that the Town will only need to manage the remaining current nitrogen load of 523 kg/year. There would be little to no cost for changes in fertilization applications, the cost for the adjustments to the size of the fairways would cost about $20,000 and the septic system upgrades would cost approximately $200,000. The golf course has already begun to implement the sprayed applications of fertilizer at reduced rates and this process will continue moving forward. Nitrogen Reduction 458 kg/year Estimated Cost $220,000 – Current Estimate 10 Golf Course Fertilizer Leaching Rate Evaluation Separate from the reduced amount of fertilizer applied to the golf course turf, the Town could receive a nitrogen reduction credit related to the amount of fertilizer that actually leaches into groundwater and flows to Pleasant Bay. Currently the DEP watershed permit assumes that 20% of the nitrogen in fertilizers leaches into groundwater. The proposed management practices will likely reduce this leaching rate. If so, additional nitrogen reduction credits can be obtained. The Town has begun a study to evaluate the fertilizer leaching rate that involves the testing of water in the soil and the underlying groundwater for nitrogen. A series of six lysimeters have been installed in the golf course fairways that capture water infiltrating through the upper 1-2 feet of soil. Six monitoring wells located near the lysimeters have also been installed. Quarterly testing of nitrogen concentrations will be conducted for two years to document how much nitrogen applied in fertilizer actually enters groundwater below the golf course. Based on this data, an updated leaching rate for fertilizers will be documented and used to determine the remaining nitrogen load that must be managed by Brewster. This option is attractive because the only expense is the cost for a study to document this leaching rate. If the leaching rate is substantially lower, the nitrogen reduction requirements for both existing and future loads could be reduced. Nitrogen Reduction To be determined Cost (for leaching rate study) $140,000 – funded in 2021 and underway Install a Neighborhood Wastewater Treatment and Collection System A traditional wastewater system could be installed in the upper, western portion of the watershed to treat effluent prior to its discharge to groundwater. This area was selected based on the concentration of development that reduces the length, and therefore the cost, of sewer lines needed to collect wastewater. There are two options for this, either site the wastewater disposal field in the watershed or locate it outside the watershed. If the disposal field is not within the watershed, all the nitrogen from the homes connected to the system is removed, and therefore fewer homes need to be connected to reach the required nitrogen load reduction. The siting of a disposal field outside the Pleasant Bay watershed needs to account of other potential impacts to drinking water supplies or other sensitive watersheds. The sizing of the system assumes no change in the golf course leaching rate. Both of these options could be expanded to accommodate additional nitrogen from future development. The costs listed below are broken out into those needed to design and permit the system and those needed for construction and a long term (20-year) operation. Disposal in the watershed Disposal outside the watershed 11 No. of Homes 152 No. of Homes 100 Nitrogen removed 523 kg/yr. Nitrogen reduction 523 kg/yr. Planning Cost $450,000 Planning Cost $400,000 20-year cost $10,000,000-$15,000,000 20-year cost $9,000,000 Onsite Septic System Treatment Upgrades Septic systems serving individual properties could be upgraded to provide additional nitrogen treatment. Currently, it may be possible to utilize an innovative treatment system to treat nitrogen to about 12 mg/L, well below the typical system which discharges nitrogen at a concentration of about 35 mg/L. There are innovative systems that could meet this goal, but they are still being evaluated. Based on the best, currently available data, approximately 320 septic systems would need to be upgraded to this relatively new technology to provide the necessary nitrogen reduction. This number may change based on the results from the golf course leaching rate study and the nitrogen attenuation attributed to the Tar Kiln Marsh watershed. More septic systems could be upgraded with nitrogen treatment to help accommodate future nitrogen loads from buildout. The Pleasant Bay Alliance evaluated the cost for the design, construction and long-term operation of these systems and reported that the price for an individual system could run as high as $33,900 with annual operation and maintenance costs of $2,360 (HW, 2020, Appendix C). Over 20 years this results in a total cost for 320 properties of $26,000,000. This cost makes this option more expensive than the neighborhood system described above. The Town is continuing to evaluate these costs, based in part on a pilot program led by the Barnstable Clean Water Coalition documenting actual construction costs for 15-20 systems which are somewhat lower than that estimated by the Alliance. The use of these systems could be beneficial if the leaching rate study at the golf course shows fewer of them are needed. They may also be useful for managing future development not just in the Pleasant Bay watershed but in watersheds adjacent to freshwater ponds as well. No. of Homes 320 Nitrogen reduction 523 kg/yr. 20-year cost $26,000,000 Nitrogen Trading The Town can negotiate a “nitrogen trade” with another Pleasant Bay town by financing nitrogen removal actions they are taking. As an example, if a neighborhood treatment plant would cost $10,000,000 to remove 523 kg N/year, the Town could negotiate an agreement with Harwich, Orleans, or Chatham to fund wastewater treatment in their community to remove the same amount of nitrogen, taking advantage of economies of scale and excess nitrogen removal in their new wastewater systems. The size and cost of the trade could be adjusted to accommodate future nitrogen impacts from buildout. This would eliminate the long-term management of a facility in Brewster. 12 Buildout Nitrogen Management Under the Watershed Permit, Brewster needs to develop a plan to ensure future development is managed to keep the nitrogen loading in the Town’s portion of the watershed within the levels allowed for Pleasant Bay. Part of this can be accomplished through the strategies discussed above. In addition, there are regulatory options that the Town can evaluate to make sure that the loading from future development is minimized to the extent possible. The Water Quality Review Bylaw currently in place limits the amount of nitrogen from development within the Pleasant Bay watershed. For any new project, or for an expansion of an existing development, the applicant must demonstrate the overall nitrogen load is limited to an average of 5 mg/L in groundwater underneath the site. Several changes to this bylaw were approved by Town Meeting in November 2021 and the Board of Health recently approved related nitrogen loading calculation regulations pending town counsel review. This 5 mg/L limit applies to both residential properties and to commercial/industrial areas also located within the Pleasant Bay watershed. The Town is considering changing the 5mg/L limit for commercial and industrial properties to 3 mg/L. If this change is made, the overall nitrogen load from buildout is reduced by 25-30% in this watershed. New data from the Pleasant Bay Alliance’s ongoing buildout assessment will refine the actual benefit of this change. Preliminary calculations suggest that most commercial/industrial uses allowed in the watershed could comply with the 3 mg/L threshold. If not, a project may need to install an innovative septic system technology to treat nitrogen in wastewater effluent to meet this goal. Given any new development increases the overall nitrogen management load, it is worthwhile to consider having some limitations on the extent of additional load that could be allowed. Other buildout options include limiting the extent of development allowed on town-owned properties within the watershed and further limiting the allowable nitrogen load from residential properties. Further discussion and public input are needed on these options. These discussions will benefit from the ongoing collection of data from the golf course study discussed above. In summary, there are several viable options to fully comply with Brewster’s obligations under the Pleasant Bay Watershed Permit. The proposed leaching rate study will document potential additional nitrogen reductions at the golf course with minimal cost. This would further reduce the costs for the remaining actions the town will have to take. The neighborhood wastewater treatment options could be used to manage the remaining nitrogen or as a basis for a nitrogen trade with another Pleasant Bay town. Each of these options can also be expanded, if needed, to accommodate future development. The Town is required to provide annual updates to DEP under the Watershed Permit and coordinates these updates with the other Pleasant Bay Towns. The Cape Cod Commission also reviews ongoing work in the watershed as part of its 13 implementation of the Section 208 Area Wide Water Quality Management Plan. Its most recent review is provided in Appendix A. Fresh Water Ponds As discussed above, if too much phosphorus enters a pond, it will accelerate the growth of algae. When algae dies it decays, and as this happens the oxygen in the water column is depleted. In extreme situations, this results in fish kills as there is not enough oxygen to keep the fish alive. Phosphorus does not travel far in groundwater as it readily binds to the iron and manganese in the subsurface soils and sediments. This means that, for phosphorus, the primary concerns with septic systems are those located within 300 feet of a pond on the upgradient side where groundwater is traveling towards the pond. Recent studies have shown that nitrogen is also a concern in ponds, as the combination of nitrogen and phosphorus can create conditions that support the growth of cyanobacteria, a toxic organism that can affect people and wildlife. Water Quality Data The Town has conducted regular water quality monitoring of many of the larger ponds in Brewster and used that information to support restoration projects in Long Pond, Walkers Pond, and Upper Mill Pond. A summary of this water quality data was last published in 2009. An update on the current water quality status based on the data collected since 2009 would be useful and the Town is working to review ongoing monitoring data and develop a new status report. The cost for this update report is estimated at $50,000. It should be noted that bacteria testing of pond water quality is also conducted by the Board of Health monitoring water quality at the public beaches at ponds in Town. Board of Health Septic Regulations The Board of Health currently has a regulation prohibiting septic system leaching facilities within 300 feet of a pond. This serves to minimize phosphorus impacts from future development. However, there are approximately 600 properties either fully or partially within the 300-foot buffer to the ponds in Brewster. Applicants looking to update or expand their septic system are regularly asking for a variance to this regulation as they cannot move their leaching facility outside the 300-foot buffer. HW prepared a draft revision to this Board of Health regulation in 2016. The draft requires septic systems within 300 feet upgradient and 100 feet downgradient of a pond to install a leaching facility or alternative technology that will provide phosphorus treatment. This regulation was discussed at a public Board of Health Hearing in 2016. There were questions related to the cost of the treatment systems and the performance of the technologies available at that time for phosphorus treatment. Further evaluation of the draft regulation is needed to advance the process to restore pond water quality. In part, it needs to consider the treatment for nitrogen as well as phosphorus given concerns about cyanobacteria. Along with evaluating 14 the technologies available, it will be important to consider the cost of implementing a new regulation and the process for funding it. Innovative/Alternative Septic Pilot Program In 2018, a charrette was held with members of the Board of Health, Town staff, local design engineers and a representative from the MA Septic System Test Center to evaluate the proposed phosphorus treatment technologies then available and associated costs. The installation of pilot systems within 300 feet of one or more ponds in Brewster to test the technology and document the costs was recommended at each session. Newer technologies are now being tested to document their performance for treating both nutrients and these could be incorporated into a pilot project in Brewster. A pilot project testing 6 innovative septic systems would cost approximately $300,000. Based on recent work conducted in the Shubael Pond neighborhood by the Barnstable Clean Water Coalition (December 2021), the cost to design, permit and install an alternative treatment system is approximately $20,000-$25,000. Note, this cost is lower than the estimate for similar systems developed by the Pleasant Bay Alliance. This is in part due to the need for a greater amount of monitoring of the systems under the Pleasant Bay Permit. The cost for each site will vary based on the size of the property, the slope of the land and the operational status of the existing septic tank and leaching facility (if they can be maintained). There may be more affordable technologies, but this provides an initial estimate for implementing this regulation. Large-Scale Innovative/Alternative Septic Upgrades The overall cost if all 600 properties within the proposed setback to ponds were upgraded would be approximately $12,000,000 to $15,000,000. There would also be annual operation, maintenance and monitoring fees for these systems. Further discussion on who should pay for some or all of these upgrades is needed. Not all ponds in Brewster are accessible by the public, as the shoreline at some locations is all privately owned. A question that has been raised is whether the town should provide funding for system upgrades if there is no public access. The next steps for implementing actions for ponds include: • Updating information available on the technologies that can provide phosphorus and nitrogen treatment, including their performance and cost. • Revising the draft health regulation. • Evaluating other sources of nutrient pollution to ponds and develop strategies to minimize these threats. As discussed below, the stormwater bylaw adopted in November 2021 will help with pond water quality management. Additional outreach and public discussion will be needed to achieve consensus on the best approach for pond management. 15 Neighborhood Sewer Systems It should be noted that there was discussion about providing neighborhood sewer systems around ponds in Brewster at the public meeting in 2016 and at the charrette in 2018. This option seems to be significantly more costly than using individual onsite systems. It would not be feasible to construct one system to sewer all the areas around Brewster’s ponds. There would be a need to construct sewer lines around each pond as well as multiple treatment facilities. In addition, a location for each neighborhood system would also have to be selected and acquired by the owner of the facility, be it the Town or a neighborhood association. Further analysis comparing neighborhood sewer systems to individual systems will need to be part of future technical evaluation and public policy discussions. Stormwater Management Stormwater management has been a key part of the IWRMP process since the beginning. During the development of Phase II of the IWRMP, a series of proposed stormwater improvements were identified to limit the direct discharge of stormwater to surface waters in Town. One location was the town-owned boat ramp for Long Pond on Crowells Bog Road. Currently stormwater runs directly down the access road into the Pond. However, the Town is redesigning the boat ramp, parking area, and incorporating updated stormwater practices to prevent direct discharge of untreated runoff into Long Pond. Other stormwater improvements at Breakwater Landing, Crosby Landing and Paine’s Creek have been completed and the Walker’s Pond boat ramp upgrade is planned for this spring. Brewster adopted a new stormwater management bylaw at its November 2021 Town Meeting. This bylaw is required under the federal Municipal Separate Storm Sewer (MS4) regulation under the federal Clean Water Act. The bylaw requires both minor and major projects to design and build stormwater management systems to prevent the overland flow of water directly to ponds and coastal waters. It also incorporates treatment requirements to protect groundwater quality where stormwater is infiltrated into the ground. Over time it will help improve water quality, especially in areas where stormwater is currently flowing directly to a surface water. Projects creating less than 500 square feet of impervious cover or disturbing less than 10,000 square feet of land are required to apply for a minor permit. As part of the application the runoff volume from the project must be calculated and one or more stormwater management practices, such as a rain garden or vegetated swale must be sized and installed. Larger projects must apply for a major permit to be reviewed by either the Planning Board or the Conservation Commission if the Conservation Commission has jurisdiction under the state Wetlands Protection Act. These larger projects must document that the stormwater will be managed in accordance with the state’s stormwater management regulations. 16 The Planning Board is now finalizing a set of implementation regulations for the bylaw. They are also working with Town staff to develop application forms and instructions for both the major and minor permits. These new requirements for stormwater will help improve water quality through Brewster. Herring River Watershed As mentioned above, the Town’s obligations for nitrogen management in the Herring River watershed involve limiting the nitrogen load from future development. The strategies considered for future development in the Pleasant Bay watershed could be applied for the Herring River watershed as well. Further work is needed to quantify the extent of buildout possible in this watershed given recent open space acquisitions by the Town to refine the management strategies for Herring River. Summary of Potential Costs & Funding Sources Based on the information provided above, the overall cost for implementing the primary components of the IWRMP as of 2022 is approximately $22,970,000 - $31,070,000. Table 2 shows a breakdown of costs for the Pleasant Bay watershed and freshwater pond management which are the two issues with significant management costs. For Pleasant Bay, the overall cost includes the neighborhood wastewater treatment plant option as this is less expense than using individual septic treatment systems. In most towns, the implementation of wastewater management strategies includes funding from the property owner and the town. How the funding is managed in Brewster still needs to be evaluated. The extent of town funding is often based on the benefits received by all residents in the town. For example, the restoration of water quality in a pond or coastal estuary can benefit all resident who have access to the water. Table 2 also provides information on the potential for the Town to obtain a State Revolving Fund (SRF) loan to finance the costs or to get funding from the recently created Cape Cod and Islands Water Protection Fund (CCIWPF). Funding for CCIWPF is through taxes on hotels and short-term rental facilities. To receive an SRF Loan, the Town must apply through the MA Clean Water Trust. If the Trust approves a project, it is then eligible for funding from the CCIWPF. The CCIWPF funds are used to repay a portion of the SRF loan. For a project to be eligible for SRF funding, the Trust requires DEP approval of a comprehensive wastewater management plan, IWRMP, targeted watershed plan or project specific plan. Cape Cod Commission Clean Water Act Section 208 approval is also required for a project to be eligible for SRF funding. Proposed project(s) must be submitted to the Clean Water Trust for inclusion on the annual Intended Use Plan. If a project is included on the plan, it is then eligible for SRF funding. Funding is provided as a 20-year loan with a maximum interest rate of 2%. Some projects can qualify for a lower interest rate as well. Projects demonstrating their   Table 2:  Summary of IWRMP Costs and Funding Options     Pleasant Bay Watershed Project  Golf Course Fertilizer Adjustment and Fairway Size Refinements Cost:   $20,000  SRF Funding Eligibility No CCIWPF Eligibility  No  Construction of Captains Golf Course I/A Treatment System.  Cost:   $200,000  SRF Funding Eligibility Possible   CCIWPF Eligibility  Possible at 50% of SRF cost  WWTP Planning.   Cost:    $200,000 ‐ $225,000 SRF Funding Eligibility  Possible  CCIWPF Eligibility  Possible – At about 50%   WWTP Design and Permitting.   Cost:    $200,000 ‐ $225,000 SRF Funding Eligibility  No  CCIWPF Eligibility  No  Construction of a Neighborhood WWTP*.    Cost: $10,000,000 ‐ $15,000,000  SRF Funding Eligibility  Possible CCIWPF Eligibility  Possible –at 25%         Fresh Water Ponds Project  Development of an Updated Report on Pond Water Quality Cost:    $50,000 SRF Funding Eligibility  Possible CCIWPF Eligibility    Possible – At about 50%  Development of a Pilot Program for Septic Upgrades Near Freshwater Ponds.   Cost:    $300,000 ‐ $350,000 SRF Funding Eligibility  Possible CCIWPF Eligibility  Possible – At about 50%   Installation of I/A Septic Systems Adjacent to Fresh Water Ponds.   Cost:   $12,000,000 ‐ $15,000,000 SRF Funding Eligibility Unlikely CCIWPF Eligibility  Unlikely   Total Cost:    $22,970,000 ‐ $31,070,000 Total SRF Funding Eligibility  $10,750,000 ‐ $15,825,000 Total CCIWPF Eligibility      $2,875,000 ‐   $4,162,500   * Note: The WWTP cost is for the larger system serving approximately 150 homes.  The costs for onsite septic treatment systems for Pleasant Bay are not included here as the neighborhood WWTP is currently the more cost effective option.   17 implementation will not result in any growth in development can qualify for a 0% interest rate. In 2021, 75% of the projects that requested SRF support were awarded a loan by the Clean Water Trust. The CCIWPF provides separate funds, as grants to the Towns that participate in the program. The funds are provided only for projects approved for an SRF loan. Each year the grants are provided based on the funds available and the number of projects eligible for funding. This data is used to select a subsidy percentage for each project. For the first round of funding through the CCIWPF, awards for projects on the Intended Use Plan were provided at a rate of 25% of the project cost. Small projects, below $1,000,000, are eligible for twice the percentage awarded to other projects. Awards for all projects are paid out in equal installments over four years after they are awarded. Per correspondence with DEP officials in Summer 2021, based on the information provided in Table 2, Brewster could potentially receive SRF funding on one or more 20-year loans, for the planning projects, the installation of the septic treatment system at Captains Golf Course, and the construction of the neighborhood wastewater facility. A total of $10,750,000 - $15,825,000 could be funded. If awarded SRF funding, there would then be funds available from the CCIWPF to support the repayment of the SRF loans. Assuming a 25% payment of the cost of each project (and 50% for projects under $1,000,000 in cost) a total of $2,875,000 - $4,162,500 could be financed through the CCIWPF. Conclusions – Summary of Next Steps Reducing the nitrogen load to Pleasant Bay and developing a plan to restore pond water quality are the two main water resource issues for Brewster. For Pleasant Bay, the extent of nitrogen reduction that can be achieved at Captains Golf Course will determine the extent of wastewater management needed in the watershed, either through a neighborhood wastewater treatment plant, the use of nitrogen treatment technologies for onsite septic systems or a nitrogen trade with another town in the watershed. For freshwater ponds, the Town is planning to develop updated information on their water quality status. With that information, the primary goal is to develop a program to upgrade septic systems along the pond shores to minimize impacts from nitrogen and phosphorus. Following additional data collection and technical analysis, decisions on these topics will need to be made in the next 1-3 years and ongoing outreach is planned to obtain input from town residents to help inform these critical policy decisions. 18 REFERENCES Barnstable Clean Water Coalition. December 2021. Coalition Quarterly – Fall 2021 Newsletter. https://bcleanwater.org/living-lab-cape-cod-blog/coalition-quarterly-issue-17-fall-2021/. Cape Cod Commission, 2017. Watershed Report – Quivett Creek, Brewster and Dennis. https://www.capecodcommission.org/resource- library/file/?url=/dept/commission/team/Website_Resources/208/watershedreports/2017_Wa tershed_Report_MC_Quivett_Creek.pdf . Horsley Witten Group, Inc. July 2020. Pleasant Bay Alliance Task 1A: On-Site Denitrification Systems Summary Report. Prepared with grant funding from the EPA Southeast New England Program. Horsley Witten Group, Inc. April 16, 2018. Memorandum - Updated Buildout Analysis for the Pleasant Bay Watershed. Horsley Witten Group, Inc. January 2013. Integrated Water Resource Management Plan - Phase II Report Horsley Witten Group, Inc. March 2015. Pleasant Bay Nitrogen Management Alternatives Analysis Report. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. August 2018. Pleasant Bay Watershed Permit 001-0. Pleasant Bay Alliance. March 2018. Pleasant Bay Targeted Watershed Management Plan. Town of Brewster Water Department, June 2021. 2020 Water Quality Report (CCR). (https://www.brewster-ma.gov/departments-mainmenu-26/water-department-mainmenu-39) University of Massachusetts Dartmouth School of Marine Science and Technology. May 2006. Linked Watershed-Embayment Model to Determine Critical Nitrogen Loading Thresholds for the Pleasant Bay System, Orleans, Chatham and Harwich, Massachusetts. University of Massachusetts Dartmouth School of Marine Science and Technology. December 2008. Linked Watershed-Embayment Model to Determine Critical Nitrogen Loading Thresholds for the Namskaket Marsh Estuarine System, Orleans, Massachusetts. University of Massachusetts Dartmouth School of Marine Science and Technology. April 2011. Linked Watershed-Embayment Model to Determine Critical Nitrogen Loading Thresholds for the Bass River Embayment System, Towns of Yarmouth and Dennis, Massachusetts. 19 University of Massachusetts Dartmouth School of Marine Science and Technology. March 2013. Linked Watershed-Embayment Model to Determine Critical Nitrogen Loading Thresholds for the Herring River System, Harwich, Massachusetts. University of Massachusetts Dartmouth School of Marine Science and Technology. June 2021. Linked Watershed-Embayment Model to Determine Critical Nitrogen Loading Thresholds for the Pleasant Bay System, Orleans, Chatham and Harwich, Massachusetts 2020 Update Final Report. Appendix A - 208 Compliance Reports 2021 The Cumulative Town Snapshot section summarizes the funding snapshot categories since 2015 Complete or Approved Partial Not Shared or Not Approved Not AvailableSYMBOL LEGEND OTHER LEGEND The Cumulative Town Snapshot section summarizes the funding snapshot categories since 2015 Progress shown is for the period from November 2020 through November 2021 208 COMPLIANCE REPORT | 2021 Brewster Town Team: • Comprehensive Water Planning Committee (dissolved 2015) • Water Quality Review Committee • Town Planner • Health Agent • Natural Resources Director • Horsley Witten Group Collaborations: • Pleasant Bay Alliance • Town of Chatham • Town of Harwich • Town of Orleans • MassDEP • Cape Cod Commission • SNEP Network Town of Brewster Town(s) with Joint Agreement or Plan in Place Priority Watershed Watershed 28,910 kg N22,690 kg N 48,210 kg N40,201 kg N Town of ALL PROPERTIES SERVED BY CENTRALIZED SYSTEMS - Plans and permits in the priority watersheds as identified by the 208 Plan Implementation Report in 2017. *Bass River watershed, <1% nitrogen allocation for Brewster **Swan Pond River watershed, <1% nitrogen allocation for Brewster * ** PRIORITY WATERSHED PROGRESSTEAM Team members engaged in water quality planning efforts. MS4 COMPLIANCE 12 Cape Cod towns are required to address stormwater discharge under the MS4 Permit. Towns with nitrogen impaired waters must meet additional permit requirements. TMDLTMDL NON- TRADITIONAL PROJECTS UNDERWAY TOTAL FLOW COLLECTED BY CENTRALIZED SYSTEMS TOWN MEETING APPROVED FUNDING CUMULATIVE TOWN SNAPSHOT SINCE 208 PLAN APPROVAL GRANT FUNDING RECEIVED 3 -$612K $482K* Subject to MS4 Permit No Additional nitrogen related requirements In compliance with MS4 Permit requirements Plan In Place Agreement In Place Consistency Determination Permits Issued Plan In Place Pleasant Bay Watershed Plan (2018) Agreement In Place Pleasant Bay IMA Consistency Determination 208 Consistency Determination (2018) Permits Issued Watershed Permit (2018) Pleasant BayHerring River (Harwich) Current Attenuated Watershed Load Current Attenuated Watershed Load Complete or Approved Partial Not Shared or Not Approved Not AvailableSYMBOL LEGEND OTHER LEGEND Text color indicates that data made available is 5 years or older 2016 201720192019Brewster 208 COMPLIANCE REPORT | 2021 WATER USE EMBAYMENT MONITORING PARCEL DATA ASSESSOR DATA TOWN REGIONAL DATA SHARING STATUSTown of IMPLEMENTATION Actions taken relative to plan and project implementation and regulatory and town meeting actions. FUNDING Cape Cod and Islands Water Protection Fund Member Community Actions taken during the reporting period to secure funding for water quality improvement plans and projects. Progress shown is for the period from November 2020 through November 2021 TOWN IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS LOCAL REGULATORY ACTIONS Fertilizer By-Law in Place Zoning Changes • None in reporting period Adoption of Regulations • None in reporting period Town Funding Actions • 2021 Professional services for MS4 stormwater permitting and compliance ($80,000 Approved) • 2021 Walkers Pond Water Quality Evaluation ($40,000 Approved) • 2021 Pleasant Bay Fertilizer Impact Assessment at Captains Golf Course ($140,000 Approved) • 2021 Integrated Water Resources Planning and Implementation ($75,000 Approved) Grant Funding • None in reporting period Implementation Actions reflect unfunded municipal actions such as, inter-municipal agreements, procedural approvals, and committee actions. • None in reporting period * From Town Snapshot: grant funds reflect a decrease of $20k from the 2020 report, as a grant was previously duplicated. PROJECT STATUS Project Stage Captains Golf Course Fertilizer Reduction Captains Golf Course Fertigation On-site Denitrification Systems PRestoration Project Remediation Project Reduction Project Pilot project FEASIBILITY IMPLEMENTATION IMPLEMENTATION Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Integrated Water Resource Management Planning 2022 Update Horsley Witten Group, Inc. All Water Resources are Interconnected Therefore: Horsley Witten Group, Inc. An Integrated Plan! Horsley Witten Group, Inc. The Big Picture… Protecting the Town’s Waters Protecting Public and Private Drinking Water Supplies Managing Nitrogen Loads to Coastal Embayments Protecting and Restoring Fresh Water Ponds Improving Stormwater Management Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Brewster’s Conservation Lands and Zone II Areas Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Coastal Watersheds Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Status of Brewster’s Ponds - 2009 Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Water Quality Issues - Nitrogen Impacts Drinking Water, Coastal Waters and Fresh Water Ponds SOURCES – Septic Systems, Fertilizers, Road Runoff Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Water Quality Issues - Nitrogen Septic System Discharge 35 mg/L Drinking Water Standard 10 mg/L State DW Planning Standard 5 mg/L Brewster Drinking Water < 1 mg/L Coastal Estuary Threshold ~0.3 mg/L Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Phosphorus and Ponds Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Water Quality Issues – Emerging Contaminants Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Found in Fire Fighting Foams, Cleaning Products Teflon Pans, Food Wrappers, Skin Care Products and Waterproof Clothing State Drinking Water Standard of 20 Parts Per Trillion Currently Not Detected in Brewster’s Public Wells Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Integrated Water Planning Timeline 2009 Comprehensive Water Planning Committee Formed Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Phase I - 2011 Phase II - 2012 Pleasant Bay Nitrogen Management Alternatives Assessment -2015 Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Timeline - Continued Implementation Phase Water Resource Atlas – Fresh Water Ponds – 2016 Pleasant Bay Watershed Permit – 2018 Pleasant Bay Targeted Watershed Management Plan - 2018 Golf Course Fertilization/Leaching Rate Study – Ongoing Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Timeline - Continued Implementation Phase Walkers Pond Weed Harvesting Program Upper Mill Pond Alum Treatment Elbow Pond Weed Harvesting Program Ongoing Water Quality Assessments Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Key Issues in 2022 Pleasant Bay Nitrogen Management to Comply with Watershed Permit Development and Implementation of Strategies to Protect and Restore Fresh Water Ponds Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Pleasant Bay Watershed Permit Brewster makes up 25% of the Pleasant Bay Watershed and is accountable for 13% of the N load. Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Open Space Purchases Protect Brewster’s Waters Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Pleasant Bay Watershed Permit Permit Signed in August 2018. Requires Brewster to remove of 2,262 kg of nitrogen per year and address future development. The town has already removed 56% of this load through changes in fertilizer practices at Captains Golf Course. Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Nitrogen Reductions Achieved To Date Nitrogen Reduction Required:2,262 kg-N/year Approved Reductions in Watershed Permit: Golf Fertilizer Reduction (pre-2015) 930 kg-N/year Golf Irrigation Recapture 230 kg-N/year Town-wide Fertilizer Bylaw 121 kg-N/year Total Nitrogen Removed 1,281 kg-N/year Remaining Reduction Needed 981 kg/N/year Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Nitrogen Reductions by Watershed Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Nitrogen Impacts in Tar Kiln Subwatershed Currently Being Reevaluated Tar Kiln Watershed Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Nitrogen Management Alternatives to Meet Permit Goals Additional Captains Golf Course Fertilizer Management Neighborhood WWTP I/A Septic Treatment Systems Nitrogen Trading Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Further Nitrogen Reduction Opportunities at Captain’s Golf Course Reduce fertilizer applications on the fairways and roughs, incorporating sprayed applications of liquid fertilizers (underway). Potentially reduce the size of fairways by approximately 2.5 acres (course-wide) –subject to further discussion. Septic System Upgrade to Treat for Nitrogen (Cost approx. $150,000 -$170,000) Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Example of how a fairway could be shortened to reduce fertilizer applications Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Further Nitrogen Reduction Opportunities at Captain’s Golf Course Fertilizer Reductions -364 kg-N/year Fairway Changes -49 kg-N/year Septic Upgrade -45 kg-N/year Total New Reduction 458 kg-N/year Final Reduction Needed 523 kg/N/year Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Golf Course Fertilizer Leaching Rate Evaluation •Changes in fertilizer practices may mean that less nitrogen is leaching into groundwater. •The permit assumes that 20% does leach. •Documenting a lower leaching rate would further reduce Brewster’s obligations under the permit. •Study underway to document how much nitrogen enters groundwater from fertilizer applications. Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Golf Course Fertilizer Leaching Rate Evaluation Six fairway sites being tested using subsurface lysimeters and groundwater monitoring wells Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Golf Course Fertilizer Leaching Rate Evaluation Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Golf Course Fertilizer Leaching Rate Evaluation •Results of this study – completed in 2023 - will determine what additional nitrogen load must be managed using other techniques Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Neighborhood Wastewater Treatment and Collection System Disposal in the watershed Disposal outside the watershed Number of Homes = 152 Number of Homes = 110 Nitrogen reduction ~ 523 kg/yr Nitrogen reduction ~ 523 kg/yr 20-year cost = $10,000,000 - $15,000,000 20-year cost = $9,000,000 •A traditional wastewater system could be installed in the upper portion of the watershed to treat effluent prior to its discharge to groundwater. •Can offset future development Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Option 3: Onsite Septic System Treatment Upgrades Septic systems serving individual properties could be upgraded to provide additional nitrogen treatment. On-site septic system treatment upgrades have until recently been recently been the preferred alternative. Through the PB Watershed Permit and supporting SNEP Grant, this approach appears to be less cost effective for this watershed at this scale. Number of Homes = 320 Nitrogen reduction = 523 kg/yr 20-year cost = $26,000,000 Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Nitrogen Trading •The permit allows the town to negotiate a “nitrogen trade” with another Pleasant Bay town. •Eliminates the long-term management of a facility in Brewster. •Size and cost of the trade could be adjusted to accommodate future nitrogen impacts from buildout. Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Summary 75% of Brewster’s obligations can be achieved at Captains Golf Course with Minimal Cost. A successful study of leaching rates will further reduce the town’s obligation. Options to manage the rest includes: Neighborhood WWTP Onsite Septic Upgrades Nitrogen Trade Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Ongoing Pond Restoration Activities Walkers Pond – Weed harvesting to remove plants and associated phosphorus. Water quality continues to deteriorate and further study by SMAST is underway Upper Mill Pond – Alum Treatment to minimize phosphorus input from pond sediments Elbow Pond weed harvesting Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Ongoing Water Quality Testing Annual testing of 28 ponds across Brewster Last update report on testing published in 2009 New update would be useful Estimated cost - $50,000 Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Septic Management Near Ponds Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Septic Management Near Ponds Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Current Regulation Proposed Regulation Pond Nutrient Management Areas Nutrient Management Area for Ponds Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Water Resource Atlas - Fresh Water Ponds Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Draft Health Reg for Ponds Reset septic buffer 300 feet upgradient 100 feet downgradient Require phosphorus treatment units or shallow leach fields to capture phosphorus in iron rich soils Require nitrogen treatment as well Horsley Witten Group, Inc. How Many Properties Affected? Estimate up to 600 Homes Would Require an Upgrade Total Cost at $20,000-$25,000 per Property = $12,000,000 to $15,000,000 Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Pilot Project Proposed Installing and Testing I/A Septic Systems for Phosphorus and Nitrogen Treatment Would Answer Many Implementation and Performance Questions. Estimate Pilot Cost - $300,000 Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Financing – Who Pays? Town’s Contribution? Property Owner’s Contribution? Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Potential Financing Options State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loans at Low or 0% Interest for Eligible Projects Barnstable County Septic System Loan Program Cape and Islands Water Protection Fund Local Funding Alternative Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Cost Summary – Pleasant Bay Golf Course Design Refinements $20,000 Captains I/A Septic System $200,000 WWTP Planning $200,000 - $225,000 Design and Permitting $200,000 - $225,000 Construction 10,000,000 - $15,000,000 A lower fertilizer leaching rate at Captains Golf Course will reduce these costs. Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Cost Summary – Fresh Water Ponds Pond WQ Update Report $50,000 Pilot Septic Program $300,000 - $350,000 I/A Systems $12,000,000 - $15,000,000 Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Cost Summary – Total Total Cost:$22,970,000 - $31,070,000 Total SRF Funding $10,750,000 - $15,825,000 Total CCIWPF $2,875,000 - $4,162,500 Local Funding up to $1,000,000/year Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Questions? Brewster Select Board May 24, 2021 •Established by MA legislature in 2018 to help 15 Cape & Island towns pay for wastewater infrastructure and water quality remediation projects (Chapter 337 of the Acts of 2018) to meet the obligations of the 208 Plan •Affiliated with existing state programs – Clean Water State Revolving Fund and Clean Water Trust •Funded through 2.75% additional surcharge added to all lodging transactions (traditional and short-term rentals) effective July 1, 2019 •Comprised of member representatives from each town – must be TA/M, Town staff, or Select Board •Cape Cod Commission provides support and technical assistance •Responsible for determining the subsidy allocation, including equitable distribution among participating towns for projects and debt relief •Developed and adopted regulations and bylaws in Fall 2020 •Project must be eligible for SRF funding to receive a subsidy from the CCIWPF •CCIWPF regulations specifically identify eligibility: •Innovative strategies and alternative septic systems •Drainage improvements •Projects to improve water quality in fresh water ponds •Brewster has never participated in SRF loan program •CCC is committed to assisting communities with SRF •25% subsidy for new eligible projects in equal installments over 4 years for Clean Water Trust loans •25% subsidy for pre-existing projects in equal installments over 10 years for already issued debt •Expense assumptions: •$65.9M in prior eligible debt – commitments made in April 2021 •Existing CWT loans ($30M in FY18; $65M in FY19; $24M in FY20; $86M in FY21) – commitments made in April 2021 •$60M/year in new loans in FY22+ •2% project cost annual escalator •Revenue assumptions: •$9.1M actual FY20 revenues •$15M estimated FY21 revenues •$17.4M projected FY22 revenues (+16% from FY21 estimates) •$19.1M projected FY23 revenues (+10% from FY22 projections) •2.5% projected revenue increases in FY24+ •.5% investment earnings •Brewster contributions to date: $1.4M •Likely annual contribution of ~$1M based on recent lodging tax data •Water Resource Planning - $75k/year (Free Cash @ Spring 2021 Town Meeting) •Captain’s Golf Course Fertilizer Impact Assessment (Nitrogen Leaching Rate Study) - $140k (Free Cash @ Spring 2021 Town Meeting) •Captain’s Golf Course Septic System Upgrade - $170k •Neighborhood Wastewater Facility (or Nitrogen Trade) - ~$6M •Road & Drainage Improvements - $200+k/year •Alternative/Innovative Septic Systems (Phosphorus Mitigation) - $6-10M •2.75% rooms tax on all lodging via CCIWPF, subject to disbursement of Management Board consistent with regulations & bylaws – current practice •Free Cash appropriations – current practice •2.75% rooms tax on all lodging via special act where Town would retain full control over revenues & expenditures – Town Meeting & State Legislature approval required •Up to 3% community impact fee on short-term rentals (only) via local option – Town Meeting approval required (35% of revenues collected must be spent on affordable housing or infrastructure) •Up to 3% Water Infrastructure Investment Fund (WIIF) tax on local property taxes – Town Meeting approval required •Work with Town staff/consultants to finalize list of upcoming Brewster water resource projects and associated costs •Determine SRF eligibility of Brewster projects with Cape Cod Commission •Decide on preferred approach to funding future Brewster water resource projects MEMORANDUM To: Ryan Bennett, Town Planner Chris Miller, Natural Resource Director From: Mark Nelson Date: July 29, 2021 Re: Evaluation of the Cape Cod and Islands Water Protection Fund Support And its Benefits to the Town of Brewster Introduction The Horsley Witten Group, Inc. (HW) evaluated potential opportunities for the Town of Brewster to receive funding for water quality improvement projects under the recently created Cape Cod and Islands Water Protection Fund (CCIWPF). The goals were to consider the funding potential for current projects needed to implement the Town’s Integrated Water Resource Management Plan (IWRMP) and to improve water quality in the numerous freshwater ponds in Brewster. HW evaluated the eligibility for funding through the CCIWPF which is based on the approval of projects at the state level through the Massachusetts Clean Water Trust. A review of anticipated projects was also conducted to evaluate the potential for SRF funding which would then make them eligible for CCIWPF funding. Details are provided below, including a list of questions to ask of the Clean Water Trust to clarify the Town’s funding potential under the SRF and the CCIWPF. Eligibility for Funding To receive funds through the CCIWPF, a Town must apply for and be granted state revolving loan (SRF) funding from the MA Clean Water Trust. If the Trust approves a project, it is then eligible for funding from the CCIWPF which is used to repay the SRF loan. • For a project to be eligible for SRF funding, the Trust requires prior approval of a comprehensive wastewater management plan, IWRMP, targeted watershed plan or project specific plan. SRF funds can be obtained for planning projects, such as for the design and permitting of a neighborhood wastewater treatment plant. If planning funds are awarded, they can be used to create a project specific plan which, if approved, can then be used to request SRF funding for a construction project. • Cape Cod Commission CWA Section 208 approval is also required for a project to be eligible for SRF funding. The Commission has not reviewed Brewster’s IWRMP. However, they will review individual project plans for Section 208 compliance and have done this for other towns. Ryan Bennett and Chris Miller July 29, 2021 Page 2 of 4 Proposed project(s) must be submitted to the Clean Water Trust for inclusion on the annual Intended Use Plan. If a project is included on the plan, it is then eligible for SRF funding. • Not all projects that request SRF funding are selected to be on the Intended Use Plan. 310 CMR 44.00 provides the criteria used to rank proposed projects. • In 2021, the Clean Water Trust funded 75% of the projects that applied for funding, providing $575,000,000 of the $977,000,000 that was requested. The projects are ranked on their ability to resolve current water quality issues for drinking water, freshwater ponds, and coastal waters. • To be eligible, Town funding to support the project must be secured no later than October of the year when funds are awarded. Funding from the Clean Water Trust Funding is provided as a 20-year loan with a maximum interest rate of 2%. Some projects can qualify for a lower interest rate as well. Projects that demonstrate that their implementation will not result in increased development in the area where the project takes place can qualify for a 0% interest rate. Funding from the CCIWPF The CCIWPF provides separate funds, as grants to the Towns that participate in the program. The funds are provided only for projects approved under the state’s Intended Use Plan. Each year the grants are provided based on the funds available and the number of projects eligible for funding. This data is used to select a subsidy percentage for each project. For the first round of funding through the CCIWPF, awards for projects on the Intended Use Plan were provided at a rate of 25% of the project cost. Small projects, below $1,000,000, are eligible for twice the percentage awarded to other projects. Awards for all projects are paid out in equal installments over 4 years after award. Proposed Projects in Brewster and Potential for SRF and CCIWPF Support HW considered the currently proposed projects under the IWRMP to evaluate their eligibility for receiving CCIWPF money and to estimate the expected amount of reimbursement that may be secured. Details are provided below. WWTP Planning, Design and Permitting. SRF funding for the planning and design of a neighborhood treatment facility to meet the Pleasant Bay TMDL and accommodate future buildout could be requested. This could also include the design of a septic upgrade for Captains Golf Course. Cost: $400,000 - $450,000 SRF Funding Eligibility Possible CCIWPF Eligibility Possible – At about 50% (double the standard percentage given the cost is below $1,000,000). Development of a Pilot Program for Septic Upgrades Near Freshwater Ponds. The project would select 1-3 different I/A systems that treat for phosphorus and design and install them on six properties within 300 feet of a pond. Phosphorus and nitrogen testing of the effluent would be conducted for 1-2 years to document their performance. Based on the results, a draft health regulation for ponds may be updated Ryan Bennett and Chris Miller July 29, 2021 Page 3 of 4 to require upgrades for systems within 300 feet upgradient and 100 feet downgradient of freshwater ponds. This could potentially be funded as a planning project. If the Clean Water Trust considers this a construction project, the types of I/A systems used may impact how the Trust ranks the project on the Intended Use Plan. Cost: $300,000 - $350,000 SRF Funding Eligibility Possible if this is considered a planning project – need to confirm. CCIWPF Eligibility Possible – At about 50% (double the standard percentage given the cost is below $1,000,000). Construction of a Neighborhood WWTP. The construction of a neighborhood treatment facility to reduce nitrogen loading in the Pleasant Bay watershed to meet the TMDL goals for existing development and from future buildout could be required, with the size of the facility based on the results of the ongoing Captains Golf Course study. It would include the building of the collection, treatment, and disposal facilities. Costs for any land acquisition or easements could potentially be included. This is eligible for SRF funding, and the selection of the project would depend on how it ranks relative to other projects when submitted. Achieving compliance with the Pleasant Bay TMDL would likely increase the project’s ranking. Cost: $10,000,000 - $15,000,000 (depends on system size and land acquisition costs) SRF Funding Eligibility Possible CCIWPF Eligibility Possible – likely at or around 25% ($2,500,000 - $3,750,000). The Town could consider a nitrogen trade with another Pleasant Bay watershed town, paying them to expand their wastewater treatment facility and thereby offset nitrogen loads generated in Brewster. Such a trade could reduce or eliminate the need for the neighborhood wastewater facility. The ability to have the cost of such a trade funded through the SRF program needs to be determined. Construction of Captains Golf Course I/A Treatment System. This project would involve the installation of an I/A treatment system into the existing septic system to treat nitrogen to 5 mg/L. Cost: $200,000 SRF Funding Eligibility Unclear. The use of an I/A system that does not have general use approval may not be approved for funding by the Clean Water Trust. Further discussion with them on this issue is needed. CCIWPF Eligibility Unlikely, unless the project is approved by the Clean Water Trust on the Intended Use Plan. Installation of I/A Septic Systems Adjacent to Fresh Water Ponds. The Town could help finance the upgrades of onsite systems within 300 feet upgradient and 100 feet downgradient of freshwater ponds. Town financing could cover the cost of the I/A system installation with the homeowner covering the costs of any other necessary septic system upgrades. Cost: $10,000,000 Ryan Bennett and Chris Miller July 29, 2021 Page 4 of 4 SRF Funding Eligibility Unclear. The use of an I/A system that does not have general use approval may not be approved for funding by the Clean Water Trust. Also, septic upgrades are typically funded through the Barnstable County Septic Loan Program. However, this is only available for systems considered failed under Title 5. Further discussion with the Trust and the Cape Cod Commission on these issues is needed. CCIWPF Eligibility Unlikely unless the project is approved by the Clean Water Trust on the Intended Use Plan. Initial Assessment of Funding from the CCIWPF Based on the information provided above, Brewster could potentially receive SRF funding, as one or more 20-year loans, for the planning projects and the construction of the neighborhood wastewater facility. A total of $10,700,000 to $15,800,000 could be funded. If awarded SRF funding, there would then be funds available from the CCIWPF to support the repayment of the SRF loans. Assuming a 25% payment of the cost of each project (and 50% for projects under $1,000,000 in cost) a total of $2,850,000 to $4,140,000 could be financed through the CCIWPF. Clarifying Questions to the Clean Water Trust Based on the review provided above, there are questions to discuss with the Clean Water Trust to help determine the likelihood of SRF funding for the projects under consideration in Brewster. These include: 1. Is the proposed pilot testing program for I/A septic systems near ponds eligible for SRF funding as a planning project or as an implementation project? 2. If the Town needs to acquire land to build a neighborhood wastewater facility, can that cost be funded under the SRF program? 3. Can Brewster receive CCIWPF money to support a nitrogen trade with another Town that is building an SRF eligible project, such as a traditional wastewater treatment facility? 4. Can projects involving the construction of I/A septic systems be eligible for SRF funding if the proposed technology has not received general use approval? Can this be done outside the Barnstable County Septic Loan Fund which only provides loans for septic upgrades that are deemed in failure under Title 5? 5. Can SRF funding be used for projects to upgrade septic systems on private properties not owned by the Town? It is our understanding that this has not been possible but that the state is reviewing this opportunity as it is eligible under federal SRF funding regulations. Charles D. Baker Governor Karyn E. Polito Lieutenant Governor Kathleen A. Theoharides Secretary Martin Suuberg Commissioner This information is available in alternate format. Contact Michelle Waters-Ekanem, Director of Diversity/Civil Rights at 617-292-5751. TTY# MassRelay Service 1-800-439-2370 MassDEP Website: www.mass.gov/dep Printed on Recycled Paper August 19, 2021 Mr. Peter Lombardi, Town Administrator Town of Brewster 2198 Main Street Brewster, MA 02631 RE: Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) Project Eligibility Dear Mr. Lombardi, Thank you for your letter dated August 2, 2021, and for meeting with staff from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) and staff from the Massachusetts Clean Water Trust (Trust) on August 17, 2021, to discuss CWSRF program eligibility. The town of Brewster (the Town) is considering a series of projects to improve water quality and to meet the nitrogen reduction needed for Pleasant Bay and numerous freshwater ponds as required under the watershed permit. Through your consultant’s (Horsley Witten Group) Memorandum dated July 29, 2021, you have presented conceptual projects and have posed a series of questions that we discussed at the meeting, summarized as follows: 1. Is the proposed pilot testing program for I/A septic systems near ponds eligible for SRF funding as a planning project or as an implementation project? Response: The conceptual pilot testing program for I/A septic systems near ponds would be eligible for SRF financing as a planning project. 2. If the Town needs to acquire land to build a neighborhood wastewater facility, can that cost be funded under the SRF program? Response: Only the portion of the property that is an integral part of land application treatment process is eligible for SRF financing. Eligibility would be considered as part of the construction phase of the Wastewater Treatment Plant. The Trust may be able to reimburse the Town for eligible costs of purchasing the land. 2 3. Can Brewster receive CCIWPF money to support a nitrogen trade with another Town that is building an SRF eligible project, such as a traditional wastewater treatment facility? Response: SRF financing is offered to the owner of the project. It is recommended that cost sharing be allocated through an Inter-Municipal Agreement. 4. Can projects involving the construction of I/A septic systems be eligible for SRF funding if the proposed technology has not received general use approval? Can this be done outside the Barnstable County Septic Loan Fund which only provides loans for septic upgrades that are deemed in failure under Title 5? Response: Implementation projects of I/A septic systems may be eligible for SRF financing, outside the Barnstable County Septic Loan Fund, if they have been evaluated and approved by MassDEP as part of a regional strategy or watershed permit, and if the SRF borrower is the Town. The level of reliance to achieve reduction targets is one of the items that will be assessed in review of how the proposed project fits in a regional strategy or watershed permit. For I/A septic system projects, a proposed plan from the Town for management and sampling is another aspect of the review. This is not an all-inclusive list of review items, but these are some key aspects to consider. 5. Can SRF funding be used for projects to upgrade septic systems on private properties not owned by the Town? It is our understanding that this has not been possible but that the state is reviewing this opportunity as it is eligible under federal SRF funding regulations Response: Septic system upgrades may be eligible for SRF financing if they have been recommended and approved by MassDEP as part of a regional strategy and if the SRF borrower is the Town. Please note, as discussed at our meeting, project design costs are not eligible for SRF financing. Please be advised that these responses are provided as general guidance, and they do not constitute final MassDEP determinations. MassDEP will determine SRF project eligibility upon review of a formal application following the established SRF process. If you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Maria E. Pinaud, Director Division of Municipal Services maria.pinaud@mass.gov Delivered via email. eCC: plombardi@brewster-ma.gov cmiller@brewster-ma.gov eperry@capecodcommission.org 3 eCC: mnelson@horsleywitten.com nkeenan@tre.state.ma.us andrew.osei@mass.gov ashraf.gabour@mass.gov Michele.Higgins@mass.gov brian.dudley@mass.gov Archive d: Thursday, January 27, 2022 1:45:29 PM From: Erin Perry Se nt: Fri, 7 Jan 2022 20:50:52 +0000ARC To: Erin Perry Cc: Kristy Senatori Subje ct: CCIWPF Management Board Mtg - 1/11/2022 Se nsitivity: Normal Attachme nts : 20220111 Agenda CCIWPF.pdf; 2020 IUP Projects - PRA Project Costs.pdf; 2021-04-14 Draft CCIWPF Board Minutes.pdf; 2021-12-14 Draft Minutes CCIWPF Executive Committee.pdf; 20211130 Draft Minutes CCIWPF Bylaws&RegsComm.pdf; Cape Cod and Islands Water Protection Fund Regulations_amended_draftrevDec2021.pdf; CCIWPF Annual Report for 2021.pdf; Verified Pre-Existing Debt.pdf; Good afternoon, We look forward to seeing you all at the next CCIWPF Management Board meeting. The meeting will take place at 4pm on Tuesday 1/11/22 via zoom. I am attaching the agenda and meeting materials to this e-mail. I will also attach these documents to the calendar invitation previously sent to the Board. To join the meeting, please use the following Zoom link and details: Zoom link: https://capecodcommission.org/cciwpf/join; password: join Call in details: 1-929-205-6099; meeting ID 962 3150 0800 Please also see the latest CCIW PF distributions, below. The most recent distribution covers the period from September 2021 through November 2021 and totals $8,845,378.63. As a reminder, you will also see the Year 1 subsidies that have been set aside per the Management Board’s approval of subsidy awards in April 2021. Please feel free to reach out with any questions. Sincerely, Erin Erin PerryDeputy DirectorCape Cod Commission508-744-1236eperry@capecodcommission.org       2021 ANNUAL REPORT CAPE COD AND ISLANDS WATER PROTECTION FUND     PREPARED FOR: Chairs of the Joint Committee on Environment, Natural Resources and Agriculture Senate: Rebecca L. Rausch, Chair James B. Eldridge, Vice Chair 24 Beacon Street, Room 218 Boston, MA 02133 House: Carolyn C. Dykema, Chair Mindy Domb, Vice Chair 24 Beacon Street, Room 473F Boston, MA 02133 Cape Cod and Islands Legislative Delegation Senator Julian Cyr 24 Beacon Street, Room 312-E Boston, MA 02133 Senator Susan L. Moran 24 Beacon Street, Room 506 Boston, MA 02133 Representative David T. Vieira 24 Beacon Street, Room 167 Boston, MA 02133 Representative Kip A. Diggs 24 Beacon Street Boston, MA 02133 Representative Sarah K. Peake 24 Beacon Street, Room 7 Boston, MA 02133 Representative Timothy R. Whelan 24 Beacon Street, Room 542 Boston, MA 02133 Representative Dylan A. Fernandes 24 Beacon Street, Room 472 Boston, MA 02133 Representative Steven G. Xiarhos 24 Beacon Street Boston, MA 02133 PREPARED BY: Cape Cod Commission, on behalf of the Cape Cod and Islands Water Protection Fund Management Board 3225 Main Street P.O. Box 226 Barnstable, MA 02630 January 2021 CAPE COD AND ISLANDS WATER PROTECTION FUND 2021 ANNUAL REPORT 3 The Cape Cod and Islands Water Protection Fund (CCIWPF) was established by the Massachusetts Legislature in 2018 (M.G.L. Chapter 29C, Section 19) to help Cape Cod and Islands towns pay for necessary wastewater infrastructure and water quality remediation projects. Creation of the CCIWPF was the result of efforts by a diverse set of stakeholders, including the Cape Cod and Islands Legislative Delegation, local officials, environmental groups, business leaders, and the Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce, who recognized the need for new financial tools to address the region’s degrading water quality and lack of wastewater infrastructure. The CCIWPF is a dedicated fund within the Massachusetts Clean Water Trust set up to solely benefit communities within the counties of Barnstable, Dukes, and Nantucket. Its source of revenue is a 2.75% excise tax on traditional lodging and short-term rentals. The fund is administered by the Clean Water Trust and overseen by a management board comprised of representatives from every member town from the region. Currently, the 15 Cape Cod communities are members of the CCIWPF. The Cape Cod and Islands Water Protection Fund Management Board (Board) was established by M.G.L. Chapter 29C, Section 20. The Board is responsible for determining the method for allocating subsidies from the fund, including, but not limited to, an equitable distribution among participating municipalities consistent with revenue deposited from each municipality into the fund. The Board Is also responsible for ensuring that the Water Protection Fund is spent only for the purposes set forth in M.G.L. Chapter 29C, Section 19. This report has been prepared pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 29C, Section 20, Cape Cod and Islands Water Protection Fund Management Board. CAPE COD AND ISLANDS WATER PROTECTION FUND 2021 ANNUAL REPORT 4 CCIWPF Revenue As received from the Department of Revenue through the Clean Water Trust, fund revenue to date (July 2019 through November 2021) totals $39,337,123.18. Income generated by the fund for this period totals $95,312.05. Subsidies for projects listed on Intended Use Plans for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund dating back to the creation of the CCIWPF (2018) will be paid over 4 years, while subsidies for eligible pre- existing debt incurred for clean water projects that pre-date the CCIWPF will be paid over 10 years. Subsidy awards made to date are described below. The Year 1 transfer from the Clean Water Trust totals $13,708,673, as detailed in the Expenses and Project Summaries section below. The balance of the fund at the end of the calendar year 2021 is $25,723,762.23. CCIWPF Amounts Revenue to Date $39,337,123.18 Fund Income to Date $95,312.05 Year 1 (2021) Transfer $13,708,673.00 Balance $25,723,762.23 Expenses and Project Summaries On April 14, 2021 the Board voted to award the first set of subsidies to qualified and eligible water quality projects in several Cape Cod towns. Per the regulations established by the Board in 2020, projects in excess of $1 million received subsidies equal to 25% of the project costs. Projects of $1 million or less received 50% subsidies. Projects eligible for funding include, but are not limited to, innovative strategies and alternative septic system technologies, water quality and wastewater management planning, the construction of sewer collection systems and wastewater treatment plants, and the implementation of drainage improvements and water treatment programs to improve water quality in freshwater ponds and marine resources. Member communities must go through the Clean Water State Revolving Fund program, or SRF, and be listed on the Clean Water SRF Intended Use Plan (IUP) to receive funds. Contingent commitments are made upon release of the annual IUP. Final commitments are made following execution of a Project Regulatory Agreement (PRA). CAPE COD AND ISLANDS WATER PROTECTION FUND 2021 ANNUAL REPORT 5 Final Commitments for 2018 and 2019 Intended Use Plans Projects Town IUP Year Description Project Cost Total Subsidy Chatham 2018 Phase 1D – Chatham/Harwich Regionalization $8,174,858 $2,043,715 Chatham 2019 Sewer Extension $1,324,983 $331,246 Harwich 2018 Harwich Sewer Collection System – Phase 2 $22,214,467 $5,553,617 Bourne 2019 Buzzards Bay Wastewater Treatment Facility $4,660,410 $1,165,103 Orleans 2019 Downtown Area Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Facility $59,409,200 $14,852,300 Totals $95,783,918 $23,945,981 Contingent Commitments for 2020 and 2021 Intended Use Plans Projects Town IUP Year Description Project Cost Total Subsidy Barnstable 2020 Wastewater Pump Station Improvements Project $1,000,000 $500,000 Barnstable 2020 Strawberry Hill Road Sewer Expansion $13,275,023 $3,318,756 Barnstable 2020 Route 28 and Yarmouth Road Intersection Sewer $1,853,762 $463,441 Barnstable 2020 Solids Handling Upgrade Project $8,495,050 $2,123,763 Chatham 2021 Chatham Queen Anne Pumping Station Upgrade 2021 PE $2,464,000 $616,000 Chatham 2021 Chatham Stormwater Improvement Projects - 2021 $6,161,000 $1,540,250 Barnstable 2021 Route 28 East Sewer Expansion Project $17,106,000 $4,276,500 Barnstable 2021 Wastewater Pump Station Improvements Project $2,000,000 $500,000 Mashpee 2021 Mashpee WRRF and Collection System - Phase I $51,200,000 $12,800,000 Falmouth 2021 Falmouth Wastewater Treatment Facility TASA Improvements $19,000,000 $4,750,000 Totals $122,554,835 $30,888,710   CAPE COD AND ISLANDS WATER PROTECTION FUND 2021 ANNUAL REPORT 6 Pre-Existing Debt Consistent with the provision in M.G.L. Chapter 29C, Section 19, certain Cape Cod and Islands communities are eligible for subsidies for debt incurred for water pollution abatement projects apart from the Clean Water Trust prior to the establishment of the CCIWPF. On April 14, 2021, the Board voted to award subsidies for pre-existing debt to the towns of Barnstable, Chatham, Falmouth, and Provincetown, subject to verification of eligibility. In April 2021, estimated pre-existing debt totaled approximately $65.9 million, 25% of which would be subsidized through the fund, per the unanimous vote of the Board. Town Estimated Pre-Existing Debt (April 2021) Estimated Total Subsidy Provincetown $19,198,453 $4,799,613 Barnstable $3,958,400 $989,600 Chatham $34,619,778 $8,654,945 Falmouth $8,113,640 $2,028,410 Totals $65,890,271 $16,472,568 Upon verification, the final pre-existing debt and subsidy amounts are presented below. Town Eligible Pre-Existing Debt Total Subsidy Provincetown $11,729,661 $2,932,415 Barnstable $4,842,300 $1,210,575 Chatham $21,391,410 $5,347,853 Falmouth $7,675,200 $1,918,800 Totals $45,638,571 $11,409,643 Administrative Expenses The Cape Cod Commission is charged with providing administrative and technical support to the Board. On behalf of the Management Board, the Commission contracts with consultants to provide additional financial and legal support, as necessary and requested by the Board. Costs associated with this support from January 2019 through November 2021 total $112,057.30, as detailed below. At their December 14, 2021, the Board’s Executive Committee voted to recommend the Board reimburse the Commission for these expenses. It is anticipated the Board will vote on this matter in early 2022. CAPE COD AND ISLANDS WATER PROTECTION FUND 2021 ANNUAL REPORT 7 Expenditures Amount Cape Cod Commission Personnel Salaries, including fringe benefits and indirect costs $38,352.30 Contractual Services Pierce Atwood – legal $44,455.00 PFM Financial Advisors $29,250.00 Total Expenditures $112,057.30 5-Year Revenue Projections The Board, through Barnstable County through the Cape Cod Commission, contracted with PFM Financial Advisors to provide advisory services relative to subsidy allocations and revenue projections. In consultation with the Board and based on their expertise in forecasting and financial modeling, PFM Financial Advisors developed the following 5-year revenue projections. Growth in revenue is anticipated to be greater in 2022 and 2023, as a result of increased short-term rental use over the course of the COVID-19 pandemic. 2021 2022 2023 2024 2026 2027 Revenue $15,000,000 $17,400,000 $19,140,000 $19,618,500 $20,108,963 $20,611,687 Revenue Growth 16.00% 10.00% 2.50% 2.50% 2.50% In summary, the Cape Cod and Islands Water Protection Fund receipts through November 2021 totaled $39,337,123.18. In 2021, the CCIWPF Board voted to award subsidies for 15 projects and to 4 towns for pre-existing debt. The total transferred from the CCIWPF in 2021 for project subsidies totaled $13,708,673. With the addition of fund investment income totaling $95,312.05, the balance of the fund at the end of the calendar year 2021 was $25,723,762.23. CAPE COD AND ISLANDS WATER PROTECTION FUND 2021 ANNUAL REPORT 8 At their meeting on January 11, 2022, the CCIWPF Board voted to approve final commitments for subsidies to fund qualified projects listed on the 2020 Clean Water State Revolving Fund Intended Use Plans, for which Project Regulatory Agreements have been executed in the amounts of: Town Project Project Cost in PRA Total Subsidy Barnstable Solids Handling Upgrade Project $11,313,805 $2,828,451 Barnstable Wastewater Pump Station Improvements Project $1,226,751 $306,688 Barnstable RTE 28 Yarmouth Rd Sewer $1,731,512 $432,878 Barnstable Strawberry Hill Road Sewer Expansion $12,289,531 $3,072,383 The CCIWPF Board also voted to approve final subsidies to qualified and eligible town projects for verified pre-existing debt in the towns of Barnstable, Chatham, Falmouth, and Provincetown in the amounts of: Town Eligible Pre-Existing Debt Total Subsidy Provincetown $11,729,661 $2,932,415 Barnstable $4,842,300 $1,210,575 Chatham $21,391,410 $5,347,853 Falmouth $7,675,200 $1,918,800 Totals $45,638,571 $11,409,643 Lastly, the CCIWPF Board voted to approve additional subsidies for authorized debt and debt that was not issued as of April 14, 2021 in the amounts of $1,478,010 for Provincetown, pending loan issuance and closure, and $803,750 for Chatham, as show below: Town Amount Status Total Subsidy Provincetown $1,651,000 Pending Loan Closure $1,478,010 $2,486,000 Pending Loan Closure $1,775,041 Pending Issuance Chatham $1,850,000 Closed 5/27/2021 $803,750 $235,000 Closed 5/27/2021 $1,130,000 Closed 5/27/2021 These subsidies, and any transfers or payments made related to these subsidies, will be reflected in the 2022 annual report. Report of PLEASANT BAY ALLIANCE The Pleasant Bay Alliance is an organization of the Towns of Orleans, Chatham, Brewster and Harwich. The Alliance is charged with implementing the Pleasant Bay Resource Management Plan encompassing the Pleasant Bay Area of Critical Environmental Concern and Pleasant Bay watershed. The Alliance develops and distributes public policy recommendations, technical studies and public informational materials, all available at www.pleasantbay.org. Highlights from 2021 are described below. In accordance with an inter-municipal agreement among the four towns, the Alliance submitted the third Pleasant Bay Watershed Permit Annual Report to Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and the Cape Cod Commission. The report shows that, system- wide, the towns are on track to meet the first five-year nitrogen reduction target under the Watershed Permit. However, results vary by sub-watershed, and each town is weighing modifications to its plan for removals required under the permit. The Alliance coordinated Watershed Permit implementation activities funded by grants totaling $382,178 from the Southeast New England Estuaries Program, a program funded by US EPA. Grant-funded activities completed in 2021 included a study of a municipal Innovative/Alternative septic system program; a nitrogen trading demonstration project; an update of the Massachusetts Estuaries Project (MEP) model; and a Watershed Permit Guidebook. Studies and fact sheets describing this work can be found by searching “watershed permit” on the Alliance website, www.pleasantbay.org. The focus of efforts in 2022 will include modeling analyses using the updated MEP model, and study of the potential for towns to obtain nitrogen removal credit from stormwater management activities. The Alliance completed the 22nd season of the Pleasant Bay Water Quality Monitoring program. Dedicated volunteers collected samples at 25 bay-wide sites. Data documenting water quality impairment in the system are used to develop and implement nutrient management plans. The Alliance concluded work under a $70,050 FY2021 coastal resilience grant from Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management. Living shoreline concept plans were developed to protect salt marsh at two locations on the Bay. A FY2022 grant of $141,675 was received to support permitting of a living shoreline project to protect salt marsh at Jackknife Harbor Beach in Chatham. The Alliance wishes to thank the citizens of Brewster for your ongoing support. Respectfully submitted by: Chris Miller, Steering Committee Carole Ridley, Coordinator 1 From:Brewster Ponds Coalition <info@brewsterponds.org> Sent:Saturday, January 1, 2022 6:15 AM To:Peter Lombardi Subject:2022 — A Year of Action! Winter 2022 BPC Newsletter View this email in your browser Sheep Pond 2020 by Fred Budreski SUBSCRIBE 2 Donate Now From the BPC President Happy New Year, Brewster Ponds Coalition members and friends! Thanks to our dedicated volunteers and the generous support of our members and business partners, the BPC can be very proud of our many accomplishments last year. A few highlights include expansion of the Citizen Science Program to 22 ponds, creation of virtual Pond Education programming for Brewster schoolchildren, a well-funded pond remediation grant program, a scholarship program for local high school students, and lots of fun, in-person eco paddles, bike rides, and hikes to engage the community. Looking ahead to 2022, at the very top of the list is working with the town to develop a nutrient reduction plan that will address ways to prevent phosphorus and nitrogen from septic systems from leaching into our freshwater ponds, the bay, and aquifer. Educating the community about the need for an updated water protection plan will be the focus of both our pond summit this spring and other adult programs planned throughout the year. Of course we also plan to continue water-quality testing for cyanobacteria, our pond education programs for children, neighborhood pond outreach efforts, and organizing many fun and educational activities for members and volunteers. We hope that you will join us for these activities and look forward to seeing you in the new year! With best wishes, Susan Bridges 3 How Your Septic System Threatens Brewster Ponds We hope that you’ve had a chance to read the cover story of the recent issue of Ripples, BPC’s annual magazine that is distributed to all Brewster residents and at key locations around town. While the article explains in detail the specific impact of septic systems on pond ecosystems, we wanted to include a brief recap in this newsletter to ensure everyone is aware of this important issue. Everything that is flushed down the toilet or goes down the sink or bathtub in Brewster goes to septic tanks, then out to an underground leaching system that releases the wastewater to the soil and groundwater. This same groundwater is the source of all water in our ponds, and also of all drinking water in Brewster, whether from private wells or the town water. Studies now show that septic systems are the greatest source of nutrients— phosphorus and nitrogen—that impact our ponds and the sea, and this impact occurs faster than once thought. Septic systems were fine when Brewster had only a few thousand people. But our population has grown tenfold since the mid-20th century, and the town density is now such that continued use of septic systems will only result in continued, and accelerating, degradation of our ponds and overall water quality. We need a comprehensive long-range plan, evaluating different solutions. The Brewster Ponds Coalition plans to work with the Town of Brewster to focus on and develop a strategy to address our main pond and groundwater threat: nutrients from septic systems. Steps we plan to take include: Develop data about the problem, showing how nutrient discharges from septic systems have increased over the last 50 years due to the significant growth of housing and tourism, and how these discharges are now reaching ponds. 4 Chart the changes and trends of pond water quality over time, using PALs and other available data, including data about cyanobacteria blooms from the work of the BPC Citizen Science Team. Explore options to address the problem, which might include some combination of sewers in high-density areas and alternative septic systems and upgrades that can remove nutrients. This exploration needs to consider costs, effectiveness, sustainability, financing alternatives, and how improvements can be phased in over time. The Town will of course take the lead in this evaluation, but the Brewster Ponds Coalition will be active in helping and will work to complete this study soon so we can begin to address the septic system nutrient discharge problem. We also will be active in the education and awareness efforts that will be needed as the studies go forward and alternatives are developed. John Keith is the BPC Board Vice President and an Environmental Engineer BPC Ripples 2022 issue in case you missed it! Number Two No Longer By Andrew Gottlieb, Executive Director, The Association To Preserve Cape Cod (APCC) Photo: Andrew Gottlieb The next five years will be the Golden Age for wastewater management on Cape Cod. As you no doubt know, President Biden recently signed a federal infrastructure funding bill into law. Of the many areas of interest to Cape Cod towns is the infusion of additional water infrastructure funds. It is important to note that the law uses existing formula-based programs to allocate funds to the states for projects. In this instance that means the bulk of assistance—$11 billion nationally for water and wastewater projects, of which roughly $1 billion over five years will come to Massachusetts—will come through the State Revolving Fund (SRF) managed by the Massachusetts Clean Water Trust and MassDEP. SRF funds go to towns that propose water 5 projects that compete on a statewide basis for funding. The extra $1 billion will end up supporting more than $1 billion in projects because Massachusetts leverages federal funds through the bond markets and uses the bond proceeds to fund projects. The infrastructure law mandates that 51% of the funds support loans and 49% be used for principal forgiveness (i.e. it will be the equivalent of a grant) on an aggregate basis. It remains to be determined how much forgiveness will apply to individual projects, so the exact amount of forgiveness is not yet known. The new principal forgiveness will be in addition to what is provided to the Cape SRF towns from the Cape and Islands Water Protection Fund, all of which means projects proposed and financed over the next five years that obtain SRF loans almost assuredly will see subsidies greater than 25%. Now is the time when all the planets have aligned. State and federal funds, and a lot of them, have finally been made available to Cape towns, and a decade of state special legislation has created the opportunity for 0% loans, the Cape and Islands Water Protection Fund and other new financing tools. Towns generally have sufficiently developed plans to know what needs to be done and what needs to be built to improve water quality. The public knows we have a problem and overwhelmingly supports investment in water quality improvements. As a region we have a chance to make transformational investments in water quality and reverse decades of water quality decline. Contact your town leaders to make sure this issue is at the top of their agenda in 2022. And 2023. And 2024, and until we achieve our water quality (teaser hint here—our State of the Waters 2021 report will be out soon, and things are not yet getting better). No more excuses. Let’s get this job done and done now. Reprinted with permission from APCC December 15, 2021 e-newsletter. Learn more about the good work of APCC here. Members Corner by Marty Burke 6 Membership and Volunteerism Matters! “Once you make a decision, the universe conspires to make it happen.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson BPC 2022 Annual Appeal: Protecting Brewster’s ponds! “Once you make a decision, the universe conspires to make it happen.” I agree with Emerson. As donor members and volunteers, you have made the decision to get involved. With that personal commitment, momentum begins to kick into gear. What you have done this past year has helped us paint a brighter picture of 2021 than we thought possible. Your annual membership renewal is a testament to your decision to protect our ponds. Our 2022 Appeal results to date: We are off to a good start with our 2022 annual appeal, with 244 individuals who have renewed or become first-time members of the Brewster Ponds Coalition. 7 We are calling on you to make the 2022 appeal a success. Your support will enable us to enhance our virtual and in-person pond education curriculum, fund the new BPC scholarship program, expand citizen science monitoring, deliver pond remediation grants to worthy neighborhood projects, and assist the town with its important PALS testing. These are the key projects that we’ve identified to deliver on in the year ahead. Your involvement is the key to protecting our most valuable resource, clean water. So please talk to your neighbors and friends about our pond coalition and encourage them to join. The Membership Team looks forward to reaching out to talk with you during our “call-out” period beginning in January. Having a two-way conversation allows us to get your input and answer any questions that you may have about our plans or programs. Your past support and generosity have enabled the BPC to deliver results and build our standing in the community. Thank you for recognizing the importance of our mission. During this busy time the BPC board hopes you will take a moment to donate using the Donate button below. You can also donate at our website, brewsterponds.org, and become part of a team dedicated to protecting Brewster's ponds. Donate Now Please email any comments, ideas, or questions to: info@brewsterponds.org with the subject title "Members Corner." The membership committee will answer all questions and ideas submitted. 8 BPC Pledges $5K to the BCT toward the purchase of the Long Pond Sea Camps Property Click /tap photo for a link to a video of the Long Pond Parcel Kudos to the residents of Brewster, and our hardworking town officials and Select Board, for successfully completing the purchase of the former Cape Cod Sea Camps properties. This acquisition clearly demonstrates that the people of Brewster value open space and protecting our environment. But there is more work to do! The Brewster Conservation Trust (BCT) pledged $1.7 million toward the purchase of the Long Pond property and now needs help meeting this commitment. The largest undeveloped property on the largest freshwater pond on Cape Cod, this parcel contains almost 1,200 feet of shoreline and sits within one of Brewster’s drinking water recharge areas (Zone II). The protection of this property will continue to support the health of our ponds in Brewster. To show our support, the Brewster Ponds Coalition Board approved a $5,000 donation to the BCT at our last meeting. We encourage everyone to join us in supporting the BCT by making a donation to their Conservation for the Community campaign. If you are not able to financially support the project, we hope you can donate your time by becoming actively involved in planning how to best use, develop and protect both of these properties. Click here for information about the application process for joining one of the 9 committees.Together we can direct the best sustainable future for our town. If you would like to learn more or participate in this project, please contact Amy Henderson at amy@brewsterconservationtrust.org or click here for more information. BPC 2022 Student Scholarship Awards The Brewster Pond Coalition (BPC) Board has approved the BPC Student Scholarship Award program for the second year. The intent of the program is to assist graduating seniors who have chosen an education and career path that is related to the BPC mission of protecting the health, beauty, and enjoyment of Brewster’s Ponds. The scholarship consists of a $1,000 award given to two deserving students, one from Nauset Regional High School and the other from Cape Cod Regional Technical High School. The applicant must be a Brewster resident, and a high school senior at the CCRTHS or NRHS, with an overall GPA of 3.0 or above. Students should be planning to enroll in a 10 continuing education program, such as environmental studies and sciences, waste and/or natural water management, marine sciences, marine technology, fisheries, natural resources management, natural landscaping, wildlife management, biology, chemistry, etc. This education program could be an apprenticeship, work/study program, internship, alternative study program, certificate program, two-year college degree program, or four- year college degree program. Interested students should click below to obtain an application form and guidelines, or contact their high school scholarship chairperson. The Brewster Ponds Coalition will review all applications and decide who will receive the awards. Application deadline is April 1, 2022. Photo by Etzer. From left, BPC Scholarship Committee members Marcia Klieb, Susan Day Searles, Cape Cod Regional Technical High School Superintendent Robert P Sanborn III, and Cameron Ferguson. Committee member Mary Mauterstock not pictured. Application Form Print Out BPC Launches Instagram Page 11 Amaya Giannini has the drive and intelligence of someone many years her senior. A Cambridge Rindge and Latin sophomore, and new Brewster part-time resident, Amaya recently launched a BPC Instagram page in November and has been posting updates ever since. “It’s wonderful to be working on the new Instagram page and encouraging younger audiences and visitors of the Cape to engage with the BPC’s great work,” Amaya said. “I hope that everyone will enjoy our Instagram, whether they want to volunteer with us or just want to learn more about how we’re protecting our ponds!” 12 You can visit the Instagram page here. Or, if you already have Instagram, look up the username: @brewster.ponds.coalition. Make sure to follow to receive regular updates. Amaya also plans to join the BPC Citizens Science Team next summer as she pursues her interest in Marine and Aquatic studies. You can see Amaya and her dog, Trooper, on the shores of Blueberry Pond. Spotlight on a Business Partner — The Brewster Book Store The town of Brewster is incredibly fortunate to be home to a unique and inspiring independent bookstore, the Brewster Book Store. Likewise, the Brewster Ponds Coalition is fortunate to have the bookstore as one of our first and very engaged business partners. Opened in 1982 by John and Nancy Landon, the Brewster Book Store was recently sold to Jessica Devin and Susan O’Malley, book lovers and friends for many years. As co-owner, Jessica continues a family tradition spanning three generations. Her mother and aunt, Jean and Jane Mackenzie (sisters-in-law), were the two original store managers and are still involved today. Growing up, Jessica, her brother, and cousins also worked in the store, as do, more recently, Jessica’s own children. Jessica related that the best part about the bookstore is interacting with all of their amazing customers. She loves living in Brewster and identified Higgins Pond in Nickerson State Park as her favorite pond for swimming. A third manager, Val Arroyo, has been with the shop for twenty years. Val assisted the BPC Pond Education Team with creating a pond-related reading list for all ages. Val can also be seen on our YouTube channel standing in front of the bookstore with BPC mascot Shelly the Turtle while introducing a virtual book reading by local author Heidi Clemmer. To find out more about the Brewster Book Store, visit their website at 13 Send Us Your Summer Fun Pond Photos! Right now, the Brewster Ponds Coalition is seeking new summer fun photos of the publicly accessed ponds in Brewster. These include the ponds in Nickerson State Park (Cliff, Little Cliff, Flax, and Higgins ponds) plus Long, Walkers, Upper Mill, Schoolhouse, Sheep, Slough, and Walkers Ponds. We’re specifically interested in pictures of people swimming, boating, sailing, fishing—having fun in the public access areas of these 14 specific ponds. The annual Brewster Ponds Guide has become a valued publication for visitors and residents alike and contains a map of all the ponds in Brewster, as well as a description and pictures of each publicly accessed pond. It is distributed at all town landings, the visitors center at Town Hall, the Ladies Library, and many high traffic locations. You can see the 2021 edition here to get a feel for what we need. Please email all fun pond pix to: photos@brewsterponds.org. Be sure to include the names of any people pictured and the name of the photographer to receive a photo credit. Businesses who wish to show their support with sponsorship placements in the guide may contact Susan.Bridges@brewsterponds.org. Another reason to get rid of that lawn! by Nancy Ortiz The EPA estimates that mowing with a gas-powered lawn mower produces 11 times as much pollution as driving a new car, hour-for-hour. Reducing lawn size not only reduces the need for water and fertilizer, but also decreases the noise, gas spills, and toxic air emissions caused by mowers. If you must buy a lawn mower, consider “going electric.” 15 Electric lawn mowers do not create greenhouse gas emissions and, in the long run, are actually less expensive. For more information, see this article from Scientific American. Also see this story on the future of these gas powered engines. Thank you to these BPC Pond Hero Business Partners for your support! PO BOX 459 BREWSTER, MA 02631 508-258-9801 email: info@brewsterponds.org website: www.brewsterponds.org Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, Instagram 16 BOARD OF DIRECTORS BOARD OF DIRECTORS Susan Bridges - President John Keith - Vice President Rob Condon -Treasurer Ron Essig - Citizen Science Team Nancy Ortiz - Clerk, Education Team Marty Burke - Membership & Citizen Science Teams Coordinator Marcia Klieb, Education Team Coordinator Cameron Ferguson - Volunteer Coordinator, Natural Resources Advisory Commission Mary Mauterstock - Events Coordinator, Membership Konrad Schultz - Communications Team Coordinator ACTION TEAMS Citizen Science - Marty Burke, Ron Essig Communications - Amy Darbyshire, Lynn Conover, Jim Holland, Sara McCabe, Amaya Giannini, Susan Spencer, William F. Pomeroy Elbow Pond Project - John Keith, Mary Mauterstock Environmental and Science Advisory - Karen Malkus-Benjamin, John Keith, Chuck Madansky Finance - Roger Normand Fundraising/Development - Susan Bridges, Konrad Schultz Membership - Marty Burke, Mary Mauterstock Nominating - Marty Burke, Konrad Schultz Photography - William F. Pomeroy, Nancy Ortiz, Susan Bridges Pond Education Curriculum - Jan McGann, Susan Day Searles Science and Technology - Karen Malkus-Benjamin, Nancy Gustafson-Smith, Doug Smith Editors - Lynn Conover, Sara McCabe, Pam Rogers Design - Amy Darbyshire NEWSLETTER CONTRIBUTORS Susan Bridges, John Keith, Marty Burke, Andrew Gottlieb, Lynn Conover, Amy Darbyshire, Amy Henderson, Sara McCabe, Nancy Ortiz, Pam Rogers, Konrad Schultz, Cameron Ferguson, Mary Gamerman, Amaya Giannini 17 Copyright © 2022 Brewster Ponds Coalition, All rights reserved. Our email address is: info@brewsterponds.org Our mailing address is: P.O. Box 459, Brewster, MA 02631 unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences This email was sent to plombardi@brewster-ma.gov why did I get this?unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences Brewster Ponds Coalition · P.O. Box 459 · Brewster, MA 02631 · USA State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 1 State of the Waters: Cape Cod 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod Andrew Gottlieb, Jo Ann Muramoto, Ph.D. Kristin Andres, Don Keeran, and Kevin Johnson December 21, 2021 Website: Cape Cod Waters.org (https://capecodwaters.org) 1. Introduction The State of the Waters: Cape Cod is an annual assessment of the Cape’s water quality, designed to help you understand the water quality problems that we face and the actions that are needed to address these problems. The Association to Preserve Cape Cod (APCC) launched this project in 2019 in order to answer the question: “How healthy are Cape Cod’s waters?” The State of the Waters: Cape Cod website is the place to find out about the Cape’s water quality and what can be done to address water pollution and achieve clean water. This is a multi-year project in which an annual water health report is provided each year assessing the most recent available water quality data up to and including the previous year (e.g., this report assesses available water quality data up to and including 2020). To prepare annual assessments and reports, APCC collected existing data on water quality on Cape Cod in order to assess the health of Cape Cod’s waters. APCC evaluated surface water quality in coastal waters (saltwater) and freshwater ponds and lakes using scoring methods to assess water quality. Scores were assigned into two grade levels for water quality to distinguish between degraded surface waters with unacceptable water quality where immediate action is needed to restore water quality vs. surface waters with acceptable quality where ongoing protection is needed to avoid a decline in quality. The results are summarized in this annual water health report. The quality of public drinking water supplies was assessed on a Poor/Good/Excellent scale. To guide public action, APCC prepared a Water Action Plan that contains recommendations for changes in policies, actions, and regulations to improve and protect our waters. State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 2 2. Why This Project is Needed APCC is well-positioned to provide this Cape-wide assessment of our water quality. Since our inception in 1968, APCC has worked with numerous partners to protect and improve the Cape’s water resources and aquatic habitat through policy, science, and education. APCC’s successes include: • Designation of Cape Cod’s groundwater as a sole source aquifer to protect our drinking water; • Designation of the ocean waters around Cape Cod as state ocean sanctuaries; • Designation of Stellwagen Bank as a National Marine Sanctuary; • Passage of the Cape Cod Land Bank Act to preserve open space; • Creation of the Cape Cod Water Protection Collaborative to address water pollution due to wastewater; • Passage of the Cape Cod Commission Act to create a regional planning agency and promote regional planning; • Designation of the ocean waters surrounding Cape Cod as a No Discharge Area for boat sewage; • Coordination of Congressional authorization and funding of the Cape Cod Water Resources Restoration Project, a 10-year Cape-wide restoration program to restore impaired salt marsh and fish runs and shellfish beds; • Assistance to towns on efforts to restore salt marsh and fish runs and remediate stormwater runoff throughout the Cape; • Coordination of a regional stormwater partnership; • Establishment of programs to monitor salt marsh, herring runs and harmful cyanobacteria blooms; • Evaluation of the effect of future sea level rise on the Cape’s aquifer; and • Passage of legislation creating and funding the Cape and Islands Water Protection Fund. APCC recognized that while the Cape’s waters are well-studied and pollution issues are well- documented, this wealth of information on water quality is usually buried in reports, studies and websites and is not readily available in one place. More importantly, the data are often not translated into clear, easily understood results. Too often, reports that contain gold nuggets of information are mired in complex terminology understood, and seen, only by experts. 3. Goals APCC’s State of the Waters: Cape Cod report is intended to plainly and clearly inform the public about the conditions of our waters. APCC collects water quality data from credible sources and translates the data into clear, easily understood terms in order to identify water quality problems that need to be addressed. Our goals are to: 1) Help people to understand the health of our waters and the need to protect and improve water quality; 2) Identify the actions needed to protect and improve water quality; and 3) Motivate public action to achieve clean water. State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 3 4. Products APCC has produced the following products for the State of the Waters, available through the State of the Waters website at https://capecodwaters.org: • Interactive maps of water quality scores and grades for coastal embayments, ponds, and drinking water supplies; • Information on how water quality data were evaluated, scored and graded; • Annual Water Health Reports summarizing findings; • Water Action Plan containing recommendations for actions to protect and improve water quality; • Atlas of Water Restoration Needs and Solutions; • Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs); and • References and sources of information. 5. Partners and Collaboration Collaboration with partners is an essential feature of the State of the Waters: Cape Cod, as the project involves a gathering and summation of water quality data from many organizations. Partners also provide advice, support, funding, information, and networking. Advisory Committee: To help advise this project at its inception, APCC convened an Advisory Committee composed of experts in Cape Cod’s water pollution issues, water monitoring, drinking water, aquatic ecosystems, fisheries, natural resource management and municipal management. Members represent local, regional and state agencies, environmental nonprofit organizations, and partnerships. Advisory Committee members provide advice, guidance, and data used in this project. Members of the Advisory Committee are listed below: • Rachel Jakuba, Ph.D., Science Director, Buzzards Bay Coalition • Erin Perry, Deputy Director, Cape Cod Commission • Tim Pasakarnis, Ph.D., Water Resources Analyst, Cape Cod Commission • Richard Delaney, President, Center for Coastal Studies • Amy Costa, Ph.D., Director of Cape Cod Bay Monitoring Program, Center for Coastal Studies • Robert Duncanson, Ph.D., Director, Department of Natural Resources, Town of Chatham • Jane Crowley, Director, Department of Health and Environment, Town of Eastham • Ivan Valiela, Ph.D., Distinguished Scientist, Ecosystems Center, Marine Biological Laboratory • Javier Lloret, Ph.D., Research Scientist, Ecosystems Center, Marine Biological Laboratory • Andrew Marks, Supervisor, Mashpee Water District • Pam DiBona, Executive Director, Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program • Prassede Vella, Staff Scientist, Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program • Todd Callaghan, Coastal and Marine Scientist, Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 4 • Brad Chase, Diadromous Fisheries Project Leader, Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries • Brian Howes, Ph.D., Chancellor Professor, School for Marine and Atmospheric Sciences and Technology (SMAST), University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth • Ed Eichner, TMDL Solutions • Jordan Mora, Research Technician, Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (now with APCC) • R. Max Holmes, Ph.D., Deputy Director and Senior Scientist, Woods Hole Research Center Sources of data: APCC relies upon water quality data collected by other organizations (see Sources of Water Quality Data, below). Funding: APCC received startup funding for this project from a number of sources. They include the Massachusetts Environmental Trust (MET), an important supporter of environmental projects and funded by the sale of environmental license plates through the Registry of Motor Vehicles. Over the years, additional funding was provided by a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Southeast New England Coastal Watershed Restoration Program (SNEP) grant to the Cape Cod Commission, the Friendship Fund, and the Cape Cod Five Foundation. APCC dues and donations now fund the annual updates. 6. About APCC The Association to Preserve Cape Cod (APCC) is a 501(c)3 environmental non-profit organization founded in 1968 to promote policies and programs that foster preservation of Cape Cod’s natural resources. APCC is a Cape-wide organization with members representing all 15 towns on the Cape. Our goals include protection of water and wetlands; preservation of open space; promotion of responsible, planned growth; and the achievement of an environmental ethic. To achieve these goals, we provide technical assistance, outreach, advocacy, science-based policies and partnership-building. APCC has established itself as the Cape’s environmental leader, earning a reputation for effective policies and actions to protect our precious natural resources (APCC.org). 7. Why We Need Clean Water Clean water is central to the health of the Cape’s natural ecosystems. Our coastal waters, estuaries and embayments support valuable shellfish such as oysters and clams, as well as important finfish such as winter flounder and striped bass. Waterbirds, migrating waterfowl, raptors and wildlife feed on fish, shellfish and aquatic plants. Freshwater ponds and streams support numerous fish and wildlife species, including important diadromous species such as river herring and American eels, which live in both fresh water and the ocean. The Cape’s ecosystems and food webs depend upon clean water. Clean water is also important for our economy. The Cape’s economy is a “blue economy” where our residents, visitors and businesses rely upon clean water and healthy natural resources. The economic benefits of clean water and healthy ecosystems are demonstrated by the fact that coastal tourism and commercial and recreational fishing and shellfishing and their supporting State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 5 industries bring in more than $1 billion to the local economy. For example, in 2018 tourists visiting Cape Cod spent $1.32 billion that supported 10,844 tourism-related jobs and $357.7 million in wages, and generated $133 million in state and local taxes (Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce). Commercial and recreational fishing and shellfishing also bring in additional millions of dollars each year. For example, from 2000 – 2004, the average annual value of commercial and recreational shellfishing was $11.4 million. In 2009 alone the value of commercial fishing was $19 million, while the value of commercial fishing for species that eat river herring was over $37 million (NRCS, Cape Cod Water Resources Restoration Project: Why It Matters to Massachusetts Economy). These numbers do not include water-focused organizations such as oceanographic institutions and businesses, non-governmental organizations, educational institutions and laboratories that employ people and provide services and products. Finally, clean drinking water is critically important for human health. The water we drink comes from Cape Cod’s sole-source aquifer, a vast underground natural reservoir of groundwater. Federal, state and local laws are designed to protect a sole-source aquifer from pollution. However, as we discuss below, our groundwater, ponds, lakes, estuaries and embayments are all interconnected. 8. Waters of the Cape Cape Cod enjoys a wealth of water resources. These include salt water and freshwater resources. Each major resource is summarized below. More information can be obtained at the Cape Cod Commission’s website on water resources. Coastal waters (saltwater) surround most of the Cape, creating over 559 miles of coastline bordering the Atlantic Ocean, Nantucket Sound, Vineyard Sound, Buzzards Bay and Cape Cod Bay. This long coastline contains 53 distinct saltwater embayments, places where there is a recess or indentation in the coastline that forms a bay bordering the ocean. Estuaries are places where rivers meet the sea. Estuaries typically contain a range of wetlands including freshwater, brackish and tidal wetlands (aka salt marshes) and tidal channels. On Cape Cod, rivers, streams and groundwater flow into estuaries and embayments that border the ocean. Freshwater ponds and lakes: Few people know that the Cape is the land of nearly a thousand lakes. At least 996 freshwater ponds and lakes cover nearly 11,000 acres, and individual ponds and lakes range in area from less than one acre to 735 acres and include 166 "great ponds" of 10 acres or greater in size. Because the Cape’s ponds and lakes are fed by groundwater, they are often referred to as “windows on our aquifer.” The sandy soils of the Cape allow groundwater to flow into and out of ponds. For this reason, pollution of ponds will likely also pollute groundwater and vice versa. Groundwater: Groundwater is the lifeblood of the Cape. Rain and melting snow quickly soak into our sandy soils where it collects to form a huge underground reservoir of groundwater that lies beneath most of the Cape. Water seeks the lowest elevation, so groundwater continues to State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 6 move, seeking sea level, flowing into and out of ponds, feeding streams and flowing towards the coast, finding sea level when it enters our estuaries and embayments. Groundwater is also the sole source of our drinking water. In 1982, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency designated Cape Cod’s groundwater as a sole-source aquifer for drinking water under the federal Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act. All of the Cape's drinking water comes from this sole-source aquifer, which is protected by local, regional, state and federal regulations. Nearly all of the Cape’s public water supplies are from groundwater wells, with one exception being Long Pond in Falmouth which is itself groundwater-fed. Watersheds connect our waters: Nearly all of the Cape’s waters are connected by watersheds that collect water and discharge it into the ocean. Watersheds are the land areas that collect rain and snow, which drains into ponds, lakes, streams and groundwater, which in turn discharge into estuaries, embayments and the ocean. Cape Cod has a total of 101 watersheds that discharge to the ocean. Of these, 53 discharge to embayments, which are susceptible to nitrogen pollution, and the remainder discharge directly to the ocean. Through the Section 208 Water Quality Management Plan for Cape Cod, the Cape Cod Commission has created a regional blueprint for protecting and improving water quality and tracks progress in implementation. 9. Water Pollution Most of the Cape’s coastal embayments and many freshwater ponds and lakes are suffering from water pollution, based on years of studies and reports on water quality and water pollution. These studies and reports indicate that the Cape’s waters suffer from pollution due to the following pollutants and pollution sources. Nutrient pollution: Excess nutrients (nitrogen in coastal waters and phosphorus in fresh water) have caused severe eutrophication and severe ecological damage. Eutrophication refers to the harmful effects of excess nutrients on an aquatic ecosystem, resulting in increased growth of phytoplankton and depletion of oxygen. Excess nutrients in water stimulates the growth of phytoplankton (microscopic algae), which depletes the water of oxygen. Oxygen depletion leads to fish kills and impacts on shellfish and other aquatic life. Excess phytoplankton also causes water to become cloudy, reducing the amount of light in the water column, which impacts the growth of other beneficial aquatic plants such as eelgrass. When algae die, their remains settle to the bottom and decompose, causing more oxygen depletion and releasing nutrients back into the water, feeding the nutrient cycle. Also, the buildup of decaying organic matter on the bottom of ponds, lakes and embayments often results in thick muck that is unhealthy for shellfish, fish and other aquatic organisms. Many of the Cape’s estuaries and embayments are suffering from eutrophication caused by excess nitrogen, as demonstrated by the Massachusetts Estuaries Project and by the Section 208 Water Quality Management Plan for Cape Cod. Ponds and lakes are also suffering from eutrophication caused by excess phosphorus (Cape Cod Commission, Ponds and Lakes). State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 7 On Cape Cod, excess nutrients originate largely from human sources and activities. Excess nitrogen comes from poorly treated wastewater (e.g., Title 5 septic systems) as well as fertilizers used on lawns, gardens, golf courses and farms. Some nitrogen also falls out from the atmosphere in precipitation, and this atmospheric nitrogen largely originates from burning fossil fuels. Excess phosphorus comes from septic systems that discharge phosphorus into groundwater that enters ponds and lakes, as well as fertilizers used on lawns, gardens, golf courses and farms that is carried into ponds and lakes in stormwater runoff. Harmful bacteria include bacteria that originate from fecal wastes (humans and/or animals). Examples of fecal bacteria are Escherichia coli (E. coli) and enteric bacteria. Fecal bacteria can cause illness in both humans and animals. On Cape Cod, most fecal bacteria contamination originates from domestic animals and wildlife. Failed septic systems (including flooded septic systems) are another source of bacteria. Bacteria are carried into water by stormwater runoff. State and federal water quality standards limit the amounts of fecal bacteria that can be present in waters where swimming and shellfishing are conducted. Swimming beach water quality is monitored by Barnstable County. The Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries monitors water quality in shellfish beds and limits shellfishing to waters that meet a stringent water quality standard for fecal bacteria. Harmful algal and cyanobacteria blooms include toxic red tides in coastal waters and toxic cyanobacteria blooms in freshwater ponds and lakes. In coastal waters red tide is the common name for several species of toxic phytoplankton, including toxic dinoflagellates. Shellfish that ingest such toxic phytoplankton become toxic themselves, posing a threat to humans who eat contaminated shellfish and impacting the shellfishing industry. In fresh water harmful cyanobacteria that produce toxins thrive in nutrient-rich and warm waters. APCC’s Cyanobacteria Monitoring Program has documented cyanobacteria blooms in dozens of ponds throughout the Cape and we anticipate that this will be an increasing problem as nutrient pollution continues and the climate warms. This year is the second year that APCC has incorporated cyanobacteria monitoring data into our grading system for freshwater ponds as another indicator of nutrient pollution. Mercury pollution occurs in waters throughout the Northeast. As of October 2021 the Massachusetts Department of Public Health listed 32 ponds and lakes on Cape Cod with fish consumption advisories that warn people (i.e., children under 12, pregnant women, nursing mothers, women of childbearing age, and the general public) to limit or avoid eating fish from that lake due to mercury pollution (MA DPH Fish Consumption Advisories). Mercury pollution is caused by fallout of mercury from the atmosphere, which originates from coal- burning fuel plant emissions. Incineration of medical wastes and municipal wastes also contributes mercury to the atmosphere. Our assessment does not address mercury pollution, but the State of the Waters; Cape Cod website provides information on mercury pollution and state fish consumption advisories for freshwater lakes and ponds on Cape Cod. Emerging contaminants and pharmaceutical compounds have been found both in groundwater and surface water throughout Cape Cod. This group of pollutants contains a wide variety of compounds, including endocrine-disrupting compounds, pharmaceutical drugs (including antibiotics), insect repellant, flame retardant, fluorinated compounds and PFAS (per- State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 8 and polyfluoroacetate substances). The Silent Spring Institute has been monitoring the Cape’s waters emerging contaminants. The Center for Coastal Studies and Silent Spring Institute also found pharmaceutical compounds in Cape Cod Bay and in groundwater near septic systems, pointing to septic systems as the source of these pharmaceutical compounds. PFAS (per- and polyfluoroacetate substances) are manmade chemicals used widely in diverse items (e.g., fireproof clothing, non-stick pans, stain-and-waterproof fabrics, fire-fighting foam, dental floss, cleaning products, paints, electronics manufacturing and other industries and household products). PFAS are long-lasting compounds that have been found worldwide in humans, wildlife, water, soil and the air. PFAS have been found in Cape Cod water supplies, groundwater, and ponds (five of the ponds which have fish consumption advisories due to mercury also have fish consumption advisories due to PFAS). PFAS have been linked to human health impacts such as developmental disorders, immune system disorders, thyroid hormone disruption and cancer. Information on PFAS is provided in APCC’s PFAS Primer. In our next report in 2022, PFAS will be addressed in our drinking water grades for 2021. PFAS was not a scoring factor in this year’s report because state drinking water regulations for monitoring and reporting on PFAS did not become effective until January 2021. 10. How We Graded Water Quality To help people understand where water quality is acceptable vs. unacceptable, APCC has created this State of the Waters: Cape Cod project and website to collect existing information on water quality and translate it into easily understood terms by grading water quality. This website is a key means of collecting and distributing information to the public. Our intent is to guide public policy and investment in restoration and protection efforts. Using existing data, APCC graded the following water resources: • Coastal waters in embayments and estuaries; • Freshwater ponds and lakes; and • Public water supplies for drinking water (i.e., drinking water after it is treated by the public water supplier and before it is distributed to consumers). APCC used three grading systems, one system for grading coastal waters, a second system for grading ponds and lakes, and a third system for grading drinking water. Each of the grading systems scores water quality parameters. The scores were then translated into grades. APCC chose grading systems that meet the following criteria: • Are scientifically sound; • Have been used before to evaluate water quality; • Use key water quality parameters to evaluate water quality problems; • Are easily understood and can be replicated by others (e.g., it does not require complex methods, modeling or software); and • Evaluates the most pressing water quality problems. State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 9 Each year the grades are updated on a moving basis by dropping older data and adding newer data through the previous year. The grading systems are explained below. 10.1. Grading Coastal Waters: Buzzards Bay Eutrophic Index APCC chose an existing method of grading the severity of nitrogen pollution of coastal waters. The method is called the Buzzards Bay Eutrophic Index (aka “Bay Health Index”), developed in 1992 by the Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program. The Eutrophic Index was based on an earlier method developed by Hillsborough County, Florida, to evaluate coastal water quality. The Buzzards Bay Eutrophic Index (EI) was developed to help the Buzzards Bay Coalition (BBC) evaluate citizen water quality monitoring data for Buzzards Bay embayments and to help rank each embayment with respect to its relative health for the purpose of prioritizing remedial management measures (i.e., Bay Health ). The goal was to evaluate nitrogen loading inputs and to provide accurate and reliable water quality data for most of the major embayments around Buzzards Bay to assist environmental managers to: • Establish baseline water quality; • Characterize and identify sources of pollution; • Document long-term environmental trends in water quality; • Evaluate the relative success of cleanup efforts; • Facilitate implementation of management efforts in the CCMP; and • Evaluate the appropriateness of the Buzzards Bay Project’s recommended nitrogen limits. In addition to the BBC, the Eutrophic Index has also been used by the Center for Coastal Studies, the Pleasant Bay Alliance, and the town of Chatham to evaluate nitrogen pollution in Buzzards Bay, Cape Cod Bay and coastal waters around the Cape, Pleasant Bay, and Chatham. The Eutrophic Index is considered by practitioners to be a well-tested method. The Eutrophic Index scores parameters that measure the degree of eutrophication: dissolved oxygen saturation, water clarity (measured using either Secchi disk or a turbidity meter), chlorophyll, dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN), and total organic nitrogen (TON). Water quality data for these parameters is used to calculate a numerical score that indicates the degree of eutrophication. To translate scores into an assessment of water quality, the BBC uses three categories to “grade” scores: scores of 65 to 100 indicate Good water quality; scores between 35 and 65 indicated Fair water quality; and scores below 35 indicate Poor water quality. Following the BBC’s method, APCC calculated numerical Eutrophic Index scores for water quality from stations in coastal embayments and coastal waters around Cape Cod. However, APCC “graded” the numerical scores for water quality from individual stations in a manner that differs from the BBC. APCC assigned scores to two grading categories based on whether they indicate acceptable water quality or unacceptable water quality. The two grading categories were chosen to indicate the type of action needed to protect or restore water quality. State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 10 Grading coastal water quality at coastal stations: EI scores greater than 65 (> 65) are graded as: “Acceptable: requires ongoing protection.” EI scores of 65 or below (≤ 65) are graded as: “Unacceptable: requires immediate restoration.” Waters that are graded as “Acceptable: requires ongoing protection” are waters that are healthy and free of excess nutrients. These waters need ongoing protection to remain healthy and free of pollution. Waters that are graded as “Unacceptable: requires immediate restoration” are waters that are suffering from excess nutrients. These waters need immediate restoration in order to improve water quality. Grading water quality in coastal embayments: APCC took the additional step of identifying embayments where at least one monitoring station had Unacceptable water quality and graded these embayments as “Unacceptable: requires immediate restoration.” Embayments where all monitoring stations had Acceptable water quality were graded as “Acceptable: requires ongoing protection.” This approach to grading embayments provides a clear summary of which embayments have portions with poor water quality that requires restoration vs. embayments with good water quality that require protection. 10.2 Grading Ponds and Lakes Method 1: Carlson Trophic Index To grade water quality in freshwater ponds and lakes, APCC uses two methods. The first method is the Carlson Trophic Index (CTI) which evaluates the trophic state of the water body in terms of three important water quality parameters: total phosphorus, chlorophyll, and water transparency. The Carlson Trophic Index was developed in 1996 to assess the trophic state of a freshwater pond or lake, where trophic state refers to the ecological response (algal biomass) to nutrients (Carlson, 1977). Since then, it has been widely used for evaluating freshwater ponds and lakes. Using the Carlson Trophic Index, a pond with high nutrient concentrations (eutrophic to hypereutrophic) would be characterized by high concentrations of algae, algal scums, poor water clarity due to dense algae and low to no dissolved oxygen. A eutrophic to hypereutrophic pond would have scores between 50 and 100. At the opposite end of the spectrum, a pond with low nutrient concentrations (oligotrophic) would be characterized by clear well-oxygenated water, healthy aquatic plants and little to no algal growth. An oligotrophic pond would have scores between 0 and 40. A pond with intermediate nutrient concentrations (mesotrophic) would be characterized by moderately clear water, intermediate amounts of aquatic plants and algae, and low dissolved oxygen during the summer. A mesotrophic pond would have scores State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 11 between 40 and 50. The Carlson Trophic Index is analogous to the Buzzards Bay Eutrophic Index in that it can be used to evaluate the degree of eutrophication in fresh water. APCC adopted a grading system that assigns the following grades to Carlson Trophic Index (CTI) scores: CTI scores of less than 50 (< 50) are graded as: “Acceptable: requires ongoing protection.” CTI scores of 50 or above (≥ 50) are graded as: “Unacceptable: requires immediate restoration.” Ponds that are graded as “Acceptable: requires ongoing protection” are ponds that are healthy and free of excess nutrients. These ponds need ongoing protection to remain healthy and free of pollution. Ponds that are graded as “Unacceptable: requires immediate restoration” are ponds that are suffering from excess nutrients. These ponds need immediate restoration in order to improve water quality. Data quality for CTI scoring: Many datasets for pond water quality for Cape Cod ponds are older, i.e., at least five years old or more. Using older data to grade ponds would cause grades to reflect conditions that existed at the time when water samples were collected and analyzed. Conditions in ponds may have changed since such older data were collected. APCC screened out pond data older than 2016 and ponds where there was less than three years of data. In addition, since chlorophyll is a key component of the CTI grade, ponds where there was no chlorophyll data were not scored. As a result, this year there were 36 ponds with sufficient water quality data to grade. Application of these stringent data quality requirements for grading resulted in only 36 of 996 ponds having sufficient water quality data to enable grading using the Carlson Trophic Index. This points out the severe shortage of newer Cape-wide pond monitoring data to inform pond management and protection measures. Method 2: Using Cyanobacteria Monitoring Data Since 2018, APCC has been monitoring cyanobacteria and cyanobacteria blooms in dozens of freshwater ponds on Cape Cod. Cyanobacteria blooms occur when there are sufficient nutrients to stimulate growth of these photosynthetic bacteria. Warmth and sunlight are other factors that stimulate cyanobacteria growth, but in the absence of nutrients or when nutrient concentrations are very low, cyanobacteria growth is minimal. Cyanobacteria blooms therefore represent another way to describe nutrient enrichment in freshwater ponds. APCC’s Cyanobacteria Monitoring Program uses an EPA-approved protocol developed by EPA for the Cyanobacteria Monitoring Collaborative and refinements added under the guidance of Dr. James Haney (emeritus professor, University of New Hampshire) and Nancy Leland of Lim-tex, Inc. (Leland and Haney, 2018 ; Leland, Haney, Conte, Malkus-Benjamin and Horseley, 2019). The EPA protocol utilizes a combination of field observations, microscopy and fluorometry to analyze samples from freshwater lakes and ponds for cyanobacteria. The data collected includes State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 12 photographs and field observations, digital microscopy to identify composition (type of cyanobacteria present) and dominance, and concentrations of phycocyanin and chlorophyll pigments indicative of the amounts of cyanobacteria vs. general algae and phytoplankton, respectively. By monitoring biweekly from June to October, APCC tracks changes in cyanobacterial composition, dominance and abundance. At this sampling frequency, APCC is often able to forecast when cyanobacteria blooms may be forming or leading to toxin concentrations that may be approaching harmful levels. These signs instruct APCC to increase the frequency of testing and to inform town officials to be aware of potential threats and to plan for proactive management actions to protect public safety. To learn more, visit APCC’s Cyanobacteria Monitoring Program. In contrast to traditional cyanobacteria testing involving cell counts, APCC’s method is less costly, offers a faster turn-around time for results and is often able to predict cyanobacteria bloom formation. Additionally, numerous other points of data collected support research efforts that will expand our understanding about the health of the ponds. To address the shortage of recent pond water quality data, last year APCC adopted a second method of grading ponds using cyanobacteria monitoring data to provide an additional measure of pond health. The additional grading method helps to fill the gap in freshwater pond data by providing a different measure of trophic status. APCC’s cyanobacteria grading system utilizes our warning tier system for assigning monitored cyanobacteria concentrations into “Low,” “Moderate” and “High” tiers describing potential risks following ingestion of water by humans and pets. The previous year’s monitoring results are used. This year, APCC again utilized cyanobacteria data to grade ponds as described below. Cyanobacteria grading system used in this 2021 State of the Waters report: In 2020 APCC revised our cyanobacteria warning tiers in order to better define risk in terms of exposure to children, pets, exposure during recreational activities, toxin concentrations, and presence of visible cyanobacteria blooms. The revision enabled a wider range of risks to be defined but still within a 3-tiered system: • “Low” (BLUE) indicates general safety for recreational activities according to our data. • “Moderate” (YELLOW) indicates the cyanobacteria concentrations in the pond are particularly dangerous to children or pets if ingested • “High” (RED) indicates APCC found either toxin levels approaching or exceeding state standards for recreation or found a visible cyanobacteria scum; each poses a considerable risk for human and pet interactions with the pond. Using these tiers, APCC graded ponds in the "Moderate" or "High" tiers for cyanobacteria as Unacceptable, for the reasons given below: • APCC’s “Moderate” tier discourages children and pets from interacting with ponds due to cyanobacteria concerns. • The town of Barnstable posts "Pet Advisories" due to cyanobacteria concerns, cautioning parents and pet owners to keep children and pets away from the water, when a pond is in APCC's "Moderate" tier. State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 13 • In keeping with scientific consensus, APCC updated our warning tier criteria in 2020. The update resulted in 2020's "Moderate" tier being similar to the "High" tier in 2019. The resulting cyanobacteria grading system is as follows: Cyanobacteria grades for 2020 ponds in the “Low” tier were graded as: “Acceptable: ongoing protection is needed”; and Cyanobacteria grades for 2020 ponds in the “Moderate” and “High” tiers were graded as “Unacceptable: requires immediate restoration”. Combined Pond Grading System APCC’s combined pond grading system combinesdavailable Carlson Trophic Index grades and cyanobacteria grades, as described below and updated with more recent data and revised cyanobacteria grading system (see above): 1) Carlson Trophic Index scores and grades for ponds were calculated only for ponds where more recent water quality data from 2016 on was available, and where at least three years of data were available. 2) Cyanobacteria monitoring data from 2020 were used to grade ponds using APCC’s revised tiered cyanobacteria system described above: a. Ponds in the “High” and “Moderate” cyanobacteria tiers were graded as “Unacceptable: requires immediate restoration”; b. Ponds in the “Low” cyanobacteria tier were graded as “Acceptable: requires ongoing protection.” 3) If a pond had both Carlson Trophic Index grades and Cyanobacteria grades: a. The pond was graded as “Acceptable: requires ongoing protection” only if both grades were Acceptable; b. The pond was graded as “Unacceptable: requires immediate restoration” if at least one of the grades was Unacceptable. 4) If a pond had only one grade (i.e., Carlson Trophic Index grade or Cyanobacteria grade), that grade was used as the sole determinant of the overall pond grade. 10.3. Grading Public Water Supplies of Drinking Water The grading system for drinking water is based on a modification of a method developed by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) to grade drinking water. The NRDC grading system evaluates three areas of drinking water: water quality and compliance, source water protection, and right-to-know compliance. APCC chose to evaluate water quality and compliance of public water supplies after treatment and before distribution to consumers, the so-called “finished water.” This represents the underlying quality of the public water supply before it is distributed to customers, not the quality of the water as it comes out of the tap which can be affected by pipes and plumbing in the distribution system and in homes and businesses. APCC chose to evaluate public water supplies in this manner because underlying water quality State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 14 represents the first line of defense in ensuring safe drinking water supplies and because many water protection measures are aimed at protecting source water quality. To grade public water supplies, APCC uses publicly available Consumer Confidence Reports (CCRs) for the previous year to determine if water quality met existing state and federal drinking water standards (i.e., Maximum Contaminant Levels, or MCLs). This year, APCC did a preliminary review of CCRs and decided to apply a revised grading system. The original and revised grading systems are described below. Original grading system used in 2019 and 2020 State of the Waters: If a public water supply met all existing state and federal drinking water standards, it was graded as “Excellent” if not, it was graded as “Poor.” In the 2019 report on 2018 CCRs and the 2020 report on 2019 CCRs, all public water suppliers met all existing state and federal drinking water standards. Resulting grades were all “Excellent". Revised grading system used this year: Review of 2020 CCRs for Cape Cod public water suppliers showed that there were seven instances where public water suppliers reported that state and federal water quality standards were not met and/or required corrective actions. In particular there were varying degrees of potential risk posed by violations, e.g., ranging from one or two violations of the total coliform standard followed by compliance, to several violations of two standards occurring at different locations on different dates requiring issuance of a boil-water order representing a high potential risk level. APCC felt it was important to distinguish the different levels of potential risk. Accordingly, our public water supply grading system was revised to the following: Excellent: Public water supply met all existing state and federal health and reporting standards (unchanged). Good: Public water supply had one or more exceedance of total coliform MCL and/or no more than one violation of an existing state and/or federal standard that posed a risk to public health and that violation was neither chronic nor repeated. Poor: Public water supply had two or more violations of an existing state and/or federal standard that posed a risk to public health or a violation that was repeated or persisted through more than one sampling round. 11. Sources of Data Cape Cod is fortunate to have many environmental organizations and agencies that have monitored water quality for many years. Over the years, hundreds of citizen scientists, local, state and federal government agencies, scientists, environmental organizations, consulting firms, and APCC interns and volunteers have collected water samples for different water quality monitoring programs. With the assistance of our Advisory Committee and partners, our sources of water quality data that met our criteria (see below) included the following organizations and agencies listed below. It is important to note that these organizations and agencies followed quality assurance protocols for sampling and analysis. State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 15 Regional data (i.e., data collected from multiple embayments or large regions of the Cape): • Association to Preserve Cape Cod: 2020 cyanobacteria monitoring data from ponds located in Barnstable, Brewster, Chatham, Dennis, Eastham, Falmouth, Harwich, Mashpee, Orleans, Sandwich, Wellfleet, and Yarmouth; • Barnstable Clean Water Coalition: coastal water quality data for the Three Bays watershed; • Buzzards Bay Coalition: Eutrophic Index scores for Buzzards Bay coastal stations; • Center for Coastal Studies: coastal water quality data for stations along coasts of Cape Cod Bay, Nantucket Sound and Vineyard Sound; • Cape Cod Commission: coastal and pond water quality data collected by and for the Cape Cod Regional Water Quality Database, a project to collect and make publicly available all water quality monitoring data for the Cape. The project was funded by the EPA Southeast New England Coastal Watershed Restoration Program (EPA SNEP); • Cape Cod Commission and University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, School of Marine and Atmospheric Science and Technology (SMAST): Pond and Lake Stewards (PALS) data for pond water quality (note: most of the pond data provided by towns and organizations listed below was provided by PALS and SMAST for the towns and organizations); • Pleasant Bay Alliance: coastal Eutrophic Index scores for Pleasant Bay coastal stations; • Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (WBNERR): coastal water quality data for Waquoit Bay. Municipal data: • Town of Barnstable: coastal water quality data, pond water quality data, and cyanobacteria data; • Town of Chatham: coastal Eutrophic Index scores for Chatham coastal stations; • Town of Dennis: pond water quality data; • Town of Eastham: coastal water quality data; • Town of Harwich: coastal and pond water quality data; • Town of Mashpee: coastal and pond water quality data; • Town of Orleans: coastal and pond water quality data; • Town of Sandwich: pond water quality data. Types of water quality data are summarized below. Data are also posted on this State of the Waters: Cape Cod website under Resources. Water quality data for coastal embayments: For this 2021 report, APCC collected the most recent and available coastal water quality data up to and through 2020 from the data sources listed above. Our criteria for grading coastal water quality data included at least 5 years of data from 2016 on (e.g., 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020). There was one exception made; i.e., Harwich coastal water quality data where 2020 data were not collected due to suspension of their monitoring program due to the COVID-19 pandemic (data from 2015-2019 were used for grading). State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 16 Water quality data for ponds and lakes: Since 2000, the Cape Cod Ponds and Lakes Stewardship Program (PALS) has worked with volunteers and organizations who monitor many ponds across the Cape. The PALS program was developed by the Cape Cod Commission, APCC and SMAST, in coordination with organizations and towns that monitor water quality on an annual snapshot basis. Other pond associations and organizations have gathered a considerable amount of data with their member volunteers. For this 2021 report, APCC collected pond water quality data from the sources listed above. Our criteria for grading pond water quality data included at least three (3) years of data from 2016 on, and a requirement for chlorophyll data, as well as transparency and total phosphorus. Cyanobacteria data for ponds and lakes: For this 2021 report, APCC utilized 2020 cyanobacteria monitoring data collected by APCC’s Cyanobacteria Monitoring Program and cyanobacteria data collected by the town of Barnstable for ponds in Barnstable. Water quality data for public water supplies: For this 2021 report, APCC collected each town’s public-right-to-know reports for 2020 monitoring results, also known as the Consumer Confidence Reports (CCRs) for drinking water. CCRs are posted on each town’s website and links to the CCRs are provided in our Public Water Supplies grading sheet under Resources. APCC used the CCRs for 2020 to grade water quality and compliance with existing drinking water regulations. 12. Results Our 2021 grades for coastal embayments and stations, freshwater ponds and lakes, and public water supplies are provided as maps (Figures 1-4) and summarized in tables (Tables 1-7). Tables 1, 4, and 6 summarize grades from 2019, 2020, and 2021. Detailed scores and grades for embayments and coastal stations are provided in tables (Tables 8-16). Our findings are described below. 12.1 Coastal embayments and coastal stations Coastal embayments: • The 2021 embayment grades showed an increase in the number and percentage of Unacceptable embayments compared to previous years. There were 41 Unacceptable embayments, representing 87% of graded embayments. Last year in our 2020 report, 38 embayments or 79% were Unacceptable. In our 2019 report, 32 embayments or 68% were Unacceptable (Table 1). • The 2021 embayment grades showed a decrease in the number and percentage of Acceptable embayments compared to previous years. This year only six (6) of the 47 graded embayments were Acceptable, representing 13% of graded embayments. Last year in our 2020 report, 10 of 48 embayments or 21% were Acceptable. In our 2019 report, 15 of 47 embayments or 32% were Acceptable (Table 1). • The three new Unacceptable embayments this year include two on Cape Cod Bay and one on Buzzards Bay. (Figure 1 and Table 2). • There were 47 embayments graded this year, compared to 48 in 2020 and 47 in 2019 (Table 1). State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 17 • There were no embayments that showed an improvement from Unacceptable to Acceptable (Tables 1, 2). Coastal stations: • The 2021 station grades showed an increase in the number of Unacceptable stations from previous years., with over two-thirds of stations graded as Unacceptable. There were 133 Unacceptable coastal stations, representing 68% of graded stations. In our 2020 report there were 106 Unacceptable stations or 70% of graded stations. In our 2019 report there were 98 Unacceptable stations or 64% of graded stations (Tables 1, 3). • The 2021 station grades showed an increase in the number of Acceptable stations from previous years; however, the percentage of Acceptable stations was less than one-third of graded stations. There were 64 Acceptable coastal stations, representing 32% of graded stations. Last year there were 46 Acceptable stations or 30% of graded stations. In our 2019 report there were 54 Acceptable stations or 36% of graded stations (Tables 1, 3). • There were 197 coastal stations graded this year, reflecting an increase from previous years. The increase in the number of coastal stations with sufficient data to grade was due to new data from several towns (e.g., Barnstable, Harwich, and others) (Tables 1, 3, Figure 2). 12.2 Ponds This year more ponds were graded (109) than last year (93). Only 36 ponds had sufficient water quality data to grade using the Carlson Trophic Index. To address the data gap, APCC used cyanobacteria monitoring data to grade 87 ponds. This resulted in 73 additional ponds being graded (there were only 14 ponds which both CTI and cyanobacteria grades). Results are summarized below (see Tables 4 and 5 and Figure 3). • The 2021 pond grades show that approximately one-third of all graded ponds were Unacceptable. There were 38 Unacceptable ponds, or 35% of all graded ponds. Last year there were 39 Unacceptable ponds or 42% of all graded ponds. In 2019 there were 58 Unacceptable ponds or 39% of all graded ponds (Table 4). • The 2021 pond grades show that nearly two-thirds of all graded ponds were Acceptable. There were 71 Acceptable ponds, representing 65% of all graded ponds. Last year there were 54 Acceptable ponds representing 58% of graded ponds. In 2019 there were 91 Acceptable ponds or 61% of graded ponds (Table 4). • A total of 109 ponds were graded this year using the Carlson Trophic Index and/or cyanobacteria tiers for cyanobacteria data collected in 2020 (Tables 4, 5). This represents only 11% of the Cape’s 996 ponds. Last year 93 ponds were graded using either the Carlson Trophic Index and/or cyanobacteria tiers. In 2019 a total of 149 ponds were scored; however, many of these had older water quality data (e.g., some dating back to 2003). For the 2020 and 2021 reports, APCC used stricter data quality standards, requiring at least 3 years of data from 2015 on and 2016 on, respectively. • This year only 36 ponds had sufficient water quality data to grade using the Carlston Trophic Index (i.e., at least three (3) years of data from 2016 on, including chlorophyll) (Tables 4, 5). Of these ponds, 24 or 67% were Acceptable and 12 or 33% were unacceptable. State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 18 • This year a total of 87 ponds were graded using 2020 cyanobacteria monitoring data. Of these ponds, 52 ponds (60%) were Acceptable and 35 ponds (40%) were unacceptable (Tables 4, 5). • Only 14 ponds had both Carlson Trophic Index and Cyanobacteria grades. Of these ponds with dual grades, six (6) ponds had Acceptable grades, and eight (8) had Unacceptable grades (Tables 4, 5). • The percentages of Acceptable vs. Unacceptable grades for ponds graded using either the Carlson Trophic Index or cyanobacteria were as follows; 67% of ponds with CTI grades were Acceptable compared to 60% of ponds with cyanobacteria grades of Acceptable. Likewise, 33% of ponds with CTI grades were Unacceptable compared to 40% of ponds with cyanobacteria grades of Unacceptable (Tables 4, 5). More data are needed to determine whether this similarity is incidental or reflects a more fundamental underlying commonality. • This year most of the ponds graded were located in the mid-Cape region (Figure 3). 12.3. Public Water Supplies This year APCC applied a revised grading system to grade public water supplies based on their 2020 Consumer Confidence Reports and state and federal drinking water regulations in effect in 2020 (see section 10.3 Grading Public Water Supplies). The results are described below and in Tables 6 and 7 and Figure 4. • A total of 20 public water supplies were graded. (Note that the towns of Provincetown and Truro share a public water supply system which was graded as a single system). • Thirteen (13) public water supplies on the Cape continued to have Excellent water quality: Barnstable Fire District, Cotuit Water Department, Hyannis Water System, Otis Air National Guard Base, Brewster Water Department, Chatham Department of Public Works Water Division, Dennis Water District, Town of Eastham Water Department, Town of Falmouth Water Department, Town of Harwich Water Department, Mashpee Water District, Town of Orleans Water Department, and Provincetown Water Department (Tables 6, 7). • Six suppliers were graded as having Good water quality: Barnstable Center-ville- Osterville-Marstons Mills (COMM), Bourne Water District, Buzzards Bay Water District, North Sagamore Water District, Sandwich Water District, and Yarmouth Water Department (Tables 6, 7). • One supplier (Wellfleet Municipal Water System) received a grade of “Poor” due to violations of two drinking water standards (E. coli and total coliform bacteria) and several violations at different locations which required the town to issue a “boil water order” to protect public health. (Tables 6, 7). PFAS in public water supply wells was not graded because state and federal drinking water regulations requiring monitoring and limits on PFAS concentrations did not become effective until January of this year. APCC is monitoring the implementation of recently finalized regulations for PFAS and will apply these to public water supplies in the 2022 update of this report. It is known that increased testing in 2021 will reveal PFAS in public water supplies beyond what is currently know. The extent of the presence of PFAS in drinking water supplies State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 19 will become an issue of greater public concern, discussion and expense in the year ahead. For more information on PFAS, see the PFAS Primer . 12.4. Discussion In 2019, APCC presented results of the first year of the State of the Waters: Cape Cod, an assessment of water quality in coastal embayments, ponds and public water supplies. The 2019 results were based on water quality data available through 2017. In 2020 APCC updated grades to incorporate data collected through 2019. This year, APCC updated water quality grades using water quality data available through 2020. Collectively these reports, posted at our State of the Waters: Cape Cod website, and this report show that the Cape’s coastal waters and ponds continue to suffer from eutrophication due to nutrient loading, primarily from septic systems (Figure 5). Public water supplies were generally excellent but the exceptions indicate that public water supplies can still be vulnerable to bacterial contamination and, in one case (Yarmouth) to nitrite that was likely derived from septic systems and/or fertilizers. Coastal embayments and stations The increase in the number and percentage of Unacceptable embayments this year shows that coastal eutrophication continues and is expanding. For the first time, there were two new Unacceptable embayments (Barnstable Harbor, Quivett Creek) along the north coast of Cape Cod on Cape Cod Bay. The increase in the number of Unacceptable stations this year was likely related to an increase in the total number of stations graded combined with the percentage of Unacceptable stations (68%) remaining similar to last year (70%). A number of towns have made significant steps toward managing nutrients by approving construction of modern wastewater treatment projects. While water quality has yet to improve as a result, as these projects are implemented over the next few years the region should begin to see lower nutrient loadings that should be reflected in improving water quality in selected embayments. Ponds This year pond grades again indicated that approximately one-third of the 109 ponds monitored were Unacceptable. As APCC’s monitoring has expanded much has been learned about the scope of the impairment of ponds. While lacking a sufficiently robust and lengthy data record upon which to base trend analyses, APCC is beginning to understand that while approximately one-third of ponds achieve Unacceptable status in any given year, that there is great variability year to year in which ponds trigger that designation. While the prerequisite conditions to impairment exist in many ponds, perhaps a majority of ponds Cape-wide, the actual confluence of events that drive poor water quality conditions in any given pond in a particular year remain hard to predict given the lack of detailed and multi-year data. A comprehensive review and assessment of overall pond health is also hampered by data quality issues. To grade water quality, APCC uses the Carlson Trophic Index, an index of water quality State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 20 that describes the trophic status of a water body based on total phosphorus, chlorophyll and transparency; i.e., it is a measure of phytoplankton productivity due to nutrient loading where phytoplankton include algae and cyanobacteria). Many pond data are older, e.g., five years old or more. Using older data to grade ponds would cause grades to reflect conditions that existed at the time when water samples were collected and analyzed. Conditions in ponds may have changed since these older data were collected. This year APCC screened out pond data older than 2016 and ponds with less than three years of data collected. Using these more stringent requirements for grading resulted in only 36 ponds having sufficient water quality data to enable grading using the Carlson Trophic Index. This points out the severe shortage of more recent Cape-wide pond monitoring data to inform pond management and protection measures. To help fill the gap in freshwater pond data, APCC utilized the results of our cyanobacteria monitoring program. Since 2018, APCC has been monitoring cyanobacteria and cyanobacteria blooms in dozens of freshwater ponds on Cape Cod. Cyanobacteria blooms occur when there are sufficient nutrients to stimulate growth of these photosynthetic bacteria. Warmth and sunlight are other factors that stimulate cyanobacteria growth, but in the absence of nutrients or when nutrient concentrations are very low, cyanobacteria growth is minimal. Cyanobacteria blooms represent another way to assess phytoplankton productivity due to nutrient enrichment in freshwater ponds and is complementary to the use of the Carlson Trophic Index. Of the 36 ponds with sufficient water quality data to be graded using the Carlson Trophic Index, 33% were Unacceptable. Of the 87 ponds graded using cyanobacteria tiers, 40% were Unacceptable. While 33% and 40% are not identical, the fact that the two grading methods yielded percentages of Unacceptable grades that were within 7 percentage points indicates that the cyanobacteria grades and the Carlson Trophic Index grades generally agree. This is consistent with the two grading systems measuring eutrophication, albeit in different ways: the Carlson Trophic Index measures phytoplankton while the cyanobacteria grade measures cyanobacteria (a component of phytoplankton). Public Water Supplies This was the first year since our State of the Waters program was initiated in which some public water supplies experienced contamination due to bacteria and in one case (Yarmouth) nitrite. In Wellfleet, repeated violations of E.coli and total coliform bacteria standards led to the town having to issue a “boil-water order” to residents in order to protect public health. These results show that ongoing vigilance is needed to protect our public water supplies from contamination by already-regulated contaminants such as bacteria and nutrients. In next year’s report, APCC will include PFAS as a regulated contaminant of concern. Other water quality issues of concern • Consumer tap water quality was not evaluated and would require testing of the water coming out of consumers’ taps as well as monitoring data from water distribution systems. Water quality coming out of the tap will be affected by the age and type of pipes in the distribution system and in consumers’ homes and businesses. • Drinking water consumers and regulators alike need to consider that there may be other unregulated contaminants affecting drinking water quality. These include: State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 21 o PFAS in drinking water and in aquatic ecosystems, from a wide variety of sources. APCC is monitoring the results of newly required PFAS sampling and will apply these to public water supplies when evaluating drinking water quality in 2021. Results will be reported in our 2022 State of the Waters: Cape Cod report. For more information on PFAS, see our PFAS Primer. o Emerging contaminants in surface water and/or groundwater: ! Endocrine-disrupting compounds and pharmaceuticals from inadequately treated wastewater; ! Microplastics from wastewater, stormwater runoff and atmospheric fallout; ! Cyanobacteria (aka blue-green algae) in freshwater ponds produce toxins that are harmful to humans and animals if ingested. Public surface water supplies can become contaminated by cyanotoxins, and public water suppliers elsewhere are taking precautions to guard against cyanotoxins in drinking water. This issue is of limited scope on Cape Cod as only Falmouth utilizes a surface water source for a portion of its public drinking water. APCC has been monitoring cyanobacteria since 2018 and has incorporated cyanobacteria into our pond grading system since 2019. • Harmful bacteria in coastal waters and freshwater ponds, lakes and streams include fecal coliform bacteria and enteric bacteria that are indicators of human and/or wildlife fecal matter. Bacteria can impact swimming beach water quality and water quality in shellfish beds. Beach water quality and shellfish bed water quality are monitored by Barnstable County and the state, respectively. • Mercury contamination of surface water continues to be of concern, based on the fact that this year 32 ponds and lakes on the Cape have fish consumption advisories due to high levels of mercury. Last year the number was 29, and the year before 24. Mercury originates from atmospheric fallout of mercury emissions from coal-burning power plants. • Climate change impacts for the Northeast are predicted to include warmer air and water temperatures year-round; more precipitation; more intense storms; longer and warmer growing seasons coupled with shorter and warmer winters; shifts in populations of fish, wildlife and invertebrates; rising sea level; changes in groundwater elevations; more flooding; and changes in dynamic landforms such as those found on the Cape (e.g., dunes, beaches, floodplains). Many of these climate change predictions will impact water quality and exacerbate the harmful effects of existing pollutants. 12.5. Filling the gaps: recommendations for monitoring Monitoring is crucially important to understand current conditions and for tracking progress in improving and protecting water quality. Based on our findings, APCC provides the following recommendations for monitoring: State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 22 • Coastal embayments need ongoing monitoring to collect up-to-date information on water quality in order to assess whether wastewater management measures and protection measures are working and to determine when success has been achieved. • Monitoring of at least four more coastal embayments is needed (Chase Garden Creek in Yarmouth, Red River in Harwich, Hatches Harbor in Provincetown and Great Sippewissett Marsh in Falmouth). These embayments are listed in the 208 Water Quality Plan as coastal embayments receiving nutrients from their watersheds. • Pond monitoring should be expanded to many more ponds and lakes throughout the Cape, particularly those where there are swimming beaches, public access, and/or sensitive resources (e.g., diadromous fish, rare species, wildlife). The Cape Cod Commission has proposed a 208-scale study of ponds across the Cape. APCC strongly supports this initiative as responsive to the knowledge gaps around pond water quality and encourages the Barnstable County Commissioners and County Assembly of Delegates to approve this program early in 2022. • Cyanobacteria monitoring of ponds should be expanded as it provides a useful measure of eutrophication and a complement to water quality monitoring. • The PALS program is useful as a “screening tool” to identify ponds where more in-depth monitoring and assessment is needed to determine causes, extent and severity of problems. However, pond monitoring should be conducted more frequently than the once-a-year snapshot that is typically provided by the PALS program. • Newer, more recent pond data should be utilized to assess pond conditions and inform restoration and protection efforts. • Monitoring of pond water quality and cyanobacteria blooms should be conducted hand- in-hand so that water quality data can be used to help predict where serious cyanobacteria blooms may occur, and vice versa. • Public water suppliers should expand their monitoring of PFAS, emerging contaminants and cyanobacteria to help safeguard public health. 13. State of the Waters Action Plan The most common threats to our water quality are: • Nutrient pollution from septic system wastewater (Figure 5) and from fertilizers • Stormwater runoff containing roadside pollutants, including nutrients and bacteria • Contaminants of emerging concern such as pharmaceuticals, personal care products, PFAS and industrial chemicals State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 23 Action is needed now, especially on the municipal level. Moving forward immediately on water quality restoration efforts that produce measurable results must be the first priority. Securing and using both the new (short term rental tax and Cape and Islands Water Protection Trust Fund) and traditional (State Revolving Fund and local debt) funding sources, now supercharged by recent landmark federal appropriations legislation, to pay for water quality restoration and for monitoring water resources is critical. The towns of Cape Cod must lead the effort on protecting and improving water quality. State agencies must be a partner in this process. Enhanced municipal, regional and state regulatory standards that increase protections of water resources are crucial. The Cape and Islands Water Protection Fund awarded $71 million to eight Cape towns to support water quality projects in 2021, making the promise of critical financial assistance a reality. Towns realize there is now a 25% subsidy of capital costs and should accelerate their construction plans, especially with additional subsidy available for water quality projects due to recently approved federal legislation. The next few years represent a generational opportunity for the Cape to draw on unprecedented availability of federal funds to leverage water quality improvement on a very cost-effective basis. Great progress has been made on developing the necessary understanding, scope and nature of estuarine water quality problems as well as the realistic and cost-effective management options. Development of the Cape Cod Commission’s 208-water quality report was the turning point that enabled recent progress on implementation to begin. The 208 report identified, but did not address, the need for an equivalent level of assessment of the water quality of the ponds of Cape Cod. The expanded monitoring APCC has undertaken the last few years, and more fully reflected for the first time in this report’s current edition, underscores and makes plain the need for a Cape-wide assessment of, and strategy for the restoration of, freshwater pond water quality. The time is now, and APCC calls on the Barnstable County Commissioner and the Assembly of Delegates to fully fund the Commission’s plan to initiate a 208-scale effort for the freshwater ponds of Cape Cod. Of course, public involvement is essential. Residents should support municipal investments in local water quality improvement projects. The participation of citizen groups and individuals are necessary to achieving local and regional water quality improvement goals. Be aware of your role in the health of Cape Cod’s water resources. Individual actions by homeowners and businesses—both by the actions you take on your property and by making sure your voice is heard in the local decision-making process—can make a difference in the protection of Cape Cod’s water resources. Because the quality of groundwater directly affects the quality of the Cape’s coastal embayments, ponds and drinking water, many of the following recommendations in this action plan focus on groundwater protection and crosscut all three resource areas studied in the State of the Waters: Cape Cod report. Action at the municipal level is most impactful and this plan emphasizes municipal actions and the importance of residents in forcing action at the town level. 13.1. Recommended Actions for Coastal Embayments • For Municipalities: o Comprehensive Wastewater Management Planning: State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 24 ! Towns with plans that are consistent with the Cape Cod 208 Plan must begin to implement their long-term strategy for managing wastewater and improving water quality in the town’s watersheds. ! Towns without a plan must make the development and adoption of a plan a municipal priority. ! Towns whose plans include shared estuary watersheds should adopt intermunicipal agreements that establish nitrogen responsibility and cooperative wastewater management strategies. Obtaining a state-issued Watershed Permit will provide additional accountability and enforceability. o Dedicate at least 50 percent of short-term rental tax revenue to infrastructure investments that include wastewater infrastructure and use the revenue to fund appropriate programs. o Develop financing plans that take full advantage of zero percent loans from the State Revolving Fund (SRF), the principle forgiveness offered by the Cape and Islands Water Protection Fund and new federal funds for Covid recovery and for infrastructure investment. o Expand monitoring of embayment restoration efforts to assess the effectiveness of management measures. Results should be used for adaptive management and course correction if needed. o Adopt local zoning bylaws and planning policies that encourage and facilitate future growth at greater densities in strategic locations where wastewater infrastructure can support additional development. Adopt local zoning bylaws, regulations and policies that direct growth away from sensitive watershed areas that do not have supportive wastewater infrastructure. o Prioritize water resources protection in municipal regulatory review. Establish consistency across town boards and commissions regarding municipal bylaws and regulations relating to water resource protection. For example, local planning boards, boards of health and conservation commissions should adopt the same regulations for requiring advanced denitrifying septic systems for development and redevelopment in nitrogen-sensitive watersheds. o Explore viable, alternative wastewater treatment strategies to augment municipal investments in wastewater infrastructure. o Stormwater planning and treatment: ! Complete and implement stormwater plans (i.e., mapping, stormwater pollution prevention plan, bylaws, elimination of illicit discharges, prioritizing stormwater projects, funding maintenance) and include all roads that drain to wetlands and waters. Address both nutrients and bacteria. ! Invest in stormwater remediation efforts in every road project going forward. Prioritize projects with the greatest water quality benefit. Adopt stormwater best management practices that include low impact development techniques. ! Use the revised 208 Technologies Matrix that now includes stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) and their removal efficiencies for State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 25 pollutants (including nutrients, bacteria and solids) to select BMPs for projects. o Maintain adequate natural vegetated buffer zones around roads and parking lots near water bodies to capture stormwater runoff. o Eliminate fertilizer and pesticide use on municipal properties. Establish fertilizer and pesticide reduction outreach programs for residents and businesses, including a call for residents to eliminate fertilizer use. o Support ecological restoration programs and projects that will improve water quality and habitat. o Incorporate climate change into pond monitoring, planning and protection. • For Homeowners/Business Owners: o Organize locally and demand action by town officials to protect and restore coastal embayments. o At town meetings and the ballot box, support municipal investments in wastewater infrastructure and the use of viable, alternative wastewater treatment strategies to augment the development of wastewater infrastructure. o Don’t dump contaminants down house drains. Household chemicals, paints, thinners, solvents, pharmaceuticals and other hazardous materials can leach into groundwater and pollute water bodies. Properly dispose of hazardous wastes during designated collection days at local transfer stations. o Eliminate the use of fertilizers and pesticides on your property. Reduce, or better yet, eliminate turf grass lawns and replace with native plantings and ground cover. o Encourage your town, local school and golf courses to reduce or eliminate fertilizer and pesticide use. o For coastal waterfront properties, establish protective buffers of native vegetation at least 100 feet deep along shorelines to reduce the potential for stormwater runoff. o Work to achieve zero stormwater runoff from your property. Direct roof runoff from downspouts away from paved areas. Install rain gardens or rain barrels to collect water. Maximize permeable areas and native plantings that help absorb stormwater and prevent water runoff to roads. o Work with your neighborhood association to address stormwater problems and ensure proper maintenance of stormwater controls on private roads, especially where stormwater directly discharges into embayments. o Help your town properly maintain stormwater systems and report problems, remove debris and litter around storm drains. Never dump oil or other contaminants down storm drains. o Encourage your town to use more pervious surfaces instead of pavement and to allow roadside vegetation to grow instead of mowing so it can filter stormwater pollutants. o Be a responsible boater. Never dump trash or debris overboard. Discharge of any boat sewage, whether treated or not, is prohibited by federal and state law in coastal waters; use designated pump out facilities. State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 26 o If using an on-site septic system, maintain it properly by having it pumped regularly—every three years is recommended. Consider an advanced wastewater treatment system to treat nutrients. • For State Government: o Utilize and support watershed permitting for municipalities that promotes and addresses alternative technologies for wastewater treatment, requires sewering if alternatives do not work, and that also assures enforceability. o Prioritize investments in stormwater control for state roads that improve water quality by removing nutrients as well as bacteria when allocating funding for state road infrastructure projects. o Provide timely reporting on the state’s list of impaired waters. o Support monitoring of harmful algal blooms (HABs) in marine and freshwater environments and address causes of HABs using ecologically safe methods. o Provide additional state funding to the county and municipalities for water quality improvement projects and for monitoring programs. o Support ecological restoration programs and projects that will improve water quality and habitat. • For Regional Government: o Reinvest resources to focus on regional water quality efforts. o Invest in monitoring and regional data collection and the dissemination of collected data. o Provide evaluation of efficacy of alternative Title 5 systems. o Restore the effectiveness of the Cape Cod Water Protection Collaborative. o Eliminate interest charges on community septic management financing to provide support to those in need of assistance upgrading or connecting to sewers. o Support tighter regulation of development in areas not serviced by sewer. o Support ecological restoration programs and projects that will improve water quality and habitat. 13.2 Recommended Actions for Ponds • For Municipalities: o Make protection of ponds and restoration of pond water quality a priority. Initiate detailed assessments of water quality for every pond, including promoting and supporting citizen water quality monitoring projects for ponds, including monitoring for cyanobacteria blooms. o Accelerate nutrient management, including sewering, of pond watersheds to improve pond water quality. o Establish, in partnership with APCC or individually, a cyano monitoring program and companion public notice protocol that ensures the public is advised of the presence of cyano blooms and provided with real-time guidance on the need to restrict contact with ponds with high cyano levels. o Eliminate fertilizer and pesticide use on municipal properties. Establish fertilizer and pesticide reduction outreach programs for residents and businesses, including a call for residents to eliminate fertilizer use. State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 27 o Adopt local bylaws and regulations that increase protections of ponds. Require placement of septic systems at least 300 feet back from the edge of a pond when located on the up-gradient side of groundwater flow toward a pond. Develop homeowner financial assistance programs for upgrading septic systems to comply with updated pond-front septic regulations. o Invest in stormwater remediation efforts around ponds. Adopt stormwater best management practices that include low impact development (LID) techniques. Conduct routine street sweeping and catch basin cleaning to help prevent sediments and contaminants from reaching water bodies through stormwater. Maintain up-to-date GIS mapping and ground-truthing of storm drain locations. Maintain adequate natural vegetated buffer zones around roads and parking lots near ponds to capture stormwater. Conduct the comprehensive stormwater management and implementation described above in the section for coastal embayments. o Establish consistency across town boards and commissions regarding municipal regulations and bylaws relating to water resource protection. For example, local planning boards, boards of health and conservation commissions should adopt consistent language for septic system technologies and siting in proximity to ponds. o Promote development and testing of non-traditional, alternative wastewater treatment for single and shared systems. o Weigh the pros and cons of pond management options such as alum treatment, macrophyte (vegetation) removal, or dredging to improve a pond’s water quality. Each pond is unique, therefore methods to address water quality issues should be carefully considered. o Invest in open space acquisitions of pond-front property as well as property within pond watersheds. o Adopt site plan review standards that take topography into account. Require appropriate setbacks from water bodies and minimize impervious surfaces. o Incorporate climate change into pond monitoring, planning and protection. o Support ecological restoration programs and projects that will improve water quality and habitat. o Sponsor pond education and stewardship programs. • For Homeowners/Business Owners: o Organize locally and demand action by town officials to restore and protect ponds. o At town meeting and the ballot box, support municipal investments to restore and protect pond water quality. o Support the adoption of local bylaws and regulations that increase protections of ponds. o Upgrade septic system so that it is at least 300 feet back from the edge of a pond when located on the upgradient side of groundwater flow toward a pond. o Eliminate the use of fertilizers and pesticides on your property. o Reduce, or better yet, eliminate turf grass lawns and replace with native plantings and ground cover. State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 28 o Encourage your town, local schools and golf courses to reduce or eliminate fertilizer and pesticide use. o Don’t dump contaminants down house drains. Household chemicals, paints, thinners, solvents, pharmaceuticals and other hazardous materials can leach into groundwater and pollute water bodies. Properly dispose of hazardous wastes during designated collection days at local transfer stations. o Work to achieve zero stormwater runoff from your property. Direct roof runoff from downspouts away from paved areas. Install rain gardens or rain barrels to collect water. Maximize permeable areas and native plantings that help absorb stormwater and prevent water runoff to roads. o Establish protective vegetative buffers of native vegetation at least 100 feet wide along pond shorelines to reduce the potential for stormwater runoff to a pond. o Support town and local land trust open space acquisitions of property with pond frontage or within pond watersheds. o Help organize and participate in citizen water quality monitoring projects for area ponds, including monitoring for cyanobacteria blooms. o For homeowners, become active in your local pond association, or if there isn’t one for your pond, start one. o Work with your neighborhood association to address stormwater problems and ensure proper maintenance of stormwater controls on private roads, especially where stormwater directly discharges into ponds. o Help your town properly maintain stormwater systems and report problems, remove debris and litter around storm drains. Never dump oil or other contaminants down storm drains. o Encourage your town to use more pervious surfaces in place of pavement and to allow roadside vegetation to grow instead of mowing it so it can filter pollutants from stormwater. o Pick up after pets and deposit waste in the trash. Pet waste can introduce harmful bacteria and other pathogens into ponds. o Do not wash cars on paved driveways or parking lots, which allows oil, fuel and soap to make their way into ponds. o Be a responsible boater. Never dump trash or debris overboard. o Attend education workshops to learn more about pond issues and how you and your community can protect ponds. o If using an on-site septic system, maintain it properly by having it pumped regularly—every three years is recommended. Consider an advanced wastewater treatment system to treat nutrients. • For State Government: o Increase funding to municipalities and nonprofits for pond restoration, management and monitoring initiatives. Increase funding to state agencies—e.g., the Department of Conservation and Recreation—for management of ponds under state control. o Develop better protocols for monitoring of, and responding quickly to, toxic cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) blooms that could impact public health and ecosystems. Work with municipalities and environmental nonprofits to develop standardized monitoring and reporting programs. State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 29 o Establish Total Daily Maximum Loads (TMDL) for phosphorus for high priority Cape Cod ponds. o Support ecological restoration programs and projects that will improve water quality and habitat. o Provide timely reporting on the state’s list of impaired waters. o Incorporate climate change into pond monitoring, planning and protection. • For Regional Government: o Fully fund the Cape Cod Commission’s 208 Plan for ponds to include a comprehensive focus on pond water quality similar to the county’s focus on the nutrient problem in Cape Cod embayments. o Current pond monitoring protocols (e.g., PALS) and data are insufficient for producing reliable determinations of pond health. Invest in the development of a much more rigorous and expanded pond monitoring program, which should include information sharing on collected data. o Support ecological restoration programs and projects that will improve water quality and habitat. o Incorporate climate change into pond monitoring, planning and protection. 13.3 Recommended Actions for Drinking Water Supplies • For Municipalities: o Make protection of water supply sources a municipal priority. o Adopt local bylaws and regulations that increase protection of public water supplies, such as natural resource protection zoning, restriction of uses that involve hazardous materials storage or use, standards for construction projects, and waste disposal procedures. o Acquire permanently protected open space in public water supply areas to protect water quality. o Expand public water supply sampling to include testing for unregulated contaminants of emerging concern that are more likely to be present in the region, including testing for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). o Conduct or update the town’s source water assessment and protection (SWAP) plan to rate the susceptibility of public drinking water supplies compared to the collected inventory of likely contamination threats, such as gas stations, landfills and other uses. Make the assessment available to the public on the town’s website. Adopt measures to address specific risks with the water supply area. o Promote water conservation and limited outdoor watering to protect source water and as a response to climate change. o Encourage and promote homeowners and businesses to use native species in landscaping and to reduce or eliminate lawns to reduce use of fertilizers, pesticides and water. Do the same for municipal properties such as offices, public parks, schools and other landscaped areas. o Improve water supply infrastructure to ensure high water quality delivery standards for homeowners and businesses. State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 30 o Identify and address stormwater runoff sources that could carry contaminants to drinking water supplies. o Develop, update and implement contingency planning strategies that address water supply contamination or emergency service interruptions. o Adopt public education programs to increase awareness of threats to drinking water sources, encourage source water protection, and build support for local water protection initiatives. Make sure businesses and households are aware if they are located within a water supply protection area. o Incorporate climate change into the town’s water resource planning and protection. • For Homeowners/Business Owners: o Organize locally and demand action by town officials to protect water supplies. o At town meeting and at the ballot box, support investments to improve water supply protection. o Support the adoption of local regulations that increase protection of water supplies, such as natural resource protection zoning, restriction of uses that involve the storage or use of hazardous materials, and other protective measures. o Support town and local land trust efforts to acquire permanently protected open space in public water supply areas. o Know where your town’s water supply protection areas are located. If your home or business is located within a water supply protection area, avoid activities in and around your home or business that could pollute the groundwater beneath it. Even a small spill of a hazardous substance (see the list below) can cause major contamination of groundwater. o Don’t dump hazardous substances down the drain. Household chemicals, paints, thinners, solvents, pharmaceuticals and other hazardous materials can leach into groundwater and drinking water supplies. Properly dispose of hazardous wastes during designated collection days at local transfer stations. o Work to achieve zero stormwater runoff from your property. Direct roof runoff from downspouts away from paved areas. Install rain gardens or rain barrels to collect water. Maximize permeable areas and native plantings that help absorb stormwater and prevent water runoff to roads. Native plants are also more drought tolerant and require less watering. o Eliminate the use of fertilizers and pesticides. Reduce, or better yet, eliminate turf grass lawns. Encourage your town, local school and golf courses to reduce or eliminate fertilizer and pesticide use. o Conserve water usage inside and outside your house or business. For example, avoid watering the lawn during summertime drought conditions. o If using a private well, conduct regular testing, including testing for contaminants of emerging concern that are more likely to occur in the region. o Maintain your on-site septic systems properly by having it pumped regularly— every three years is recommended. Consider an advanced wastewater treatment system to treat nutrients. State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 31 • For State Government: o Adopt more protective standards to address unregulated contaminants and contaminants of emerging concern. o Adopt regulations to address per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). o Incorporate climate change into water resource planning and protection. • For Regional Government: o Maintain, and where possible, improve, rigorous protections of drinking water supply areas within the Cape Cod Commission’s regulatory review jurisdiction. o Cleanup municipal drinking water supplies in locations where county-controlled activities are responsible for contaminating groundwater. o Incorporate climate change into water resource planning and protection. 14. Success Stories Despite the challenges and the need for much greater action in every town, there have been some successes in addressing nutrient pollution. These successes include the following: • Passage of state legislation in 2018 that established the Cape Cod and Islands Water Protection Fund to provide a non-property tax-based source of funds to help Cape Cod and the Islands pay for necessary wastewater infrastructure and water quality remediation efforts. In 2021 the first round of funding awards were awarded to a number of towns to assist them with wastewater management. • Barnstable County’s alternative septic system testing center has been testing efficacy of different alternative septic systems and has identified several as being potentially useful; • Sewer expansion projects in Chatham and in Falmouth; • Alternative wastewater treatment methods are being tested or utilized in towns, including permeable reactive barriers in Falmouth and Orleans and shellfish aquaculture projects in Falmouth, Barnstable, Mashpee, Yarmouth, Dennis, Orleans and Wellfleet; • Partnering agreements between towns to share public wastewater treatment facilities (e.g., Harwich and Chatham); including first-ever sewers installed in Harwich; • Groundbreaking in 2020 for the Orleans wastewater treatment facility and collection system; • The state’s first Watershed Permit for four towns in the Pleasant Bay watershed, designed to facilitate a coordinated effort by the towns of Brewster, Chatham, Harwich and Orleans and the Pleasant Bay Alliance to control nutrient pollution in Pleasant Bay (see Pleasant Bay Watershed Permit); State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 32 • Intermunicipal agreement between Mashpee, Sandwich and Barnstable for nitrogen load sharing for the cleanup of Popponesset Bay; • Pond restoration success stories have been compiled by the Cape Cod Commission. Success stories for freshwater ponds are fewer because ponds have not received the attention that coastal embayments have received; • Additional water quality improvement success stories can be found on the Cape Cod Commission’s website. Finally, ecological restoration projects provide benefits for water quality as well as ecological benefits for fish and wildlife habitat. Several restoration projects that are planned, underway or completed include: Parkers River tidal restoration, Herring River tidal restoration, Childs River freshwater wetland restoration, Coonamessett River restoration, Sesuit Creek salt marsh restoration, Three Bays stormwater remediation project, Stony Brook salt marsh and fish passage restoration, and others. APCC’s Restoration Coordination Center is assisting with many of these projects and provides Cape Cod communities with assistance in planning and implementing successful restoration projects. For more information on restoration projects on Cape Cod, visit APCC's website. 15. References and Resources Cape Cod’s water resources: Cape Cod Commission website on Water Resources. Posted at: https://www.capecodcommission.org/our-work/topic/water-resources/ Economic value of the blue economy: Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce website on economic value of Cape Cod’s tourism industry, at: Cape Cod Chamber of Commerce) http://www.whycapecod.org/stats.html Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Cape Cod Water Resources Restoration Project, Why It Matters to Massachusetts Economy, https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs144p2_013852.pdf ). Definitions: Embayments: https://www.yourdictionary.com/embayment Estuaries: NOAA https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/estuary.html . State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 33 Watersheds: Cape Cod Commission watershed reports. Posted at https://www.capecodcommission.org/our-work/208-plan- implementation/#WatershedReports . Click on an individual watershed to get the report for that watershed. Nutrient pollution: Cape Cod Commission. 2015. Cape Cod Areawide 208 Water Quality Management Plan. Posted at: https://www.capecodcommission.org/our-work/208 . Massachusetts Estuaries Project. See state website at: https://www.mass.gov/guides/the- massachusetts-estuaries-project-and-reports Massachusetts Estuaries Project, University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, School of Marine and Atmospheric Science and Technology (SMAST) website at: http://www.smast.umassd.edu/Coastal/research/estuaries/estuaries.html . Cape Cod Commission, Ponds and Lakes website at: https://www.capecodcommission.org/our-work/ponds-and-lakes/ . Beach water quality monitoring: Barnstable County webpage on bathing beach water quality at https://www.barnstablecountyhealth.org/health-topics/recreational-water-quality Shellfish water quality monitoring: Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries webpage on shellfish sanitation and management, at: https://www.mass.gov/shellfish-sanitation-and-management Cyanobacteria monitoring: Association to Preserve Cape Cod, Cyanobacteria monitoring program webpage at: https://apcc.org/our-work/science/community-science/cyanobacteria/ Leland, N.J., J.F. Haney, K. Conte, K. Malkus-Benjamin and B. Horseley. 2019. Evaluation of size structure in freshwater cyanobacteria populations: methods to quantify risk associated with changes in biomass and Microcystin concentrations. Journal of Water Research and Protection, 2019, 11, 810-829. Posted at: https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation.aspx?paperid=93424 Hyperlink: Leland, Haney, Conte, Malkus-Benjamin and Horseley, 2019 Leland, N.J., R. A. Landon, and J.F. Haney. September 2020. Trophic interactions between anadromous juvenile Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) and cyanobacterial State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 34 populations in a shallow mesotrophic pond. Natural Resources, 2020, 11, 394-419. Posted at: https://m.scirp.org/papers/102960 . Hyperlink: Leland et al., 2020 Leland, N.J. and Haney, J.F., 2018. Alternative Methods for Analysis of Cyanobacterial Populations in Drinking Water Supplies: Fluorometric and Toxicological Applications Using Phycocyanin. Journal of Water Resource and Protection, 10, 740-761. Posted at: https://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=86671& Hyperlink: Leland and Haney, 2018 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2017. Cyanobacteria Monitoring Collaborative Program (CMC). 2017. Quality Assurance Program Plan (QAPP) for the Cyanobacteria Monitoring Collaborative Program. Rev: 0, April 26, 2017: Posted at: https://cyanos.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/cmc_qapp_final.pdf . Hyperlink: CMC 2017 Mercury in ponds and lakes: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/eating-fish-safely-in-massachusetts https://www.nrdc.org/stories/mercury-guide https://capecodchronicle.com/en/5428/harwich/4677/Mercury-Contamination-Found-In- Freshwater-Fish;-White-And-Mill-Ponds-In-Harwich-Impacted-Health-Environment.htm Emerging contaminants and pharmaceutical compounds in Cape Cod’s waters: Silent Spring Institute website at https://silentspring.org/news/contaminants-pervasive- cape-cods-drinking-water-supply/faqs-emerging-contaminants-cape-cod ). Center for Coastal Studies webpage on pharmaceuticals in marine waters, at: -program/monitoring-projects/contaminants-of-emerging-concern/pharmaceuticals-in- the-waters-of-cape-cod-bay-and-nantucket-sound/ ). PFAS: EPA website on PFAS, at: https://www.epa.gov/pfas Massachusetts website on PFAS, at: https://www.mass.gov/info-details/per-and- polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas . PFAS Primer , on APCC’s State of the Waters: Cape Cod website. Buzzards Bay Eutrophic Index for evaluating coastal eutrophication: Costa, J. E., B. L. Howes, A. Giblin, and I. Valiela. 1992. Monitoring Nitrogen and indicators of nitrogen to support management action in Buzzards Bay, p. 497-529. In McKenzie et al.(eds) Ecological Indicators, Elsevier, London. State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 35 Buzzards Bay National Estuary Program webpage on the Buzzards Bay Eutrophic Index, at http://buzzardsbay.org/technical-data/status-trends/citizen-wq-monitoring/eutroindex/ , Gunn, E., D.S. Janik and J.E. Costa. 1994. Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for the Buzzards Bay Project. https://buzzardsbay.org/download/qappcitz1994.pdf .) Buzzards Bay Coalition website on Bay Health Index, at: https://www.savebuzzardsbay.org/bay-health/ . Center for Coastal Studies website on water quality monitoring program, at: https://coastalstudies.org/cape-cod-bay-monitoring-program/ . Carlson Trophic Index for evaluating freshwater ponds and lakes: Carlson, R.E. and J. Simpson. 1996. A Coordinator’s Guide to Volunteer Lake Monitoring Methods. North American Lake Management Society. 96 pp. Posted at: https://www.nalms.org/secchidipin/monitoring-methods/trophic-state-equations/ Carlson, R.E. 1977. A trophic state index for lakes. Limnology and Oceanography Vol. 22, pp. 361-369. Posted at: https://aslopubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.4319/lo.1977.22.2.0361 Grading drinking water: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). 2003. What’s on Tap: Grading Drinking Water in U.S. Cities. Posted at: https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/whatsontap.pdf . Pond water quality (PALS Program): Cape Cod Commission, Ponds and Lakes website at: https://www.capecodcommission.org/about-us/newsroom/monitoring-fresh-water-on- cape-cod/ . State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 36 Figure 1. 2021 Map of Water Quality Grades for Coastal Embayments. Water quality grades for individual stations in embayments were reviewed. If there was at least one station in the embayment with Unacceptable water quality, the embayment received a grade of Unacceptable: requires immediate restoration. If all stations in an embayment had Acceptable water quality, the embayment received a grade of Acceptable: requires ongoing protection. Note: 2021 refers to this updated 2021 State of the Waters: Cape Cod report, not the year(s) in which water quality was monitored. State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 37 Figure 2. 2021 Map of Water Quality Grades for Coastal Embayment Stations. Water quality data for individual stations were scored using the Buzzards Bay Eutrophication Index and scores were converted into grades as described in Section 10. Note: 2021 refers to this updated 2021 State of the Waters: Cape Cod report, not the year(s) in which water quality was monitored. State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 38 Figure 3. 2021 Map of Water Quality Grades for Ponds and Lakes. Ponds were graded using the Carlson Trophic Index and/or cyanobacteria tiers as described in Section 10. Note: 2021 refers to this updated 2021 State of the Waters: Cape Cod report, not the year(s) in which water quality was monitored. State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 39 Figure 4. 2021 Map of Grades for Public Water Supplies of Drinking Water. Consumer Confidence Reports from 2020 were used to grade water quality in public water supplies prior to distribution to consumers. Note: 2021 refers to this updated 2021 State of the Waters: Cape Cod report, not the year(s) in which water quality was monitored. State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 40 Figure 5. Map of Areas Served by Title 5 Septic Systems and Publicly-Owned Wastewater Treatment Facilities and Open Space. Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community Created by Jordanne Feldman, APCC 9/12/19. Data from the Cape Cod Commission. 0 2.5 5 7.5 101.25 Miles 4 Sewered Areas, Title 5 Septic System Areas, and Open Space Areas Legend Primarily Reliant on Title 5 Sewered Area Open Space Town Line State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 41 Table 1. Summary of 2019, 2020 and 2021 State of the Waters Grades for Coastal Embayments and Stations. Note: 2021 refers to this updated 2021 State of the Waters: Cape Cod report, not the year(s) in which water quality was monitored. COASTAL 2019 Grades 2020 Grades 2021 Grades No. % of graded embayments No. % of graded embayments No. % of graded embayments Embayments Acceptable:15 32%10 21%6 13% Unacceptable:32 68%38 79%41 87% No Data:5 4 4 Total Graded Embayments:47 48 47 Total:52 52 51 Embayment Stations No.%No. % of graded stations Change from 2020 Acceptable:54 36%46 30%64 32%18 Unacceptable 98 64%106 70%133 68%27 Total:152 152 197 45 Notes: Station grades were based on a 5-year moving average of Eutrophic Index scores as follows: 2021 grades used 2016-2020 data, with some exceptions (e.g., Harwich) where data in this date range were not available. 2020 grades used 2015-2019 data, with some exceptions where data in this date range were not available. 2019 grades largely utilized station data from 2013-2017, with some exceptions made to use older data for stations not recently monitored. Embayment grades: An embayment was graded as Acceptable only if all graded stations in that embayment were Acceptable. An embayment was graded as Unacceptable grades if one or more graded stations in that embayment were Unacceptable. State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 42 Table 2. 2021 Embayment Grades. A coastal embayment was graded as Acceptable if all stations in the embayment were Acceptable; if at least one station was Unacceptable, the embayment was graded as Unacceptable. Note: 2021 refers to this updated 2021 State of the Waters: Cape Cod report, not the year(s) in which water quality was monitored. Embayment_Name Overall_Embayment_Grade Allen Harbor Unacceptable: At least one station has unacceptable water quality; immediate restoration required Back River/Eel Pond/Phinney's Harbor Unacceptable: At least one station has unacceptable water quality; immediate restoration required Barnstable Harbor Unacceptable: At least one station has unacceptable water quality; immediate restoration required Bass River Unacceptable: At least one station has unacceptable water quality; immediate restoration required Boat Meadow River Unacceptable: At least one station has unacceptable water quality; immediate restoration required Bournes Pond Unacceptable: At least one station has unacceptable water quality; immediate restoration required Buttermilk Bay Unacceptable: At least one station has unacceptable water quality; immediate restoration required Centerville River Unacceptable: At least one station has unacceptable water quality; immediate restoration required Chase Garden Creek No data Falmouth Inner Harbor Unacceptable: At least one station has unacceptable water quality; immediate restoration required Fiddlers Cove Unacceptable: At least one station has unacceptable water quality; immediate restoration required Great Pond Unacceptable: At least one station has unacceptable water quality; immediate restoration required Green Pond Unacceptable: At least one station has unacceptable water quality; immediate restoration required Great Sippewisset Creek No data Hatch's Harbor No data Herring River (EA)Unacceptable: At least one station has unacceptable water quality; immediate restoration required Herring River (HA)Unacceptable: At least one station has unacceptable water quality; immediate restoration required Lewis Bay Unacceptable: At least one station has unacceptable water quality; immediate restoration required Little Namskaket Creek Unacceptable: At least one station has unacceptable water quality; immediate restoration required Little Pond Unacceptable: At least one station has unacceptable water quality; immediate restoration required Little Sippewisset Marsh Unacceptable: At least one station has unacceptable water quality; immediate restoration required Megansett Harbor Unacceptable: At least one station has unacceptable water quality; immediate restoration required Namskaket Creek Acceptable: All stations have acceptable water quality; ongoing protection required Nauset Marsh Unacceptable: At least one station has unacceptable water quality; immediate restoration required Oyster Pond (FA)Unacceptable: At least one station has unacceptable water quality; immediate restoration required Pamet River Acceptable: All stations have acceptable water quality; ongoing protection required Parkers River (YA)Unacceptable: At least one station has unacceptable water quality; immediate restoration required Pleasant Bay Unacceptable: At least one station has unacceptable water quality; immediate restoration required Pocasset Harbor Unacceptable: At least one station has unacceptable water quality; immediate restoration required Pocasset River Unacceptable: At least one station has unacceptable water quality; immediate restoration required Popponesset Bay Unacceptable: At least one station has unacceptable water quality; immediate restoration required Provincetown Harbor Unacceptable: At least one station has unacceptable water quality; immediate restoration required Quisset Harbor Acceptable: All stations have acceptable water quality; ongoing protection required Quivett Creek Unacceptable: At least one station has unacceptable water quality; immediate restoration required Rand Harbor Unacceptable: At least one station has unacceptable water quality; immediate restoration required Red River No data Rock Harbor Unacceptable: At least one station has unacceptable water quality; immediate restoration required Sandwich Harbor Acceptable: All stations have acceptable water quality; ongoing protection required Saquetucket Harbor Unacceptable: At least one station has unacceptable water quality; immediate restoration required Scorton Harbor Acceptable: All stations have acceptable water quality; ongoing protection required Sesuit Harbor Acceptable: All stations have acceptable water quality; ongoing protection required Stage Harbor Unacceptable: At least one station has unacceptable water quality; immediate restoration required Sulfur Springs/Bucks Creek Unacceptable: At least one station has unacceptable water quality; immediate restoration required Swan Pond River Unacceptable: At least one station has unacceptable water quality; immediate restoration required Taylor's Pond/Mill Creek Unacceptable: At least one station has unacceptable water quality; immediate restoration required Three Bays Unacceptable: At least one station has unacceptable water quality; immediate restoration required Waquoit Bay Unacceptable: At least one station has unacceptable water quality; immediate restoration required Wellfleet Harbor Unacceptable: At least one station has unacceptable water quality; immediate restoration required West Falmouth Harbor Unacceptable: At least one station has unacceptable water quality; immediate restoration required Wild Harbor Unacceptable: At least one station has unacceptable water quality; immediate restoration required Wychmere Harbor Unacceptable: At least one station has unacceptable water quality; immediate restoration required State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 43 Table 3. 2021 Coastal Station Grades. Note: 2021 refers to this updated 2021 State of the Waters: Cape Cod report, not the year(s) in which water quality was monitored. Embayment Years covered Location Source of Data Station Site_Name Eutrophic Index Score Grade Phinneys Harbor 2016-2020 Buzzard's Bay BBC EP3 Back River 56.0 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Buttermilk Bay 2016-2020 Buzzard's Bay BBC BB4 Buttermilk Bay 65.7 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Phinneys Harbor 2016-2020 Buzzard's Bay BBC EP2 Eel Pond, Bourne 38.4 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Fiddlers Cove 2016-2020 Buzzard's Bay BBC FC1N Fiddlers Cove 60.5 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Great Sippewissett Marsh NA Buzzard's Bay NA GSM Great Sippewissett Marsh no data no data Pocasset Harbor 2016-2020 Buzzard's Bay BBC HC2 Hen Cove 59.3 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Buttermilk Bay 2016-2020 Buzzard's Bay BBC Approx. location Little Buttermilk Bay 57.6 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Little Sippewissett Marsh 2016-2020 Buzzard's Bay BBC LSM1 Little Sippewisset Marsh 62.0 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required West Falmouth Harbor 2016-2020 Buzzard's Bay BBC MAC1 Mashapaquit Creek 2.5 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Megansett Harbor 2016-2020 Buzzard's Bay BBC MG4 Megansett Harbor 83.4 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Phinneys Harbor 2016-2020 Buzzard's Bay BBC PH2 Phinneys Harbor 69.6 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Pocasset Harbor 2016-2020 Buzzard's Bay BBC PC1 Pocasset Harbor Inner 49.7 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Pocasset Harbor 2016-2020 Buzzard's Bay BBC PC3 Pocasset Harbor Outer 72.5 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Pocasset Harbor 2016-2020 Buzzard's Bay BBC PR3 Pocasset River 52.5 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Wild Harbor 2016-2020 Buzzard's Bay BBC Approx. location Potters Hole Pond 20.4 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Quissett Harbor 2016-2020 Buzzard's Bay BBC QH2 Quissett Harbor Inner 87.1 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Quissett Harbor 2016-2020 Buzzard's Bay BBC QH1 Quissett Harbor Outer 89.8 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Rands Harbor 2016-2020 Buzzard's Bay BBC RH1 Rands Harbor 35.7 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Pocasset Harbor 2016-2020 Buzzard's Bay BBC RB4 Red Brook Harbor Inner 63.9 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Pocasset Harbor 2016-2020 Buzzard's Bay BBC RB2 Red Brook Harbor Outer 77.2 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Megansett Harbor 2016-2020 Buzzard's Bay BBC SQ1N Squeteague Harbor 56.7 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required West Falmouth Harbor 2016-2020 Buzzard's Bay BBC WF4N West Falmouth Harbor Head 52.5 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required West Falmouth Harbor 2016-2020 Buzzard's Bay BBC WF9N West Falmouth Harbor Outer 74.2 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required West Falmouth Harbor 2016-2020 Buzzard's Bay BBC WF1N West Falmouth Harbor Town Dock 61.9 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required West Falmouth Harbor 2016-2020 Buzzard's Bay BBC WF5N West Falmouth Mid-Harbor 64.3 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required West Falmouth Harbor 2016-2020 Buzzard's Bay BBC WF8 West Falmouth Oyster Pond 33.3 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required West Falmouth Harbor 2016-2020 Buzzard's Bay BBC WF2 West Falmouth Snug Harbor 24.1 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Wild Harbor 2016-2020 Buzzard's Bay BBC WH1N Wild Harbor Inner 57.0 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Wild Harbor 2016-2020 Buzzard's Bay BBC WH3 Wild Harbor Outer 82.5 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Wild Harbor 2016-2020 Buzzard's Bay BBC WH2 Wild Harbor River 64.6 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Three Bays 2016-2020 Three Bays BCWC Mill Pond Site 1 30.7 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Three Bays 2016-2020 Three Bays BCWC South Prince's Cove Site 2 37.3 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Three Bays 2016-2020 Three Bays BCWC North Prince's Cove Site 3 39.5 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Three Bays 2016-2020 Three Bays BCWC Warren's Cover Site 4 35.3 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Three Bays 2016-2020 Three Bays BCWC North N. Bay Site 5 37.4 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Three Bays 2016-2020 Three Bays BCWC South N. Bay Site 6 49.6 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Three Bays 2016-2020 Three Bays BCWC South West Bay Site 9 67.9 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Three Bays 2016-2020 Three Bays BCWC South Cotuit Bay Site 13 55.0 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Three Bays 2016-2020 Three Bays BCWC Cotuit Sentinel Site 18 49.2 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Three Bays 2016-2020 Three Bays BCWC Old Mill Site E 37.2 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Cape Cod Bay 2016-2020 Cape Cod Bay CCS 1 5N 99.1 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Cape Cod Bay 2016-2020 Cape Cod Bay CCS 2 5S 99.4 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Cape Cod Bay 2016-2020 Cape Cod Bay CCS 3 6M 100.0 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Cape Cod Bay 2016-2020 Cape Cod Bay CCS 4 6S 100.0 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Cape Cod Bay 2016-2020 Cape Cod Bay CCS 5 7S 100.0 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Cape Cod Bay 2016-2020 Cape Cod Bay CCS 6 8M 99.6 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Cape Cod Bay 2016-2020 Cape Cod Bay CCS 8 9S 99.9 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Barnstable Harbor na Cape Cod CCS 9 Barnstable Harbor Non-scored: insufficient yearsna Wellfleet Harbor 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 10 Blackfish Creek 69.9 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Boat Meadow River 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 11.5 Boat Meadow 53.1 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 15 Canal 82.9 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required na (Duxbury)2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 17 D1 65.6 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required na (Duxbury)2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 19 D3 42.9 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Boat Meadow River 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 21.5 First Encounter 46.7 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Wellfleet Harbor 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 22 Great Island Channel 70.4 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Provincetown Harbor 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 23 Holiday Inn 64.3 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Provincetown Harbor na Cape Cod CCS na na Non-scored: insufficient yearsna Pamet River 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 25 Inner Pamet Harbor 76.6 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Rock Harbor 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 26.5 Inner Rock Harbor 30.7 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Sesuit Harbor 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 27 Inner Sesuit Harbor 79.5 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Wellfleet Harbor 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 28 Inner Wellfleet Harbor 50.1 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Provincetown Harbor 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 30 MacMillan 92.1 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Namskaket Creek na Cape Cod CCS 31 Namskaket Non-scored: insufficient yearsna Sandwich Harbor na Cape Cod CCS 32 Old Harbor Non-scored: insufficient yearsna na (Plymouth)2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 33 P1 67.2 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Pamet River na Cape Cod CCS Non-scored: insufficient yearsna Rock Harbor 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 39.5 Rock Harbor 55.3 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Scorton Harbor na Cape Cod CCS 40 na Non-scored: insufficient yearsna Sesuit Harbor na Cape Cod CCS 41 na Non-scored: insufficient yearsna Wellfleet Harbor 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 42 Sunken Meadow 84.3 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Wellfleet Harbor 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 43 Wellfleet Harbor 56.5 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Cape Cod Bay Cape Cod Bay CCS 44 F01 Not included in 2021 data downloaded from CCSUnacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Cape Cod Bay Cape Cod Bay CCS 45 F02 Not included in 2021 data downloaded from CCSUnacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Cape Cod Bay Cape Cod Bay CCS 46 F29 Not included in 2021 data downloaded from CCSUnacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Nantucket Sound 2016-2020 Nantucket SoundCCS 47 NTKS_1 96.6 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Nantucket Sound 2016-2020 Nantucket SoundCCS 48 NTKS_3 89.0 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Nantucket Sound 2016-2020 Nantucket SoundCCS 49 NTKS_4 97.9 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Nantucket Sound 2016-2020 Nantucket SoundCCS 50 NTKS_6 88.9 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Nantucket Sound 2016-2020 Nantucket SoundCCS 51 NTKS_8 99.0 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Nantucket Sound 2016-2020 Nantucket SoundCCS 52 NTKS_10 91.5 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Nantucket Sound 2016-2020 Nantucket SoundCCS 53 NTKS_13 94.9 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Nantucket Sound 2016-2020 Nantucket SoundCCS 54 NTKS_16 96.0 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Nantucket Sound 2016-2020 Nantucket SoundCCS 60 NTKS_14 97.6 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required null 2016-2020 null CCS 65 NTKS_12 96.2 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Sandwich Harbor 2016-2020 Cape Cod Volunteer 101 Boardwalk 85.3 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required null 2016-2020 null null 102 Boat Meadow (inner)29.0 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Wellfleet Harbor 2015-2019 Cape Cod Volunteer na Herring River Wellfleet Non Scored (insufficient years)na Little Namskaket Creek 2016-2020 Cape Cod Volunteer 107 Little Namskaket 63.4 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Namskaket Creek 2016-2020 Cape Cod Volunteer 108 Namskaket (inner?)79.7 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Quivett Creek 2016-2020 Cape Cod Volunteer 110 Paines Creek 76.5 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Scorton Harbor 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 114 Scorton 82.1 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required 2016-2020 117 Pamet River 56.6 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Truro Cape Cod Bay na CCS na Pilgrim Lake Non scored (insufficient years)na Truro Cape Cod Bay 2016-2020 CCS 119 Pilgrim Lake East 76.7 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required 2016-2020 123 Old Harbor-Dewey 68.4 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required 2016-2020 124 Scorton Creek 6A 77.0 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required 2016-2020 125 Scorton Creek Jones Lane 47.6 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Wellfleet Harbor na Cape Cod CCS na Duck Creek Non scored (insufficient years)na Quivett Creek 2016-2020 CCS 128 Quivet Marsh 34.7 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Herring River (EA)2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 129 Cole Road Brook 64.9 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required 2016-2020 130 Sesuit Creek 24.9 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Barnstable Harbor 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 131 Millway Beach 74.7 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Pamet River 2016-2020 CCS 135 Upper Pamet River 25.7 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required 2016-2020 136 Bluefish Creek 31.2 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Little Namskaket Creek 2016-2020 CCS 137 Little Namskaket Creek 19.0 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Wellfleet Harbor na CCS WH-5 Wellfleet Harbor Not scored-insufficient yearsna 2016-2020 202 Channel 37.3 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required 2016-2020 205 Transect 2 41.3 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required 2016-2020 212 DB-pipe 23.9 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required 2016-2020 303 RH-culvert 24.2 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Rock Harbor 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 304 RH-bend 33.9 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required 2016-2020 306 RH-pipe 54.1 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Bournes Pond 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 500 B3 45.4 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Lewis Bay 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 501 BC-14 44.0 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Centerville River 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 502 BCT-1 29.0 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Centerville River 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 503 BCT-2 36.9 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Lewis Bay 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 504 BHY-3 66.6 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Bass River 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 505 BR-7 39.4 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Taylor's Pond/Mill Creek 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 506 CM-10 39.4 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Stage Harbor 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 507 CM-1A 74.5 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Stage Harbor 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 508 CM-5A 69.9 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 44 (Table 3, Coastal Station Grades, continued). Embayment Years covered Location Source of Data Station Site_Name Eutrophic Index Score Grade Sulfur Springs/Bucks Creek 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 509 CM-8 42.2 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Three Bays 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 510 Cotuit Bay 70.3 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Waquoit Bay 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 511 Site 7 - CR-2 22.6 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Waquoit Bay 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 517 Site 8 - ER-2 47.5 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Falmouth Inner Harbor 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 518 FHx 42.9 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Green Pond 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 520 G4 43.9 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Great Pond 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 521 GT-5 42.2 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Saquetucket Harbor 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 522 HAR-2 44.7 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Wychmere Harbor 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 523 HAR-3 47.4 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Allen Harbor 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 524 HAR-4 43.3 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Herring River (HA)na Cape Cod CCS na Herring River Harwich not scored-insufficient yearsna Waquoit Bay 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 526 Site 3 - HPu 51.2 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Waquoit Bay 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 527 Site 4 - JHP 48.4 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Three Bays 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 532 Narrows 56.2 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Three Bays 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 533 North Bay 48.3 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Oyster Pond (FA)2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 534 OP-3 57.3 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Popponesset Bay 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 535 PBh 58.2 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Parkers River (YA)2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 536 PR-2 44.4 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Waquoit Bay 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 537 Site 5 - QRm 36.7 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Rushy Marsh Pond 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 538 RM-2 37.0 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Lewis Bay 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 542 Stewarts Creek 32.0 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Swab Pond River 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 543 SWP-2 48.6 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Three Bays 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 551 Warrens Cove 38.9 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Waquoit Bay 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 552 Site 10 - WBu/Metoxit 64.5 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Three Bays 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 553 West Bay 78.2 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Waquoit Bay 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 564 Site 1 - Seapit 46.5 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Waquoit Bay 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 565 Site 2 - WB north 54.1 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Waquoit Bay 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 566 Site 9 - WB south 81.1 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Waquoit Bay 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 567 Site 6 - Menauhant 76.3 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Little Pond 2016-2020 Cape Cod CCS 568 LP-2 33.3 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Waquoit Bay 2016-2020 Waqoit Bay Volunteer Site 1 Seapit River 44.2 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Waquoit Bay 2016-2020 Waqoit Bay Volunteer Site 2 North Basin-WB* 53.1 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Waquoit Bay 2016-2020 Waqoit Bay Volunteer Site 3 Hamblin Pond 49.6 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Waquoit Bay 2016-2020 Waqoit Bay Volunteer Site 4 Jehu Pond 44.2 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Waquoit Bay 2016-2020 Waqoit Bay Volunteer Site 5 Quashnet River 35.4 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Waquoit Bay 2016-2020 Waqoit Bay Volunteer Site 6 Menauhant 72.4 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Waquoit Bay 2016-2020 Waqoit Bay Volunteer Site 7 Childs River 21.7 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Waquoit Bay 2016-2020 Waqoit Bay Volunteer Site 8 Eel River 47.8 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Waquoit Bay 2016-2020 Waqoit Bay Volunteer Site 9 South Basin-WB* 75.0 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Waquoit Bay 2016-2020 Waqoit Bay Volunteer Site 10 Site 10 - WBu/Metoxit 59.7 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Waquoit Bay Waqoit Bay Volunteer CR CR Not included in 2021 data update from WBNERR Waquoit Bay Waqoit Bay Volunteer SL SL Not included in 2021 data update from WBNERR Cape Cod Bay 2016-2020 na WMO15 35.6 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Cape Cod Bay 2016-2020 na WMO19 35.0 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Cape Cod Bay 2016-2020 na WMO22 38.3 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Nauset Marsh 2016-2020 Nausset Marsh Eastham WMO25 WMO25 39.9 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Nauset Marsh 2016-2020 Nausset Marsh Eastham WMO26 WMO26 57.3 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Nauset Marsh 2016-2020 Nausset Marsh Eastham WMO27 WMO27 52.8 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Nauset Marsh 2016-2020 Nausset Marsh Eastham/OrleansWMO28 WMO28 58.0 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Nauset Marsh 2016-2020 Nausset Marsh Eastham/OrleansWMO29 WMO29 63.0 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Nauset Marsh 2016-2020 Nausset Marsh Eastham/OrleansWMO30 WMO30 80.1 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Nauset Marsh 2016-2020 Nausset Marsh Eastham/OrleansWMO31 WMO31 60.5 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Nauset Marsh 2016-2020 Nausset Marsh Eastham/OrleansWMO32 WMO32 84.8 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Nauset Marsh 2016-2020 Nausset Marsh Eastham/OrleansWMO33 WMO33 58.6 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Nauset Marsh 2016-2020 Nausset Marsh Eastham/OrleansWMO34 WMO34 37.1 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Nauset Marsh 2016-2020 Nausset Marsh Eastham/OrleansWMO35 WMO35 54.0 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Nauset Marsh 2016-2020 Nausset Marsh Eastham/OrleansWMO36 WMO36 66.1 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Nauset Marsh 2016-2020 Nausset Marsh Eastham/OrleansWMO37 WMO37 66.9 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Nauset Marsh 2016-2020 Nausset Marsh Eastham/OrleansWMO38 WMO38 40.1 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Nauset Marsh 2016-2019 Nausset Marsh Eastham WMO39 WMO39 59.5 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Pleasant Bay 2016-2020 Pleasant Bay Pleasant Bay AlliancePBA-1 Chatham Harbor 85.0 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Pleasant Bay 2016-2020 Pleasant Bay Pleasant Bay AlliancePBA-3 Inner Ryder's Cove 46.1 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Pleasant Bay 2016-2020 Pleasant Bay Pleasant Bay AlliancePBA-4 Crows Pond 79.0 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Pleasant Bay 2016-2020 Pleasant Bay Pleasant Bay AlliancePBA-5 Muddy Creek 55.8 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Pleasant Bay 2016-2020 Pleasant Bay Pleasant Bay AlliancePBA-5A Muddy Creek - Upper 24.8 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Pleasant Bay 2016-2020 Pleasant Bay Pleasant Bay AlliancePBA-6 Big Bay - SW 84.5 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Pleasant Bay 2016-2020 Pleasant Bay Pleasant Bay AlliancePBA-8 Big Bay - NE 80.5 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Pleasant Bay 2016-2020 Pleasant Bay Pleasant Bay AlliancePBA-9 Round Cove 43.7 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Pleasant Bay 2016-2020 Pleasant Bay Pleasant Bay AlliancePBA-10 Quanset Pond 56.7 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Pleasant Bay 2016-2020 Pleasant Bay Pleasant Bay AlliancePBA-11 Paw Wah Pond 42.1 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Pleasant Bay 2016-2020 Pleasant Bay Pleasant Bay AlliancePBA-12 Namequoit Point - South 65.0 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Pleasant Bay 2016-2020 Pleasant Bay Pleasant Bay AlliancePBA-13 Namequoit Point - North 62.4 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Pleasant Bay 2016-2020 Pleasant Bay Pleasant Bay AlliancePBA-14 Areys Pond 19.9 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Pleasant Bay 2016-2020 Pleasant Bay Pleasant Bay AlliancePBA-15 Kescayo Gansett Pond 27.3 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Pleasant Bay 2016-2020 Pleasant Bay Pleasant Bay AlliancePBA-16 Pochet-mouth 17.4 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Pleasant Bay 2016-2020 Pleasant Bay Pleasant Bay AlliancePBA-19 Strong Island - NE 81.6 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Pleasant Bay 2016-2020 Pleasant Bay Pleasant Bay AlliancePBA-20 Nickerson's Neck 85.3 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Pleasant Bay 2016-2020 Pleasant Bay Pleasant Bay AlliancePBA-21 Little Pleasant Bay 78.4 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Pleasant Bay 2016-2020 Pleasant Bay Pleasant Bay AllianceWMO-3 Pochet-mouth 56.1 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Pleasant Bay 2016-2020 Pleasant Bay Pleasant Bay AllianceWMO-5 Pochet-Upper 17.4 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Pleasant Bay 2016-2020 Pleasant Bay Pleasant Bay AllianceWMO-6 Namequoit River-Upper 28.0 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Pleasant Bay 2016-2020 Pleasant Bay Pleasant Bay AllianceWMO-10 Meetinghouse-Rattles dock 39.4 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Pleasant Bay 2016-2020 Pleasant Bay Pleasant Bay AllianceWMO-12 Little Quanset Pond 46.0 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Pleasant Bay 2016-2020 Chatham Pleasant Bay AllianceCM-13 Outer Ryder's Cove 75.5 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Stage Harbor 2016-2020 Chatham Town of ChathamCM-1 Oyster Pond 54.0 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Stage Harbor 2016-2020 Chatham Town of ChathamCM-1A Oyster Pond-Outer 70.8 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Stage Harbor 2016-2020 Chatham Town of ChathamCM-3 Outer Stage Harbor 77.2 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Stage Harbor 2016-2020 Chatham Town of ChathamCM-4 Inner Stage Harbor 76.9 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Stage Harbor 2016-2020 Chatham Town of ChathamCM-5 Mill Pond - Inner 63.5 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Stage Harbor 2016-2020 Chatham Town of ChathamCM-5A Mill Pond - Outer 66.8 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Nantucket Sound 2016-2020 Chatham Town of ChathamCM-7 Nantucket Sound 93.7 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required Sulfur Springs/Bucks Creek 2016-2020 Chatham Town of ChathamCM-8 Upper Bucks Creek 37.4 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Taylor's Pond/Mill Creek 2016-2020 Chatham Town of ChathamCM-10 Taylors Pond 42.2 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Sulfur Springs/Bucks Creek 2016-2020 Chatham Town of ChathamCM-12 Lower Cockle Cove Creek 23.5 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Saquetucket Harbor 2015-2019 HAR2 SAQUATUCKET HARBOR 30.2 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Wychmere Harbor 2015-2019 HAR2A WYCHMERE OUTER HARBOR 48.2 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Wychmere Harbor 2015-2019 HAR3 WYCHMERE HARBOR 37.9 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Allen Harbor 2015-2019 HAR4 ALLENS HARBOR MARINA 37.6 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Allen Harbor 2015-2019 HAR4A ALLEN HULSE PT 38.8 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Allen Harbor 2015-2019 HAR5 ALLENS HARBOR CREEK 41.8 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Herring River (HA)2015-2019 HAR7 HERRING RIVER 7 - 28 BRIDGE 50.8 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required Herring River (HA)2015-2019 HAR9 HERRING RIVER 9 - NORTH RD 31.0 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required 2016-2020 BM1 BARNSTABLE HARBOR 73.2 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required 2016-2020 BM2 BARNSTABLE HARBOR 77.2 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required 2016-2020 BM3 BARNSTABLE HARBOR 84.2 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required 2016-2020 BM10 CALVES PASTURE 58.7 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required 2016-2020 BM11 SPRING CREEK 52.6 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required 2016-2020 BM12 SCORTON CREEK 65.1 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection Required 2016-2020 BM13 SCORTON CREEK 45.7 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required 2016-2020 BC10 EAST BAY 36.3 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required 2016-2020 BH1 LEWIS BAY 39.1 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required 2016-2020 BH2 LEWIS BAY 44.9 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required 2016-2020 BH3 LEWIS BAY 48.4 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required 2016-2020 BH4 SNOW'S CREEK 25.1 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required 2016-2020 BH7 STEWART'S CREEK 42.0 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required 2016-2020 MC1 MILL CREEK 46.8 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required 2016-2020 MC2 MILL CREEK 44.1 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required 2016-2020 BC14 HALLS CREEK 58.4 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required 2016-2020 BC15 HALLS CREEK 59.0 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration Required State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 45 Table 4. Summary of 2019, 2020 and 2021 State of the Waters Grades for Ponds. Note: 2021 refers to this updated 2021 State of the Waters: Cape Cod report, not the year(s) in which water quality was monitored. PONDS 2019 Grades 2020 Grades 2021 Grades Overall No.%No.%No.% Acceptable:91 61%54 58%71 65% Unacceptable:58 39%39 42%38 35% Total:149 93 109 Carlson Trophic Index % of ponds w/CTI grades % of all 109 ponds Acceptable:24 67%22% Unacceptable:12 33%11% Total with CTI grades:149 29 36 33% Cyanobacteria NA % of ponds w/Cyano grades % of all 109 ponds Acceptable:52 60%48% Unacceptable:35 40%32% Total with Cyano grades:81 87 80% % of ponds w/both grades % of all 109 ponds Ponds with CTI & Cyano grades:NA 17 14 100%13% Acceptable (CTI and Cyano):6 43%6% Unacceptable:8 57%7% Unacceptable Cyano grades:7 50%6% Unacceptable CTI grades:4 29%4% Unacceptable for both CTI & Cyano:3 21%3% Notes: The higher number of ponds graded in 2019 reflects a wide range of years of water quality data used for grading, e.g., the oldest data were from 2003 and the most recent data were from 2017. In the 2020 and 2021 reports, data quality requirements for water quality data were tightened so that the most recent data and at least 3 years of data were used, e.g., in the 2020 report, water quality data used for Carlson Trophic Index scoring and grading required at least 3 years of data from 2015 on. and in the 2021 report, water quality data used for Carlson Trophic Index scoring and grading required at least 3 years of data from 2016 on. NA Not applicable State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 46 Table 5. 2021 Pond Grades. Pond water quality data were provided by towns and organizations, SMAST and the Cape Cod Commission. Cyanobacteria data were provided by APCC and the Town of Barnstable. Note: 2021 refers to this updated 2021 State of the Waters: Cape Cod report, not the year(s) in which water quality was monitored. CCC_GIS_ID 21 Town_Data _Source21 Pond Name Years-Water Quality Carlson Trophic Index (CTI) score CTI Grade 2020 Cyanobacteria Tier Cyanobacteria Grade Final Grade Grade based on: BA-617 Barnstable Bearse 2020 Moderate Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Cyanobacteria Only BA-802 Barnstable Bog 2016-2018 47.8 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required Acceptable; ongoing protection required CTI Only BA-694 Barnstable Crocker Pond (aka Muddy Pond)2020 High Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Cyanobacteria Only BA-878 Barnstable Crystal Lake 2016-2018 45.2 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required CTI and Cyanobacteria BA-815 Barnstable Eagle 2020 Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required Cyanobacteria Only BA-748 Barnstable Fawcett 2020 Moderate Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Cyanobacteria Only BA-510 Barnstable Garrett 2020 Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required Cyanobacteria Only BA-606 Barnstable Gooseberry 2020 Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required Cyanobacteria Only BA-668 Barnstable Hamblin 2020 Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required Cyanobacteria Only BA-565 Barnstable Hathaway 2020 Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required Cyanobacteria Only BA-511 Barnstable Hinkley 2020 High Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Cyanobacteria Only BA-807 Barnstable Joshua 2016-2018 33.7 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required CTI and Cyanobacteria BA-795 Barnstable Lake Elizabeth 2020 Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required Cyanobacteria Only BA-881 Barnstable Lewis (Cotuit)2020 Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required Cyanobacteria Only BA-737 Barnstable Long Pond Centerville 2020 High Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Cyanobacteria Only BA-675 Barnstable Long Pond Marstons Mills 2020 High Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Cyanobacteria Only BA-759 Barnstable Lovells 2020 not enough data to score CTI in 2021 High Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Cyanobacteria Only BA-797 Barnstable Micah 2016-2018 31.7 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required CTI and Cyanobacteria BA-640 Barnstable Middle 2020 Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required Cyanobacteria Only BA-746 Barnstable Mill 2016-2018 43.6 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required Acceptable; ongoing protection required CTI Only BA-584 Barnstable Mystic 2020 High Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Cyanobacteria Only BA-874 Barnstable Neck 2016-2018 39.5 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required CTI and Cyanobacteria BA-395 Barnstable Night Heron Pond 2020 Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required Cyanobacteria Only BA-523 Barnstable No Bottom 2020 High Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Cyanobacteria Only BA-816 Barnstable North 2020 Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required Cyanobacteria Only BA-875 Barnstable Parker Pond 2016-2018 59.9 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required High Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Unacceptable; immediate restoration required CTI and Cyanobacteria BA-731 Barnstable Pattys 2020 Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required Cyanobacteria Only BA-691 Barnstable Round 2020 Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required Cyanobacteria Only BA-806 Barnstable Schoolhouse 2020 Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required Cyanobacteria Only BA-626 Barnstable Shallow 2020 Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required Cyanobacteria Only BA-664 Barnstable Shubael 2020 High Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Cyanobacteria Only BA-789 Barnstable Simmons 2020 Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required Cyanobacteria Only BA-564 Barnstable Stoney 2016-2018 42.2 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required Acceptable; ongoing protection required CTI Only BA-605 Barnstable Wequaquet 2020 Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required Cyanobacteria Only BR-1028 Brewster Cliff 2020 High Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Cyanobacteria Only BR-179 Brewster Cobbs 2020 Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required Cyanobacteria Only BR-357 Brewster Elbow 2020 Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required Cyanobacteria Only BR-248 Brewster Griffith's 2020 Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required Cyanobacteria Only BR-192 Brewster Little Cliff 2020 High Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Cyanobacteria Only BR-279 Brewster Long Pond 2020 Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required Cyanobacteria Only BR-245 Brewster Lower Mill 2020 High Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Cyanobacteria Only BR-177 Brewster Myricks 2020 Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required Cyanobacteria Only BR-205 Brewster Schoolhouse 2020 High Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Cyanobacteria Only HA-306 Brewster Seymour 2020 High Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Cyanobacteria Only BR-240 Brewster Sheep 2020 Moderate Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Cyanobacteria Only BR-314 Brewster Smalls 2020 Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required Cyanobacteria Only BR-272 Brewster Upper Mill 2020 Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required Cyanobacteria Only BR-313 Brewster Walkers 2020 High Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Cyanobacteria Only CH-458 Chatham Goose 2020 High Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Cyanobacteria Only CH-428 Chatham Lovers Lake 2020 Moderate Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Cyanobacteria Only CH-463 Chatham Schoolhouse 2020 High Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Cyanobacteria Only CH-396 Chatham Stillwater 2020 Moderate Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Cyanobacteria Only CH-516 Chatham White 2020 High Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Cyanobacteria Only DE-347 Dennis Clay 2020 Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required Cyanobacteria Only DE-355 Dennis Flax 2016-2018 38.8 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required Acceptable; ongoing protection required CTI Only DE-236 Dennis Scargo 2016-2018 46.1 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required Moderate Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Unacceptable; immediate restoration required CTI and Cyanobacteria HA-414 Dennis Whites 2016-2018 49.4 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required Acceptable; ongoing protection required CTI Only EA-96 Eastham Depot 2020 Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required Cyanobacteria Only FA-761 Falmouth Cedar Lake 2020 Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required Cyanobacteria Only FA-884 Falmouth Crooked 2020 High Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Cyanobacteria Only FA-857 Falmouth Deep 2020 High Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Cyanobacteria Only FA-937 Falmouth Flax 2020 Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required Cyanobacteria Only FA-933 Falmouth Fresh 2020 Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required Cyanobacteria Only FA-918 Falmouth Jenkins 2020 Moderate Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Cyanobacteria Only FA-938 Falmouth Mares 2020 High Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Cyanobacteria Only FA-995 Falmouth Nyes 2020 Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required Cyanobacteria Only FA-1005 Falmouth Oyster Pond 2020 Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required Cyanobacteria Only HA-376 Harwich Aunt Edies 2016-2020 48.5 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required CTI and Cyanobacteria HA-420 Harwich Bucks 2016-2019 41.4 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required Acceptable; ongoing protection required CTI Only HA-579 Harwich Grass 2016-2019 58.9 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required Unacceptable; immediate restoration required CTI Only HA-353 Harwich Hinckleys 2016-2020 52.9 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Unacceptable; immediate restoration required CTI and Cyanobacteria HA-416 Harwich John Josephs 2016-2019 39.4 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required Acceptable; ongoing protection required CTI Only HA-386 Harwich Robbins 2016-2018 42.8 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required CTI and Cyanobacteria HA-525 Harwich Sand 2016-2019 42.5 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required Acceptable; ongoing protection required CTI Only HA-629 Harwich Skinnequit 2016-2020 56.4 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required High Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Unacceptable; immediate restoration required CTI and Cyanobacteria HA-530 Harwich West Reservoir 2020 High Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Cyanobacteria Only MA-808 Mashpee Ashumet 2016-2020 47.4 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required High Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Unacceptable; immediate restoration required CTI and Cyanobacteria MA-818 Mashpee Johns 2016-2020 46.6 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required Acceptable; ongoing protection required CTI Only MA-634 Mashpee Mashpee-Wakeby 2016-2020 47.0 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required High Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Unacceptable; immediate restoration required CTI and Cyanobacteria MA-718 Mashpee Santuit 2016-2020 64.4 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required High Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Unacceptable; immediate restoration required CTI and Cyanobacteria State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 47 (Table 5, 2021 Pond Grades, continued). CCC_GIS_ID 21 Town_Data _Source21 Pond Name Years-Water Quality Carlson Trophic Index (CTI) score CTI Grade 2020 Cyanobacteria Tier Cyanobacteria Grade Final Grade Grade based on: OR-167 Orleans Bakers 2016-2018, 2020 32.0 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required Moderate Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Unacceptable; immediate restoration required CTI and Cyanobacteria OR-136 Orleans Boland 2016-2019 56.0 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required Acceptable; ongoing protection required CTI Only OR-262 Orleans Deep 2016-2019 48.0 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required Acceptable; ongoing protection required CTI Only OR-174 Orleans Gould 2016-2019 47.3 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required Acceptable; ongoing protection required CTI Only OR-113 Orleans Ice House 2016-2017, 2019 45.4 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required Acceptable; ongoing protection required CTI Only OR-256 Orleans Meadow Bog 2016-2019 55.2 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required Acceptable; ongoing protection required CTI Only OR-176 Orleans Pilgrim Lake 2016-2019 47.0 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required Acceptable; ongoing protection required CTI Only OR-249 Orleans Sarah's Pond 2017-2019 52.3 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required Acceptable; ongoing protection required CTI Only OR-253 Orleans Shoal 2016-2019 58.7 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required Acceptable; ongoing protection required CTI Only OR-247 Orleans Twinings 2016-2019 48.5 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required Acceptable; ongoing protection required CTI Only OR-142 Orleans Uncle Harvey's 2016-2019 54.3 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required Acceptable; ongoing protection required CTI Only OR-228 Orleans Uncle Israel's 2016-2019 64.5 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required Unacceptable; immediate restoration required CTI Only OR-264 Orleans Uncle Seth's 2016-2019 50.8 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required Acceptable; ongoing protection required CTI Only SA-210 Sandwich Lower Shawme Lake 2020 Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required Cyanobacteria Only WE-76 Wellfleet Duck Pond 2020 Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required Cyanobacteria Only WE-71 Wellfleet Dyer Pond 2020 Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required Cyanobacteria Only WE-67 Wellfleet Great Pond 2020 Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required Cyanobacteria Only WE-59 Wellfleet Gull 2020 High Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Unacceptable; immediate restoration required Cyanobacteria Only WE-57 Wellfleet Higgins Pond 2020 Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required Cyanobacteria Only WE-65 Wellfleet Long 2020 Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required Cyanobacteria Only YA-711 Yarmouth Big Sandy 2020 Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required Cyanobacteria Only YA-472 Yarmouth Dennis 2020 Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required Cyanobacteria Only YA-493 Yarmouth Elisha's 2020 Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required Cyanobacteria Only YA-659 Yarmouth Flax 2020 Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required Cyanobacteria Only YA-492 Yarmouth Greenough 2020 Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required Cyanobacteria Only YA-692 Yarmouth Horse 2020 Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required Cyanobacteria Only YA-700 Yarmouth Little Sandy 2020 Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required Cyanobacteria Only YA-657 Yarmouth Long 2020 Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required Cyanobacteria Only YA-653 Yarmouth Plash's 2020 Low Acceptable; ongoing protection required Acceptable; ongoing protection required Cyanobacteria Only State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 48 Table 6. Summary of 2019, 2020 and 2021 State of the Waters Grades for Public Water Supplies. Note: 2021 refers to this updated 2021 State of the Waters: Cape Cod report, not the year(s) in which water quality was monitored. Public Water Supply Grades 2019 Grades 2020 Grades 2021 Grades No.% No.%No.% Excellent 20 100%20 100%13 65% Good NA NA 6 30% Poor 0 0%1 5% Total:20 20 20 100% Notes: In the 2019 and 2020 reports, only two grade levels were possible: Excellent and Poor. In the 2021 report, three grade levels were possible: Excellent, Good, and Poor. The change in grading reflects the wider range of results reported in 2020 Consumer Confidence Reports. NA not applicable State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 49 Table 7. 2021 Grades for Public Water Supplies. Grades were based on publicly available Consumer Confidence Reports and existing state and federal regulations for drinking water for 2020. Note: 2021 refers to this updated 2021 State of the Waters: Cape Cod report, not the year(s) in which water quality was monitored. Public Water Supplier Grade Reason for Grade Barnstable COMM (Centerville, Osterville, and Marstons Mills)Good One violation of E. coli MCL in one month; repeat testing was negative. Barnstable Fire District Excellent Met all existing state and federal standards (MCLs) Cotuit Water Department Excellent Met all existing state and federal standards (MCLs) Hyannis Water System Excellent Met all existing state and federal standards (MCLs) Bourne Water District Good One violation of Total Coliform MCL in one month; management actions were carried out, and repeat testing was negative. Buzzards Bay Water District Good Violation of Total Coliform MCL in two successive months; no corrective actions were required. North Sagamore Water District Good One violation of Total Coliform MCL; repeat testing was negative. Otis Air National Guard Base Excellent Met all existing state and federal standards (MCLs) Brewster Water Department Excellent Met all existing state and federal standards (MCLs) Chatham Department of Public Works Water Division Excellent Met all existing state and federal standards (MCLs) Dennis Water District Excellent Met all existing state and federal standards (MCLs) Town of Eastham Excellent Met all existing state and federal standards (MCLs) Town of Falmouth Excellent Met all existing state and federal standards (MCLs). Harwich Water Department Excellent Met all existing state and federal standards (MCLs) Mashpee Water District Excellent Met all existing state and federal standards (MCLs) Town of Orleans Water Department Excellent Met all existing state and federal standards (MCLs) Provincetown Water Department Excellent Met all existing state and federal standards (MCLs) Sandwich Water District Good Three violations of Total Coliform MCL in finish water in one month. Corrective actions were taken and repeat testing was negative. Truro Same as Provincetown Wellfleet Municipal Water System Poor Violation of two MCLs (Total Coliform, E. coli), with repeated violations of E. coli MCL on different dates at different locations. A "Boil Water Order" was required. Four corrective actions were required and completed. Yarmouth Water Department Good One violation of Nitrite MCL. Summary:13 Excellent 6 Good 1 Poor Total:20 State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 50 Table 8. 2021 Coastal Water Quality Scores and Grades for Town of Barnstable Stations. Data were provided by the Town of Barnstable. Note: 2021 refers to this updated 2021 State of the Waters: Cape Cod report, not the year(s) in which water quality was monitored. Station ID Station name Years No. Years Eutrophic Index Score Grade BM1 BARNSTABLE HARBOR 2016-2020 5 73.19 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required BM2 BARNSTABLE HARBOR 2016-2020 5 77.19 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required BM3 BARNSTABLE HARBOR 2016-2020 5 84.22 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required BM10 CALVES PASTURE 2016-2020 5 58.70 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required BM11 SPRING CREEK 2016-2020 5 52.62 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required BM12 SCORTON CREEK 2016-2020 5 65.05 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required BM13 SCORTON CREEK 2016-2020 5 45.69 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required BC10 EAST BAY 2016-2020 5 36.27 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required BH1 LEWIS BAY 2016-2020 5 39.12 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required BH2 LEWIS BAY 2016-2020 5 44.90 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required BH3 LEWIS BAY 2016-2020 5 48.44 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required BH4 SNOW'S CREEK 2016-2020 5 25.05 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required BH7 STEWART'S CREEK 2016-2020 5 41.95 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required MC1 MILL CREEK 2016-2020 5 46.80 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required MC2 MILL CREEK 2016-2020 5 44.15 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required BC14 HALLS CREEK 2016-2020 5 58.43 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required BC15 HALLS CREEK 2016-2020 5 59.05 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required BY1 LEWIS BAY 2016-2019 4 64.26 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required BY2 LEWIS BAY 2016-2019 4 54.70 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required BY3 LEWIS BAY SENTINEL 2016-2019 4 53.87 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required BC3 SCUDDER BAY 2016-2019 4 25.34 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required BC4 BUMPS RIVER 2016-2019 3 20.22 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required BC8 CENTERVILLE RIVER 2016-2019 4 31.97 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required BC9 CENTERVILLE RIVER 2016-2019 4 31.19 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required BCSS EAST BAY SENTINEL 2016-2019 4 30.47 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 51 Table 9. 2021 Water Quality Scores and Grades for Buzzards Bay. Eutrophic Index scores for 2020 were provided by the Buzzards Bay Coalition. Note: 2021 refers to this updated 2021 State of the Waters: Cape Cod report, not the year(s) in which water quality was monitored. Station Station for grading 2020 BBC score Grade Back River EP3 56 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required Briarwood Harbor OMIT-Not enough data to score for SOTW Buttermilk Bay BB4 66 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required Eel Pond, Bourne EP2 38 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required Fiddlers Cove FC1N 60 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required Gunning Point Pond GPP1 28 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required Hen Cove HC2 59 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required Herring Brook HB2 46 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required Little Buttermilk Bay not in document that contains lat/longs.- location is approximate 58 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required Little Sippewisset Marsh LSM1 62 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required Mashapaquit Creek MAC1 3 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required Megansett Harbor MG4 83 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required Phinneys Harbor PH2 70 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required Pocasset Harbor Inner PC1 50 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required Pocasset Harbor Outer PC3 72 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required Pocasset River PR3 52 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required Potters Hole Pond not in document that contains lat/longs.- location is approximate 20 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required Quissett Harbor Inner QH2 87 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required Quissett Harbor Outer QH1 90 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required Rands Harbor RH1 36 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required Red Brook Harbor Inner RB4 64 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required Red Brook Harbor Outer RB2 77 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required Squeteague Harbor SQ1N 57 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required West Falmouth Harbor Head WF4N 53 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required West Falmouth Harbor Outer WF9N 74 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required West Falmouth Harbor Town DockWF1N 62 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required West Falmouth Mid-Harbor WF5N 64 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required West Falmouth Oyster Pond WF8 33 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required West Falmouth Snug Harbor WF2 24 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required Wild Harbor Inner WH1N 57 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required Wild Harbor Outer WH3 82 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required Wild Harbor River WH2 65 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 52 Table 10. 2021 Coastal Water Quality Scores and Grades for Three Bays, Barnstable. Data were provided by the Barnstable Clean Water Coalition. Note: 2021 refers to this updated 2021 State of the Waters: Cape Cod report, not the year(s) in which water quality was monitored. Name Site Number Eutrophic Index Score APCC Status No. Years Years Mill Pond Site 1 30.7 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 South Prince's Cove Site 2 37.3 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 North Prince's Cove Site 3 39.5 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 Warren's Cove Site 4 35.3 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 North N. Bay Site 5 37.4 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 South N. Bay Site 6 49.6 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 Site 7 Site 8 South West Bay Site 9 67.9 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required 5 2016-2020 Site 10 58.1 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 Site 12 South Cotuit Bay Site 13 55.0 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 Site 14 Site 16 Cotuit Sentinel Site 18 49.2 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 Old Mill Site E 37.2 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 RM1 RM2 Site RM3 33.5 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 Site RM4 34.6 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 53 Table 11. 2021 Coastal Water Quality Scores and Grades for Cape Cod Stations. Data were provided by the Center for Coastal Studies. Note: 2021 refers to this updated 2021 State of the Waters: Cape Cod report, not the year(s) in which water quality was monitored. StationNum ber StationName Latitude Longitude StationID Station Site Name Site # "internal ID" Eutrophic Index Score APCC Status No. Years Years 1 5N 42.009 -70.139 5N 1 5N 1 99.1 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required 5 2016-2020 2 5S 41.91 -70.14 5S 2 5S 2 99.4 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required 5 2016-2020 3 6M 41.935 -70.229 6M 3 6M 4 100.0 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required 5 2016-2020 4 6S 41.857 -70.228 6S 4 6S 5 100.0 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required 5 2016-2020 5 7S 41.841 -70.314 7S 5 7S 6 100.0 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required 5 2016-2020 6 8M 41.946 -70.4 8M 6 8M 7 99.6 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required 5 2016-2020 7 9N 42.02 -70.494 9N 7 9N 8 100.0 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required 5 2016-2020 8 9S 41.842 -70.468 9S 8 9S 9 99.9 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required 5 2016-2020 10 Blackfish Creek 41.904 -70.025 Blackfish Creek 10 Blackfish Creek 11 69.9 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required 5 2016-2020 11 Boat Meadow 41.807 -70.006 Boat Meadow 11.5 Boat Meadow 13 53.1 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 15 Canal 41.772 -70.503 Canal 15 Canal 15 82.9 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required 5 2016-2020 17 D1 42.036 -70.667 D1 17 D1 16 65.6 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required 5 2016-2020 19 D3 42.048 -70.649 D3 19 D3 17 42.9 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 21 First Encounter 41.815 -70.006 First Encounter 21.5 First Encounter 21 46.7 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 22 Great Island Channel 41.923 -70.048 Great Island Channel 22 Great Island Channel 22 70.4 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required 5 2016-2020 23 Holiday Inn 42.058 -70.162 Holiday Inn 23 Holiday Inn 23 64.3 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 25 Inner Pamet 41.991 -70.073 Inner Pamet Harbor 25 Inner Pamet Harbor 25 76.6 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required 5 2016-2020 26 Inner Rock Harbor 41.8 -70.006 Inner Rock Harbor 26.5 Inner Rock Harbor 27 30.7 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 27 Inner Sesuit Harbor 41.752 -70.154 Inner Sesuit Harbor 27 Inner Sesuit Harbor 28 79.5 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required 5 2016-2020 28 Inner Wellfleet Harbor 41.929 -70.029 Inner Wellfleet Harbor 28 Inner Wellfleet Harbor 29 50.1 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 4 2016-2020 30 MacMillan 42.051 -70.182 MacMillan 30 MacMillan 31 92.1 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required 5 2016-2020 33 P1 41.964 -70.662 P1 33 P1 35 67.2 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required 5 2016-2020 39 Rock Harbor 41.801 -70.01 Rock Harbor 39.5 Rock Harbor 41 55.3 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 42 Sunken Meadow 41.886 -70.013 Sunken Meadow 42 Sunken Meadow 44 84.3 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required 5 2016-2020 43 Wellfleet Harbor 41.926 -70.036 Wellfleet Harbor 43 Wellfleet Harbor 45 56.5 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 47 NTKS_1 41.343 -70.382 NTKS-1 47 NTKS_1 49 96.6 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required 5 2016-2020 48 NTKS_3 41.355 -70.103 NTKS-3 48 NTKS_3 50 89.0 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required 5 2016-2020 49 NTKS_4 41.486 -70.015 NTKS-4 49 NTKS_4 51 97.9 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required 5 2016-2020 50 NTKS_6 41.479 -70.262 NTKS-6 50 NTKS_6 52 88.9 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required 5 2016-2020 51 NTKS_8 41.44 -70.498 NTKS-8 51 NTKS_8 53 99.0 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required 5 2016-2020 52 NTKS_10 41.513 -70.597 NTKS-10 52 NTKS_10 54 91.5 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required 5 2016-2020 53 NTKS_13 41.598 -70.289 NTKS-13 53 NTKS_13 55 94.9 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required 5 2016-2020 54 NTKS_16 41.638 -70.047 NTKS-16 54 NTKS_16 56 96.0 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required 5 2016-2020 60 NTKS_14 41.621 -70.187 NTKS-14 60 NTKS_14 57 97.6 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required 5 2016-2020 65 NTKS_12 41.5738 -70.40684 NTKS-12 65 NTKS_12 58 96.2 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required 5 2016-2020 101 Boardwalk 41.765 -70.485 Old Harbor 101 Boardwalk 59 85.3 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required 5 2016-2020 102 Inner Boat Meadow 41.807 -69.996 Boat Meadow 102 Boat Meadow 60 29.0 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 107 Little Namskaket 41.796336 -70.013658 Little Namskaket 107 Little Namskaket 65 63.4 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 108 Inner Namskaket 41.788202 -70.021771 Namskaket 108 Namskaket (inner?)66 79.7 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required 5 2016-2020 110 Paines 41.761 -70.114 Paines Creek 110 Paines Creek 68 76.5 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required 5 2016-2020 113 Plymouth Harbor 41.96479 -70.669526 Plymouth Harbor 113 Plymouth Harbor 71 36.5 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 114 Inner Scorton Creek 41.747 -70.429 Scorton Creek 114 Scorton 72 82.1 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required 5 2016-2020 117 Pamet River 41.992 -70.071 Pamet River 117 Pamet River 75 56.6 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 119 East Harbor 42.053 -70.118 East Harbor - East 119 Pilgrim Lake East 77 76.7 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required 5 2016-2020 123 Old Harbor-Dewey 41.757913 -70.48954 Old Harbor-Dewey Ave123 Old Harbor-Dewey 80 68.4 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required 5 2016-2020 124 Scorton Creek-6A 41.734711 -70.426693 Scorton Creek-6A 124 Scorton Creek 6A 81 77.0 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required 5 2016-2020 125 Scorton Creek-Jones Lane 41.731 -70.406 Scorton Creek-Jones Lane125 Scorton Creek Jones Lane 82 47.6 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 128 Quivet Marsh 41.759 -70.123 Quivet Marsh 128 Quivet Marsh 84 34.7 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 129 Cole Road Brook 41.830423 -70.002748 Cole Road Brook 129 Cole Road Brook 85 64.9 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 130 Sesuit Creek 41.745138 -70.162474 Sesuit Creek 130 Sesuit Creek 86 24.9 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 131 Millway 41.708604 -70.300106 Millway Beach 131 Millway Beach 87 74.7 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required 5 2016-2020 135 Upper Pamet River (Post Office)41.994 -70.05 135 Upper Pamet River 91 25.7 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 136 Bluefish Creek 42.047 -70.672 136 Bluefish Creek 92 31.2 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 137 Little Namskaket Creek 41.791 -70.01 137 Little Namskaket Creek 93 19.0 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 202 Channel 41.93042 -70.0272 Channel 202 Channel 97 37.3 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 205 Transect 2 41.9309 -70.02648 Transect 2 205 Transect 2 98 41.3 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 212 DB-pipe 41.9306472 -70.029611 Mayo Creek 212 DB-pipe 99 23.9 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 303 RH-culvert 41.797 -69.992 Rock Harbor Culvert 303 RH-culvert 102 24.2 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 304 RH-bend 41.801 -70.005 Rock Harbor Creek 304 RH-bend 103 33.9 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 306 RH-pipe 41.799 -70.007 Rock Harbor Pipe 306 RH-pipe 104 54.1 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 500 Bournes Pond 41.565 -70.553 B3 500 B3 105 45.4 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 501 Halls Creek 41.631 -70.318 BC-14 501 BC-14 106 44.0 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 502 Centerville-E 41.639 -70.345 BCT-1 502 BCT-1 107 29.0 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 503 Centerville-W 41.635 -70.358 BCT-2 503 BCT-2 108 36.9 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 504 Lewis Bay 41.638 -70.245 BHY-3 504 BHY-3 109 66.6 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required 5 2016-2020 505 Bass River 41.685 -70.16 BR-7 505 BR-7 110 39.4 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 506 Taylors Pond 41.678 -70.017 CM-10 506 CM-10 111 39.4 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 507 Oyster Pond-Chatham 41.679 -69.977 CM-1A 507 CM-1A 112 74.5 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required 5 2016-2020 508 Mitchel River 41.671 -69.962 CM-5A 508 CM-5A 113 69.9 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required 5 2016-2020 509 Sulfur Spring 41.674 -70.002 CM-8 509 CM-8 114 42.2 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 510 Cotuit Bay 41.615 -70.429 Cotuit 510 Cotuit Bay 115 70.3 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required 5 2016-2020 511 Childs River 41.58 -70.53 CR-2 511 Site 7 - CR-2 116 22.6 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 517 Eel River Falmouth 41.564 -70.544 ER-2 517 Site 8 - ER-2 117 47.5 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 518 Falmouth Inner Harbor 41.549 -70.602 FHx 518 FHx 118 42.9 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 520 Green Pond 41.562 -70.568 G4 520 G4 119 43.9 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 521 Great Pond 41.56 -70.586 GT-5 521 GT-5 120 42.2 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 522 Saquatucket Harbor 41.667 -70.059 HAR-2 522 HAR-2 121 44.7 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 523 Wychmere 41.667 -70.066 HAR-3 523 HAR-3 122 47.4 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 524 Allen Harbor 41.667 -70.089 HAR-4 524 HAR-4 123 43.3 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 526 Hamblin Pond 41.572 -70.511 HPu 526 Site 3 - HPu 125 51.2 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 527 Jehu Pond 41.566 -70.496 JHP 527 Site 4 - JHP 126 48.4 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 532 Narrows 41.629 -70.412 Narrows 532 Narrows 127 56.2 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 533 North Bay 41.634 -70.41 North Bay 533 North Bay 128 48.3 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 534 Oyster Pond-Falmouth 41.539 -70.638 OP-3 534 OP-3 129 57.3 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 535 Popponesset Bay 41.594 -70.466 PBh 535 PBh 130 58.2 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 536 Parkers River 41.649 -70.223 PR-2 536 PR-2 131 44.4 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 537 Quashnet River 41.58 -70.514 QRm 537 Site 5 - QRm 132 36.7 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 538 Rushy Marsh 41.599 -70.446 RM-2 538 RM-2 133 37.0 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 542 Stewarts Creek 41.636 -70.293 Stewarts 542 Stewarts Creek 134 32.0 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 543 Swan Pond River 41.664 -70.149 SWP-2 543 SWP-2 135 48.6 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 551 Warrens Cove 41.645 -70.406 Warens Cove 551 Warrens Cove 136 38.9 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 552 Waquoit Bay 41.566 -70.521 WBu 552 Site 10 - WBu/Metoxit 137 64.5 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 553 West Bay 41.615 -70.405 West Bay 553 West Bay 138 78.2 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required 5 2016-2020 564 Seapit River 41.568 -70.535 Site 1 564 Site 1 - Seapit 139 46.5 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 565 Waquoit Bay North 41.577 -70.52 Site 2 565 Site 2 - WB north 140 54.1 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 566 Waquoit Bay South 41.552 -70.528 Site 9 566 Site 9 - WB south 141 81.1 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required 5 2016-2020 567 Menauhant 41.553 -70.549 Site 6 567 Site 6 - Menauhant 142 76.3 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required 5 2016-2020 568 LP-2 41.553136 -70.590229 568 LP-2 143 33.3 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required 5 2016-2020 State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 54 Table 12. 2021 Coastal Water Quality Scores and Grades for the Town of Chatham. Scores were provided by the Town of Chatham. Station Name 2016 Eutrophic Index scores 2017 Eutrophic Index scores 2018 Eutrophic Index scores 2019 Eutrophic Index scores 2020 Eutrophic Index scores Average 2016-2020 Eutrophic Index Score Grade CM-1 Oyster Pond 47.0 63.2 57.1 49.7 53.1 54.0 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required CM-1A Oyster Pond-Outer 72.0 75.5 82.4 67.3 56.7 70.8 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required CM-3 Outer Stage Harbor 78.4 72.2 79.3 79.6 76.8 77.2 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required CM-4 Inner Stage Harbor 74.3 73.0 79.7 74.3 83.1 76.9 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required CM-5 Mill Pond - Inner 62.1 71.3 57.4 58.9 67.8 63.5 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required CM-5A Mill Pond - Outer 56.6 72.9 67.0 66.4 70.9 66.8 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required CM-7 Nantucket Sound 84.1 89.2 99.1 97.0 98.9 93.7 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required CM-8 Upper Bucks Creek 35.9 29.1 45.3 34.3 42.7 37.4 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required CM-10 Taylors Pond 49.0 49.0 36.6 29.8 46.5 42.2 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required CM-12 Lower Cockle Cove Creek21.9 23.0 25.8 25.4 21.3 23.5 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required CM-13 Outer Ryder's Cove 63.5 76.7 73.1 84.6 79.7 75.5 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required PBA-1 Chatham Harbor 87.2 80.5 90.9 80.1 86.5 85.0 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required PBA-3 Inner Ryder's Cove 45.6 63.1 46.9 32.6 42.4 46.1 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required PBA-4 Crows Pond 61.5 85.4 89.9 76.5 81.7 79.0 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required PBA-5 Muddy Creek 31.8 64.1 54.0 65.8 63.4 55.8 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required PBA-5A Muddy Creek - Upper10.0 46.8 15.7 12.3 8.3 18.6 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 55 Table 13. 2021 Coastal Water Quality Scores and Grades for the Town of Harwich. Data were provided by the Town of Harwich. Note: 2021 refers to this updated 2021 State of the Waters: Cape Cod report, not the year(s) in which water quality was monitored. Site Name Site #Years No. Years Eutrophic Index Score Grade SAQUATUCKET HARBOR HAR2 2015-2019 5 30.2 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required WYCHMERE OUTER HARBOR HAR2A 2015-2019 5 48.2 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required WYCHMERE HARBOR HAR3 2015-2019 5 37.9 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required ALLENS HARBOR MARINA HAR4 2015-2019 5 37.6 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required ALLEN HULSE PT HAR4A 2015-2019 5 38.8 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required ALLENS HARBOR CREEK HAR5 2015-2019 5 41.8 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required HERRING RIVER 6 HAR6 2015-2019 5 52.2 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required HERRING RIVER 7 - 28 BRIDGE HAR7 2015-2019 5 50.8 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required HERRING RIVER 9 - NORTH RD HAR9 2015-2019 5 31.0 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 56 Table 14. 2021 Coastal Water Quality Scores and Grades for Towns of Eastham and Orleans. Data were provided by the Towns of Eastham and Orleans. Note: 2021 refers to this updated 2021 State of the Waters: Cape Cod report, not the year(s) in which water quality was monitored. Station ID Years No. Years Eutrophic Index Score Grade WMO15 2016-2020 5 35.6 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required WMO19 2016-2020 5 35.0 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required WMO22 2016-2020 5 38.3 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required WMO25 2016-2020 5 39.9 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required WMO26 2016-2020 5 57.3 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required WMO27 2016-2020 5 52.8 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required WMO28 2016-2020 5 58.0 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required WMO29 2016-2020 5 63.0 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required WMO30 2016-2020 5 80.1 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required WMO31 2016-2020 5 60.5 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required WMO32 2016-2020 5 84.8 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required WMO33 2016-2020 5 58.6 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required WMO34 2016-2020 5 37.1 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required WMO35 2016-2020 5 54.0 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required WMO36 2016-2020 5 66.1 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required WMO37 2016-2020 5 66.9 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required WMO38 2016-2020 5 40.1 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required WMO39 2016-2019 4 59.5 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 57 Table 15. 2021 Coastal Water Quality Scores and Grades for Pleasant Bay. Eutrophic Index scores were provided by the Pleasant Bay Alliance. Note: 2021 refers to this updated 2021 State of the Waters: Cape Cod report, not the year(s) in which water quality was monitored. Station Name 2016 Eutrophic Index scores 2017 Eutrophic Index scores 2018 Eutrophic Index scores 2019 Eutrophic Index scores 2020 Eutrophic Index scores Average Eutrophic Index score, 2016- 2020 Grade PBA-3 Inner Ryder's Cove 45.6 63.1 46.9 32.6 42.4 46.1 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required PBA-4 Crows Pond 61.5 85.4 89.9 76.5 81.7 79 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required PBA-5 Muddy Creek 31.8 64.1 54.0 65.8 63.4 55.8 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required PBA-5A Muddy Creek - Upper 10 77.9 15.7 12.3 8.3 24.8 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required PBA-6 Big Bay - SW 65.6 88.1 87.6 94.6 86.9 84.5 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required PBA-8 Big Bay - NE 73.9 86.1 79.4 84.6 78.5 80.5 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required PBA-9 Round Cove 41 57.2 34.5 56.1 29.6 43.7 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required PBA-10 Quanset Pond 44.5 66.6 53.7 50.9 67.7 56.7 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required PBA-11 Paw Wah Pond 40 54.5 30.8 28.6 56.2 42.1 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required PBA-12 Namequoit Point - South 65.6 70.5 58.4 63.6 66.9 65 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required PBA-13 Namequoit Point - North 64.1 71.4 64.8 54.5 57.2 62.4 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required PBA-14 Areys Pond 19.9 43.6 18.0 10.8 7.3 19.9 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required PBA-15 Kescayo Gansett Pond 27.2 49.5 21.7 15.1 23.1 27.3 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required PBA-16 Pochet-mouth 11.7 34 12.9 14.5 13.8 17.4 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required PBA-19 Strong Island - NE 75.1 81.2 84.0 84.0 84.0 81.6 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required PBA-20 Nickerson's Neck 77.9 91.8 85.6 85.6 85.6 85.3 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required PBA-21 Little Pleasant Bay 72.3 79.2 80.1 80.1 80.1 78.4 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required WMO-3 Pochet-mouth 54.3 61.5 54.9 54.9 54.9 56.1 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required WMO-5 Pochet-Upper 23.2 26.7 12.8 7.3 16.8 17.4 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required WMO-6 Namequoit River-Upper 23.3 50.3 22.8 27.9 15.8 28 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required WMO-8 Lower River 43.7 60.4 43.8 17.1 44.6 41.9 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required WMO-10 Meetinghouse-Rattles dock 30.6 55.8 47.3 32.2 30.9 39.4 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required WMO-12 Little Quanset Pond 35.3 48.1 53.1 50.9 42.7 46 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required CM-13 Outer Ryder's Cove 63.5 76.7 73.2 84.6 79.7 75.5 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required State of the Waters: Cape Cod : 2021 Cape Cod Water Health Report and Action Plan Association to Preserve Cape Cod 12/21/21 58 Table 16. 2021 Coastal Water Quality Scores and Grades for Waquoit Bay. Data were provided by the Waquoit Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve (WBNERR). Note: 2021 refers to this updated 2021 State of the Waters: Cape Cod report, not the year(s) in which water quality was monitored. Site Name Site #Years No. Years Eutrophic Index Score Grade Seapit River Site 1 2016-2020 5 44.2 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required North Basin-WB* Site 2 2016-2020 5 53.1 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required Hamblin Pond Site 3 2016-2020 5 49.6 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required Jehu Pond Site 4 2016-2020 5 44.2 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required Quashnet River Site 5 2016-2020 5 35.4 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required Menauhant Site 6 2016-2020 5 72.4 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required Childs River Site 7 2016-2020 5 21.7 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required Eel River Site 8 2016-2020 5 47.8 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required South Basin-WB* Site 9 2016-2020 5 75.0 Acceptable; Ongoing Protection is Required Site 10 2016-2020 5 59.7 Unacceptable; Immediate Restoration is Required MEMORANDUM DATE:20 January 2022 TO:Peter Lombardi, Town Administrator, Town of Brewster Cynthia Bingham, Chair, Select Board, Town of Brewster Mary Chaffee, Select Board, Town of Brewster FROM:Kimberley C. Pearson MS MD MPH, Chair Town of Brewster Natural Resources Advisory Commission SUBJECT:APCC State of the Waters Report: Quivett Creek ______________________________________________________________________________________ The recently released “2021 APCC State of the Waters Report”1 has for the first time identified Quivett Creek as having water quality that is “Unacceptable; immediate restoration required.” The Brewster Natural Resources Advisory Commission (BNRAC) is charged with implementation of the Phase 1 Brewster Coastal Resource Management Plan, which identifies the Quivett Creek-Paine’s Creek marsh system as one of the anchors of the Brewster shoreline, providing important ecological and public benefits. In keeping with our charge, BNRAC undertook public deliberation of the APCC report on Quivett Creek at our meeting on January 13. 2022. We sought additional scientific information from the Center for Coastal Studies, whose data the APCC utilized to make their conclusions, and the Cape Cod Commission. Their input is summarized here. ●Dr. Amy Costa PhD, Director, Cape Cod Bay Monitoring Program, Center for Coastal Studies: ○In her experience, the health index that APCC uses is misleading when used for marsh type areas. ○It is expected for marsh areas to have higher turbidity and nutrients than estuaries for which this health index is commonly used. ○Trend analysis on the Quivett Creek data shows no significant change over the past few years. ○There is only one sample site in this system, and she would hesitate to say the entire system is impaired based on one site. ●Tara Nye Lewis MS, Water Resource Analyst, Cape Cod Commission: ○In 2017, CCC released a Watershed Report that rated Quivett Creek “Water Threat Low” based on the criteria used in the Massachusetts Estuaries Project which include the concentration of nitrogen in the coastal embayment waters, land use activities, and the physical characteristics within each watershed on Cape Cod. ○Specific to Quivett Creek, there are two items within the Watershed Report that contribute to the designation as Low Threat: ■The Creek is nearly totally flushed during the tidal cycle. Therefore, hydrodynamically it would be low risk because nutrients contributed from the watershed would be flushed out rapidly. ■The 2017 Watershed Report found no evidence of water quality impairment. ■Given the hydrodynamics of Quivett Creek, it is highly unlikely that significant change has occurred in the water quality in the three years since these data were collected. After consideration of the best available science, the BNRAC commissioners feel that the APCC designation of Quivett Creek water quality as “Unacceptable; immediate restoration required” is unsupported and would recommend that the Town of Brewster maintain its current wastewater and stormwater management plans as approved. The BNRAC will continue to monitor water quality data collected by the Center for Coastal Studies and will bring any concerns, should they arise, to the Select Board and Town Administrator. 1 It should be noted that the 2021 report only included data through 2020. 2021 samples are still in analysis at the Center for Coastal Studies PREPARED BY CAPE COD COMMISSION STAFF - DECEMBER 2021 UPDATE OF THE 2003 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 2021 Cape Cod Pond and Lake Atlas P.O. Box 226 (3225 Main Street), Barnstable, Massachusetts 02630 Phone: 508-362-3828 Email: frontdesk@capecodcommission.org www.capecodcommission.org 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS DECEMBER 2021 Prepared by Cape Cod Commission Staff Funding for this project is provided by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Housing and Community Development’s District Local Technical Assistance program. The maps and graphics in this document are for planning purposes only. They are not adequate for legal boundary definition, regulatory interpretation, or parcel level analysis. 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 3 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..............................................................................5 LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................9 LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................10 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................11 Lake and Pond Terminology .........................................................12 How Ponds Function .........................................................................15 Value and Protection of Ponds ..................................................24 Progress Since the 2003 Atlas .....................................................36 POND MONITORING ON CAPE COD ..............................................39 Why Monitor Ponds ..........................................................................39 History of Pond Monitoring on Cape Cod ............................42 Standard Water Quality Parameters .....................................44 Targeted Cape Cod Pond Monitoring ....................................48 POND WATER QUALITY MONITORING RESULTS TO-DATE .....53 THREATS TO POND WATER QUALITY ............................................59 Title 5 Septic Systems ......................................................................61 Stormwater ............................................................................................61 Invasive Species .................................................................................64 Emerging Contaminants ..............................................................65 Climate Change .................................................................................67 SOLUTIONS AND STRATEGIES ...........................................................69 NEXT STEPS ...................................................................................................73 Ponds in the Regional Context .................................................73 Public-Private Partnerships ........................................................74 Freshwater Initiative ........................................................................76 Recommendations and Future Actions ................................81 A Vision for Cape Cod’s Ponds ...................................................82 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ......................................................................83 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................84 Brewster, MA 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS Executive Summary The Cape Cod Commission’s 2018 Regional Policy Plan identified the health of Cape Cod freshwater ponds and lakes (collectively referred to as “ponds”) as a key challenge facing the region, calling for an updated and expanded understanding of freshwater resources data. The recommended planning action includes updating the 2003 Cape Cod Pond and Lake Atlas. The regional need for an update to the Atlas is compounded by increasingly obvious declines in water quality in ponds across the region and an increase in public concern and interest. 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 6 ExECuTivE SuMMARy Cape Cod’s landscape is a product of glacial movement. Generally, the Cape’s ponds are depressions left in the land surface that filled with groundwater after glaciers retreated. These resources sit within the Cape’s watersheds and are connected to groundwater because their depression in the land surface extends below the water table. The sand and gravel deposited throughout the region during glacial retreat make up the majority of the subsurface. The high permeability of these materials created an aquifer system, the Cape Cod Aquifer, that is both productive and vulnerable to pollutants. Freshwater ponds are valued natural resources across Cape Cod. The Section 208 Area Wide Water Quality Management Plan, updated in 2015, highlights the importance of ponds in the region’s water quality management planning because of their nitrogen filtering capacity and connections to groundwater, the aquifer, and coastal embayments. Ponds are important parts of the Cape Cod ecosystem, providing habitat for a diversity of aquatic flora and fauna. Some Cape Cod ponds support fish species, like herring, or agricultural activities, like cranberry harvesting, that impart cultural values. Ponds are also cherished recreational resources, whether it be for swimming, fishing, or boating. Ponds across the region still provide the recreational, aesthetic, and cultural experiences residents and visitors expect and value, but pond health is showing signs of deterioration. Cape Cod’s ponds are fragile. The Commission’s 2003 Atlas, as well as town-wide and pond specific assessments completed in the early 2000’s identified that most Cape ponds were impaired and did not meet state regulatory standards for surface water. The more recent State of the Waters Report from the Association to Preserve Cape Cod concluded that while data are limited, ponds remain impacted with over one-third of ponds graded as having “unacceptable” water quality in 2019, 2020, and 2021. Good water quality is vital for the aquatic life a balanced pond ecosystem supports, and the many environmental services a pond provides. However, CAPE COD POND ATLAS VIEWER The distribution and characteristics of the Cape’s ponds can be explored in the Cape Cod Commission’s (Commission) accompanying Pond Viewer. cccom.link/pond-atlas 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 7 ExECuTivE SuMMARy pond health and water quality have been negatively impacted and continue to be threatened. While ponds undergo natural changes in nutrient cycling, plant productivity, and water levels over time, the historical increase in population on Cape Cod and intensification of human activities in and around ponds have expanded and accelerated threats to pond health. Human activities such as development along pond shorelines and within pond watersheds may increase impervious surfaces, subsequently increasing stormwater runoff, erosion, and addition of nutrients, pollutants, and sediment to ponds. Septic system discharge is another major threat to ponds. Phosphorus and nitrogen in septic discharge have the potential to pass through the Cape’s sandy soils, entering and flowing with groundwater into ponds. Pesticide and/or fertilizer runoff may similarly enter ponds. Excess nutrients, especially phosphorus, can shift the natural balance of a pond ecosystem, fueling increased primary productivity through growth of algae and other aquatic vegetation. Excess algal growth may create unsightly and potentially harmful algal blooms while also leading to degraded pond water quality. Climate change exacerbates all these threats. Increasing storm intensity drives greater flow of nutrients and pollutants off the land into ponds. Warmer temperatures enhance growth and abundance of primary producers resulting in algal blooms. Climate change can compound impacts to ponds. Recognizing the value of the Cape’s ponds and the threats these ponds face, numerous groups have formed to monitor pond water quality. For example, through a collaboration of local, county, and state university programming, a network of town- based volunteers established the Pond and Lake Stewardship Program and began annual snapshot water quality monitoring in 2001. The program generated a total of more than 1,800 water samples, collected from 232 ponds in all 15 Cape Cod towns over the last 20 years. Initially, monitoring established baselines to evaluate pond water quality and ecosystem health. Over time the focus of monitoring has shifted to track changes in water quality, measure the effectiveness of restoration projects, and complement larger watershed management programs. Water quality is also a public health concern. Cape Cod ponds with public swimming beaches are regularly monitored for the presence of fecal bacteria and increasing numbers of ponds are being monitored for algal blooms. Increasing public concern for pond health, compounding threats, and desires to implement pond improvement solutions make consistent pond monitoring a regional need. Solutions are needed to protect, manage, and improve pond water quality and overall pond health. The threats to pond water quality extend from within the 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 8 ExECuTivE SuMMARy pond to the entire pond’s watershed, allowing multiple scales of solutions and strategies. Technical in-pond solutions have been implemented for decades, providing important information and lessons from their application. Numerous other solutions at in-pond or watershed scales are still being researched or identified. Potential solutions to address pond water quality on Cape Cod must work for the Cape’s distinct landscape atop sandy soils, and should be combined with wastewater, stormwater, and groundwater management as practicable. Strategies may include both innovative and traditional technologies, regulatory and voluntary options, and consideration for integrated approaches. While phosphorus is a particular concern and focus of strategies for Cape ponds, additional threats to water quality like contaminants of emerging concern, toxic pollutants, invasive species, and sediment are also important considerations. Consistent management of freshwater ponds that results in improvement is needed. To ensure resources are available for future action to address Cape Cod pond health, in 2022 the Commission is launching the Freshwater Initiative, a comprehensive planning process that engages stakeholders to define a path forward for improving pond water quality across the region. Through its Freshwater Initiative, the Commission will develop pond resources and planning tools for the entire region, making them available and accessible to the public and decision makers. The Commission will develop a comprehensive analysis of pond monitoring data and overall health of Cape Cod’s freshwater pond network. Data will be archived and made publicly available in an online interface, accessible for use in management decisions. The Commission will collaborate to establish a long-term volunteer pond monitoring program that provides regionally consistent and quality assured data. Combined with past and future pond monitoring information and analysis, the Commission’s upcoming database of pond improvement strategies will detail available and viable solutions. An economic analysis of ponds, their threats, and the impacts of action or inaction will aid in pond or solution prioritization across the region. With the help of citizens, partners, and local regulators, a stakeholder engagement process will guide Cape Cod pond management. This updated Pond and Lake Atlas provides a current assessment of the importance of ponds on Cape Cod, the threats they face, and what is needed to improve and properly manage these valued and unique resources. As such, this Updated Atlas will serve as a catalyst for renewed and expanded efforts in pond management within the region. Pond water quality is a regional challenge that will require regional collaboration, coordination, and conversations. 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 9 List of Figures Figure 1. Illustration of glacial retreat depositing sediments and ice chunks to form the Cape Cod landscape including kettle ponds. ...............................................................................................................................15 Figure 2. The six distinct groundwater lenses on Cape Cod and the low-lying bodies of water that separate them. ...............................17 Figure 3. Cape Cod freshwater system food chain. The food chain is fueled by sunlight and nutrients that are used by photosynthesizing primary producers. Example species commonly found on the Cape are included for succeeding levels of the food chain. ......................................................................................................19 Figure 4. Seasonal changes in the water column of a pond, highlighting the spring and autumn overturn, as well as the summer and winter density differences and resultant stratification. .............................................................................................................................21 Figure 5. Trophic Status in ponds is defined by the amount of biomass within the water body. ...................................................................................22 Figure 6. Ecoregions are areas where ecosystems are generally similar. Cape Cod, the Islands, and portions of the southeastern Massachusetts mainland are in the Atlantic Coastal Pine Barrens Ecoregion. ..................................................................................24 Figure 7. Water Quality parameters monitored by groups who responded to the 2020 Pond Monitoring Survey. Survey respondents included cyanobacteria, water clarity, alkalinity, total Phosphorus, total Nitrogen, chlorophyll a, and plant coverage as write-ins for the category of “Other.” ...........................................37 Figure 8. Needs identified by pond monitoring groups who responded to the 2020 Pond Monitoring Survey. ............................................38 Figure 9. A Secchi disk is used to measure transparency depth. Photo sourced from United States Geological Survey. ...............45 Figure 10. Number of Cape Cod ponds monitored by the PALS program from 2001 through 2018. .............................................................................53 Figure 11. Ponds, colored in blue, are impacted by threats throughout their watersheds, outlined in yellow. These impacts follow the extent of the watershed, which flow all the way to marine embayments. Kettle ponds, stream influenced ponds, and coastal ponds exhibit different interactions with the watershed in terms of inflow and outflow or discharge. ..................60 Figure 12. A subset image of the previous Figure showing portions of Mashpee, Sandwich, and Barnstable with embayment boundaries (yellow), subwatersheds (blue), and ponds (blue polygons). Each Embayment consists of multiple subwatersheds. .......................................................................................................................60 Figure 13. Threats to pond quality including presence of aquatic invasive species, contribution of nutrients from septic system discharge and fertilizer/pesticide application, and contribution of nutrients or increased erosion and flow from impervious surfaces. Phosphorus and nitrogen are nutrients of concern and have the potential to come from any or all these sources. Nitrogen easily flows through the soil and into groundwater, while phosphorus may be bound in the soil or pass through depending on soil type and condition. .................................62 Figure 14. Floating wetland in the Charles River, Boston, MA. ................71 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 10 List of Tables Table 1. Freshwater Fish of Cape Cod Ponds ......................................................28 Table 2. Cape Cod Trout Stocked Waters 2021. All listed waters are stocked in spring. Bold waters are stocked in spring and fall. Daily stocking updates can be viewed at Mass.gov/Trout. ................31 Table 3. Cape Cod Ponds listed as Category 5, impaired waters requiring a TMDL, in Massachusetts Integrated List of Water Reports published from 2004 to 2020. *Note the 2018/2020 report is a combined report that has not yet been finalized, it is a draft awaiting public comment and finalization by EPA. .................57 Table 4. Categorization of Cape Cod ponds eutrophication status based on the Carlson Trophic Index reported in 2003 and 2016. .......................................................................................................................................58 Table 5. E.coli sampling results taken at public and semi-pub- lic freshwater pond beaches and compared from 2001 and 2002 to 2020 and 2021. .......................................................................................................58 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 11 iNTRODuCTiON The Cape’s numerous and diverse ponds and lakes range in size from less than an acre to 735 acres, with the 21 largest ponds making up nearly half of the total Cape-wide pond acreage. Approximately 40% (356) of the ponds are less than an acre whereas about 18% (163) are 10 acres or more. This Cape Cod Pond and Lake Atlas Update examines the Cape’s freshwater bodies from the regional perspective, covering a review of pond ecology, water quality, threats, and strategies to restore pond health. A companion resource to this Pond Atlas Update is the Pond Atlas Viewer (cccom.link/ pond-atlas), an online map-based tool that allows the user to view available data on all the ponds and lakes on Cape Cod. Through an easy-to-use online interface, the user can zoom into the map, view map resource layers, select ponds, and access geographic information about a pond of interest. New information will be added to the viewer as it becomes available. Geared toward the typical resident or visitor to Cape Cod, the map viewer may also serve as a planning resource as communities consider management actions to address pond health. Ponds and lakes are important parts of the Cape Cod ecosystem. They provide habitat for fish, wildlife, aquatic vegetation, and other organisms, including many rare species. They support complex food webs and rare natural communities. They are connected to estuarine and marine ecosystems via ground- and surface water. They attract tourists and make Cape Cod a desirable place to live for year-round and seasonal residents. Residents and visitors use ponds and lakes for recreational activities such as swimming, boating, and fishing. Ponds and lakes provide ecological, economic, and aesthetic benefits. Cape Cod’s ponds and lakes are fragile. According to census data, over the last fifty years, the Cape has seen a significant increase in its year-round population, from approximately 100,000 people in 1970 to almost 230,000 people in 2020, and in population density, from approximately 220 people per square mile in 1970 to almost 590 people per square mile in 2020. The Introduction Cape Cod is a geographic cape, or high point of land, in southeastern Massachusetts extending into the Atlantic Ocean. Cape Cod’s land is made up of glacial deposits of mostly sand and gravel. Nearly 1,000 ponds and lakes cover close to 10,500 acres across the Cape landscape. 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 12 iNTRODuCTiON population of the region doubles during the warmer months with seasonal residents and visitors.1 These increases have led to direct and indirect adverse impacts to these sensitive water bodies. Threats to ponds and lakes from increased human uses and activities on and surrounding them include inputs of chemical contaminants such as herbicides and pesticides, excessive inputs of nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus, and introduction of biological contaminants such as invasive plants and animals. Recognizing the importance of the Cape’s ponds and lakes, the Commission and partners developed a Pond and Lake Stewardship (PALS) program in 2000 with the goal of better understanding the status of Cape Cod ponds. In the summer of 2001, PALS participants collected a snapshot of water quality data from 195 ponds. In 2003, the Commission published the Cape Cod Pond and Lake Atlas (2003 Atlas) as a status report on the PALS program. Since publication of the 2003 Atlas, PALS program volunteers and others have continued to monitor the Cape’s ponds, and knowledge and data surrounding ponds have evolved. 1  Cape Cod Commission. 2019 Cape Cod Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy. Available at https://www.capecodcommission.org/our-work/ceds/. Coupled with the Pond Viewer, this document serves as the Updated Atlas and provides an updated assessment of the Cape’s unique freshwater resources, challenges and threats they face, and strategies to protect them. As with all reports, information presented represents a snapshot in time. Periodic updates are important to revisit the content and recommendations to ensure the information is still accurate, representative of current conditions, and useful to decision- makers. This Updated Atlas provides an account of implementation of 2003 Atlas recommendations, progress made, and gaps identified. It also summarizes information on current pond science, monitoring, and management. In addition, this Updated Atlas identifies next steps for moving pond monitoring, remediation, and conservation forward on Cape Cod. LAKE AND POND TERMINOLOGY As recognized in the 2003 Atlas, there are a wide variety of ponds and lakes on the Cape: small or large, shallow, or deep, with streams or without, surrounded by development or with a largely unaltered shoreline, close to the coast or farther inland. There are also numerous definitions of “pond” and “lake” in dictionaries, textbooks, and other freshwater resources. However, there is no definitive definition of “pond” or distinction between “pond” and “lake.” Nevertheless, in the 2003 Atlas, and again in this Updated Atlas, Commission staff have attempted to document those bodies of surface water that meet certain criteria to be categorized as ponds and lakes in a Cape Cod context. The 2003 Atlas utilized Spring 1994 aerial photographs to create a digital map layer of all surface waters on the Cape. Static surface water bodies, such as ponds and lakes, were distinguished from flowing surface waters such as streams and rivers. This work was supplemented through reference to the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection’s (MassDEP) wetlands dataset. Adjustments to surface water shoreline delineations were performed as warranted. Each water body was assigned a unique number and its surface area determined. The numbering system consists of a two- 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 13 iNTRODuCTiON letter town code and a unique number for each pond or lake. This information was then combined in a database with available depth information from various sources, including depths determined during the 2001 PALS water quality monitoring snapshot. Development of this information allowed Commission staff at that time to review and report on the areas of all and depths of some Cape Cod static fresh surface waters in the 2003 Atlas. Based on this information, 994 static surface waters were identified on Cape Cod with a total area of 10,453 acres. Almost half of the surface waters identified were small, less than one acre in area. Few of the small surface waters were sampled during the 2001 PALS snapshot, and those sampled were shallow (0.2 – 2 meters). The 2003 Atlas noted many of these small, shallow surface waters might not meet the definition of a permanent pond as some likely dry up during low water conditions or even every summer. Data, such as multiple years and seasons of aerial photographs during various water table conditions that could help reveal the ephemerality or seasonality of many of these 2  Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 310 CMR 10.00: The Wetlands Protection Act 3  U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. National Wetlands Inventory Program Overview. Available at https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/nwi/Overview.html. MassGIS (2017). MassGIS Data: MassDEP Wetlands (2005). Available at https://www.mass.gov/info-details/massgis-data-massdep-wetlands-2005. small, shallow ponds, were not available to make that determination. For this Updated Atlas, Commission staff revisited existing pond and lake definitions and databases with more recent information to reassess which of the Cape’s fresh surface water bodies to include in an updated Cape Cod pond and lake database. Information explored to refine the database included Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (WPA) definitions.2 According to the WPA, a lake is any open body of fresh water with a surface area of ten acres or more. An “inland” pond is any open body of fresh water with a surface area observed or recorded within the last ten years of at least 10,000 square feet (0.23 acres), either naturally occurring or human-made by impoundment, excavation, or otherwise, and that contain standing water except for periods of extended drought. The WPA also defines “coastal” or “salt” ponds as shallow enclosed or semi-enclosed bodies of saline water that may be partially or totally restricted by barrier beach formation and that may receive freshwater from small streams emptying into their upper reaches and/or springs in the salt pond itself. For the purposes of this Updated Atlas, lakes and inland ponds are included whereas salt ponds are excluded. In addition to the WPA definitions, staff also explored coarse-resolution information from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) that identifies freshwater ponds and lakes and MassDEP’s Wetlands dataset that identifies fresh open bodies of water.3 Staff also conducted a review of finer-resolution spring 2009, 2014, and 2020 aerial photographs, 2014 planimetrics (points, lines, and polygons representing features on the ground, derived through 3D interpretation of aerial photography), and site visits. When combined, review of these information sources resulted in a more accurate and improved database of fresh, static, permanent surface waterbodies, or ponds and lakes, on Cape Cod and thereby became the criteria used for inclusion of a pond or lake in this assessment. 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 14 iNTRODuCTiON Based on this updated review and criteria, over 200 ponds and lakes identified in the 2003 Atlas were eliminated from the database due to their small size, having tidal or saltwater influences, or lacking consistently open water over the three years of more recent photographs. Concurrently, almost 200 ponds and lakes were added to the database due to being classified as such in 2014 planimetrics. For this Updated Atlas, 890 ponds and lakes have been identified. Of these, 549 met the aerial photograph, MassDEP, and NWI criteria for classification as a pond or lake, including having open water over successive years and being identified as “Open Water” and “Freshwater Pond or Lake” in MassDEP and NWI datasets, respectively. The remaining 341 water bodies identified as ponds or lakes are generally smaller but have persisted over time. This snapshot in time of Cape Cod ponds and lakes provides a benchmark for 2021. As new information becomes available, water bodies that meet established criteria may be added or removed from the database. It is anticipated that the number and condition of ponds and lakes will change over time, allowing for the evolution of the database. DEFINING PONDS AND LAKES FOR THE 2021 ATLAS Based on the above description of new criteria and for the purposes of this Updated Atlas, all fresh, static, and permanent surface water bodies greater than 10,000 square feet (0.23 acres) are considered a pond or lake. Sears Road, Chatham 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 15 iNTRODuCTiON Regardless of size or other characteristics, the vast majority (99%) of Cape Cod’s ponds and lakes have been and continue to be considered “ponds” by both residents and visitors alike with the exception of a few waterbodies that retain the “lake” label, including Shawme and Upper Shawme Lakes in Sandwich, Cedar Lake in Falmouth, Mystic and Wequaquet Lakes in Barnstable, Scargo Lake in Dennis, Lovers Lake in Chatham, and Crystal and Pilgrim Lakes in Orleans. Therefore, this Updated Atlas will primarily refer to all fresh, static, permanent water bodies as “ponds” but may use the term “lake” interchangeably. Regardless of label, all these water bodies share the public’s ongoing interest in them and their condition, characteristics, and conservation. HOW PONDS FUNCTION A pond, when seen from a distance, appears to be a uniform mass of water fixed on the landscape, when in fact it is heterogeneous and dynamic. Its physical, chemical, and biological properties are extremely variable. A pond varies physically in terms of light penetration, temperature, and water circulation; chemically in terms of alkalinity, pH, and dissolved oxygen; and biologically in terms of aquatic species, diversity, and abundance. These properties interact to produce the diversity of ponds present on the Cape. POND FORMATION AND HYDROLOGY The ponds that Cape Cod residents and visitors are familiar with today are the result of geological processes dating back thousands of years. The current Cape Cod landscape is a product of glacial movement that most recently concluded about 12,000 years ago leaving deposits that formed moraines and outwash plains as the glaciers retreated to the north. Generally, the Cape’s ponds are depressions left in the land surface after the glaciers retreated (Figure 1). The glaciers left large chunks of ice that were surrounded and covered by sand and gravel carried by glacial meltwater. As these chunks of ice melted, the landscape above them collapsed forming depressions or “kettles.” As precipitation fell and the Cape’s aquifer system developed, the water table eventually KETTLE POND GROUNDWATER OUTWASH PLAIN TERMINAL MORAINE Figure 1. Illustration of glacial retreat depositing sediments and ice chunks to form the Cape Cod landscape including kettle ponds. 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 16 iNTRODuCTiON Clapps Pond (top) and Shank Painter Pond (above) are both examples of Provincetown ponds. Footnotes: 1. Oldale, Robert N. 1976. Geologic history of Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Available at https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/capecod/ or https://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/7000013/ report.pdf 2. Giese, Graham S. et al. 2015. Coastal landforms and processes at the Cape Cod National Seashore, Massachusetts. Avail- able at https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1417/ circ1417.pdf 3. Natural Heritage & Endangered Species Program. Classification of Natural Com- munities of Massachusetts – Interdunal Marsh/Swale. 2016. Available at https:// www.mass.gov/files/documents/2016/08/ ro/interdunal-marsh-swale-fs.pdf UNIQUE PROVINCETOWN POND FORMATION While all Cape Cod ponds are unique, Provincetown’s ponds are notable due to their distinct formation and characteristics. When the glaciers retreated, Provincetown did not exist. As waves eroded the Cape’s Atlantic- facing coastal bluffs and longshore drift and currents transported and redeposited sediments to the north, the Provincetown sand dunes appeared.1 Sand spits continued to grow northward and westward, and wind blew sand inland to form a wide expanse of undulating dunes.2 As the landscape matured, the dunes stabilized, and forests grew. In the swales between dune ridges, where depressions were low enough to intersect with groundwater, freshwater wetlands, including ponds, emerged. These interdunal swales are recognized by the Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program as a natural community of biodiversity conservation interest.3 Interdunal swales support distinct grass- and shrub-dominated plant communities. Swales can function as vernal pool habitat and provide important amphibian breeding habitat, particularly for toads such as the American toad, Fowler’s toad, and eastern spadefoot. Swales can also be an important source of freshwater in the generally very dry and exposed sand dunes. As noted in the Atlas, due to their unique formation, Provincetown’s ponds are much younger than most of Cape Cod’s ponds and are generally shallow, very acidic, and contain moderate to high concentrations of nutrients. Nutrient concentrations in Provincetown ponds are likely reflective of natural conditions of these ponds rather than the result of human impacts. Because Provincetown’s ponds are so different, their monitoring and management is also different and results from pond monitoring in Provincetown may not be comparable to results from other ponds. 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 17 iNTRODuCTiON rose to fill these kettles and create many of the hundreds of ponds that exist on Cape Cod today. The same glacial processes that led to the formation of kettle ponds throughout Cape Cod’s landscape are also largely responsible for the appearance and composition of the entire landmass. The sand and gravel deposited throughout the region during glacial retreat makes up the majority of the subsurface. The high permeability of the deposited subsurface materials created an aquifer system, the Cape Cod Aquifer, that is both highly productive and extremely vulnerable to excess nutrient inputs, and biological and chemical contamination. The Cape Cod Aquifer provides 100% of the Cape’s drinking water, and for this reason has been designated a Sole Source Aquifer under the Safe Drinking Water Act by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Within the aquifer there are six separate areas of groundwater called lenses. They are named by their location: Sagamore, Monomoy, Nauset, Chequessett, Pamet, and Pilgrim. Lenses of the Cape Cod Aquifer are not confined by impermeable layers (e.g., silt, clay, or bedrock), instead Figure 2. The six distinct groundwater lenses on Cape Cod and the low-lying bodies of water that separate them. 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 18 iNTRODuCTiON they are separated by tidal rivers which are areas of low groundwater elevation where discharge occurs (Bass River, Rock Harbor Creek, Blackfish Creek, Pamet River, Pilgrim Lake). Within each lens the ponds and lakes, groundwater, rivers and streams, and coastal and marine waters are all connected as part of the same hydrologic cycle (Figure 2).4 Kettle ponds are connected to groundwater because they formed where depressions in the land surface extend below the water table. They generally lack surface waters flowing into or out of them. Precipitation infiltrates through the soil and replenishes groundwater, runs along the land surface to areas of low elevation, or falls into the pond directly. The water level of these ponds is maintained because their sandy sides allow a steady inflow and outflow of groundwater to and from the adjacent aquifer. As groundwater flows into the pond on the upgradient side (area of higher groundwater elevation) and out of the pond on the downgradient side (area of lower groundwater elevation), the pond surfaces fluctuate up and down in response to the rise and fall of the water table. For this 4  Leblanc, D.R., J.H. Guswa, M.H. Frimpter, and C.J. Londquist. (1986) Ground-water Resources of Cape Cod Massachusetts. Hydrologic Atlas 692. https://doi.org/10.3133/ha692. reason, scientists often refer to Cape Cod’s freshwater ponds as “windows into the aquifer.” Through this connection, ponds are directly linked to the region’s drinking water supplies, coastal estuaries, as well as any sources of contamination that have entered the regional aquifer system. While many of the Cape’s ponds lack surface water inlets or outlets, others connect to coastal and marine waters surrounding Cape Cod via rivers, streams, or creeks. Examples of kettle ponds lacking surface water connections include the ponds in Nickerson State Park in Brewster and those in the Hyannis Ponds Wildlife Management Area in Barnstable. Examples of ponds with surface water connections to the coast include Herring Pond in Eastham and Santuit Pond in Mashpee. Ponds connected to the coast may support fish and wildlife species that depend on these connections, including important fish species such as American eel and river herring (alewife and blueback herring). These species are diadromous, migrating between salt and fresh waters to live out different life stages. Diadromous species can be further classified as anadromous, migrating up rivers from the sea to spawn in fresh waters, or catadromous, migrating down rivers to the sea to spawn in salt waters. River herring are anadromous and American eel are catadromous. POND ECOSYSTEMS Each pond is an ecosystem, a system of interconnected biological organisms and their physical-chemical environment. Physical features include the surface shape of the pond, bathymetry, surrounding topography, and watershed size. Outside physical factors such as strength and direction of wind, air temperature, and groundwater and surface water inflows and outflows also play important roles in how a given pond ecosystem functions. Chemical features include alkalinity, pH, and dissolved oxygen. Biological features include the pond flora and fauna, both permanent and transient. A pond is a complex web of interactions among numerous biological species, chemical 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 19 iNTRODuCTiON compounds, hydrological processes, and human actions, all in constant change.5 The terrestrial land beyond the perimeter of the pond influences the system as well. The land area from which water flows to a particular pond is called a watershed and watershed characteristics influence the pond ecosystem. In many regions, watersheds are determined by the topography of the land surface, but due to Cape Cod’s geology, the watersheds are determined by the contours of the groundwater table. Therefore, a useful definition of a pond ecosystem is the pond and its watershed. Most impacts on ponds can be related to characteristics of the watershed, although atmospheric (e.g., aerial deposition of wide-spread pollutants, rain) and climate change (e.g., warming air temperatures, altered seasons) impacts demonstrate ponds are susceptible to influences from beyond their watersheds. Biological communities within ponds can be organized into freshwater aquatic food or energy chains to help understand pond 5  Wagner, K.J. (2004). The Practical Guide to Lake Man- agement in Massachusetts. Department of Environmental Protection and Department of Conservation and Recre- ation. Available at https://www.mass.gov/doc/the-practi- cal-guide-to-lake-management-in-massachusetts/download. Figure 3. Cape Cod freshwater system food chain. The food chain is fueled by sunlight and nutrients that are used by photosynthesizing primary producers. Example species commonly found on the Cape are included for succeeding levels of the food chain. 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 20 iNTRODuCTiON ecosystem functions and interactions (Figure 3). At the base of the food chain, primary producers such as phytoplankton and macrophytes convert sunlight and nutrients into usable forms of energy for other aquatic organisms and are essential to supporting a healthy pond. These primary producers support a complex pond food web of primary consumers such as zooplankton, secondary consumers such as macroinvertebrates and forage fish, and tertiary consumers (predators) such as bass, birds, and humans. Aquatic food chains depend on two essential biological processes: photosynthesis and respiration. Through photosynthesis, primary producers use the sun’s energy to convert carbon dioxide dissolved in water into sugars that can be utilized and converted into other organic molecules by consumers. Oxygen produced during photosynthesis or diffused into the water body from the atmosphere is also needed and used by consumers. Consumers use both sugar and oxygen to fuel their activities via respiration, which generates water and carbon dioxide needed for photosynthesis. While relative levels of photosynthesis and respiration influence dissolved oxygen concentrations, temperature is the key determinant of the amount of oxygen that can be dissolved in pond water. Colder water holds more oxygen than warmer water. Because water temperature is so critically connected to dissolved oxygen, it plays an important role in determining the suitability of a pond for certain species. Although deeper, cooler waters can support high levels of dissolved oxygen, influxes of organic material (e.g., dead algae or other plant material) from the surface can catalyze low oxygen conditions as bacteria consume oxygen and produce carbon dioxide while breaking down the organic material. When oversupply of organic materials in the pond reaches a certain point, its decomposition will consume enough oxygen to create hypoxic (low oxygen) or anoxic (no oxygen) conditions. These conditions will cause mobile aquatic species, such as fish, to seek colder bottom waters where oxygen may be more plentiful. If unavailable or if hypoxic conditions occur rapidly, fish in a pond or a portion of a pond can die. Less mobile or immobile species, such as mussels, cannot move to waters with more oxygen and are often killed during these events. Anoxic or hypoxic conditions can occur in any pond, regardless of depth. The ecosystems of Cape Cod ponds change throughout seasons of a year and from year to year depending on the factors above, but temperature changes are a key factor for every pond, especially seasonal thermal stratification in deeper ponds. Warmer, less dense water floats at the surface and colder, denser water sinks. The difference in density between surface and bottom waters creates a thermocline (temperature gradient in a body of water) that is resistant to mixing (Figure 4). In summer, the less dense water near the surface warms, strengthening the thermocline and creating layers of different water temperature within the water column, stratifying the pond. In autumn, less solar radiation reaches the water and greater heat losses occur at night, reducing the difference in temperature between the layers. Convection and wind mixing continue to weaken the thermocline. Surface water increases in density as it decreases in temperature, and downward movement of cooler surface water allows for mixing to occur, known as the fall overturn. As winter approaches, cooling continues making 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 21 iNTRODuCTiON dense water sink to the bottom. As surface water freezes and floats, it is less dense, allowing stratification to occur again. Spring conditions warm surface temperatures and wind mixes the water causing the spring overturn. Deep lakes undergo these seasonal cycles. Small, shallow ponds exposed to wind may stratify and de-stratify daily as ponds cool in the evening and are circulated by 6  Horne, A.J., D.R. Goldman (1994). Limnology, 2nd edition. McGraw-Hill, Inc. winds, whereas large, deep ponds will remain stratified unless a storm occurs. Stable thermal stratification determines distribution of dissolved nutrients and gases and has implications for water quality and species life cycles.6 Figure 4. Seasonal changes in the water column of a pond, highlighting the spring and autumn overturn, as well as the summer and winter density differences and resultant stratification. 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 22 iNTRODuCTiON POND PRIMARY PRODUCTION Plant, algae, and bacteria growth is generally limited by available nutrients. As these photosynthetic organisms form the base of pond ecosystems, the amount and types of dominant photosynthetic organisms 7  Carlson, R.E. and J. Simpson. 1996. A Coordinator’s Guide to Volunteer Lake Monitoring Methods. North American Lake Management Society. 96 pp. Available at https://www.nalms. org/product/a-coordinators-guide-to-volunteer-monitoring/ (as referenced by https://www.nalms.org/secchidipin/monitor- ing-methods/trophic-state-equations/). 8  Hutchinson., G. E. (1957). A Treatise on Limnology. Volume I: Geography, Physics and Chemistry. John Wiley and Sons NY. generally determines the quantity and composition of other organisms present in a pond. The total weight or mass of all organisms (biomass) in a pond can be used to characterize the pond’s trophic status (Figure 5). Trophic status can be related to the amount of available phosphorus, algal and plant species present, season, mixing depth, and other factors.7 Scientists have established relationships between several water quality monitoring parameters (algal biomass as measured by chlorophyll a, total phosphorus, and Secchi disk measurements) and the corresponding ranges for the different trophic categories. While the Cape’s ponds took many years to form and may appear as permanent and fixed features on the landscape, they continue to change through natural and anthropogenic processes.8 All ponds undergo natural succession. Aging ponds fill with sediment and organic matter, becoming smaller and shallower, and undergo changes in plant species composition transitioning from open water with limited vegetation, to more vegetated ponds, and eventually to vegetated wetlands. Water quality and animal life also change in response to physical and Figure 5. Trophic Status in ponds is defined by the amount of biomass within the water body. ABOUT POND TROPHIC STATUS have low nutrient inputs and consequently have relatively little primary production. are more productive than oligotrophic ponds but less productive than eutrophic ponds. have higher nutrient inputs and significantly more primary production. have such excessive nutrients that an overabundance of plant and algal growth results and as these die off, bacteria may use up the available oxygen in the water leading to fish die offs. Oligotrophic ponds Mesotrophic ponds Eutrophic ponds Hypereutrophic ponds 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 23 iNTRODuCTiON floristic changes. Ultimately, a pond becomes a meadow and is no longer a pond at all. This aging process is often accelerated by human impacts such as land clearing and development that increase erosion and sedimentation rates as well as plant, algae, and bacteria growth in and around ponds.9 However, human actions may delay natural pond succession through active management such as dredging. While natural succession is not always visible and may take thousands of years to occur, ponds are constantly changing chemically, biologically, and physically. Nutrients entering and accumulating in ponds can gradually and naturally occur, leading to natural eutrophication and succession over long periods of time. Nutrient loading can also be accelerated and a product of human activities, leading to cultural eutrophication. Human impacts tend to add excess nutrients over relatively short periods of time, causing pond trophic conditions to shift rapidly. 9  Robinson, M. (2004). The Massachusetts Lake and Pond Guide, Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, Lakes and Ponds Program. Available at https://www.uwsp.edu/cnr-ap/ UWEXLakes/Documents/ecology/shoreland/background/mass_lake_and_pond_guide.pdf. 10  Li, R., L. Gao, Q. Wu, Z.L., Lei Hou, Z. Yang, J. Chen, T. Jiang, A. Zhu, and M. Li. (2021). Release characteristics and mechanisms of sediment phosphorus in contaminated and uncontaminated rivers: A case study in South China. Environmental Pollution, Volume 268, Part A. Available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2020.115749. 11  University of Massachusetts Dartmouth School for Marine Science and Technology and Cape Cod Commission. (2009). Brewster Freshwater Ponds: Water Quality Status and Recommendations for Future Actions. Available at https://www.mass.gov/doc/brewster-freshwater-ponds-water-quality-status-and-recommendations-for-future-activities/download. Trophic status alone does not necessarily indicate water quality, but the eutrophic or hypereutrophic status of a pond due to cultural eutrophication may indicate that a pond’s water quality is degraded. Slight increases in nutrients can increase production, supporting more and bigger fish which may be desirable; however, excessive eutrophication can be problematic. Sources of excess nutrients on Cape Cod often are a product of land use in the watershed. These sources include stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces (e.g., roads, parking lots) and fertilized lawns that lack buffers of filtering vegetation, as well as contributions from septic systems to and through the aquifer. In particular, the contribution of phosphorus to ponds from these sources will cause nutrient loading and the subsequent impacts mentioned. In addition to external sources, phosphorus may already be present within the pond’s sediment. Pond sediment is largely a product of pond formation during glacial activities, but sediment is also contributed from the surrounding land surface through runoff, and in certain ponds from stream inputs. Sediments can act as a phosphorus sink, forming chemical complexes with phosphorus that are generally inaccessible for primary production. Storage in sediment however is not permanent. As water quality changes from the combined effects of nutrient loading and climate change, geochemical conditions within the pond water and sediments may allow historic phosphorus to unbind from the sediment and remobilize in the water for use.10 While pond ecosystems on Cape Cod are similar to those in other parts of the country, there are characteristics within Cape pond ecosystems that are somewhat unique. These conditions include naturally low pH (acidic) water and a water table fluctuation zone along the pond shores due to kettle pond formation and relationship with groundwater.11 While ponds on Cape 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 24 iNTRODuCTiON Cod may be unique when compared to ponds across the state or New England, Cape ponds will also differ from one to another. Understanding individual pond characteristics (i.e., understanding the pond ecosystem) is a fundamental part of determining appropriate management strategies. VALUE AND PROTECTION OF PONDS Cape Cod ponds have been called ecological, aesthetic, and recreational treasures.12 Most individuals appreciate ponds they can see and experience as serene environments and places to recreate. Pond value extends below the water’s surface and beyond the pond’s shoreline as they provide extensive ecosystem services. These contributions to the greater regional environment and community’s well-being provide motivation for their protection and restoration. 12  National Park Service. (2018). Lakes and Ponds, Cape cod National Seashore, Massachusetts. Available at https://www.nps.gov/caco/learn/nature/lakes-and-ponds.htm. 13  Coastal Pine Barrens Endangered Species. Available at https://pinebarrensendangeredspecies.org/. The Nature Conservancy (2009). The Pine Barrens of Southeast Massachusetts. Available at https://www.mass.gov/doc/nature-conservancy-pine-barrens-of-se-mass-brochure/download. ECOLOGICAL The Cape’s ponds, pond shores, and other freshwater wetland resource areas support many of the plant and wildlife species that make the Cape environmentally rich, unique, and treasured. Pond waters and shores support a diverse native biota of microscopic life, aquatic and riparian plants and invertebrates, filter feeders, freshwater fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and birds including migrating and wintering waterfowl. All these species depend on naturally functioning pond ecosystems and clean pond water for their subsistence. In addition, pond and pond shorelines play a vital role in regulating the environment by absorbing and filtering storm and flood waters, providing natural removal of nutrients, recharging the aquifer, storing carbon in sediments and vegetation, and moderating the climate of surrounding areas. From their connection to coastal and marine waters, freshwater ponds play a significantly beneficial role in coastal watershed nutrient budgets. The Cape’s ponds are part of the Atlantic Coastal Pine Barrens ecoregion (Figure 6). Pine Barrens are globally rare and are comprised of unique assemblages of plants and animals that thrive on the nutrient-poor soils and variable climate found on Cape Cod. Within the Pine Barrens ecoregion, there are many habitat types, including freshwater ponds and lakes, shrub and forested swamps, pitch pine-oak woodlands, transitional hardwood-pine forests, vernal pools, streams and rivers, estuaries, salt marshes, dunes, beaches, grasslands, and others. This rich mosaic of interconnected habitat types supports numerous state-listed rare plant and animal species as well as common species that depend on these areas year-round or seasonally when migrating or for breeding.13 Healthy, naturally vegetated shorelines, also referred to as riparian zones, provide important habitats as well as assist in the management of pollutants, trapping or arresting nutrients and sediment before they can flow into ponds and impair them. Most terrestrial and aquatic species use 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 25 iNTRODuCTiON Figure 6. Ecoregions are areas where ecosystems are generally similar. Cape Cod, the Islands, and portions of the southeastern Massachusetts mainland are in the Atlantic Coastal Pine Barrens Ecoregion. Photo source: Massachusetts Coastal Pine Barrens Partnership. Available at: https:// pinebarrenspartnership. org/. COASTAL PLAIN PONDSHORE COMMUNITIES PROVIDE HABITAT 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 26 iNTRODuCTiON riparian zones at some point of their life, be it for breeding, feeding, migrating, or shelter. Vegetated buffers preserved from development help to prevent erosion, stabilize shorelines, and temper stormwaters. When vegetation is removed from the pond shore and its watershed, the pond water becomes susceptible to sedimentation, pollution, increased water fluctuations, and habitat and species loss. A healthy, diverse native plant community in and around a pond indicates a healthy pond providing valuable habitat. Many of the Cape’s kettle ponds are part of a unique, ecologically distinct, and globally rare Priority Natural Community, the Coastal Plain Pondshore Community. The Massachusetts Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program (NHESP) identifies Natural Communities as groups 14  Sorrie, Bruce A. (1994). Coastal plain ponds in New England. Biological Conservation. Volume 68, Issue 3. Available at https:// www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0006320794904103. Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife. (2016). Coastal Plain Pondshore Community, Classification of Natural Communities of Massachusetts. Available at https://www.mass.gov/files/ documents/2016/08/wi/coastal-plain-pondshore-community-fs.pdf 15  MassGIS (2016). MassGIS Data: NHESP Natural Communities. Available at https://www.mass.gov/info-details/massgis-da- ta-nhesp-natural-communities. MassWildlife NHESP staff (2021), personal communication. of plants and associated animals classified and described by their dominant biological and physical features. The Coastal Plain Pondshore Community is characterized by a distinct plant community associated with shallow, acidic, low nutrient kettle ponds, with gentle slopes and no inlet or outlet.14 Water in these ponds rises and falls with changes in the groundwater table, typically leaving an exposed shoreline in late summer. Annual and inter-annual water level fluctuations maintain this community. In ponds where the water level has been low for a period of years, scrub pine and scrub oak trees will invade the area of historic fluctuations, but when the water level rises again, inundation kills the invaders and specialized Coastal Plain Pondshore Community species reappear. While NHESP has documented the best examples of these communities on Cape Cod, not all have been recorded.15 Coastal Plain Pondshore Communities provide habitat for many state-listed rare animal and plant species. For example, the globally rare Plymouth gentian is a plant that lives within the area of the fluctuating water levels.16 Named for its native range in coastal Massachusetts, it grows along coastal plain pond shores on Cape Cod as well as several other disjunct locations up and down the east coast.17 16  Andres, K. (2020). Ecologically Unique and Globally Rare Habitat— The Cape’s Coastal Plain Ponds. The Cape Cod Chronicle. Available at https://capecodwaters.org/wp-content/up- loads/2021/02/Coastal-Plain-Ponds.pdf. 17  MassWildlife. (2020). Species Spotlight: Plym- outh gentian. Available at https://www.mass.gov/ news/species-spotlight-plymouth-gentian. 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 27 iNTRODuCTiON RECREATION In addition to their ecological value, Cape Cod ponds are hotspots for recreation, and a freshwater alternative to the Cape’s popular saltwater beaches. The sandy freshwater ponds are integral to the character of Cape Cod, appealing to both residents and visitors. In warmer months, ponds support swimming, sun-bathing, picnicking, hiking, fishing, and boating. Motorized watercraft such as motorboats and jet skis for fishing, waterskiing, wakeboarding, and tubing are allowed on some ponds. Only non-motorized watercraft such as canoes, kayaks, stand-up 18  Filazzola, A, K. Blagrave, M. Ashrad Imrit, and S. Sharma. (2020). Climate Change Drives Increases in Extreme Events for Lake Ice in the Northern Hemisphere. Geophysical Research Letters 47(18). Available at https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL089608. 19  Cape Cod fisheries resources information, including table, provided by Steve Hurley, MassWildlife (2021) paddleboards, and sailboats are allowed on other ponds. To promote recreational use of freshwater ponds and meet user demands, the provision of seasonal storage racks for unmotorized watercraft has become more common at pond access points. Ponds are also relied upon to host numerous private, and town sponsored recreational activities, including summer camps, as well as swimming and sailing lessons. In winter, the Cape’s ponds may support ice fishing, ice skating, snow shoeing, and cross- country skiing. However, with warming air and water temperatures, the formation and duration of winter ice and snow cover is in decline and these activities may no longer be safe or possible.18 Pond use can be limited by the availability of town-owned public access amenities including public parking, landings, and boat ramps. Most towns with public ponds charge for parking during the summer season. More remote ponds may only be accessible by foot or bike trails. Private ponds may only be accessible to the pond’s surrounding property owners. FISHERIES Cape Cod pond fishery resources have been one of their most well documented and long-term uses. The limited fish fauna on Cape Cod includes over 30 species of native, introduced, and diadromous fishes (Table 1).19 Fish runs of river herring are an important resource. Indigenous Wampanoags continue to exercise their aboriginal rights to harvest fish and teach the next generation about traditional ways.Cape Cod ponds are hotspots for recreation, and a freshwater alternative to saltwater beaches. 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 28 iNTRODuCTiON Table 1. Fish that occur in Cape Cod ponds or occurred historically. Not all fish occur in all ponds; more common and widespread fish are highlighted in bold. Fish that occurred in Cape Cod ponds historically are italicized. Table adapted from a list of freshwater fish of Cape Cod ponds provided by Steve Hurley, Southeast District Fisheries Manager, MassWildlife (2021). FISH FAMILY COMMON NAME NOTES Freshwater eels American eel Catadromous Herrings Blueback Herring Anadromous Alewife Anadromous Trouts Rainbow Trout Stocked Brown Trout Stocked Brook Trout Stocked Tiger Trout Stocked Coho Salmon Stocked Kokanee Salmon Stocked Atlantic Salmon Introduced Smelts Rainbow Smelt Anadromous and Stocked Pikes Northern Pike Stocked (Wequaquet Lake) Chain Pickerel Native Carps and Minnows Golden Shiner Native Bridle Shiner Native Koi Introduced (Johns Pond) Goldfish Introduced Common Carp Introduced FISH FAMILY COMMON NAME NOTES Suckers White Sucker Native Bullhead Catfishes White Catfish Introduced (Mashpee-Wakeby) Yellow Bullhead Introduced (Coonamessett) Brown Bullhead Native Killifish Banded Killifish Native Mummichog Coastal Ponds Temperate Basses White Perch Anadromous (Coastal Ponds) Striped Bass Anadromous (Coastal Ponds) Sunfishes Banded Sunfish Native Green sunfish Introduced Pumpkinseed Native Bluegill Introduced Smallmouth Bass Introduced Largemouth Bass Introduced Black Crappie Introduced Perches Tesselated Darter Native Yellow Perch Native Walleye Stocked 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 29 iNTRODuCTiON Building of grist mills during the colonial period, while limited on Cape Cod compared to the rest of Massachusetts, led to an increase in formation of small ponds and decline in herring runs and brook trout on Cape Cod. Examples on Cape Cod include the Stony Brook grist mill in Brewster and Dexter grist mill in Sandwich – herring runs at both have since been restored. Town control of herring runs led to the sale of fishing rights in particular streams. This led to the building of herring ditches in the 1700s and 1800s, connecting to headwater ponds to increase herring runs and returns on private parties’ investments for the rights to a specific run. These ditches were often later expanded to provide flood water for downstream cranberry bogs. In the late 1700s and early 1800s, Cape Cod rivers attracted the attention of the first sport anglers fishing for native sea run brook trout, locally known as salters. The 1850s introduction of black bass (smallmouth and 20  Gould R. (1985) Strategies for Reducing Acid Rain. Going-Sour: 81-85. Available at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-6683-4_6. Helfrich, L.A., R.J. Neves, and J. Parkhurst. (2009). Liming Acidified Lakes and Ponds. VCE Publications 420(420-254). Available at https://ext.vt.edu/content/pubs_ext_vt_edu/en/420/420-254/420-254.html. 21  WBUR. (2017). Cape Cod’s kettle ponds are showing signs of climate change. Available at https://www.wbur.org/news/2017/08/02/cape-cod-kettle-ponds. Fox, Sophia E. (2021). Pond resource management: Applying science to understand pond condition, ecology, and responses to atmospheric changes and human uses. Presentation at OneCape Summit 2021. Available at https://onecape. capecodcommission.org/2021-freshwater/. 22  Bureau of Environmental Health. Eating fish safely in Massachusetts. Available at https://www.mass.gov/info-details/eating-fish-safely-in-massachusetts. largemouth) to Massachusetts started the change in Cape Cod’s pond fish fauna. Establishment of state and federal fisheries agencies led to a long period of fish introductions and fisheries management in Cape Cod ponds. Several species were introduced in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, including Chinook salmon and rainbow trout from the Pacific coast, Atlantic salmon from Maine, and brown trout from Europe. Native brook trout and white perch were also introduced during this time to enhance their numbers and range. Starting in 1950, a natural fish poison called rotenone was introduced into many Cape Cod ponds to remove existing fish populations and restock with more desirable recreational species (primarily trout fingerlings). Toxaphene, an insecticide, was briefly used for the same purpose in the 1960s. Data collected during these fish removal and restocking efforts indicated the low fertility of Cape Cod ponds (about 50-100 pounds of fish per acre) and the relatively low proportion (about 5-10 percent) of game fish in a pond’s fish population. Concerns about acid rain and its impacts on fish populations led to the addition of ground limestone in many stocked trout ponds in the 1980s. Liming neutralizes acid waters and can be an effective stopgap measure to maintain fish on a small scale in otherwise acidic lakes and ponds; however, liming has the potential to cause harm to other aquatic organisms, limiting its appropriateness and effectiveness.20 The passage of clean air legislation has led to a notable reduction in acid rain impacts to Cape Cod ponds and reduced the need for liming.21 Massachusetts was colonized and industrialized well before adverse health effects of consuming fish contaminated with harmful industrial chemicals was recognized. Mercury and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are the primary chemicals of concern.22 Mercury is a naturally 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 30 iNTRODuCTiON occurring metal found in the environment. However, mercury is also released by coal burning power plants. Once released into the air, it can travel long distances and be deposited on soil and in water bodies. PCBs are man-made chemicals that were banned in the 1970s. However, due to their widespread use, PCBs can still be found in our environment and get into our food. Historically, mercury has been the most common contaminant of concern in fish in Cape Cod ponds, however more recent advisories have been issued due to the presence of a group of man-made chemicals (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances [PFAS]) in fish.23 Native and stocked fish may uptake contaminants that are then stored (bioaccumulation) and concentrated (bioconcentration) in their tissues. Stocked fish are generally considered safe to eat because they are stocked and fished regularly; however, any freshwater fish may be contaminated, and anglers should check 23  Department of Public Health Press Release. 11/02/2021. Department of Public Health issues fish consumption advisories for five Cape Cod waterbodies. Available at https://www.mass.gov/news/ department-of-public-health-issues-fish-consumption-advisories-for-five-cape-cod-waterbodies. 24  Bureau of Environmental Health. Fish consumption advisories. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Available at https://www.mass.gov/lists/fish-consumption-advisories. 25  MassWildlife. (2021). Trout Stocking Program. Available at https://www.mass.gov/masswildlife-trout-stocking-program. fish consumption advisories posted by the Bureau of Environmental Health prior to consuming fish caught in Cape Cod ponds.24 Unsafe fish consumption advisories can serve as an indicator of poor water quality. In many ponds, fish species may be a food source for residents, highlighting the necessity for pond fisheries monitoring and management. Fishes in ponds should be tested for contaminants and found “clean” before consumption is encouraged. Angling is a common pond use, with anglers targeting both native and introduced fish species (Table 2). MassWildlife stocks select Cape Cod ponds with catchable sized trout on an annual basis from March to May with a smaller number of ponds also stocked in the fall (from late September to early October). This seasonal stocking is a put-and- take management practice – large fish are released when water conditions can support them, and most are harvested before conditions (hot summer temperatures) become unacceptable. Stocking is controlled to maintain historic recreational fishing opportunities and as part of overall lake management in the Commonwealth. Regular stocking of deep ponds sustains trout fisheries. Ponds with increased nutrients generally favor bass fishing. Recent fisheries management on Cape Cod by MassWildlife is focused on trout stocking primarily from the Sandwich State Fish Hatchery, trout pond temperature and dissolved oxygen profiles, periodic pond fish surveys, permitting of bass tournaments on ponds with Office of Fishing and Boating access ramps, fish kill investigations, technical assistance, and improvement in pond bathymetry maps. MassWildlife also manages fishing licenses and provides fishing resources including fish stocking reports.25 Massachusetts DMF deals with marine fishes and focuses on the protection of migratory routes of diadromous fish species, such as river herring, through restoration, improvement, or maintenance of fish runs. River herring connect the freshwater and 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 31 iNTRODuCTiON 26  Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries. (2017). A Guide to Viewing River Herring in Coastal Massachusetts. Available at https://www.mass.gov/files/2017-07/river-herring-viewing-guide.pdf. 27  Wagner, K.J. (2004). The Practical Guide to Lake Management in Massachusetts. Department of Environmental Protection and Department of Conservation and Recreation. Available at https://www.mass.gov/doc/the-practical-guide-to-lake-manage- ment-in-massachusetts/download. 28  Jesse, E.V. and R.T. Rogers. (2006). The Cranberry Industry and Ocean Spray Cooperative: Lessons in Cooperative Governance. Food System Research Group Monograph Series 19. Available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237672003_The_Cran- berry_Industry_and_Ocean_Spray_Cooperative_Lessons_in_Cooperative_Governance. coastal food webs and serve as an important indicator to the health of the waterways.26 Diadromous fish return to the same freshwater source each year, however, if water quality is poor and habitat availability is lacking or the waterbodies are not well connected, less or no fish return. Therefore, DMF also counts fish passage for annual population assessments, often with the help of local herring wardens and volunteers. Restoration work and improvement to water quality are important to ensure healthy populations of river herring and other diadromous fish species. COMMERCIAL CRANBERRY FARMING Ponds are also associated with production of cranberries across the Cape landscape.27 Cranberry growers frequently use nearby pond waters for irrigation and for wet harvesting. Many apply fertilizers and pesticides to their crops, which can later mix with the irrigation or harvest water. Therefore, water discharged from bogs can potentially carry excess nutrients and other contaminants into ponds. The impact of cranberry production to surrounding ponds and downstream watersheds is uncertain, but impacts are likely linked to fall wet harvesting and to periodic flushing of the bogs. While biological processes in ponds may remove and sequester added nutrients from bogs without major impact, discharge of nutrients like phosphorus in large volumes can have a negative impact to pond health. Cranberry harvests across Cape Cod faced market disequilibrium in the late 1990s, leaving many cranberry growers with no choice but to stop farming and harvesting their bogs.28 Cranberry cultivation on Cape Cod has become less profitable because of factors including, but not limited to, oversupply, low cranberry prices, and less efficient bogs as compared to those in the Upper Midwest and Canada; consequently, Town Trout Stocked Waters Barnstable Hamblin Pond, Hathaway Pond, Lovells Pond, Shubael Pond Brewster Cliff Pond, Flax Pond, Higgins Pond, Little Cliff Pond, Sheep Pond Chatham Goose Pond, Schoolhouse Pond Dennis Scargo Lake Eastham Herring Pond Falmouth Ashumet Pond, Deep Pond, Grews Pond, Mares Pond Mashpee Ashumet Pond, Johns Pond, Mashpee/Wakeby Ponds Orleans Baker Pond, Crystal Lake Sandwich Peters Pond, Pimlico Pond, Scorton Creek, Spectacle Pond Truro Great Pond Wellfleet Gull Pond Yarmouth Long Pond Table 2. Cape Cod Trout Stocked Waters 2021. All listed waters are stocked in spring. Bold waters are stocked in spring and fall. Daily stocking updates can be viewed at Mass.gov/Trout. 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 32 iNTRODuCTiON cranberry growers are looking for possible exit strategies.29 Some bogs have the potential to be returned to a more natural state. In 2018, in response to the state of the cranberry industry and the potential for the ecological restoration of retired cranberry farms, the Massachusetts Division of Ecological Restoration (DER) created a new program focused solely on wetland restoration in retired cranberry farms in southeastern Massachusetts, including Cape Cod.30 The program focuses on options to restore cranberry bogs to natural wetland habitats to improve water quality throughout the region, help mitigate flooding, and benefit cranberry growers.31 Bog conversions to more functional natural wetlands will benefit water quality throughout the watershed, including ponds, as water flows through the old cranberry bogs and into other water bodies. 29  Hoekstra, B.R., C. Neill, and C.D. Kennedy. (2019) Trends in the Massachusetts cranberry industry create opportunities for the restoration of cultivated riparian wetlands. Restoration Ecology 28(1):185-195. Available at https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13037. 30  Division of Ecological Restoration. DER’s New Cranberry Bog Program. Available at https://www.mass.gov/news/ders-new-cranberry-bog-program. 31  Houghton, S. (2020) Returning Cranberry Bogs to Nature: The Green Exit Strategy. CAI News. Available at https://www.capeandislands.org/in-this-place/2020-11-25/returning-cranber- ry-bogs-to-nature-the-green-exit-strategy. Moran, B. (2019). The State Wants to Turn Cranberry Bogs into Wetlands, It’s Gritty Work. WBUR News. Available at https://www.wbur.org/news/2019/11/26/ transforming-cranberry-farmers-wetlands-cape-cod. Massachusetts Division of Ecological Restoration. Cranberry Bog Program. Available at https://www.mass.gov/cranberry-bog-program. 32  United States Environmental Protection Agency. Summary of the Clean Water Act. Available at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act. 33  Cape Cod Commission. (2015). 208 Plan, Cape Cod Area Wide Water Quality Management Plan Update. Available at https://www.capecodcommission.org/our-work/208/. REGULATIONS Federal, state, and local laws protect the Cape’s ponds through regulating water quality and activities in ponds and their watersheds. The most significant of these are described below. Clean Water Act The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into waters of the United States and regulating quality standards for surface waters.32 The EPA provides for water quality management planning programs in accordance with Sections 208 and 303(e) of the CWA. In 1978, the Cape Cod Planning and Economic Development Commission (the predecessor to today’s Commission), completed a Water Quality Management Plan for the region. In 2015, the Commission completed an update to the 1978 Plan, the Section 208 Area Wide Water Quality Management Plan (208 Plan Update), to address the degradation of Cape Cod’s water resources from excessive nutrients.33 The 208 Plan Update recognizes ponds as an important component in the region’s water quality management planning. The CWA requires states to submit reports on the status of their water bodies every 2 years. These reports are called Integrated Lists of Waters (Integrated Reports). After a public comment period, MassDEP submits these reports to EPA in fulfillment of CWA’s reporting requirements. MassDEP uses these reports to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL). A TMDL is the calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant allowed to enter a waterbody so that the waterbody will meet and continue to meet water quality standards for that pollutant. The MassDEP established Surface Water Quality Standards (314 CMR 4.00), that are the basis for listed freshwaters under CWA Section 303(d) Integrated List of Waters, for impaired 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 33 iNTRODuCTiON waters.34 Under CWA 303(d), 40 CFR 130.7, states are required to evaluate all available water quality-related data to develop lists of waters that do not meet water quality standards. Each assessed waterbody is listed in one of five categories with Category 5 meaning the waterbody is impaired or threatened by pollutant(s) for one or more designated uses and requires a TMDL. Impairments identified for the water bodies are categories defined and established by MassDEP. Water bodies remain in Category 5 until a TMDL is developed for all pollutants causing impairment. Great Ponds A Great Pond is any pond or lake having a surface water area of 10 acres or more in its natural (historic) state. Ponds that once measured 10 or more acres in their natural state, that are now smaller, are still considered Great Ponds. One of the most important laws governing the 34 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 314 CMR 4.00: The Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards. 35  Massachusetts Court System Library. Colonial Ordinances of 1641-1647. Available at https://www.mass.gov/doc/colonial-ordinances-of-1641-1647. 36  Massachusetts General Law Part 1 Title XIV Chapter 91 Section18A: Public access to greats ponds; petition. 37  Massachusetts General Law Part 1 Title XIX Chapter 131 Section 1: Definitions; rules of construction. Massachusetts General Law Part 1 Title XIX Section 45: Great ponds; public use; rules and regulations. 38  Massachusetts Great Ponds List. Available at https://www.mass.gov/doc/massachusetts-great-ponds-list/download 39  Massachusetts General Law Chapter 91: The Massachusetts Public Waterfront Act. 40  Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. Waterways Program (Chapter 91). Available at https://www.mass.gov/waterways-program-chapter-91. management of Cape Cod’s Great Ponds was their recognition as a public resource by the Colonial Ordinances of 1641-1647.35 According to the Colonial Ordinances, private rights of land ownership extend to the low water mark of Great Ponds in the Commonwealth. The title to land below the low water mark is held by the Commonwealth in trust for the public. The Colonial Ordinances and subsequent legislation protect the public’s rights to fish, fowl, and navigate on Great Ponds. Public access to Great Ponds is not guaranteed however, and where there is none, citizens may petition for such access.36 Great Ponds over 20 acres are public for the purpose of hunting or boating and open to all inhabitants of the Commonwealth for fishing.37 Great Pond designation is important for establishing and protecting public rights. MassDEP maintains a list of ponds designated Great Ponds in the Commonwealth.38 MassDEP presumes that any pond presently larger than ten acres is a Great Pond, unless presented with topographic, historic, or other information demonstrating that the original size of the pond was less than ten acres, prior to any alteration by damming or other human activity. MassDEP lists 132 Great Ponds on Cape Cod, whereas the 2003 Atlas and more recent analysis by the Commission indicate there are over 160 ponds that were designated historically or may qualify as Great Ponds. Chapter 91 Adopted in 1866, Massachusetts General Law Chapter 91 protects the public’s interest in waterways of the Commonwealth.39 MassDEP administers the regulatory provisions of Chapter 91.40 The program issues licenses for projects in waterways and ensures that projects meet public-access requirements. It ensures public rights to fish, fowl and 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 34 iNTRODuCTiON navigate are not unreasonably restricted and that unsafe or hazardous structures are repaired or removed. Chapter 91 also protects a waterfront property owner’s ability to approach their land from the water. Chapter 91 authorization through MassDEP is required for all activities in, on, over, or under the entire area of any Great Pond. Wetlands Protection Act Massachusetts adopted the nation’s first wetlands protection laws in the early 1960s. The Massachusetts WPA, through its implementing regulations (310 CMR 10.00), protects all Commonwealth wetlands, including ponds, lakes, and any land under those waters, as well as other wetland resource areas that may be associated with ponds including bordering vegetated wetlands, beaches, floodplains, rivers, and fish runs.41 The WPA protects wetlands and the public interests they serve, including flood control, prevention of pollution and storm damage, and protection of public and private water supplies, groundwater 41  Massachusetts General Law Part 1 Title XIX Chapter 131 Section 40: Removal, fill, dredging or altering of land bordering waters. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 310 CMR 10.00: Wetlands Protection Act Regulations. 42  Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program. Rare species and the Wetlands Protection Act (WPA). Available at https://www.mass.gov/service-details/rare-species-and-the-wetlands-protec- tion-act-wpa. supply, fisheries, land containing shellfish, and wildlife habitat. These public interests are protected by requiring a careful review of proposed work that may alter wetlands. Alterations include impacts from development, as well as pond restoration and management projects. At the local level, a community’s Conservation Commission administers the WPA, and, at the state level, MassDEP oversees administration of the law and hears appeals of decisions made by the local Conservation Commissions. NHESP also reviews proposed alterations to wetland habitats of rare wildlife protected under the WPA and creates maps of habitats of rare wildlife as a screening tool.42 Local communities may also adopt local wetlands protection bylaws and regulations that provide extra protections to wetland resources within their borders. As public resources, substantial activities on, in, or near ponds, including adopting local bylaws and developing pond or watershed management plans, generally require some sort of public notice and discussion between a government agency, like a local Conservation Commission or MassDEP, and stakeholders. This need for public participation in the review of changes to pond characteristics or uses generally ensures that decisions regarding ponds are subject to public discussion. MANAGEMENT Where there is an interest or need to develop a pond management plan, who develops such a plan will depend on who is responsible for the management of that pond. Municipalities are generally responsible for the management of larger, town-owned ponds and public accesses. Small ponds may be privately owned with restricted access. If there is no public access or town control of a smaller pond, pond front landowners may be responsible for managing the pond. However, collaboration between a town and landowners to develop a pond management plan, even for smaller, private ponds, may be beneficial. 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 35 iNTRODuCTiON Development of cooperative pond management plans by multiple towns in a watershed is also desirable. Groundwater flows through both private and public ponds, meaning that each pond is impacted by upstream activities and contributes to downstream water quality within its watershed. Groundwater connections necessitate proper and coordinated management of all ponds within a watershed. Public and private entities may join interests to ensure healthier ponds and better water quality throughout the region. Partnerships may also benefit private pond owners because many state funding opportunities are only available for publicly owned resources or to municipal agencies. 43  MassDEP. Grants & Financial Assistance: Watersheds & Water Quality. Available at https://www.mass.gov/info-details/grants-financial-assistance-watersheds-water-quality#604b-grant-pro- gram:-water-quality-management-planning-. 44  Department of Environmental Protection, Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Notice of Upcoming Grant Opportunity. Available at https://www.mass.gov/doc/notice-of-availability-request-for-re- sponses-ffy-2022-s-319-nonpoint-source-pollution-grant-program-fall-grant-round/download. 45  Department of Environmental Protection, Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Notice of Upcoming Grant Opportunity. Available at https://www.mass.gov/doc/notice-of-availability-request-for-re- sponses-ffy-2022-s-319-nonpoint-source-pollution-grant-program-fall-grant-round/download. 46  Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. (2021). Request For Response Federal Fiscal Year 2021 Section 604(b) Water Quality Management Planning Grant Program. Available at https://www.mass.gov/doc/ffy2021-request-for-responses-s604b-water-quality-management-planning-0/download. 47  United States Environmental Protection Agency. Southeast New England Program. Available at https://www.epa.gov/snep. Grants & Financial Assistance: Watersheds & Water Quality. Massachu- setts Department of Environmental Protection. Available at https://www.mass.gov/info-details/grants-financial-assistance-watersheds-water-quality. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Massachusetts Environmental Trust (MET). Available at https://www.mass.gov/orgs/massachusetts-environmental-trust. Cape Cod Five Cents Savings Pond. Community Support Applications. Available at https:// www.capecodfive.com/community-support-applications. The Cape Cod Foundation. Available at https://www.capecodfoundation.org/. SUPPORT To implement pond assessment and restoration management projects that improve water quality the state offers two main grant programs. The Section 319 Nonpoint Source Pollution Competitive Grants Program, administered by MassDEP, and authorized under Section 319 of the CWA, is available to any Massachusetts public or private organization.43 Most of the annual 319 program funds are distributed to applicants proposing “a watershed- based strategy to implement a combination of structural and non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) addressing all impairments and leading to restoration of impaired waters.”44 The 604(b) grant program for Water Quality Management Planning, also administered by MassDEP and authorized by the CWA Section 604(b), is available to regional planning agencies, councils of governments, counties, conservation districts, and cities and towns.45 Fiscal year 2021 604(b) grant round focused on development of Watershed-based Plans (WBPs) for local watershed planning and providing support to implement future 319 projects.46 Other potential sources of funding for pond monitoring, assessment, protection, and/ or remediation include the EPA’s Southeast New England Program (SNEP), MassDEP’s Water Quality Monitoring Grant Program, the Massachusetts Environmental Trust, and local financial institutions, foundations, and trusts such as the Cape Cod Five Cents Savings Bank, Cooperative Bank of Cape Cod, and the Cape Cod Foundation.47 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 36 iNTRODuCTiON IMPLEMENTATION The value of ponds goes beyond the pond perimeter, extending into the watershed and region. State and regional agencies, towns, citizen pond groups, and homeowners all have parts to play in pond management. Solutions that have been proposed and implemented to address pond water quality have historically been in-pond solutions, but as the 208 Plan Update recognizes, ponds are part of larger watershed and water quality concerns across the Cape. The Cape’s unique landscape and aquifer system lends itself to solutions that address both wastewater management and pond water quality management. Stakeholders must be engaged in developing solutions, which may include an array of strategies at a variety of scales. PROGRESS SINCE THE 2003 ATLAS The 2003 Atlas generated nine recommendations to reinforce and encourage the nascent network of PALS on Cape Cod. Generally, future steps identified were to continue annual pond monitoring, add more ponds into the pond monitoring program, provide adequate funding and technical assistance to oversee pond monitoring activities, and consider pond water quality in town comprehensive wastewater assessments. In general, and as will be discussed in more detail in subsequent sections, recommendations have been fulfilled as many pond groups and towns continue to monitor pond water quality annually and freshwater ponds have been considered in local and regional water management programs (see Pond Water Quality section). However, funding for pond monitoring and technical assistance is still lacking. RECOMMENDED FUTURE STEPS IDENTIFIED IN THE 2003 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 1. Continue the PALS Snapshots of pond water quality 2. Recruit volunteer coordinators, volunteers, and other PALS in each town 3. Encourage towns to acquire necessary sampling equipment 4. Encourage towns to initiate summer pond sampling programs 5. Provide sufficient personnel to retain volunteer monitors develop monitoring locations, provide regular feedback to volunteers to ensure protocols are followed during sampling season 6. Provide qualified personnel to review and analyze sampling data 7. Provide adequate funding to have annual or semi-annual PALS gatherings for outreach, education, and technical transfer 8. Provide adequate long- term funding to remediate impairments 9. Ensure that pond water quality is thoroughly considered in town comprehensive wastewater assessments 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 37 iNTRODuCTiON In 2020, with the assistance of an AmeriCorps Cape Cod Service Member, the Commission started to compile information from the 30+ pond groups active on Cape Cod through internet searches, phone interviews, and an online survey. The purpose of the survey was to collect information about ponds that are monitored, data collected at ponds, and identified needs. The survey was sent to 20 pond monitoring groups and 12 responses were received from groups in the towns of Barnstable, Brewster, Falmouth, and Wellfleet. Of the over 100 ponds monitored by 30 known groups, over 70 are monitored by the 12 groups that responded to the survey. Most pond monitoring programs collect similar data using similar protocols for similar reasons; however, there are inconsistencies in parameters being measured and measurement methods. Survey results of parameters measured by pond monitoring groups illustrate these inconsistences (Figure 7). Attempting to compare data among ponds may prove challenging, underscoring the need for standardized methodologies, information-sharing, and coordination among pond monitoring programs. Survey results indicate that these mostly volunteer-run programs continue to struggle with lack of funding, equipment, and volunteers, as well as lack of access to technical assistance (Figure 8). Limitations in sampling due to pandemic restrictions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic were also mentioned. Most programs depend on member dues and private donations of money, time, and supplies to support their efforts. Grants and town sponsorships also help maintain these programs. As public concern for pond water quality rises with increased awareness and desire to mitigate worsening conditions and extensive summer algal blooms, the demand for resources by monitoring groups is expected to increase. Preservation and enhancement of pond resources is becoming a higher priority Figure 7. Water Quality parameters monitored by groups who responded to the 2020 Pond Monitoring Survey. Survey respondents included cyanobacteria, water clarity, alkalinity, total Phosphorus, total Nitrogen, chlorophyll a, and plant coverage as write-ins for the category of “Other.” 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 38 iNTRODuCTiON across Cape Cod. Current and reliable data are essential to inform effective solutions and decisions. As the Commission compiles available pond data, it is apparent that differences in pond monitoring programs make it challenging to compare information and trends among ponds and regionally. This highlights the need for a science-based, expanded, consistent, and sustainable Cape Cod pond monitoring program to help inform pond management decisions moving forward. Figure 8. Needs identified by pond monitoring groups who responded to the 2020 Pond Monitoring Survey. 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 39 POND MONiTORiNg ON CAPE COD WHY MONITOR PONDS In its most basic sense, monitoring is conducted to quantify selected physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of ponds. Monitoring can generate data and determine whether pond conditions are suitable for specific uses (e.g., swimming or fish consumption), assess current pond health, and to infer whether and how pond health is changing over time. Various monitoring programs have actively collected data from Cape Cod’s ponds since publication of the 2003 Atlas, with different objectives, methodologies, and information. These data have been used to prepare assessment reports that evaluate the health of Massachusetts’ surface waters and provide specific recommendations for solutions in accordance with the federal CWA. Data gathered helps inform water quality management, restoration or pond improvement projects, and to establish TMDLs. Historical surface water monitoring is important as it established baselines to evaluate pond water quality and ecosystem health. Monitoring also provided quantitative evidence to accompany anecdotal observations relating to water quality degradation. Historical monitoring generally focused on standard chemical and physical water quality parameters (e.g., nitrogen and phosphorus, water clarity, water temperature, pH, alkalinity, specific conductivity, chlorophyll a, and dissolved oxygen), and has been traditionally conducted by the PALS program or similar local programs. Local pond monitoring, whether performed by volunteers or by town staff, has also been conducted in response to public concerns about pond health. Over time the focus of monitoring programs has shifted to track changes in water quality, measure effectiveness of restoration projects, and complement larger watershed management programs. Most recently, water quality monitoring has become proactive with pond monitoring programs measuring pond water quality parameters more regularly to generate real-time information Pond Monitoring on Cape Cod Several regional plans recognize the importance of Cape Cod’s pond resources and the need for comprehensive monitoring and reporting on their health. The direct connection between groundwater and surface water in most ponds on Cape Cod means that pond water quality measurements taken throughout the region and over time can provide insight about the general condition of the surrounding aquifer, in addition to the ponds themselves. 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 40 POND MONiTORiNg ON CAPE COD and facilitate preemptive responses to identified problems. The direct connection between groundwater and surface water in most ponds on Cape Cod means that pond water quality measurements taken throughout the region and over time can provide insight about the general condition of the surrounding aquifer, in addition to the ponds themselves. Since groundwater sampling is limited throughout the region, and ponds are relatively accessible indicators of water quality on Cape Cod, groundwater condition and presence of pollutants in the aquifer can be inferred through pond water quality testing. Water quality monitoring is also important from a public health standpoint. Pursuant to the Massachusetts Department of Public Health’s Minimum Standards for Bathing Beaches (105 CMR 445.000), freshwater ponds with public and semi-public bathing beaches must be monitored weekly during the bathing season for fecal bacteria to ensure that water remains safe for 48  Massachusetts Department of Public Health 105 CMR 445.00: State Sanitary code chapter VII: Minimum standards for bathing beaches. Available at https://www.mass.gov/regulations/105-CMR- 44500-state-sanitary-code-chapter-vii-minimum-standards-for-bathing-beaches. 49  Massachusetts Division of Watershed Management Planning Program. (2018) A Strategy for Monitoring and Assessing the Quality of Massachusetts Waters to Support Multiple Water Resource Management Objectives. Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Available at https://www.mass.gov/doc/water-quality-monitoring-strategy-2016-2025/download. swimming.48 Barnstable County’s Department of Health and Environment (BCDHE) has conducted monitoring at bathing beaches across the Cape for over 30 years. At freshwater beaches BCDHE staff test water for the presence of the fecal bacteria E. coli. E. coli is an indicator species, whose presence may serve as an indicator of other organisms, viruses, and conditions that have the potential to cause illness. These harmful organisms are present in stormwater runoff, as well as animal and human waste. More recently, pond monitoring has expanded to include sampling for cyanobacteria and surveillance for harmful algal blooms. Until recently, there was no concerted effort to coordinate all the various pond bacteria monitoring activities on Cape Cod. In 2021, the Association to Preserve Cape Cod (APCC) and BCDHE partnered to expand the County’s bacteria sampling to include cyanobacteria monitoring because of their potential to degrade water quality and produce toxins. The need for monitoring programs to adapt to new concerns and priorities over time is evidenced by the Commonwealth’s publication of a revised water quality monitoring strategy in 2018, entitled, A Strategy for Monitoring and Assessing the Quality of Massachusetts’ Waters to Support Multiple Water Resources Management Objectives (2016 - 2025).49 This report identifies the continuing need for credible scientific water quality monitoring data, but also highlights how shifting priorities in response to new and emerging water management issues and technologies necessitate periodic examination and adjustment of water monitoring programs to ensure they provide the most current and reliable data and information. Several regional plans recognize the importance of Cape Cod’s pond resources and the need for comprehensive monitoring and reporting on their health. As noted above, the 2003 Atlas listed several recommendations for pond monitoring and management. The 208 Plan Update 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 41 POND MONiTORiNg ON CAPE COD identified that “despite data gathered by citizen monitoring groups and assessments that document water quality impairment, the state has placed only a few freshwater ponds on the 303(d) list for impaired waters for nutrients under the CWA. Additional dialogue is needed between the towns, state, and county to evaluate the best use of information collected and how it should be incorporated into the Commonwealth’s clean water program.”50 The 2018 Cape Cod Regional Policy Plan (RPP) made recommendations to “compile available freshwater resources water quality data into a regional database,” and to “seek funding to update the Cape Cod Ponds and Lakes Atlas to reflect current water quality data collected by the Ponds and Lakes Stewardship Program.”51 In 2019, APCC published its first annual State of the Waters: Cape Cod report in which pond water quality was graded based on PALS data collected over the years. APCC’s State of the Waters: Cape Cod report is a web and map-based project that displays water quality status 50  Cape Cod Commission. (2015). Cape Cod Area Wide Water Quality Management Plan Update. Available at https://www.capecodcommission.org/resource-library/file/?url=/dept/commission/ team/208/208%20Final/Cape_Cod_Area_Wide_Water_Quality_Management_Plan_Update_June_15_2015.pdf. 51  Cape Cod Commission. (2018). Cape Cod Regional Policy Plan. Available at https://www.capecodcommission.org/resource-library/file/?url=/dept/commission/team/Website_Resources/RPP/2018_ Cape_Cod_Regional_Policy_Plan_for_web.pdf. 52  Association to Preserve Cape Cod. State of the Waters: Cape Cod 2021. Available at https://capecodwaters.org/. determined by collected data and existing analytical methods. The map shows color- coded pond grades to indicate water quality status as “unacceptable” (requires immediate restoration) or “acceptable” (requires ongoing protection).52 According to the State of the Waters report, only 15% of Cape Cod’s ponds had water quality data available for grading in 2019, using data from 2003 to 2017. APCC’s 2020 and 2021 updates to the State of the Waters report used more stringent criteria to grade ponds. To be included, ponds needed at least three years of data from 2015 or 2016 on, respectively. Only about 10% of the Cape’s ponds meet the new criteria. In each of the three years of reporting, more than one-third of graded ponds suffered from “unacceptable” water quality due to excess nutrients. The State of the Waters reports demonstrate the severe shortage in recent Cape-wide pond water quality monitoring data needed to inform pond management and protection measures. Continued collection of nutrient, bacteria, and algal bloom information at ponds will help: Inform where additional monitoring at higher spatial or temporal resolution is needed: Inform how changes within pond watersheds influence pond water quality: Develop policies, standards, and identify emerging issues; Develop, implement, and evaluate pollution control strategies; Track pond ecosystem recovery and overall pond restoration project impacts at sufficient scale to track progress and inform adaptive management; Identify what drivers lead to harmful algal blooms in Cape Cod ponds and whether early responses can be initiated before harmful algal bloom formation; and Inform town water withdrawals for public drinking water supplies. 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 42 POND MONiTORiNg ON CAPE COD How freshwater is used, managed, and treated affects all aspects of living and working on Cape Cod. Pond water quality, ecological health, and aesthetics play significant roles in the region’s “nature-based economy” – supporting commercial and recreational activities, property ownership, quality of life, and tourism. Monitoring ponds for baseline and trend assessments are important to include in town local comprehensive plans, open space and recreation plans, and water management plans. Careful thought should be given to how monitoring efforts can be modified, or developed and implemented, to best address specific management and restoration objectives. HISTORY OF POND MONITORING ON CAPE COD Freshwater ponds are important surface water resources that local, regional, and state management agencies should include as part of any comprehensive analysis of local 53  Cape Cod Times Staff. (Feb. 2, 1999). The latest round of testing at Cliff Pond found none of the deadly toxin from algae that killed two dogs and sickened two others. Cape Cod Times. *Since original access by Commission staff, updates to the Cape Cod Times archives made this article inaccessible. 54  These data are currently managed by UMass Dartmouth, SMAST, and are only available upon request. The CCC is compiling data which will soon be publicly available on a web interface. water quality or water management plan. This section provides an overview of local and regional efforts to assess and manage surface water resources, specifically ponds and lakes, on Cape Cod since the publication of the 2003 Atlas. Concern over algal growth was at a high in 1999 when news broke of two dogs dying after swimming in toxic algae-filled Cliff Pond in Nickerson State Park.53 This incident led to other conversations regarding threats impacting Cape Cod ponds, and the need for more information about the status of ponds. Concerned citizens united with county and town partners to launch the PALS pond water quality monitoring program in 2001. The PALS program initiated monitoring of water quality parameters in ponds across the Cape. With the 2001 PALS snapshot data, the Commission published a status report on Cape Cod ponds and the PALS program in 2003. Utilizing water quality data collected at 62 ponds in 2001, along with Secchi disk measurements of water clarity at additional ponds, the 2003 Atlas concluded that about half the Cape’s ponds were impaired. The 2003 Atlas also compared 2001 dissolved oxygen concentrations collected from PALS with concentrations measured in 1948 and concluded many Cape Cod pond ecosystems were seriously impaired. Based on information in the 2003 Atlas, between 74% and 93% of the Cape’s ponds were impacted by surrounding development or uses. Based largely on the dissolved oxygen information, approximately 45% of all ponds and 89% of the deepest ponds were impaired. The findings suggest that the low dissolved oxygen concentrations observed in the ponds were not “natural” conditions but the reflection of 50 years’ worth of impacts from surrounding development and land use. The annual PALS snapshot monitoring program has continued every year since 2001 through the collaboration of local, county, state, and university programming. Monitoring efforts generated a database of over 1,800 water samples from 232 ponds in all 15 Cape Cod towns.54 Over the past 20 years (2001- 2021) these data have been collected through a network of town-based 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 43 POND MONiTORiNg ON CAPE COD volunteers who conduct field monitoring with laboratory analyses of collected water samples provided by the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth’s School for Marine Science and Technology (SMAST). In addition, the Center for Costal Studies (CCS) and the North Atlantic Coastal Laboratory (NACL) at the Cape Cod National Seashore (CCNS) also provide analysis of some pond water samples. Increased quality and frequency of data collection has supported more detailed assessments of pond water quality, provided better baseline information, and garnered insight into long-term trends. Many towns not only took advantage of the opportunities presented by the annual PALS snapshots, they also expanded their own municipal monitoring programs. These local efforts and supplemental funding from the Barnstable County Growth Management Initiative enabled completion of additional lake and pond assessments in the past decade.55 Since 2001, approximately thirty town- wide or pond-specific assessments were completed. Cape Cod towns used a combination of data including data collected 55  Additional information on the lake and pond assessments are available in later sections of this report. by the PALS program, independent town monitoring, or supplemental monitoring to generate the pond assessments. Pond assessment reports summarized background information on the pond(s), status of water quality data, and recommendations for improvement to pond monitoring or pond health. Most of the published pond assessments determined that many ponds across the Cape face water quality concerns, were impaired as measured by state surface water standards, and/or require a TMDL plan. Many were impaired during stratification which prevents mixing and impairs water quality in deeper waters due to low oxygen concentrations, excessive phosphorus, and high primary production, which compounds the low dissolved oxygen concentrations. While assessments indicated many ponds still provided recreational uses, some did not, and others were becoming eutrophic, which can potentially diminish their recreational value. The pond assessment reports highlighted concern about internal loading, or the remobilization of phosphorus from the sediment and its subsequent increased availability in the water (which leads to eutrophication). In response to pond assessment conclusions, many reports recommended additional analyses be conducted that include nutrient and watershed budgets, sediment sampling, and more frequent water quality monitoring than the current one day per year sampling. Reports recognized that ponds across the Cape differ from one another, and, ultimately, each pond may require individual analysis to identify appropriate protection and restoration strategies. Early reports focused on assessments of pond conditions at a town scale, with subsequent reports to assess individual ponds. Ponds crossing jurisdictional boundaries have been the subject of collaborative, multi-town repots, while other analyses were performed by a single town, often with recommendations to collaborate with neighboring towns. These reports and their recommendations provide a guide for pond-specific solutions. Recommendations made in the reports to improve pond water quality included in-lake management to address existing phosphorus loads, as well as watershed approaches to minimize current and future nutrient inputs. Reports frequently recommended 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 44 POND MONiTORiNg ON CAPE COD educational elements and review of town regulations to help reduce additional future nutrient inputs and to initiate remediation as appropriate. In many reports, numerous in- lake management solutions were evaluated as viable pond improvement strategies, but phosphorus inactivation treatment (typically using alum) and aeration methods were frequently chosen as the most cost- efficient options. The body of pond assessment reports across the region over the last 20+ years has contributed a basic understanding of pond water quality threats. The reports have called for more extensive monitoring, using best practices for assessments, and identifying strategies for restoration. Increasingly, towns have responded by taking an integrated approach to natural resources management, by incorporating pond water quality considerations into wastewater treatment, management of open space, and other activities at the town level. As towns seek to implement solutions, many of the recommendations in pond assessment reports remain valid and can aid pond management planning. While the reports provided some assessment of pond health and recommendations, data for most ponds was limited, not readily accessible, and often insufficient to draw conclusions or make management recommendations. Ponds were monitored infrequently in a limited time span (August- September), and data were collected using different protocols. Collected data are often difficult to translate into easily integrated and understandable results. More importantly, most of the Cape’s ponds lack any data at all. There are clear opportunities to build upon and improve the current monitoring efforts across the region. To optimize monitoring and management efforts, it is important to define the specific questions these efforts are intended to answer, to design the monitoring and management efforts with those specific questions in mind, to proceed within the constraints of available resources, and to periodically reassess both the questions being addressed and approaches employed to obtain valid data for long-term monitoring and management of water quality. STANDARD WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS To track water quality in ponds, a suite of standard and critical physical, chemical, and biological parameters are analyzed. Each parameter influences other parameters. Collectively, variations in parameters influence the health of the water body. Sampling the parameters at multiple depths and times determines potential variations that can occur within the water column and across seasons, providing a temporally sensitive, three-dimensional picture of the water quality of the pond. Temperature - Influences on pond temperature include solar radiation; shading from shoreside vegetation; river, stream, and/or groundwater inputs; and the local climate and weather. Temperature influences biological and chemical processes within the ecosystem. For example, temperature can affect the solubility of chemicals, the amount of dissolved oxygen available, and reproductive timing of species. Additionally, most species have optimal temperatures and thresholds for survival. In some ponds, 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 45 POND MONiTORiNg ON CAPE COD stratification, the separation of water into layers, may occur, and mobile organisms will relocate to their optimal temperature. Secchi Depth - A Secchi disk (Figure 9) is a weighted, round, black and white tool used to measure the depth of visibility, termed the Secchi depth. It serves as a proxy for the depth of the photic zone, the depth in the pond that receives sufficient sunlight for productivity.56 Instead of describing how clear the water is, Secchi depth provides a non-subjective indicator. A small Secchi depth indicates limited penetration of light and could be an indicator of pollution. Since the Secchi disks rely on penetration of light from the sun into the water body, Secchi measurements will differ depending on the time of day, angle of the sun, and environmental conditions (i.e., cloud cover, precipitation). Total Depth - Measuring the total depth of the pond helps track changes in pond volume and water level. It is also important to compare the Secchi depth to total depth to 56  Garrison, P. (2007). Numbers and Limnological Variables. Lakeline 27(1): 21-24. 57  Garrison, P. (2007). Numbers and Limnological Variables. Lakeline 27(1): 21-24. understand vertical stratification in a pond’s water column. Dissolved Oxygen - Oxygen is pivotal to life in an aquatic ecosystem. Oxygen in water is in a gaseous and dissolved state and is referred to as dissolved oxygen (DO). Its abundance is expressed as milligram of DO per liter of water (mg/L). Oxygen enters the pond through photosynthesis and by diffusion from the atmosphere. DO is consumed by chemical (e.g., nitrification, oxidation) and biological (e.g., decomposition of organic material, aerobic respiration) processes. Concentration of DO in a water body is influenced by temperature. As temperature rises, solubility of oxygen in water decreases. Low levels of DO can stress and kill species, most notably fish. DO levels also influence the availability of phosphorus. Water with low DO concentrations cause phosphorus that was bound to iron in the soil to be released into the water column and become biologically available.57 pH – pH is a measure of how acidic or basic the water is, which is dictated by the amount of hydrogen and hydroxyl ions present. It is measured on a logarithmic scale of 1 to 14 with 7 being neutral, 1 being very acidic (like vinegar and stomach acid), and 14 being very basic. A change of 1 pH unit represents a 10-fold change in acidity. pH is affected by Figure 9. A Secchi disk is used to measure transparency depth. Photo sourced from United States Geological Survey. 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 46 POND MONiTORiNg ON CAPE COD other chemicals in the water that remove or add hydrogen ions, as well as photosynthesis and respiration, which can cause pH levels to fluctuate through the course of a day. The solubility of chemicals and uptake of nutrients (and contaminants) by species is also affected by pH. Most ponds have a pH of 6-9. Phosphorus - Phosphorus in ponds can occur naturally at low concentrations and be recycled within the water body. The internal loading or phosphorus cycling within the pond system is exacerbated by external sources that enter from the watershed. This input may come from natural sources such as leaf litter or from man-made sources such as agricultural runoff or other land use practices. Phosphorus is a limiting factor for primary productivity in freshwater. When it is abundant, primary productivity is high.58 Excessively high levels of phosphorus, and therefore high plant, algae, and cyanobacteria productivity, can cause eutrophic or hypereutrophic conditions that lead to reduced dissolved oxygen available for aquatic life. Phosphorus measurements 58  Robinson, M. (2004). The Massachusetts Lake and Pond Guide, Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, Lakes and Ponds Program. Available at https://www.mass.gov/doc/ lakes-ponds-guide-0/download. will help indicate if the nutrient is static, decreasing, increasing, or in excess, potentially leading to algal blooms. Nitrogen - Nitrogen is essential for life and a balanced aquatic ecosystem. Like phosphorus, nitrogen causes similar concerns when it is in excess within a water body. Excess nitrogen increases primary productivity causing plants, algal, and cyanobacteria blooms, which decreases dissolved oxygen, and blocks light from passing through the water column. When nitrogen, which is already more abundant than phosphorus, is in excess, it causes an unbalanced system and poor water quality for aquatic life and drinking water use. Like phosphorus, nitrogen measurements will quantify the amount and type of nitrogen present and indicate if levels are static or changing and causing concerns for water quality. Nitrogen can be present in various forms, which are utilized differently in an ecosystem. Each form can convert to another as part of the nitrogen cycle. Nitrogen exists in a molecular (gaseous) form (N2) and as ions (NO2 -, NO3 -, NH4 +). Most plants, including algae, use nitrogen in its nitrate form (NO3 -). Some plants, including cyanobacteria, are nitrogen fixers and can convert nitrogen gas (N2) to ammonia (NH3) for their use. Since nitrogen gas is readily available in the atmosphere, this provides nitrogen fixers a competitive advantage when the concentration of nitrates is low, resulting in undesirable and potentially toxic blooms. N:P - Although not a parameter per se, the nitrogen to phosphorus ratio is a good measure of the relationship of nutrients and overall pond conditions. The atomic ratio of nitrogen to phosphorus (N:P), for many phytoplankton species, or the Redfield ratio, is 16. This ratio indicates which of the two nutrients is more likely limiting growth of algae or plants in a given system. Waterbodies with a N:P ratio greater than 17 are indicative of phosphorus limitations. When the N:P ratio falls below 16, nitrogen becomes the limiting factor for primary productivity. Many species of cyanobacteria can fix atmospheric nitrogen to more useable forms (NO2 -, NO3 -), and subsequently their 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 47 POND MONiTORiNg ON CAPE COD growth is not limited by the availability of nitrate nitrogen in the water. Chlorophyll a - Chlorophyll a is the primary photosynthetic pigment in algae and plants. Chlorophyll a can occur in higher amounts when excess nutrients are available. Measuring chlorophyll a indicates how much algae or plants are present in the water body. Periodic monitoring of chlorophyll a provides a relatively easy way to assess the health of photosynthetic organisms and whether populations are stable, increasing or decreasing. Phaeopigment - Phaeopigment is a product of the degradation of chlorophyll, the primary pigment in algae.59 When algae decompose, phaeopigment is released and can become abundant. Measuring this pigment indicates the level of productivity in the water and status of recent algal growth and if it is stable, increasing, or decreasing. Alkalinity - The buffering capacity of water is expressed as alkalinity and indicates the level 59  Fuch E., R.C. Zimmerman, J.S. Jaffe. (2002). The effect of elevated levels of phaeophytin in natural water on variable fluorescence measured from phytoplankton. Journal of Plankton Re- search24(11): 1221-1229. Available at https://doi.org/10.1093/plankt/24.11.1221. 60  U.S. Geological Survey. (2019). Specific Conductance: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods, Book 9, Chap. A6.3. Available at https://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/09/a6.3/tm9-a6_3.pdf. 61  Graham, J. (2021). Cyanotoxin Occurrence in the US: A 20-Year Retrospective. Lakeline 41(2):8-11. of basic compounds available in the water body to buffer hydrogen ions and other acids released in the water. If alkalinity is low, small additions of acids can change the pH of the water, but if alkalinity is adequate, the pond has the capacity to resist changes in pH. Measuring alkalinity is important to assess how a pond will respond to acidic pollutant discharge or even acidic rain. Specific Conductance - This indirectly measures the concentration of dissolved ions in water. If inorganic dissolved solids that carry a negative charge like nitrate, sulfate, phosphate, and chloride are present in the water, conductivity will be high. Sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium hold a positive charge, their presence therefore lowers the waters conductivity. General conductivity is affected by water temperature, therefore specific conductance corrects for temperature and reports what the value would be at 25 degrees Celsius. “The term, ‘specific conductance,’ is correctly defined as the electrical conductance of 1 cm3 of a solution at 25°C.”60 High specific conductivity may indicate inputs from septic systems, stormwater, or saltwater intrusion, but it can also result from natural mineral weathering processes. Cyanobacteria - Cyanobacteria, also called blue-green algae (although it is not an algae), naturally occur in aquatic systems. However, overgrowth of cyanobacteria can lead to blooms that degrade water quality, harming habitat and aquatic organisms. Additionally, some cyanobacteria species can produce toxins harmful to humans, animals, and aquatic ecosystems. The presence and relative abundance of cyanobacteria are measurements of particular concern from a public health standpoint. Toxins within cyanobacteria can be measured, however, the correlation between blue- green algae abundance and toxins present in the environment is not always uniform. Cyanobacteria blooms are produced as a result of several factors, and while warm temperatures and excess nutrients are two common factors, they are not the only ones.61 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 48 POND MONiTORiNg ON CAPE COD In addition to the above listed parameters, site observations at ponds are also important to note when water sampling. These include the presence of plants (including invasive plants and/or algal growth) presence of animals (including nuisance waterfowl), pond perimeter shoreline observations, water color, wind direction, and weather conditions like cloud cover, recent precipitation, time of day, and air temperature. These observations can help tell the story of a pond’s water quality status. For example, noting a precipitation event may help identify reasons for high values of other quantitative parameters such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and temperature. Precipitation could temporarily increase input of stormwater that carries sediments and nutrients from around the watershed, and water with a different temperature or different pH. TARGETED CAPE COD POND MONITORING In addition to pond monitoring for the standard suite of water quality parameters listed above, several pond monitoring 62  Association to Preserve Cape Cod. Cyanobacteria. Available at https://apcc.org/our-work/science/community-science/cyanobacteria/. 63  United States Geological Survey. 1995. Mercury Contamination of Aquatic Ecosystems. Available at https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1995/fs216-95/. programs have taken a more targeted approach to documenting specific pond characteristics, challenges, or geography. CYANOBACTERIA MONITORING PROGRAM The incidence of cyanobacterial blooms in freshwater systems has been rising over the past several decades as conditions that favor their growth become more prevalent. Some algal and cyanobacterial blooms can negatively impact ecosystems and produce toxins that are harmful to human health or ecosystems. These are referred to as harmful algal blooms, or HABs. APCC has partnered with town health departments and the BCDHE to monitor cyanobacteria.62 The program currently monitors certain ponds in all 15 Cape Cod towns on a weekly or biweekly basis. Monitoring parameters include turbidity, water color, odor, water temperature, and presence/absence of scum. Water samples are also taken for laboratory analysis of cell count of cyanobacteria concentrations, and cyanobacteria species identification. FISH TOXICS Fish in Cape Cod ponds may be exposed to toxic chemical pollutants that can impact their health and survival. Toxic chemicals also pose a threat to humans who consume contaminated fish. Mercury contamination of fish is the primary reason for issuing fish consumption advisories.63 Mercury is a naturally occurring element that is often released into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels and trash. In ponds, mercury can be transformed by natural processes into a more toxic form called methylmercury, which enters the food chain when small organisms absorb it. Mercury is a pollutant and neurotoxin that can accumulate and concentrate in fish to levels that are a health concern for humans that eat them. Once in the environment, mercury persists for a long time and never degrades into a harmless substance. 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 49 POND MONiTORiNg ON CAPE COD Studies of lake pH levels and concentrations of mercury in fish have shown that low pH/acidic conditions generally favor high mercury concentrations.64 Given the generally low pH of most Cape Cod ponds, this relationship raises concerns about the safety of freshwater fish consumption. Studies conducted by the Commission, MassDEP, and CCNS in the early 2000’s on eighteen ponds found that fish sampled from half of these ponds contained mercury concentrations above health thresholds. Because mercury persists for so long, it takes many years for mercury levels in fish to drop significantly. Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH) maintains a Freshwater Fish Consumption Advisory List of ponds and lakes in the Commonwealth with various forms of fish consumption advisories, mostly related to mercury impacts.65 As of 2021, twenty-nine ponds within Barnstable County 64  Greenfield, B.K., T.R. Hrabik, C.J. Harvey, and S.R Carpenter. (2001). Predicting mercury levels in yellow perch: use of water chemistry, trophic ecology, and spatial traits. Canadian Journal ofF- isheries and Aquatic Sciences 58(7): 1419-1429. Available at DOI:10.1139/f01-088. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. (1997). Fish Mercury Distribution in Massachusetts Lakes. Office of Research and Standards and Office of Watershed Management. Available at https://www.mass.gov/doc/final-report-fish-mercury-distribution-in-massachusetts-lakes-may-1997/download. 65  Massachusetts Department of Public Health. (2021). Freshwater Fish Consumption Advisory List. Available at https://www.mass.gov/doc/public-health-freshwater-fish-consumption-adviso- ries-2021/download?_ga=2.245612804.1627199449.1633535981-980125762.1623689512. 66  Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. Form for Requesting Fish Testing. Available at https://www.mass.gov/doc/fish-testing-request-form/download. 67  Hutcheson, M.S., C.M. Smith, J. Rose, C. Batdorf, O. Pancorbo, C.R. West, J. Strube and C. Francis. (2014). Temporal and Spatial Trends in Freshwater Fish Tissue Mercury Concentrations Associated with Mercury Emissions Reductions. Environmental Science & Technology 48(4): 2193-2202. Available at https://doi.org/10.1021/es404302m. 68  Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. Water Quality Monitoring: Bioaccumulation Assessment. Available at https://www.mass.gov/guides/water-quality-monitoring. are on the list. Fish testing may also be requested by contacting MassDEP.66 While mercury remains a concern, there have been significant local and regional reductions in mercury emissions in the Northeast over the last two decades and corresponding decreases in mercury concentrations in largemouth bass and yellow perch in Massachusetts lakes.67 To continue the trend of reduced mercury levels in fish in Massachusetts requires regional, national, and global reduction in mercury emissions to decrease below fish consumption advisory levels. More recently MassDEP, DPH, and Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Environmental Law Enforcement (DFWELE) initiated a cooperative effort, called the Fish Toxics Monitoring Program, to assess the risk to human consumers associated with consuming freshwater fish.68 At the request of the public, edible fillets from fish collected can be analyzed for the presence of mercury, arsenic, cadmium, and selenium. Cape Cod communities and pond organizations should consider incorporating such fish toxics testing into their pond monitoring programs. In addition to the toxics listed, testing for PFAS in fish should also be considered. POND WATER LEVELS Pond water levels on Cape Cod generally fluctuate with groundwater levels. The Commission has been monitoring groundwater levels from a regional network of 60 to 65 wells since the early 1970’s. This monitoring supports United States Geological Survey (USGS) programs and provides data necessary for groundwater separation calculations required in the state septic system regulations (310 CMR 15: Title 5) and the state stormwater management regulations (310 CMR 10.00; 314 CMR 9.00). 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 50 POND MONiTORiNg ON CAPE COD The historic database of groundwater levels is an important resource for management of water resources on Cape Cod. Monitoring surface water levels of lakes and ponds across Cape Cod is important to assess the impacts of climatic changes and other sources of drawdown on surface waters. Most ponds on Cape Cod are directly connected to the groundwater as kettle ponds. Generally, surface water fluctuations coincide with groundwater response to varying precipitation amounts. Groundwater levels tend to be the highest in the early summer, following the winter and spring recharge periods. Levels are lowest in the early winter, following many months where precipitation is intercepted by vegetation or directly evaporated. In the summer, higher air temperatures increase evaporation rates, lowering source water levels more rapidly than groundwater. Besides these seasonal patterns, other factors affect water levels as well. Large precipitation events will cause surface water to rise more rapidly than groundwater levels. Precipitation is a direct input to surface waters, while it takes longer for precipitation to travel though 69  MassDEP Water Management Act Permits and Decisions. Available at https://www.mass.gov/guides/water-management-act-permits-and-decisions. soil before recharging the groundwater. Patterns of surface level and groundwater fluctuation impact ecosystem response and management techniques. Fluctuation data may inform the distribution of rare and endangered plants, herring run maintenance, dock and shoreline maintenance, storm water management, septic system design and other home construction issues. In 1986, MassDEP instituted registration and permitting of water withdrawal under the Water Management Act (WMA). As part of the permitting requirement public water suppliers may be required to monitor nearby pond water levels to ensure drinking water withdrawal does not negatively impact pond water levels. In 2003, 14 ponds were monitored by various public drinking water suppliers as a condition of water withdrawal permits. In 2021, three ponds are required to be monitored per a WMA permit. MassDEP oversees public water supply withdrawal and if a supplier’s annual average withdrawal volume reaches or exceeds the amount for which they are permitted, monitoring of nearby surface water bodies must recommence to reevaluate the withdrawal impacts. This is particularly important for withdrawal wells located near coastal plain pond shores as water levels impact pond shore ecosystems. Existing WMA permits and decisions can be found on MassDEP’s WMA Permit website or on the individual water supplier’s website.69 POND BATHYMETRY Bathymetry describes the topographic features of a pond’s basin and is important for understanding water quality information and for informing pond monitoring activities. Bathymetric maps are useful in understanding potential impacts of recreational activities on bottom sediments such as in ponds where motorized watercraft are allowed. Fishermen rely on bathymetric maps to locate the deepest part of the lake and to target different depths and habitats within a pond. According to the 2003 Atlas, only 89 Cape Cod ponds had bathymetric data at that time. Over the intervening years and as part of PALS and other pond monitoring programs, the Commission, MassDEP, and others have 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 51 POND MONiTORiNg ON CAPE COD added or updated bathymetric information, for a total of 96 ponds with bathymetric maps. As towns and others study individual ponds, including a bathymetric survey will provide valuable pond attribute data. A future regional aerial flyover could collect bathymetry for targeted ponds using LiDAR, allowing for new and updated images of pond geomorphology. Select ponds have bathymetric maps available from MassWildlife.70 MassWildlife pond maps provide bathymetry, average and maximum pond depth, shore and boat access, and the types of fish found in the pond. All ponds on the MassWildlife list allow public access. MassWildlife continues to add new bathymetric maps each season. Bathymetry maps and information for ponds not on the MassWildlife list may be available in PALS or other pond monitoring reports. INVASIVE SPECIES Invasive species are those that are not native to an ecosystem and whose introduction causes economic and or environmental harm 70  Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. Massachusetts pond maps. Available at https://www.mass.gov/info-details/massachusetts-pond-maps. 71  Lists of plant species are available on the MIPAG website. Available at https://www.massnrc.org/MIPAG/. by disrupting native ecosystems. In aquatic systems both plant and animal invasive species are of concern. Once invasive species are introduced, managing and controlling them is a significant challenge. The Massachusetts Invasive Plant Advisory Group (MIPAG) was established in 1995 and charged by the Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA) to provide recommendations regarding invasive species management through avoidance of introduction and management once established. MIPAG established biologically based criteria to identify plants that could become or are documented as invasive. Using these criteria, plant species are categorized into one of four groups: invasive, likely invasive, potentially invasive, and not currently meeting the criteria.71 Following categorization, recommendations are made to prevent introductions or for appropriate management actions. The Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) Lake and Ponds Program developed a Weed Watchers program. Through the program, citizens volunteers are trained to monitor ponds for the presence of invasive species. Lakes and Ponds Program staff continue to provide hands-on training workshops for live plant identification. Given the potential rapid spread, extensive impact, and number of pond ecosystems that could be impacted on the Cape, public education and assistance is necessary to prevent entrance and establishment of invasive organisms on Cape Cod. BATHING BEACH WATER QUALITY Since Cape Cod ponds are used extensively for swimming, ensuring that waters are safe for swimming is an important pond monitoring and management consideration. In 2001, Massachusetts adopted the Beaches Bill, which requires regular testing of all public and semi-public bathing beaches during the bathing season. On a weekly basis 350 marine and freshwater beaches are sampled, adding up to 4,300 samples 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 52 POND MONiTORiNg ON CAPE COD per season. The BCDHE conducts most of the laboratory analyses for Cape towns and maintains the results on their website.72 POND HEALTH IN THE CAPE COD NATIONAL SEASHORE Staff at CCNS have monitored ponds within the CCNS boundaries since the 1970s with the goal of assessing trends in water quality, trophic status, and vegetation to better understand pond processes in a changing environment.73 Unlike PALS snapshot monitoring, CCNS monitoring 72  Barnstable County Department of Health and Environment. Beach Sample Results. Available at https://www.barnstablecountyhealth.org/programs-and-services/bathing-beach-water-quality/ beach-sample-results-2. 73  McCobb, T.D., and P.K. Weiskel. (2003). Long-Term Hydrologic Monitoring Protocol for Coastal Ecosystems. United States Geological Survey. Available at https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2002/ofr02497/ pdf/ofr02497.pdf. National Park Service. (2018). Status of Kettle Pond Plant Communities of Cape Cod National Seashore, Report on 2016 Surveys and Analyses of Temporal Change Since 1995.U.S. Department of the Interior. 74  Liesman, J. (2020). Scientists Pick Up Effort to Study Ponds. The Provincetown Independent. Available at https://provincetownindependent.org/news/2020/11/12/scientists-pick-up-effort-to- study-ponds/. occurs bi-weekly over up to 10 months, from March to fall turnover (September through December) providing a robust dataset that allows for inter- and intra-annual temporal trend analyses. Beyond monitoring that is performed within the Seashore, CCNS supports Outer Cape towns in their pond management efforts through sampling, restoration, and information sharing. Environmental parameters measured in the field include temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, Secchi depth, and phytoplankton biomass. Water samples are analyzed at CCNS’s NACL for total nitrogen, total phosphorus, nitrate-nitrogen, ortho-phosphorus, and chlorophyll a. Current and upcoming pond research by CCNS includes an inventory of phytoplankton and zooplankton, a nation-wide harmful algal bloom project, and further research and tracking of cyanobacteria blooms, toxicity, and ecological effects.74 They also plan to conduct existing condition assessments and define ecological integrity goals. 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 53 POND WATER QuALiTy MONiTORiNg RESuLTS TO-DATE Monitoring and mitigation of excess nutrients entering waterways from fertilizer use, stormwater runoff, and septic systems have been prioritized in recent years through the 208 Plan Update and related efforts. While nutrients remain a problem in marine waters, public concerns related to harmful algal blooms and emerging knowledge about Contaminants of Emerging Concern (CECs), which include pharmaceuticals and personal care products harmful to aquatic life, and PFAS make clear that a renewed focus on ponds and lakes is necessary. Potential impacts from climate change makes finding management solutions urgent. To improve freshwater resources, managers need to understand the impacts of pollutants and climate change on these resources and the connection between Cape Cod surface waters, the aquifer, and the effects from upstream to coastal embayments. Previous regional efforts to better understand pond water quality, and the health of Cape Cod’s ponds more generally have typically been responsive to highly visible and well-publicized negative impacts to pond ecosystems (e.g., fish kills) or recreational Pond Water Quality Monitoring Results To-Date To improve freshwater resources, managers need to understand the impacts of pollutants and climate change on these resources and the connection between Cape Cod surface waters, the aquifer, and the effects from upstream to coastal embayments. Figure 10. Number of Cape Cod ponds monitored by the PALS program from 2001 through 2018. 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 54 POND MONiTORiNg ON CAPE COD uses (e.g., closures to swimming or boating). A proactive approach is necessary moving forward to mitigate current and future impacts to pond health. Over the last twenty years, access to data generated by ongoing PALS monitoring (Figure 10) helped towns and pond associations take proactive measures to assess their ponds and start considering possible pond improvement strategies. While most towns were still assessing the overall health of their ponds in the 2000s, some solutions were being discussed and implemented, such as the mid-2000s alum treatment applied to Long Pond in Brewster and Harwich.75 However, guidance on effective pond management was needed. To meet the need, towns, with help from the Commission and SMAST, began pond water quality assessments to document and archive pond health and to generate 75  Lord, R. (2008). Towns await results of Long Pond cleanup. Cape Cod Times. Available at https://www.capecodtimes.com/article/20080319/NEWS/803190332. 76  Coastal Systems Group, School of Marine Science and Technology, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, and Cape Cod Commission. (2009). Eastham Freshwater Ponds: Water Quality Status and Recommendation for Future Activities, Final Report. Town of Eastham and Barnstable County. 77  Water Resources Services, Inc. (2012). An Evaluation of Selected Sandwich Ponds. WRS, Wilbraham, MA. Water Resources Services, Inc. and CDM Smith. (2012). Evaluation of Hinckleys Pond, Harwich, Massachusetts. Available at https://www.harwich-ma.gov/sites/g/files/vyhlif7091/f/file/file/harwich_-_final_evaluation_of_hinckleys_pond_reduced.pdf. 78  Wysocki, H. (2011). Mashpee residents OK Santuit Pond cleanup. Cape Cod Times. Available at https://www.capecodtimes.com/article/20111018/NEWS/110180313. 79  Wysocki, H. (2011). Santuit ‘Friends’ make plea for help. Cape Cod Times. Gouveia, A. (2011). Falmouth voters approve water study. Cape Cod Times. recommendations for improvement. These data, documented in pond assessment reports that include PALS data, town data, and/or other collected data, confirmed that most Cape ponds were impaired and did not meet the surface water quality standards established by the Commonwealth. For example, five out of the six ponds surveyed in Eastham were identified as impaired, and a pond remediation program was recommended as a next step for the town.76 Many ponds were impaired by low oxygen concentrations confined to the bottom of the pond due to normal stratification that occurs in the summer months. Most ponds were also found to have high nitrogen to phosphorus ratios, indicating that the ponds are phosphorus limited. Subsequently, multiple towns developed specific pond management action plans. In 2012, Sandwich generated an Evaluation of Selected Ponds Report and Harwich conducted an Evaluation of Hinckley Pond.77 In 2011, Mashpee citizens stated “The problem is only getting worse,” inspiring allocation of $357,000 of community preservation funds to purchase water circulators to improve water quality and reduce severe algal blooms that adversely impacted Santuit Pond.78 Whether inspired as an effort to protect their “beloved body of water” from becoming an eyesore, or to ensure safe drinking water for years to come, activity to address the poor status of Cape ponds moved forward.79 Town-wide and specific pond reports were generated across the Cape as early as 2000, but most were developed between 2006 and 2009. According to Commission records, no pond reports were published between 2013 and 2017. Pond reports published since 2018 tend to be follow-up monitoring assessments as recommended in initial pond assessment reports, or performance reports 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 55 POND MONiTORiNg ON CAPE COD on specific remediation methods.80 Release of the 208 Plan Update in 2015 prompted towns towards development of integrated water management plans or targeted watershed management plans, which as the 208 Plan highlighted, will benefit both coastal and freshwater resources. As towns advance toward creation and implementation of water management plans, solutions will benefit freshwater pond and coastal water quality. Illustrative is the Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan (CWRMP) from the town of Sandwich that seeks “to guide the improvement of water quality in 80  Water Resource Services, INC. (2019). Investigation of Twelve Sandwich Ponds. Available at https://storage.googleapis.com/wzukusers/user-18152207/documents/483a2b39506744b- b9a444698a3259871/Sandwich%20Ponds%202018%20032919.pdf. Schlezinger, D.R., B.L. Howes, and S.S. Horvet. (2017). Pond Water Quality Assessment of 23 Ponds in the Town of Barnstable using Pond and Lake Stewardship (PALS) Protocols. University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, The School for Marine Science and Technology (SMAST). 81  Wright-Pierce. (2017). Town of Sandwich Comprehensive Water Resources Management Plan. Town of Sandwich. Available at https://www.sandwichmass.org/DocumentCenter/ View/4195/12217A-Report-F-Vol01-SandwichCWRMP-2017-Dec. 82  Jung, A. (2021). ‘The worst water quality on Cape Cod’: Mashpee adds ponds, lakes to clean-water push. Cape Cod Times. Available at https://www.capecodtimes.com/story/news/2021/10/08/ mashpee-add-ponds-and-lakes-escalated-clean-water-push-estuaries-nitrogen-cyanobacteria-pollution/6018387001/. 83  Meyers, K.C. (2012). Orleans warns of bacteria spike in Uncle Harvey’s Pond. Cape Cod Times. Available at https://www.capecodtimes.com/article/20120926/NEWS11/120929837. 84  Association to Preserve Cape Cod. State of the Waters: Cape Cod 2021. Available at https://capecodwaters.org/. groundwater, freshwater ponds and coastal estuaries,” directly acknowledging the ability of the solutions to improve water resources broadly.81 However, there have been no assessments performed to indicate any positive impacts on freshwater systems from CWRMPs farther along in the implementation process; and for other CWRMPs, it is too early for assessment. Progress of wastewater management plan implementation varies widely throughout Cape Cod. Many towns are still moving forward to determine funding strategies and gain town approval for CWRMPs. For example, as of October 2021, the town of Mashpee is pushing to promote water quality in freshwater ponds through their sewer expansion plan.82 While towns shift their focus from pond- specific assessments to watershed nutrient management plans, pond reporting that makes news headlines still primarily centers around consequences of diminished water quality such as beach closures, algal blooms, and limited pond management solutions, mostly alum treatment and aeration/ agitation.83 However, conversations about ponds emphasized the need for additional monitoring information to inform best methods for protection, restoration, and a collaborative, regional, watershed approach. Support and advancement of APCC State of the Waters reports have confirmed the public’s continued concern and interest in freshwater ponds. Findings from State of the Waters analyses conclude that while data are limited, ponds remain impacted, with over one-third of ponds graded as having “unacceptable” water quality in 2019, 2020, and 2021.84 While APCC’s State of the Waters report relies on the Carlson Trophic Index and cyanobacteria monitoring of Cape Cod water bodies, analyses of other data sources, such as Integrated Lists of Waters and PALS data analyses, also confirm degradation of freshwater resources across the Cape. Town commissioned pond reports and assessments can be accessed, as available, through the CCC website: capecodcommission.org/our-work/ ponds-and-lakes 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 56 POND MONiTORiNg ON CAPE COD In the most recent Integrated List of Waters published by MassDEP in 2016, twenty freshwater ponds on Cape Cod were listed under Category 5, impaired and requiring one or more TMDL (Table 3). Causes of impairment to the 20 Cape Cod ponds listed in the 2016 303(d) list include harmful algal blooms, high chlorophyll a, low dissolved oxygen, nutrient or eutrophication biological indicators, turbidity, transparency, and total phosphorus levels. Most ponds had multiple causes of impairment documented. The 2004 Integrated List of Waters, published a year after the 2003 Atlas, included 13 freshwater ponds in Category 5. Reasons for needing a TMDL for these ponds included low dissolved oxygen, excessive nutrients, organic enrichment, presence of metals, noxious aquatic species, and high turbidity. Eight ponds listed in the 2004 303(d) list were also listed in the 2016 list. These include Long Pond (Brewster/Harwich), Lower Mill Pond (Brewster), Red Lily Pond (Barnstable), Ryder Pond (Truro), Santuit Pond (Mashpee), and Walkers Pond (Brewster). These ponds have been listed in each impaired water list 85  United States Environmental Protection Agency. Overview of Listing Impaired Waters under CWA Section 303(d). Available at https://www.epa.gov/tmdl/overview-listing-impaired-waters-under- cwa-section-303d. since 2004 and are currently listed on the 2018/2020 proposed list, which is still in draft format. However, some ponds have been listed and removed in subsequent years. Water bodies removed from Category 5 have been documented as meeting the state water quality standards. It is important to note that this list may not fully encapsulate the number of Cape Cod ponds that are impaired or may need a TMDL. When creating a list, states must evaluate whether a water body meets water quality standards, which is done by evaluation of all possible data and information on a water body.85 However, as identified previously, not all Cape Cod ponds have extensive information and monitoring data. This lack of information may contribute to an underestimation of ponds that should be listed under Category 5 of the CWA 303(d) Integrated List of Waters. Changes to trophic status may also indicate changes in water quality. In 2003, 172 ponds were sampled, with 23% (40) considered oligotrophic, 28% (49) mesotrophic, 39% (67) eutrophic, and 9% (16) hypereutrophic using the Carlson Trophic Index based on chlorophyll a measurements from PALS monitoring (Table 4). In 2016, only 87 ponds were sampled, nearly all of which were also sampled in 2003. While the overall count was much lower, the trophic status distribution was quite similar, with 21% (18) considered oligotrophic, 30% (26) mesotrophic, 39% (34) eutrophic, and 10% (9) as hypereutrophic (Table 4). It is not clear whether these results indicate some mitigation of development impacts since the 2003 Atlas was published, or whether the ponds were already degraded in 2003 and have not changed dramatically since. Although water quality data collected over the past two decades indicate ecological impacts, most ponds still support most activities residents and visitors enjoy. For example, bacterial testing of ponds has generally indicated conditions suitable for swimming. Review of 2020 and 2021 testing results shows that E. coli exceedances at freshwater pond beaches has not increased dramatically since 2001 (Table 5). According to the US EPA guidelines for recreational 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 57 POND MONiTORiNg ON CAPE COD POND NAME TOWN 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018/2020 Ashumet Pond Mashpee/Falmouth X X X X Bournes Pond Falmouth X X Cedar Pond Orleans X X Cliff Pond Brewster X X Crystal Lake Orleans X X X X X X X X Flax Pond Brewster X Great Pond Eastham X X X X X X X X Hamblin Pond Barnstable X X X X X Johns Pond Mashpee X Long Pond Brewster/Harwich X X X X X X X X Lovells Pond Barnstable X X X X Lovers Lake Chatham X X X X Lower Mill Pond Brewster X X X X X X X X Mashpee Pond Mashpee/Sandwich X Middle Pond Barnstable X X X X Mill Pond Chatham X Moll Pond Eastham X Mystic Lake Barnstable X X X X Oyster Pond Falmouth X X X Peters Pond Sandwich X Peters Pond Sandwich X Red Lily Pond Barnstable X X X X X X X X Ryder Pond Truro X X X X X X X Santuit Pond Mashpee X X X X X X X X Shawme Lake Lower Sandwich X X X X Sheep Pond Brewster X X X X Snake Pond Sandwich X Spectacle Pond Sandwich X Stillwater Pond Chatham X X X X Uncle Harvey Pond Orleans X X Upper Mill Pond Brewster X X X X Upper Shawme Lake Sandwich X X X X X Wakeby Pond Mashpee/Sandwich X Walkers Pond Brewster X X X X X X X X Wequaquet Lake Barnstable X Table 3. Cape Cod Ponds listed as Category 5, impaired waters requiring a TMDL, in MassDEP’s Integrated List of Water Reports published from 2004 to 2020. *Note the 2018/2020 report is a combined report that has not yet been finalized, it is a draft awaiting public comment and finalization by EPA.1 1  United States Environ- mental Protection Agency. Impaired Waters and TMDLs, Region 1 Impaired Waters and 303(d) Lists by State. Available at https:// www.epa.gov/tmdl/region- 1-impaired-waters-and- 303d-lists-state#iw-ma. 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 58 POND MONiTORiNg ON CAPE COD waters, the maximum E. coli allowed is 235 colony-forming units per 100 milliliters (cfu/100mL). Actions to develop or update pond assessments and correct identified ecological impairments varies with community and state priorities. Active discussion of pond conditions and ecological management strategies may lead to refinement of pond users’ expectations relative to habitat, recreation, and future TMDLs for ponds. Additional and improved dialogue is needed between the towns, state, and county to evaluate how individual towns, ponds, and watersheds should be monitored or managed, the best use of information collected, and how information should be incorporated into the Commonwealth’s clean water program. Study Pond Number Oligotrophic % (Number) Mesotrophic % (Number) Eutrophic % (Number) Hypereutrophic % (Number) 2003 172 23 (40)28 (49)39 (67)9 (16) 2016 87 21 (18)30 (26)39 (34)10 (9) Study Number of Samples Number of Pond Beaches Number of Samples Failed (%) 2001 1,112 83 15 (1.5) 2002 928 74 10 (1.1) 2020 1,406 104 23 (1.6) 2021 1,364 105 25 (1.8) Table 4. Categorization of Cape Cod ponds eutrophication status based on the Carlson Trophic Index reported in 2003 and 2016. Table 5. E.coli sampling results taken at public and semi-public freshwater pond beaches and compared from 2001 and 2002 to 2020 and 2021. 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 59 ThREATS TO POND WATER QuALiTy A watershed is the area of land that drains all flowing water and precipitation to a common, low-lying area such as a pond, mouth of a bay, or any point along a stream. Watersheds consist of surface water (streams, ponds) and the underlying groundwater. As water on Cape Cod flows from inland sources through streams, groundwater, and into the coastal embayments it also has the potential to flow through a pond (Figure 11 and Figure 12). In the same way that watershed characteristics influence the health of an embayment, threats to the ecosystem 86  Cape Cod Commission. Ponds and Lakes. Available at https://www.capecodcommission.org/our-work/ponds-and-lakes/. 87  Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, Department of Fish & Game, Executive Office of Energy & Environment. (2015). Massachusetts State Wildlife Action Plan, Chapter 4: 4 Habitats of Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Coastal Plain Ponds: 299-307. Available at https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2016/12/wh/ma-swap-public-draft-26june2015-chapter4.pdf. health of a pond extend beyond its direct borders. Cape Cod kettle ponds offer a low point in elevation where surface waters collect and connect to the aquifer via groundwater inflows and outflows.86 The entire upstream portion of the watershed to the pond shoreline can influence pond water quality. Land use, wastewater discharges, contaminant inputs, invasive species, as well as the local effects of climate change impact watersheds and ponds (Figure 11 and Figure 12). Cape Cod ponds are fragile and vulnerable to perturbations that challenge the ecosystem’s ability to maintain a healthy balance of water quality and aquatic life.87 Pond water quality is impacted by surface water that enters the pond as runoff, groundwater that seeps in below the surface, the temperature, and mixing of water. The health of a pond is directly related to the land use within, and condition of, its watershed. Threats to pond water quality stem from shoreside and upstream watershed land use. Threats to Pond Water Quality Cape Cod ponds are fragile and vulnerable to perturbations that challenge the ecosystem’s ability to maintain a healthy balance of water quality and aquatic life. Land use, wastewater discharges, contaminant inputs, invasive species, as well as the local effects of climate change impact watersheds and ponds. 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 60 POND MONiTORiNg ON CAPE COD Figure 11. Ponds, colored in blue, are impacted by threats throughout their watersheds, outlined in yellow. These impacts follow the extent of the watershed, which flow all the way to marine embayments. Kettle ponds, stream influenced ponds, and coastal ponds exhibit different interactions with the watershed in terms of inflow and outflow or discharge. Figure 12. A subset image of the previous Figure showing portions of Mashpee, Sandwich, and Barnstable with embayment boundaries (yellow), subwatersheds (blue), and ponds (blue polygons). Each Embayment consists of multiple subwatersheds. 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 61 POND MONiTORiNg ON CAPE COD TITLE 5 SEPTIC SYSTEMS A major concern across Cape Cod centers on wastewater and the use of traditional Title 5 septic systems. In 1978, Title 5 septic systems were deemed adequate wastewater treatment for purposes of drinking water protection. Title 5 systems remove pathogens to a sufficient degree to protect public health but provide only modest nutrient removal. As of 2019, 125,000 septic systems were in use on Cape Cod, comprising 20% of septic systems in the state of Massachusetts.88 Relatively low septic system removal efficiencies for nitrogen and phosphorus combined with highly permeable sandy soils results in the discharge of wastewater with high nutrient concentrations, which can move through the soil to reach groundwater (Figure 13).89 Water quality monitoring across the Cape has shown that population growth and the region’s sandy soils have resulted in 88  Cape Cod Commission. (2015). Cape Cod Area Wide Water Quality Management Plan Update. Available at https://www.capecodcommission.org/resource-library/file/?url=/dept/commission/ team/208/208%20Final/Cape_Cod_Area_Wide_Water_Quality_Management_Plan_Update_June_15_2015.pdf. 89  United States Environmental Protection Agency. Septic Systems and Surface Water. Available at https://www.epa.gov/septic/septic-systems-and-surface-water. 90  Cape Cod Commission. (2019). Cape Cod and Islands Water Protection Fund FAQ. Available at https://www.capecodcommission.org/resource-library/file?url=%2Fdept%2Fcommis- sion%2Fteam%2FWebsite_Resources%2Fcciwpf%2FCCIWPF_FAQs.pdf. excess nutrients reaching and threatening Cape Cod’s fresh and marine water bodies.90 The sandy soils on Cape Cod provide very little attenuation of nitrogen, and thus once in the subsurface nitrogen tends to follow groundwater flow to coastal waters. Phosphorus, on the other hand, is readily taken up and held by naturally occurring metal oxides and other minerals in the soil, and to a point is much less mobile than nitrogen. With sustained phosphorus loading soils can become saturated at which point phosphorus can be readily transported with groundwater and into surface waters. Phosphorus is typically the primary driver of algal growth in ponds across Cape Cod, though in some cases with significant phosphorus inputs, nitrogen can become limiting. As many towns move forward with plans to address excess nutrients in Cape Cod water, solutions to reduce nutrient inputs to groundwater will also benefit pond health. Until those solutions are implemented, continued nutrient inputs from septic systems and the environment generally (e.g., runoff from pavement, treatment of lawns using pesticides or fertilizers) into ponds and their upstream watersheds will remain a threat to pond water quality. Even after solutions have been put in place to reduce or eliminate nutrient contributions from septic systems, historic nutrients added to the watershed from septic systems and other sources can remain in the soil, groundwater, or pond sediments. Phosphorus from these reservoirs, or nutrient sinks, will continue to be released and fuel primary production in ponds. The various sources and reservoirs for nutrients that can exist throughout a pond and its watershed emphasize the need for integrated solutions that can address nutrients at different scales and locations. STORMWATER Surface water flow in the form of stormwater runoff poses threats to pond water quality. 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 62 POND MONiTORiNg ON CAPE COD Groundwater Inflow Septic System Discharge Impervious Surface Stormwater Runoff Nitrogen Phosphorus Invasive Vegetation Fertilizer/Pesticide Application Figure 13. Threats to pond quality including presence of aquatic invasive species, contribution of nutrients from septic system discharge and fertilizer/ pesticide application, and contribution of nutrients or increased erosion and flow from impervious surfaces. Phosphorus and nitrogen are nutrients of concern and have the potential to come from any or all these sources. Nitrogen easily flows through the soil and into groundwater, while phosphorus may be bound in the soil or pass through depending on soil type and condition. 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 63 POND MONiTORiNg ON CAPE COD Average annual rain and snowfall amounts are calculated to be 43.3 inches in Hyannis and 47 inches in Chatham.91 In a natural, undeveloped landscape stormwater absorbs or infiltrates into the ground. In developed areas the stormwater cannot infiltrate into the ground, instead it flows over the land or collects at topographical low spots. Stormwater will flow over impervious surfaces such as roofs, roads, and parking lots, potentially with more volume and higher velocity, eventually reaching an area that is pervious or a surface water body. As stormwater flows over impervious surfaces it can accumulate pollutants such as oil, grease, nutrients, and sediment. These pollutants are delivered to bodies of water through several different pathways: infiltration into the ground, run off from impervious surfaces, or flow over saturated soils. Eventually, stormwater will enter the groundwater or a pond, potentially altering its chemical, biological, or physical characteristics. 91  Current Results. Average Annual Precipitation for Massachusetts. Available at https://www.currentresults.com/Weather/Massachusetts/average-yearly-precipitation.php. Data Source: Arguez, A., I. Durre, S. Applequist, M. Squires, R. Vose, X. Yin, and R.y Bilotta (2010). NOAA’s U.S. Climate Normals (1981-2010). NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information. DOI:10.7289/V5PN93JP. 92  Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, Department of Fish & Game, Executive Office of Energy & Environment. (2015). Massachusetts State Wildlife Action Plan, Chapter 4: 4 Habitats of Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Coastal Plain Ponds: 299-307. Available at https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2016/12/wh/ma-swap-public-draft-26june2015-chapter4.pdf. 93  Barnstable County. (2013). Ordinances 13-07. Available at https://www.capecodcommission.org/resource-library/file/?url=/dept/commission/team/Website_Resources/dcpc/ordinances/ Ord13-07Cape-wideFertilizerMgtdcpc.pdf. Stormwater runoff can also damage a pond shoreline or increase sedimentation. Increased stormwater flow erodes the shoreline, damaging plant life in the buffer zone. The extent of damage depends on the volume and rate of precipitation and the slope of the shoreline. More water during a shorter period traversing steep slopes that lack vegetation increase stormwater flow rates. Additional impervious shoreside infrastructure such as parking lots and boat ramps can contribute to increased stormwater runoff velocity and channelization. These impervious surfaces increase erosion risks and often provide a direct input of untreated stormwater runoff into surface waters. Insufficiently treated stormwater is of particular concern to pond health as a source of excessive nutrients, pollutants, and bacteria that can cause beach closures and contribute to eutrophication. Extreme rainfall events exacerbate challenges of stormwater management and negative impacts to ponds. As water flows over the land surface or through the subsurface, it might also pick up fertilizer or pesticides applied in residential yards, agricultural fields, managed commercial landscapes, and golf courses, which can be a threat to pond health.92 Therefore, use of these chemicals across the watershed should be considered for their impact to pond water quality. Many towns already enacted control measures for the use of these substances to reduce nutrient loading to Cape Cod water bodies. In 2013, to address nutrient enrichment, the Commission established a Fertilizer District of Critical Planning Concern (DCPC) for Cape-wide fertilizer management (Ordinance 13-07).93 The designation of the Fertilizer DCPC allowed municipalities to voluntarily adopt enforceable regulations governing the application of turf fertilizer within their own towns. This option is no longer available to towns as adoption needed to occur within a specific timeframe. The towns of Barnstable, Brewster, Chatham, Eastham, Mashpee, and Provincetown adopted local nitrogen- 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 64 POND MONiTORiNg ON CAPE COD oriented fertilizer regulations. The towns of Falmouth and Orleans had grandfathered nitrogen bylaws. Orleans added phosphorus to its nitrogen bylaw through the DCPC. Although commercial-scale agriculture on Cape Cod is limited, there are potential impacts from the agricultural practices that are present, as well as lingering impacts from earlier practices. Non-point source nutrient pollution and pesticide inputs from cranberry bogs or animal farms could potentially impact pond water quality. Threats from runoff and erosion are greatest when land covers such as lawns and impervious surfaces are near ponds. Nutrients traveling with runoff from these sources are more likely to become bound in the soil and not enter the water when distance to a pond is substantial. Proximity to ponds reduces travel time and increases the chance of nutrients and pollutants entering the pond. 94  Robinson, M. (2004). The Massachusetts Lake and Pond Guide. Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, Lakes and Ponds Program. Available at https://www.uwsp.edu/cnr-ap/ UWEXLakes/Documents/ecology/shoreland/background/mass_lake_and_pond_guide.pdf. 95 Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, Department of Fish & Game, Executive Office of Energy & Environment. (2015). Massachusetts State Wildlife Action Plan, Chapter 4: 4 Habitats of Species of Greatest Conservation Need. Coastal Plain Ponds: 299-307. Available at https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/2016/12/wh/ma-swap-public-draft-26june2015-chapter4.pdf. 96  USGS. Nonindigenous Aquatic Species: Hydrilla verticillata. Available at https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/CollectionInfo.aspx?SpeciesID=6&State=MA. INVASIVE SPECIES Presence of invasive species on Cape Cod poses a threat to pond health and the overall balance of the ecosystem.94 Invasive plant species can outcompete native plant species for light, water, and nutrients, dominating the water body and reducing plant biodiversity. Invasive animal species can also outcompete native animal species and reduce biodiversity. Changes in species composition affect proportions of other species and habitat, ultimately altering the entire food chain, food web, or ecosystem, and causing the ecosystem to change. 95 In addition, invasive species can impact recreational activities by impeding boat navigation, damaging docks, and extirpating desirable species. Invasive species can be transported among water bodies by boats and trailers, scuba divers’ and fishermen’s gear, waterfowl, and aquatic organisms, among others. Fish bait buckets containing invasive species can introduce foreign and invasive fish, plants, and plankton into a pond. Waders and boots can move mud with invasive animals or parasites. Invasive species are also often introduced when an individual empties a home aquarium into a pond or stream. In Cape Cod ponds, aquatic plants are usually the primary invasive species of concern. Given that the pond ecosystems on Cape Cod are relatively rare in the United States, there are several native species that are correspondingly rare and likely to be threatened by invasive species. The aquatic invasive plant hydrilla is of tropical Asian origin but has a high level of adaptability. Hydrilla was first identified in Massachusetts in 2001 within the waters of Long Pond in Centerville. DCR and the Town of Barnstable responded rapidly to address the potential threat by appropriating funding and completing herbicide application.96 Nevertheless, it was detected again in Long Pond and other ponds in Barnstable in subsequent years due to the persistence of its reproductive tubers that can remain dormant for over five 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 65 POND MONiTORiNg ON CAPE COD years before sprouting. Infested ponds were closed to boat launching temporarily to stop hydrilla from spreading to other ponds while additional funding was appropriated for further herbicide applications. This example highlights the need for early and ongoing detection and repeated control of invasive species to prevent their spread throughout the region. Other invasive aquatic plants include water chestnut, fanwort (documented in Wequaquet Lake, Barnstable), variable milfoil (documented in Johns Pond, Mashpee) and Eurasian watermilfoil. Invasive plants that are found alongside ponds and in wetlands include common reed and purple loosestrife. In addition to invasive aquatic plants, invasive mollusks are also a concern. The DCR Lake and Ponds Program maintains a list of current and potential aquatic invasive species that includes Asian clam and zebra 97  Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation, DCR Division of Water Supply Protection. List of Current and Potential Aquatic Invasive Species. Available at https://www.mass.gov/ service-details/list-of-current-and-potential-aquatic-invasive-species. 98  USGS. Nonindigenous Aquatic Species. Available at https://nas.er.usgs.gov/. 99  Smith, D.G. (1993). The potential for spread of the exotic zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) in Massachusetts. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Report MS-Q-11. Avail- able at https://www.mass.gov/doc/zebra-mussel-report-potential-for-spread-in-massachusetts/download. 100  USGS. Nonindigenous Aquatic Species: Corbicula fluminea. Available at https://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/CollectionInfo.aspx?SpeciesID=92&State=MA. mussel.97 Zebra mussels can be transported between water bodies on boats, trailers, and equipment, and larvae can be found inside ornamental moss balls sold in pet stores for aquariums. Zebra mussels grow with such vigor they can alter nutrient dynamics in lake ecosystems and clog municipal drinking water intakes. Zebra mussels have been found in several lakes in western Massachusetts.98 However, the coastal plain ponds associated with Cape Cod are not likely to support zebra mussels due to their low pH and low calcium concentrations.99 The Asian clam has been documented in a few Cape Cod ponds.100 This clam is native to southeast Asia and is a prolific and highly competitive species capable of rapid growth and spread. It forms dense clusters that can alter entire pond ecosystems. The threat of invasives may become more pervasive with climate change as seasonal temperature patterns shift, causing changes in species composition and geographic ranges, leaving pond ecosystems vulnerable to colonization and dominance by invasive species. EMERGING CONTAMINANTS Contaminants of Emerging Concern include PFAS, pesticides, and pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs). These contaminants can cause ecological and human health impacts and can have a detrimental impact on fish and other aquatic pond species. They are increasingly being detected in ponds and are often unregulated or have no action level. Studies by the Silent Spring Institute (SSI) conclude that most CECs on Cape Cod come from wastewater. Septic systems alone were attributed to 75% detection of CECs with PFOS (Perfluorooctane sulfonate), belonging to the chemical group of PFAS, and antibiotics as the highest detected 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 66 POND MONiTORiNg ON CAPE COD substances.101 A study conducted by USGS and the Barnstable County Health Department detected PPCPs and organic wastewater contaminants in wastewater, private wells, and public drinking water.102 There is increasing knowledge of PFAS in drinking water sources and ponds on Cape Cod with some concentrations above state limits. CECs are a concern for pond water quality as well as drinking water quality, but these concerns are accentuated as ponds are interconnected through the hydrologic flow of groundwater on Cape Cod. 101  Schaider, L., K. Rodgers, and R. Ruthann. (2013) Contaminants of Emerging Concern and Septic Systems: A Synthesis of Scientific Literature and Application to Groundwater Quality on Cape Cod. Silent Spring Insti- tute. United States Environmental Protection Agency. United States Environmental Protection Agency. PFAS Explained. Available at https://www.epa.gov/pfas/ pfas-explained. 102  Cape Cod Groundwater Guardians. Emerging Con- taminants in Our Water. Cape Cod Groundwater Guard- ians, County of Barnstable, Massachusetts. Available at https://www.capecodgroundwater.org/learn-more/ emerging-compounds-in-drinking-water/. WHAT ARE PFAS AND WHY ARE THEY A PROBLEM? Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a large group of chemicals manufactured to produce stain-resistant, water- resistant, and non-stick products. They are commonly used in everyday products like carpets, clothing, and cookware. Their slow breakdown and persistence in the environment are why PFAS are termed “forever chemicals,” and are of major concern. PFAS are water soluble and can easily move into and through soil to groundwater, surface water, and drinking water. PFAS have been found in water, air, fish, soil, and human blood and tissue at locations across the world. When ingested PFAS can build up in the body. Research is currently ongoing to better understand the health risks, but studies indicate exposure to elevated levels of PFAS may affect the thyroid, liver, kidney, and development in fetuses and infants. In October 2020, MassDEP established a maximum contamination level (MCL) of 20 nanograms per liter (ng/L), or 0.2 parts per billion, for six specific PFAS, individually or as a summed combination of concentrations. These substances include perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS), perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS), perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA), perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) and perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA). This set of six are abbreviated as PFAS6. Information is still being determined about the impacts and methods to monitor and remove PFAS from water. As more information, regulations, and monitoring requirements are produced, the impacts and management of PFAS in Cape Cod water resources will need to be revisited. 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 67 POND MONiTORiNg ON CAPE COD CLIMATE CHANGE Climate change is an unprecedented challenge that is transforming Cape Cod. The Commission’s Climate Action Plan outlines strategies for regional climate actions. Climate change will have many impacts across Cape Cod with some affecting pond ecosystem health. Changes in climate bring more frequent and higher intensity storms and precipitation events. These will negatively affect ponds through increased influx of stormwater runoff into ponds, higher frequency of flood events and higher volume of flood waters that persist longer, which can increase shoreline erosion. Climate change also causes extreme weather events, such as prolonged drought, and disrupts seasonal patterns. More precipitation and drought events will cause uncertainty or fluctuation in groundwater levels. Growing seasons are lengthening with increased average temperatures and diminished duration and intensity of winter seasons. These changes will alter 103  United States Geological Survey (USGS). (2016). Cape Cod susceptible to potential effects of sea-level rise. Available at https://www.usgs.gov/news/cape-cod-susceptible-potential-ef- fects-sea-level-rise. 104  National Park Service (NPS). (2018). Status of Kettle Pond Plant Communities of Cape Cod National Seashore, Report on 2016 Surveys and Analyses of Temporal Chance Since 1995, Natural Resources Stewardship and Science. Available at https://giscourses.cfans.umn.edu/sites/giscourses.cfans.umn.edu/files/295ex3_nps_kettle_pond_example.pdf. species compositions regionally as well as increase the potential for algal blooms and establishment of invasive species. Too high temperatures and too low oxygen levels can cause substantial harm to pond species. Additionally, higher temperatures and longer periods of drought will threaten freshwater resources and the species that depend on cool and clean water. The warmer summer seasons and shortened winters may also change the use of Cape Cod ponds by residents and visitors. Climate change is also causing sea level to rise which may result in rising water tables and, in some areas, groundwater inundation.103 Groundwater inundation may result in saltwater intrusion into the aquifer and septic system failures that may impact ponds. The water table on Cape Cod could rise by about two feet, on average, in response to a six-foot sea-level rise; the level some models predict will occur by 2100. The potential rise in the water table is less than the potential rise in sea level because the Cape’s streams and wetlands are expected to dampen the water-table response, which likely would mitigate some of the effects of sea level rise in inland areas. Impacts from climate change are already being documented on Cape Cod as indicated by changes in pond water levels. CCNS records water levels annually in April (the start of the growing season) in ponds within its boundaries and has documented an increase from 2000 to 2016, mostly due to higher groundwater levels.104 Changes in water depth influence plant species and their ability to survive. These same ponds have shown decreases in species composition, richness, and general plant cover since 1995. Changes will likely continue to occur as sea levels rise and/or more frequent and intense rainstorms raise the groundwater level and subsequently the pond water level in these low lying, shallow depth to water, areas. Pond water levels can also be influenced by surface and groundwater withdrawals for public drinking water supplies and agricultural purposes. These withdrawals 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 68 POND MONiTORiNg ON CAPE COD may remove water directly from, or intercept water contributing to ponds, resulting in reduced water levels. Severe withdrawals can dewater the nearshore littoral habitat, which is used for foraging, reproduction, and refuge by numerous species.105 Impacts of drought conditions of longer duration and intensity related to climate change may permanently lower pond water levels. 105  Massachusetts Division of Fisheries & Wildlife, Department of Fish & Game, Executive Office of Energy & Environment. (2015). Massachusetts State Wildlife Action Plan. Available at https://www.mass.gov/service-details/state-wildlife-action-plan-swap. While surface water levels of ponds fluctuate naturally, climate change impacts of more intense storms, sea level rise and drought will alter these fluctuation trends further. Ultimately, climate change can exacerbate all existing threats and cause excess stress on pond ecosystems. 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 69 SOLuTiONS AND STRATEgiES Possible solutions to address pond water quality are extensive, and the Commission is in the process of building an organized database of solutions to specifically address the health of ponds across the region. Threats to pond water quality extend from within a pond to the entire watershed, necessitating multiple approaches and scales of solutions. While some solutions have been implemented for decades, providing lessons from their application, other solutions are new and still being researched by scientists across the country. Overall, the database of solutions selected to address pond water quality vary in performance confidence, scale of approach, site suitability, and effectiveness for achieving desired outcomes. 106  Jermalowicz-Jones, J.L. (2018). Immediate Watershed & Within-Basin Management for Inland Lakes. NALMS Lakeline 38(3):12-15. “The overall health of an inland lake depends on both the implementation of within-basin improvement methods along with immediate watershed best management practices (BMPs).”106 Addressing pond water quality threats at a watershed scale is one approach. Solutions may also exist at the interface of the pond and the land where nutrients and invasive species can present immediate threats. Solutions at the pond shore and land interface can similarly address impacts from wastewater, land use, and stormwater, but at a more targeted and proximate scale. Solutions within the pond itself may also be viable. These solutions are generally the most popular because of their ability to show on- site remedial results quickly. However, they fail to address the sources of many negative impacts to pond health. In essence, in-pond management characteristically addresses the symptoms and not the cause of the problem. Management options are limited and no one approach is universally applicable. Every pond has different characteristics, whether historical use and treatment, hydrologic factors, size, or exposure to weather elements. Understanding pond characteristics and the current health of a pond are important when choosing the most effective pond improvement strategy. Even after a solution has been implemented, monitoring and follow-up pond assessments are necessary. Management strategies may Solutions and Strategies Possible solutions to address pond water quality are extensive, and the Commission is in the process of building an organized database of solutions to specifically address the health of ponds across the region. While some solutions have been implemented for decades, providing lessons from their application, other solutions are new and still being researched by scientists across the country. 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 70 SOLuTiONS AND STRATEgiES need to be adapted based on a solution’s performance and as conditions change. Lessons can be derived from in-pond solutions that have already been implemented at multiple ponds across the Cape. Information on the solutions and ponds where they were applied can be viewed in the Commission’s Cape Cod Freshwater Ponds Restoration Projects viewer.107 Management strategies identified to lessen impacts from development include in-pond restoration using aluminum sulfate (alum) treatment or oxygen infusion and aeration devices; establishing minimum setbacks for septic systems, roads, and lawns; providing vegetated buffer strips between lawns and ponds; treatment of direct and near shore stormwater runoff; and public education. In-pond treatments often target phosphorus. Phosphorus in a pond can be bound in the sediment, particularly at the sediment water interface. In the presence of oxygen, iron 107  Cape Cod Commission. Cape Cod Freshwater Ponds Restoration Projects. Available at https://cccommission.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapTour/index.html?appid=7839e9ffe8f94d1794a22e- c1c1c53420. 108  Mattson, M.D., P.J. Godfrey, R.A. Barletta and A. Aiello. (2004). Eutrophication and Aquatic Plant Management in Massachusetts. Final Generic Environmental Impact Report. Edited by Kenneth J. Wagner. Department of Environmental Protection and Department of Conservation and Recreation, Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Available at https:// www.mass.gov/files/documents/2016/08/sd/eutrophication-and-aquatic-plant-management-in-massachusetts-final-generic-environmental-impact-report-mattson.pdf. 109  Cape Cod Commission. Technologies Matrix. Available at https://capecodcommission.org/our-work/technologies-matrix/. forms rust-colored particles (iron-hydroxide) in the sediment, to which phosphorus binds. When oxygen levels are low or depleted, these bonds break releasing phosphorus into the water. Alum treatment binds phosphorus in the sediment to prevent its release into the water column when oxygen levels are low. Alternatively, pumping oxygen to the sediment water interface will prevent release of phosphorous from the sediments. Aerators or hypolimnetic aeration can provide an effective treatment when bottom water is lacking oxygen. These solutions are not a one-size-fits-all- ponds approach. The Commonwealth’s Generic Environmental Impact (GEI) Report is part of a watershed approach to assess water quality and resource management challenges, and to assess potential solutions.108 The GEI report reviews numerous alternative pond water quality restoration and plant control strategies to address non-point source pollution, point source control, hydrologic controls, phosphorus inactivation/precipitation, aeration, dredging, drawdown, harvesting, hydrosoaking, and biological controls. The case studies and performance assessment for each technique listed in the GEI report, as well as lessons from previously implemented pond solutions on Cape Cod can help inform future pond management. Similar solutions will be listed in the Commission’s pond strategies database. Other solutions that are applicable at a watershed scale are outlined in the 208 Plan Update and included in the 2020 Technology Matrix Update (Technologies Matrix).109 Solutions listed in the Technologies Matrix include advanced wastewater treatment systems to replace Title 5 septic systems, constructed wetlands to treat groundwater and stormwater, stormwater management, and compact and open space development. Additional solutions will be derived from ongoing and new innovative research, such as floating wetlands currently being tested in the Charles River by the Charles River 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 71 SOLuTiONS AND STRATEgiES Conservancy and Northeastern University researchers where water quality threats from urban landscapes and runoff promote algal blooms and diminish zooplankton populations (Figure 14).110 Floating wetlands are designed to provide zooplankton habitat and enhance populations of these algal consumers. Additional ecosystem benefits include the floating wetland’s ability to filter water, sequester nutrients, and provide habitat for diverse vegetation. Also, innovative alternative (I/A) septic systems are being researched for their ability to improve the status of Cape Cod’s freshwater systems. I/A systems are onsite denitrifying systems that are standard septic systems with components augmented to remove nutrients.111 I/A systems were implemented in Barnstable in 2021 as part of a pilot research project designed to prevent excess nutrients from entering estuaries and ponds.112 By referencing these approaches, as well as following new innovative research on novel approaches, a database of solutions can be generated that can address pond water 110  Charles River Conservancy, M. Rome, and P.T. Studio. (2019). Charles River Floating Wetlands. The Charles River Conservancy. Available at http://thecharles.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/ Charles-River-Conservancy-Floating-Wetland-Sasaki-Storyboard.pdf. 111  Cape Cod Commission. Technologies Matrix. Available at http://www.cch2o.org/Matrix/detail.php?treatment=38. 112  United States Environmental Protection Agency. Cape Cod Pilot Project Research and Updates: Innovative/Alternative Septic Systems Research Pilot and Demonstrations. United States Environ- mental Protection Agency, Water Research. Available at https://www.epa.gov/water-research/cape-cod-pilot-project-research-and-updates. quality at multiple scales, with assessment of their performance. Threats to ponds may also be addressed through regulations and BMPs. As noted above, the Fertilizer DCPC has enabled half the towns on Cape Cod to adopt local nitrogen-focused fertilizer regulations and Orleans added phosphorus to its nitrogen bylaw. In addition to the WPA, towns on Cape Cod can adopt their own stricter wetlands bylaws and regulations that can provide more protections to ponds than does the state law. Setback requirements Figure 14. Floating wetland in the Charles River, Boston, MA. Photo from The Charles River Conservancy. 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 72 SOLuTiONS AND STRATEgiES for development, septic systems and leachfields, and soil absorption systems exist within state regulations, and in some towns, local bylaws provide additional setbacks to protect ponds from adverse impacts. Through Title 5, MassDEP mandates a 25- foot setback from pond or surface waters for septic tanks, and a 50-foot setback for a leachfield.113 Some towns adopt a larger setback for leachfields; for example, the Town of Brewster established a 300-foot setback distance from a lake or pond if the lot is upgradient of a lake or pond, and the Town of Bourne has a 150-foot setback, while most Cape towns have at least 100- foot setback requirements.114 Other adopted bylaws may include setback distances from ponds to buildings, landscaping, docks, impervious surfaces, or staircases. Setback requirements are typically designed to prevent pollutants and phosphorus from entering the waters. They may not prevent more mobile compounds like PPCPs or nitrate from reaching surface waters. Setback requirements exist to protect the health of 113  Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 310 CMR 15.000: The State Environmental Code, Title 5: Standard Requirements for the Sitting, Construction, Inspection, Upgrade and Expansion of On-Site Sewage. 114  Town of Brewster Health Department. Leaching Facility Set Back. Available at http://records.brewster-ma.gov/weblink/0/doc/75966/Page1.aspx. Town of Bourne, Board of Health. 150 Foot Set- back Regulation. Available at https://www.townofbourne.com/sites/g/files/vyhlif7346/f/pages/150_setback_regulation.pdf. Brewster Board of Health. (2016). Regulation of Sewage Disposal Systems to Protect Surface Waters and Pond Water Quality. Brewster Ponds Coalition. Available at http://www.brewsterponds.org/uploads/1/8/9/6/18965133/proposed_septic_reg_revised_7-20-16.pdf. 115  Cape Cod Cooperative Extension. Guidelines for planting within the 100 Ft. Buffer. Available at https://www.harwich-ma.gov/sites/g/files/vyhlif7091/f/file/file/guidelinesbufferzone.pdf. the natural ecosystem from development and nutrient impacts, but if minimum requirements are not enforced, ponds will face negative impacts. Whether required through regulation or implemented voluntarily through pond shore BMPs, maintaining zones of vegetation between certain land uses provides ponds with buffers from pollutant and nutrient runoff. Buffer zones of vegetation and adequate distances are important to protect ponds from these runoff threats. The vegetation in buffer zones and pond shores may impact the performance of uptake and flow of the nutrients and pollutants. Barnstable County Cooperative Extension created guidelines and a list of native plants for use within a 100-foot buffer of wetland resource areas.115 In agricultural settings, BMPs to manage and improve water quality of agricultural runoff, such as vegetated buffers, cover crops, nutrient management plans and continuous no-till, should be advocated and employed to reduce downstream impacts. Extensive options for restoration of pond water quality exist and can be accessed and assessed for specific ponds to determine beneficial actions as pond management plans are drafted. An extensive database of potential pond solutions will serve as a resource to guide strategies and solutions. Each strategy and solution can be assessed and validated through comparison of approach scales, long- versus short-term effectiveness, level of research confidence, permitting needs, and most effective solutions based on pond characteristics. The resultant regional understanding of applicable solutions will then guide development of partnerships amongst stakeholders based on preferred strategies and scale of approach. 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 73 NExT STEPS PONDS IN THE REGIONAL CONTEXT Since 2015, much of the water quality work on Cape Cod has been focused on nitrogen and its impact to coastal waters through the framework established in the 208 Plan. As ponds are inextricably linked to coastal waters, groundwater, and the sole source aquifer, and provide natural attenuation of nitrogen in groundwater, acting as “nitrogen filters”, ponds are given some consideration in the 208 Plan Update but are not that plan’s primary focus. Assessment and management of fresh surface waters is more commonly regulated through various other sections of the CWA, including Section 116  33 U.S.C §§ 1251 et seq.: The Clean Water Act (CWA). 117  Cape Cod Commission and UMass Donahue Institute. Cape Cod Second Homeowners Survey – 2021 Report. 303(d) which deals with impaired waters and establishment of TMDLs, Section 305(b) which requires states to periodically report on the health of water resources throughout the state, Section 319 which governs non- point source pollution, or Section 604(b) which provides grants for water quality assessment and management planning.116 The 2003 Atlas identified development as the primary stressor to pond water quality on Cape Cod, through its modification of the landscape, direct addition of nutrients from septic system effluent and fertilizer inputs, and indirect inputs from stormwater runoff. The 208 Plan Update identified many of the same stressors to coastal waters, including population growth and changes to land use. Similar changes are continuing to impact coastal and freshwater resources, such as: The region’s population, which increased approximately 3% from 2000 to 2020. Increased use of second or seasonal homes during the pandemic compared to the past 5 years and increases in intended future conversion to primary residency.117 Changes to land use (both development and loss of vegetation within pond watersheds, as well as direct shoreline development and pond’s edge impacts). Residential and commercial land use within 300 feet of ponds have both increased from 2003 to 2020. Next Steps The updated Pond and Lake Atlas provides a current assessment of the importance of ponds on Cape Cod, the threats they face, and what is needed to improve and properly manage these valued and unique resources. As such, this Updated Atlas will serve as a catalyst for renewed and expanded efforts in pond management within the region. Pond water quality is a regional challenge that will require regional collaboration, coordination, and conversations. 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 74 SOLuTiONS AND STRATEgiES Unlike marine watersheds which frequently span multiple towns, most freshwater ponds are contained within a single town, and regulation of land use and shorefront activities is largely handled at the local level. Towns regulate development around ponds through their local zoning regulations, by enforcing state and local wetlands regulations, and by adopting regulations that require additional protections such as septic system setbacks or septic systems with enhanced treatment on the upgradient side of ponds. These regulations are generally handled by town Health and Conservation Departments. Individual ponds benefit from protection through these local regulations. Likewise, monitoring and management of ponds tends to happen at the local (village or town) or hyperlocal (pond associations focused on a single pond or group of ponds) level, and is often driven by the interest and enthusiasm of pond shore residents and pond users. With monitoring and regulation of the areas surrounding ponds occurring primarily at the local level, our understanding of the ponds themselves, the regulations designed to protect them, and the effectiveness of management actions to restore them varies widely. Without a regional program to coordinate pond monitoring and data analysis, Cape Cod has lacked the means to effectively gather and examine the monitoring data collected at a regional level since completion of the 2003 Atlas. A holistic assessment of pond remediation strategies with consideration for their implementation and effectiveness is additionally still needed. In addition to new water quality data that has been collected since 2003, the resources available to estimate watershed contributions to ponds have evolved substantially. GIS analysis can determine how the land areas that contribute to ponds through surface runoff and groundwater inflow have changed over time, incorporate new data to estimate wastewater loads within pond watersheds, and assess whether those changes are reflected in water quality measurements. As strategies to improve pond health are implemented, these same analyses can be used to track their efficacy and progress towards restoration goals. PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS Since the publication of the 2003 Atlas, private pond associations and municipalities have worked semi-autonomously to address water quality issues and develop pond management and improvement plans. Working together through public-private partnerships and taking a regional approach to pond and watershed management can lead to farther-reaching benefits. Watersheds and the water bodies within them are fundamentally regional, not limited by municipal boundaries. Therefore, it is critical for pond stakeholders to become watershed stakeholders and to understand the nutrients and pollutants entering ponds from the surrounding watershed when addressing in-lake issues. Public and private pond stakeholders should work together to develop comprehensive watershed assessments and create watershed improvement plans based on those assessments. Watershed improvement plans should recommend and prioritize key watershed management measures that would have widespread impacts on water 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 75 SOLuTiONS AND STRATEgiES quality in individual ponds and throughout the watershed. Watershed assessments may entail several analyses including but not limited to watershed modeling, hydrologic and pollutant loading, watershed-based and in-lake water quality assessments, and trophic state assessments. Assessments should aim to: 1. Identify, quantify, and prioritize the watershed-based factors which may cause pond impairment; 2. Identify the watershed management measures needed to address general causes of water quality impairments; 3. Identify the relative cost of the recommended general watershed management measures; and 4. Generate a general schedule, based on priority, for the implementation of the recommended watershed management measures. To facilitate collaboration, coordinate efforts, and provide access to management decision tools, a central location and template for pond improvement updates is needed. The Commission has initiated the development of a user interface to access the freshwater quality data in the Regional Water Quality Database and plans to develop an online hub where local and regional initiatives, along with developments at the state level and throughout New England can be tracked and shared. Towns, pond associations, resource managers and advocates can learn from implemented approaches, benefit from updates about local actions, identify potential partners or collaborators, and find access to funding opportunities. The success of a regional effort to improve freshwater quality and support a thriving natural and economic environment on Cape Cod depends on open information and data sharing, utilizing existing partnerships and building new collaborations, and engaging the community through multiple avenues to celebrate and restore the region’s freshwater resources. 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 76 SOLuTiONS AND STRATEgiES FRESHWATER INITIATIVE Despite significant and ongoing ecological impacts indicated by the pond reports and water quality data collected since the 2003 Atlas, most ponds still provide the majority of uses Cape Cod residents and visitors desire. Ponds are regularly used for numerous recreational activities such as fishing and boating; bacterial testing of ponds has generally indicated healthy conditions for swimming; and recent property values and sales show that demand for pond front properties is increasing.118 According to the Commission’s second homeowner survey conducted in 2021, 45% of second homeowners indicated that access to freshwater ponds was extremely or very important in their decision to keep their Cape Cod second homes.119 Protection of ponds will ensure their health, long time use and enjoyment by residents and visitors, along with continuing indirect beneficial impacts to the regional economy.120 To protect the 118  Cape Cod Commission. (2015). Cape Cod Area Wide Water Quality Management Plan Update. Available at https://www.capecodcommission.org/resource-library/file/?url=/dept/commission/ team/208/208%20Final/Cape_Cod_Area_Wide_Water_Quality_Management_Plan_Update_June_15_2015.pdf. 119  Cape Cod Commission and UMass Donahue Institute. Cape Cod Second Homeowners Survey – 2021 Report. 120  A deeper look at the economic benefits of ponds to the regional economy will be the subject of a future task in 2022. Cape’s ponds however, additional steps must be taken. This Updated Atlas serves as a baseline to inform the next steps outlined below and a resource for those seeking implementation funding. To facilitate a strategic approach to restoring the health of Cape Cod’s abundant freshwater resources and address previous limitations with data collection and information-sharing, the Commission has launched a Freshwater Initiative. The Freshwater Initiative is a comprehensive planning process that will incorporate new data and analysis, engage stakeholders through meetings, workshops, and media, and leverage the public’s attention and energy to better understand and address The Cape Cod Freshwater Initiative provides a strategic approach to restoring the health of the region’s abundant local freshwater resources. 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 77 SOLuTiONS AND STRATEgiES threats to Cape Cod pond ecosystems. The Initiative will define a path forward for improving pond water quality across the region. Elements of the Freshwater Initiative include: Online Pond Resources The Commission will develop a hub of online pond-related resources accessible to the public for ease of use and reference. Resources will include an online pond viewer, pond water quality data portal, as well as other pond resources. Online Pond Viewer (cccom.link/pond-atlas). The Commission has developed an online mapping application where users can open and explore a map of Cape Cod, pan and zoom in on a pond of interest, and click on a pond to access pond spatial characteristics such as pond location, size, and depth, and other factual information such as the pond’s name and GIS ID. The viewer will also provide information on pond access points and amenities available such as parking, boat ramps, and hiking trails. To populate the viewer, Commission staff are building a geodatabase of linked tables that will connect all of the different types of pond-related information being collected through the Freshwater Initiative. Online Pond Water Quality Data Portal. The Commission has incorporated available pond and lake water quality monitoring data into its Regional Water Quality Database. The database is currently linked to the Cape Cod Water Quality Data Portal, a map-based viewer that allows users to explore marine water quality data aggregated from regional partners to depict high level temporal trends. The Regional Water Quality Database includes field collected data, lab data, and historical data, allows for trend analysis, and Components of the Freshwater Initiative include an online pond viewer, online pond water quality data portal, water quality data analysis, Geospatial analyses, remote sensing data collection, regional water quality monitoring program, pond improvement strategies database, economic and regulatory analysis, stakeholder engagement process, and broad communications. 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 78 SOLuTiONS AND STRATEgiES is updated regularly. The Freshwater Initiative will facilitate similar data access, exploration, and analysis capability for pond and lake data through the Water Quality Data Portal or similar user interface. The Commission will compile future pond water quality data collected in the field and through remote sensing, plus any new historical data that becomes available, into the Regional Water Quality Database to support informed, science-based decisions about pond management. This approach will allow the Commission to provide up-to-date and easily accessible information on pond water quality to towns, residents, visitors, and researchers. It will also allow users to track pond water quality trends, target and conduct monitoring of ponds to address data gaps, develop model action plans for impaired ponds, and develop a response plan to prioritize restoration. The Commission will conduct a comprehensive analysis of regional pond monitoring data for nutrients and other water quality parameters to assess the overall condition of Cape Cod’s freshwater pond network and identify larger regional trends in pond water quality. Updated data and information on pond characteristics, remediation activities, and surrounding land uses will be compiled and coupled with trend analysis results. Spatial Analysis and Remote Sensing Volunteer pond monitoring to-date has focused on ponds where there is a local or municipal interest or established pond association. Ponds monitored have been selected due to factors such as ease of access, level of interest, usage, popularity, or available funding. To help prioritize which ponds to monitor in the future in a more scientific manner, the Commission will conduct a GIS analysis of Cape Cod ponds based on factors that may contribute to changes in water quality, such as surrounding land covers and uses, sewered areas, stormwater systems, and impervious coverage, as well as an assessment of potential internal and external drivers of pollution. As has been shown through past pond monitoring efforts, the logistics of field sampling can be time consuming and expensive, even with volunteers. Current and proposed field monitoring only represents a small percentage of Cape Cod ponds. Given the unique characteristics and surroundings for each pond, measurements from a small percentage of ponds may not be representative or transferrable to other ponds or the region. To help address these gaps, analysis of satellite-derived data may allow us to quantify changes in certain pond characteristics over time without requiring field visits and help focus expanded volunteer monitoring in the future. Satellite imagery is currently being used to measure water clarity at ponds throughout Cape Cod as a general indicator of pond health, providing measurements for several hundred ponds on Cape Cod as often as every 8-16 days. Other parameters such as chlorophyll a (which can be an indicator of increased nutrients or a direct measure of potential harmful algal blooms), temperature, cyanobacteria cell counts, and dissolved organic matter may also be quantified using satellite data. The Commission will continue to explore opportunities to use remote sensing data to investigate pond water quality and identify ponds showing signs of change that can be targeted for further 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 79 SOLuTiONS AND STRATEgiES investigation or field sampling efforts. The use of both remote sensing data and field sampling will provide a more complete picture of overall Cape Cod pond health. Regional Pond Water Quality Monitoring Program As water quality in most ponds is not being monitored at all and degraded water quality is typically detected after it becomes a problem, better monitoring and more tools to track pond health are needed. Therefore, a goal of the Freshwater Initiative is to develop a science-based, expanded, consistent, and sustainable Cape Cod pond monitoring program that allows for earlier detection of harmful algal blooms and other threats to pond water quality, and facilitates targeted intervention before public health and ecosystem impacts occur. The Commission will work with partners and collaborators to establish a stable, long- term volunteer pond monitoring program. Through coordinated training and annual meetings, the program will create a model for a sustained volunteer workforce. This 121  Cape Cod Commission (2021). Quality Assurance Project Plan for Cape Cod Ponds Monitoring Program. monitoring program will be consistent with current data collection, interpretation, and reporting needs and capabilities. A robust pond monitoring program will also function as a window into the overall condition of the Cape Cod Aquifer. Conditions observed via pond monitoring may help identify sources of nutrients, cyanobacteria, or pollution to groundwater and surrounding coastal waters. Specific goals of the Regional Pond Water Quality Monitoring Program are to integrate remote sensing of ponds into the sampling design for volunteer pond monitoring; visit more ponds on Cape Cod than have been visited in the past to collect water quality data; collect samples more frequently than the once-a-year snapshot that is typically provided by the PALS program; and coordinate monitoring of pond water quality and harmful algal blooms so that pond water quality data can be used to help predict where serious blooms may occur. In addition, this program will reassess the types of monitoring and analysis to-date, identify gaps, and incorporate additional parameters, contaminants, and sampling methodologies as needed to address identified concerns. The Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP) for the Regional Pond Monitoring Program has already been developed and approved by EPA, and details the program’s structure, function, and protocols under which the regional program will operate.121 By monitoring ponds in accordance with a comprehensive and EPA-approved QAPP, pond water quality data collection will be strengthened and the ability to share and integrate pond data across private and academic institutions as well as state and federal agencies will be enhanced. Benefits to Cape Cod include assured quality of data collection, comparability of data across the region, acceptance of monitoring data and results by state and federal agencies for regulatory listing purposes, better access to programs that require QAPPs to fund and support local water quality monitoring, and enhanced confidence in using water quality data to inform the public and decision makers regarding the need for pond protection and restoration. 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 80 SOLuTiONS AND STRATEgiES Pond Improvement Strategies Database The Commission and partners have previously developed several tools that compile information and explore a variety of strategies to address a particular environmental concern on Cape Cod - including the marine water quality decision support tools Watershed MVP and Technologies Matrix, and the sea-level rise focused Coastal Planner Tool. Examples of water quality management strategies for both freshwater and marine environments are also described in the Commission’s Cape Cod Freshwater Ponds Restoration Project Viewer, and Cape Cod Water Quality Improvement Projects Viewer. While these various tools and viewers provide information on individual strategies that may be applicable to ponds, a single compilation that specifically addresses the full spectrum of pond water quality problems and evaluates current strategies to improve Cape Cod’s freshwater ponds has not yet been created. A system to categorize ponds and identify appropriate improvement strategies based on physical characteristics, nutrient loading source(s) and magnitude, and other details will increase the applicability of the Pond Improvement Strategies Database. Building on the strategies identified in this Updated Atlas and resources listed above, the Commission and partners will develop a detailed pond-specific strategies database, including a full range of technologies, regulatory and voluntary options, and management approaches for protecting, managing, and restoring pond water quality. The database will include information on performance, cost, permitting and implementation complexity, operations and maintenance requirements, and will explore integrated solutions that combine wastewater, stormwater, and groundwater approaches. Economic and Regulatory Analyses People who are fortunate to live near a pond recognize its importance, but the entire region benefits from the numerous freshwater bodies that embroider the Cape due to economic and ecosystem services ponds provide to residents and visitors alike. The Commission will complete an economic impact study to assess the value of ponds to the regional economy. In addition, the Commission will complete a legal and jurisdictional analysis including a comprehensive review of federal and state laws relative to public and private interests in and around freshwater ponds and identify opportunities for local and regional action to improve or strengthen pond protection. Engagement and Outreach All the above Freshwater Initiative elements will be informed and guided by a robust stakeholder engagement process. A diverse group of pond stakeholders will be engaged to develop the framework to identify ponds and/or watersheds requiring significant management efforts and to define a path forward for improving freshwater quality across the region. The broad-based target audience will seek to include all people or groups of people impacted by pond management with consideration of environmental justice and equity in relation to pond management. Specific stakeholders will include appointed and elected local officials, town staff, state agencies, pond associations, the business community, non- governmental organizations, residents, tribes, visitors, and others. Stakeholder feedback will 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 81 SOLuTiONS AND STRATEgiES be incorporated into analysis approaches, and results from the Initiative will be shared with stakeholders via meetings, websites, reports, and other outreach strategies. Stakeholders will have the opportunity to share feedback and provide additional perspectives, which will help to develop a regional framework for freshwater planning and management actions. Including outreach and engagement in the Freshwater Initiative will tailor the development of other project resources to build local and regional capacity, tools, and knowledge, strengthen sustainable partnerships, and better connect environmental monitoring to ecosystem management. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUTURE ACTIONS The 2003 Atlas concluded with a list of nine recommendations, largely targeted at building upon the early momentum of the PALS program to expand its reach, technical capacity, and connection to town planning activities. Continuing visits by PALS volunteers nearly twenty years later demonstrate that there has been great success in accomplishing the recommendation to continue the PALS snapshots of pond water quality. Recent town- or watershed- wide wastewater management plans have increasingly included freshwater ponds as a priority resource alongside coastal waters and drinking water supplies. Success in achieving other recommendations, like recruiting volunteers and PALS groups in each town, obtaining sampling equipment, providing personnel to train volunteers and review sampling data, has varied from town to town. At the regional level, there has been limited success identifying sources of funding to support annual or semi-annual PALS sampling events, and for planning studies or implementation plans to remediate pond impairments. Since the publication of the 2003 Atlas, the landscape surrounding Cape Cod’s ponds has changed both literally and figuratively. Many of the same threats to pond water quality still exist today (shoreline development, impervious cover, phosphorus inputs from septic systems), while new threats have emerged (PFAS, cyanobacteria and HABs, temperature and precipitation pattern changes). The 208 Plan update provided a blueprint for the type of framework that can galvanize towns, non- profits, and pond groups throughout the region together around common interests and concerns, and to equip them with better information and resources for decision making. New avenues that did not exist twenty years ago may be available to fund pond-related work, including EPA’s Southeast New England Program, the Cape and Islands Water Protection Fund, and various programs related to the Clean Water Act (e.g., Section 319 and 604b grants). The Freshwater Initiative aims to respond to the successes and progress made since 2003, while also addressing new challenges and opportunities for understanding and improving pond water quality across Cape Cod. Through a structured and re-invigorated regional pond monitoring program, the Freshwater Initiative can provide a forum for volunteer engagement and additional resources to obtain and share equipment, data, and funding opportunities. Online tools will enhance the accessibility of monitoring data, information about ponds and the water quality improvement strategies that best apply to them. Analysis of the economic role that ponds play and the regulatory 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 82 SOLuTiONS AND STRATEgiES framework surrounding their protection and management will help further illustrate the benefits of pond preservation and restoration while examining opportunities to maintain and strengthen pond protections. A VISION FOR CAPE COD’S PONDS Throughout the years following the 2003 Atlas publication, and throughout various regional planning efforts that overlap with freshwater ponds, proponents have been vocal about the need to dedicate more attention and resources to protecting Cape Cod’s freshwater ponds. The efforts of past and current volunteers to continue sampling ponds each summer have built a foundation on which to expand our understanding of how ponds are changing throughout Cape Cod, and where there are opportunities to preserve and improve them. The future work outlined in this Updated Atlas hopes to create a regional network of resources whereby ponds are strategically monitored, in the field and remotely; where monitoring data are readily accessible and can be used to identify future problems and design solutions before critical thresholds are reached; and where the passionate and focused pond volunteers can see tangible results from their work at the local level and as part of a larger regional movement for Cape ponds and the aquifer that connects them. Sandwich, MA Yarmouth, MA 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS 83 LiST Of ABBREviATiONS List of Abbreviations 208 Plan Update: Section 208 Area Wide Water Quality Management Plan APCC: Association to Preserve Cape Cod 2003 Atlas: 2003 Cape Cod Pond and Lake Atlas BCDHE:Barnstable County Department of Health and Environment BMPs: Best Management Practices CCNS: Cape Cod National Seashore CCS: Center for Coastal Studies CECs: Contaminants of Emerging Concern Commission: Cape Cod Commission CWA: Clean Water Act CWRMP: Comprehensive Water Resource Management Plan DCPC: District of Critical Planning Concern DCR: Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation DER: Massachusetts Division of Ecological Restoration DFG: Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game DMF: Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries DO: Dissolved Oxygen EEA: Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs EPA: United States Environmental Protection Agency GEI: Final Generic Environmental Impact Report MassDEP: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection MassWildlife: Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife MIPAG: Massachusetts Invasive Plant Advisory Group NACL: Cape Cod National Seashore’s North Atlantic Coastal Laboratory NWI: National Wetlands Inventory NHESP: Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program PALS: Pond and Lake Stewardship Program PCBs: Polychlorinated Biphenyls PFAS: Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances PPCPs: Pharmaceuticals and Personal Care Products QAPP: Quality Assurance Project Plan Updated Atlas: 2021 Cape Cod Pond and Lake Atlas SMAST: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth School for Marine Science and Technology SNEP: Southeast New England Program TMDL: Total Maximum Daily Load USGS: United States Geological Survey WBP: Watershed-based Plan WPA: Wetlands Protection Act 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS Acknowledgements Cape Cod Commission staff thanks the many town departments, pond associations, and other organizations and individuals who collected the data and prepared the reports that informed this update. Special thanks to Steve hurley, Southeast District fisheries Manager, MassWildlife, who provided the fisheries Management history of Cape Cod Ponds section and fishes of Cape Cod table; current and former NhESP staff, who provided Coastal Plain Pondshore Community information; Colleen Lucey, AmeriCorps volunteer 2020-2021, who provided research and assistance identifying pond groups, their needs and interests; Carol Eastman, Barnstable County health and Environment, who provided water quality data on the Cape’s bathing beaches; and to Dr. Joseph Buttner, Professor Emeritus, Salem State university, who provided guidance throughout the revision process, and thoughtful review of the Pond Atlas update. funding for this project is provided by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of housing and Community Development’s District Local Technical Assistance program. P.O. Box 226 (3225 Main Street), Barnstable, Massachusetts 02630 Phone: 508-362-3828 Email: frontdesk@capecodcommission.org www.capecodcommission.org 2021 CAPE COD POND AND LAKE ATLAS DECEMBER 2021 Town of Brewster, Massachusetts Integrated Water Resource Management Plan Phase II Final Report January 28, 2013 Submitted to: Ms. Susan M. Leven Town Planner Brewster Town Hall 2198 Main Street Brewster, Massachusetts 02631 Submitted by: Horsley Witten Group, Inc. 90 Route 6A • Sandwich, MA • 02563 Phone - 508-833-6600 • Fax - 508-833-3150 • www.horsleywitten.com Sustainable Environmental Solutions Horsley Witten Group i TABLE OF CONTENTS A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................... ES-1 B. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................B-1 1) OVERVIEW OF INTEGRATED WATER MANAGEMENT ........................................................ B-1 2) BREWSTER’S ONGOING IWRMP PROCESS ...................................................................... B-4 C. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK...................................................................C-5 1) INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ C-5 a) The Difference between Laws, Regulations and Guidance/Policy .......................... C-5 2) FEDERAL REGULATIONS .................................................................................................. C-5 a) Federal Clean Water Act .......................................................................................... C-5 (i) Water Quality Standards ........................................................................................ C-6 (ii) Report on the Condition of the Nation’s Waters ................................................... C-6 (iii) TMDLs ................................................................................................................... C-7 (iv) Water Quality Certification .................................................................................... C-7 (v) NPDES Program .................................................................................................... C-8 b) Federal Safe Drinking Water Act ............................................................................. C-8 3) STATE REGULATIONS ....................................................................................................... C-9 a) Massachusetts Clean Water Act ............................................................................... C-9 b) Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and Regulations ........................................ C-9 c) Massachusetts Environmental Protection Agency ................................................... C-9 d) Title 5 ...................................................................................................................... C-10 e) Groundwater Discharge Permit Program ............................................................... C-11 f) Massachusetts Stormwater Policy and Handbook .................................................. C-12 g) Massachusetts Drinking Water Regulations ........................................................... C-12 h) Water Management Act .......................................................................................... C-12 4) REGIONAL REGULATIONS AND PLANNING INITIATIVES ................................................. C-13 a) The Cape Cod Commission .................................................................................... C-13 (i) Developments of Regional Impact....................................................................... C-13 (ii) Districts of Critical Planning Concern ................................................................. C-13 (iii) Regional Wastewater Management Plan ............................................................. C-14 5) LOCAL REGULATIONS AND PLANNING INITIATIVES ....................................................... C-14 a) Board of Health Regulations .................................................................................. C-14 (i) Existing Best Practice: 300-foot setback of septic system from a pond or lake . C-14 (ii) Existing Best Practice: Private Well Regulations ................................................ C-14 (iii) Existing Best Practice: Small Wastewater Treatment Facilities .......................... C-14 b) Water Conservation By-law ................................................................................... C-15 c) Zoning By-laws ...................................................................................................... C-15 (i) Existing Best Practices: Natural Resource Protection Design, Cluster Residential Development, and Planned Residential Development .................................................. C-16 (ii) Existing Best Practice: Water Quality Protection By-law .................................. C-16 (iii) Existing Best Practice: Impervious Cover Limits ............................................... C-16 (iv) Existing Best Practice: Shared Parking ............................................................... C-17 6) SUBDIVISION RULES AND REGULATIONS ....................................................................... C-17 a) Existing Best Practice: Flexible Sidewalk Requirements ...................................... C-17 ii 7) LOCAL WETLANDS PROTECTION BY-LAW ..................................................................... C-17 a) Existing Best Practice: Extending Wetland Values. ............................................... C-17 8) BY-LAW GOVERNING DISCHARGES TO THE MUNICIPAL STORM DRAIN SYSTEM ........... C-18 9) SUMMARY OF REGULATORY FRAMEWORK .................................................................... C-18 D. WASTEWATER .......................................................................................... D-19 1) PLEASANT BAY NITROGEN LOADING ASSESSMENT ....................................................... D-19 a) MEP Study .............................................................................................................. D-19 b) TMDL Study........................................................................................................... D-22 c) Development of Grouped Sub-Embayments or Planning Units ............................. D-24 d) Nitrogen Loading and Reductions for Towns in Brewster’s Planning Units ......... D-25 e) Strategies for Reducing Nitrogen Loadings ........................................................... D-27 2) OTHER WATERSHED ASSESSMENTS ............................................................................... D-29 3) IDENTIFICATION OF OTHER WASTEWATER NEEDS ......................................................... D-31 a) Current Soils Constraints ........................................................................................ D-31 b) Future Sea Level Rise Constraints.......................................................................... D-33 E. WATER SUPPLY ......................................................................................... E-40 1) MANAGING WATER USE AND QUALITY FOR SUSTAINABLE DRINKING WATER ............. E-40 2) OVERVIEW OF BREWSTER’S WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM .................................................... E-42 a) Condition and Capacity of Existing Wells .............................................................. E-42 b) Current Drinking Water Quality .............................................................................. E-45 c) Location and Capacity of Water Treatment Facilities ............................................. E-46 d) Storage Locations and Capacity .............................................................................. E-47 e) Recent Investments and Capital Improvements ...................................................... E-48 3) ANALYSIS OF WATER AVAILABILITY .............................................................................. E-49 a) Permitted Water Management Act Withdrawals and Yields of Existing Wells ...... E-50 b) Existing Water Demand ........................................................................................... E-52 c) Future Water Demand ............................................................................................. E-55 d) Identification of Potential Water Use Conflicts ...................................................... E-59 e) Evaluation of Water Conservation Opportunities ................................................... E-59 4) ZONE II NITROGEN LOADING ASSESSMENT .................................................................... E-61 a) Methodology Used for the Nitrogen Loading Assessment ..................................... E-61 b) Results from the Nitrogen Loading Assessment ..................................................... E-63 5) SUMMARY OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE TRAINING ........................................................... E-64 a) Refresher Training Summary .................................................................................. E-64 b) Tabletop Exercise Summary .................................................................................... E-65 c) Improvement Planning and Lessons Learned .......................................................... E-65 F. STORMWATER ........................................................................................... F-67 1) MS4 IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................................................. F-68 2) STORMWATER BMPS ...................................................................................................... F-71 a) Stormwater BMPs and Performance ....................................................................... F-71 3) STORMWATER RETROFIT ANALYSIS ............................................................................... F-74 a) Concept Design for Top Three Stormwater Retrofit Opportunities ........................ F-74 (i) Brewster Town Hall .............................................................................................. F-76 (ii) Breakwater Landing .............................................................................................. F-80 (iii) Walker’s Pond ....................................................................................................... F-84 G. FRESH WATER PONDS ............................................................................ G-88 iii 1) REVIEW OF POND WATER QUALITY STATUS ................................................................... G-88 a) Sources and Transport of Phosphorus and Pathogens to Ponds ............................. G-91 (i) Phosphorus ........................................................................................................... G-91 (ii) Pathogens ............................................................................................................. G-92 2) SEPTIC SYSTEMS CLOSE TO POND SHORELINES ............................................................... G-92 3) TECHNIQUES TO REDUCE PHOSPHORUS AND PATHOGEN IMPACTS ................................ G-94 H. PHASE II RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................ H-96 1) OVERARCHING RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. H-96 2) NITROGEN MANAGEMENT FOR PLEASANT BAY ............................................................ H-97 3) WATER SUPPLY ............................................................................................................. H-98 a) Strengthen the Water Conservation By-law ........................................................... H-98 b) Strengthen the Zoning By-law provisions for drinking water quality protection ... H-98 4) STORMWATER ................................................................................................................ H-99 a) Implement a Stormwater Management By-law ...................................................... H-99 (i) Post-Construction Practices and Erosion and Sediment Control ......................... H-99 (ii) Implement MA Stormwater Management Standards .......................................... H-99 (iii) Adopt Water Quality Targets that Go Beyond the MA SWMS Requirements . H-100 (iv) Requiring Retrofits ............................................................................................. H-100 (v) Require Load Reductions ................................................................................... H-101 (vi) Track and Report Changes in Directly Connected Impervious Area ................ H-101 (vii) Prohibit the Use of Detention Basins to Meet Water Quality Requirements .... H-101 (viii) Require Pretreatment for Leaching Catch Basins .............................................. H-102 (ix) Require the Most Recent Rainfall Data ............................................................. H-102 (x) Allow Peer Review of Projects by Consultant Professional Engineers ............. H-102 b) Encourage LID via Zoning By-laws and Subdivision Rules and Regulations ..... H-103 (i) Reference the Stormwater Management By-law within Site Plan Review ....... H-103 (ii) Parking ............................................................................................................... H-103 (iii) Landscaping ....................................................................................................... H-104 (iv) Street Cross-Sections and Driveways ................................................................ H-106 (v) Allow Stormwater Management Techniques in Required Setback Areas ......... H-109 (vi) Allow Stormwater Management Techniques within Open Space Areas ........... H-109 5) FRESH WATER PONDS .................................................................................................. H-109 I. PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH............................................... I-113 1) WEBSITE ........................................................................................................................ I-113 2) EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS ............................................................................................ I-113 3) PUBLIC MEETINGS ......................................................................................................... I-114 J. GLOSSARY ................................................................................................. J-115 K. REFERENCES ........................................................................................... K-120 L. APPENDICES ............................................................................................. L-124 v LIST OF FIGURES Figure B-1. The Integrated Nature of Water Resources ............................................................ B-2 Figure B-2. Brewster’s Water Resources ................................................................................... B-3 Figure D-1. Pleasant Bay Watershed and Surrounding Towns ............................................... D-20 Figure D-2. All Sources of Nitrogen to Pleasant Bay .............................................................. D-21 Figure D-3. Manageable Sources of Nitrogen in Pleasant Bay ............................................... D-21 Figure D-4. Pleasant Bay TMDL Sub-Embayments ............................................................... D-23 Figure D-5. Pleasant Bay Planning Units ................................................................................ D-26 Figure D-6. MEP Watersheds and Surrounding Towns .......................................................... D-30 Figure D-7. Soil Permeability and Depth to High Groundwater Table ................................... D-32 Figure D-8. Effect of Sea Level Rise on Septic System Compliance ...................................... D-34 Figure D-9. Comparison of Depth to Groundwater Methods .................................................. D-36 Figure D-10. Projected Sea Level Rise for Brewster ............................................................... D-39 Figure E-1. Brewster Conservation Lands and Zone II Areas .................................................. E-41 Figure E-2. Parcels Assumed to Have Private Drinking Water Wells ..................................... E-44 Figure E-3. Daily Demand for Public Water in Brewster (1974 to 2011) ................................ E-50 Figure E-4. Average Daily Demand for Public Water in Three Representative Seasons ......... E-53 Figure E-5. Large Water Users Based on Water Demand by Parcel ........................................ E-56 Figure E-6. Historic and Forecasted Average Daily Demand .................................................. E-58 Figure E-7. Historic and Forecasted Maximum Daily Demand ............................................... E-59 Figure F-1. MS4 Regulated Lands in Brewster ........................................................................ F-70 Figure F-2. Existing Inventory of Brewster’s Stormwater System ........................................... F-73 Figure F-3. Location of Proposed Rain Garden in Grass Area Below Rear Parking Lot ......... F-76 Figure F-4. Slope Erosion where Concentrated Parking Lot Runoff Flows Downslope .......... F-76 Figure F-5. Installations of Rain Gardens and Bioretention Systems ....................................... F-77 Figure F-6. Concept Plan for Town Hall Rain Garden ............................................................. F-79 Figure F-7. Central Bioswale Proposed for Wide Parking Lot ................................................. F-80 Figure F-8. Area of Pavement to be Removed ......................................................................... F-80 Figure F-9. Bioretention Facilities Recently Designed by HW ................................................ F-81 Figure F-10. Concept Plan for Breakwater Landing Parking Retrofit ...................................... F-83 Figure F-11. Slope with Spotty Vegetation Leading Down to Boat Launch. ........................... F-84 Figure F-12. Parking Area for Proposed Porous Asphalt and Bioretention Island ................... F-84 Figure F-13. Porous Asphalt Parking........................................................................................ F-85 Figure F-14. Concept Plan for Walker’s Pond Stormwater Retrofit ........................................ F-87 Figure G-1. Photos of Algae Growth in Mill Ponds ................................................................ G-88 Figure G-2. Status of Brewster’s Ponds ................................................................................... G-90 Figure G-3. Regulated Pond Setbacks for Brewster ................................................................ G-93 Figure H-1. DCIA Includes all Impervious Areas Connected to the Drainage System ........ H-101 Figure H-2. Conventional Detention Basin Versus Bioretention System .............................. H-102 Figure H-3. Parking Standards often Create Excessive Impervious Surface Areas .............. H-104 Figure H-4. Parking Lot Bioretention Facility ....................................................................... H-105 Figure H-5. Scenic Roads are Usually Narrower than Allowed by Local Regulations. ........ H-106 Figure H-6. Examples of One-way Loop Streets and Hammer Head Turnarounds .............. H-107 Figure H-7. Example of a Common Driveway ...................................................................... H-108 Figure H-8. Perforated Curb and Invisible Curb with Lip ..................................................... H-109 vi Figure H-9. Proposed Septic Leachfield Layout for Systems near Ponds ............................. H-111 Figure H-10. Proposed Vegetative Buffer Between the Lawn and Edge of Pond ................. H-112 LIST OF TABLES Table C-1. Brewster’s Impaired Surface Waters ....................................................................... C-7 Table C-2. Title 5 Minimum Setback Distances ...................................................................... C-11 Table D-1. Sub-Embayment TMDL Loads and Reductions for Manageable Nitrogen .......... D-24 Table D-2. Brewster Planning Unit TMDL Loads and Nitrogen Reductions ......................... D-25 Table D-3. Planning Unit Nitrogen Analysis by Town ........................................................... D-27 Table D-4. Estimated Number of Residential Households in Brewster to be Treated ............ D-28 Table D-5. Status of Watershed Assessments .......................................................................... D-29 Table D-6. Parcels Affected by Soils Constraints ................................................................... D-33 Table D-7. Parcels Affected by Sea Level Rise ....................................................................... D-38 Table E-1. Permitted and Actual Maximum Daily Withdrawals .............................................. E-51 Table E-2. Average Water Demand Based on Different Population Estimates ....................... E-54 Table E-3. DCR Water Needs Forecast .................................................................................... E-57 Table E-4. Loading Factors Used in Land-Based Nitrogen Model .......................................... E-62 Table E-5. Measured and Modeled Nitrogen Concentrations for Zone IIs .............................. E-63 Table F-1. Impacts of Stormwater Pollutants ........................................................................... F-68 Table F-2. Typical Impervious Cover by Land Use ................................................................. F-68 Table F-3. Stormwater Infrastructure Inventory ....................................................................... F-71 Table F-4. Sizing Requirements and Planning Level Costs for Proposed Retrofits ................. F-75 Table G-1. Condition of Brewster’s Ponds .............................................................................. G-89 Table G-2. Parcels Affected by Pond Setbacks ....................................................................... G-94 Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page ES-1 January 2013 A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction In 2009, the Town of Brewster, through its Comprehensive Water Planning Committee (CWPC), embarked on a project to develop an Integrated Water Resource Management Plan (IWRMP). In 2011, the Town completed Phase I of the project that documents existing water quality conditions for the Town’s public supply wells, fresh water ponds and coastal waters. The Horsley Witten Group (HW) was hired to perform the Phase II work in December 2011. The goals of Phase II were to: Analyze the extent of nitrogen reduction needed to protect and restore Pleasant Bay, with a focus on septic system management as the largest source of nitrogen to the Bay; Evaluate current and future water quality conditions for the Town’s public supply wells and also determine if there is sufficient water available for potable uses based on future growth in town; Conduct a preliminary retrofit analysis to identify stormwater improvements that will provide water quality treatment and reduce impacts on receiving waters, and identify improvements to the Town’s regulations to better manage stormwater across the Town; and Further evaluate fresh water pond impacts in town, and make recommendations for how the Town and pond shore residents can minimize phosphorus inputs to the ponds that have a direct impact on water quality. The results of these analyses are described below. Wastewater The wastewater analysis in Phase II concentrated in two specific areas: 1. An evaluation of the nitrogen reductions needed to meet the water quality goals for Pleasant Bay as described in the state’s Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) report for the estuary; and 2. An analysis of the properties in town where the use of an onsite system may be limited by poor soils or shallow depths to groundwater. The nitrogen load reductions listed in the Pleasant Bay TMDL were analyzed and strategies for meeting the required reductions were developed. For Pleasant Bay, most of the manageable nitrogen loads are from septic systems (75%), fertilizers (16%) and stormwater (9%). The TMDL for Pleasant Bay set the nitrogen load reductions for 19 sub-embayments. HW simplified the results by grouping sub-embayments by common drainage areas and load reductions to create four planning areas. The loads and loading reductions for Brewster’s four planning areas ranged from 27.8 to 35.6% for current conditions and 42.2 to 58.3% for buildout conditions. The nitrogen loading reductions needed in Brewster for the four planning units range from 141 to 3,240 pounds of nitrogen per year (lb N/yr) for current conditions and 395 to 5,359 lb N/yr for Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page ES-2 January 2013 buildout conditions. The largest load reductions are needed in the Pleasant Bay planning area as it has the largest area geographically. This is where the Captains Golf Course and Cape Cod National Golf Course are located such that fertilizer management is important in this planning area. Two key findings came from this analysis. First, the level of nitrogen reduction required within Brewster can most likely be managed without the need for a full-scale centralized treatment facility. Second, the management of the Captains Golf Course over the last 6-8 years has significantly reduced the amount of fertilizers applied to the course, and this action will minimize the extent of nitrogen treatment needed for wastewater systems within the watershed. Looking forward, the following strategies will be considered in Phase III to develop a nitrogen management plan for the Pleasant Bay watershed. The list of potential options includes: The use of onsite, alternative nitrogen treatment systems; One or more cluster or neighborhood treatment systems; Additional fertilizer reductions at the Captains Golf Course; The use of irrigation/interceptor wells to capture nitrogen and return it to a beneficial use such as golf course or agricultural irrigation where the nitrogen uptake by vegetation can occur; The use of permeable reactive barriers to treat nitrogen in groundwater before it reaches Pleasant Bay. These could be constructed as shallow trenches with a media that promotes the treatment of nitrogen, or could be built as injection wells where a solution is injected into groundwater to promote nitrogen treatment; and The use of alternative toilets, such as composting or urine diverting toilets to prevent nitrogen from entering groundwater through a septic system. As these options are evaluated in Phase III, the opportunities for collaboration with neighboring towns will also be considered and further discussions on regional opportunities are anticipated. Along with the nitrogen analysis for Pleasant Bay, HW evaluated areas in town where septic systems may be constrained by poor soils or shallow depths to groundwater. Current soil constraints affect some 448 parcels with high groundwater table or low permeability (tight) soils. The most significant soil restrictions are along the northern coast. There are about 131 parcels that might possibly be affected by a projected sea level rise of three feet by 2100 mostly in areas where groundwater is currently close to the land surface. The wastewater analysis proposed for Phase III will evaluate options for future upgrades of systems impacted by soils or depth to groundwater. Water The Town currently has excellent water quality in its public drinking water wells and most of its private wells. There are four public water wells in Brewster (with one in development and another one planned) and about 600 private water wells. A main reason for the excellent water quality in the public supply wells is the extent of protected open space within the land areas that contribute water to the wells; areas known in Massachusetts as Zone IIs. About 40% of the Zone II areas in Brewster are protected as conservation land. Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page ES-3 January 2013 Measured nitrate concentrations for the public wells have consistently been low (0.25 mg/L) and a nitrogen loading analysis for the Zone IIs projected that nitrogen concentrations at buildout would only range from 0.6 to 1.57 mg/L, far below the drinking water standard of 10 mg/L. Thirty three private drinking water wells had at least one measured concentration over 5 mg/L, of which five are in excess of 10 mg/L. The Town has consistently met its permitted withdrawal of 1.57 million gallons per day (mgd) and HW estimates that permitted number will not be exceeded until 2020. Future water demand has been projected by the State to reach 2.1 mgd by 2026. Current water demand in Brewster ranges from 0.75 mgd in the winter to a peak of 2.25 mgd in the summer when vacationers arrive. The new wells should provide flexibility and help meet the variable demand. Stormwater Phase II stormwater activities involved a detailed review of existing federal, state and local regulations that control stormwater management in Brewster and the development of a series of recommendations to amend the local regulations to improve stormwater practices. Brewster’s stormwater system is currently regulated by the Phase II Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit. The MS4 permit is currently in draft form and will likely be out sometime in 2013. The final MS4 permit will most likely require detailed stormwater infrastructure mapping, illicit connection and sediment by-laws, and implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) to meet approved TMDL pollutant reductions. Current mapping of stormwater infrastructure is currently underway. Detailed recommendations are provided to mandate improved stormwater management across the Town, including reductions in allowed impervious cover to minimize stormwater runoff, the application of low impact development (LID) practices, and the use of BMPs to treat nitrogen and phosphorus to limit discharge of these pollutants to fresh water ponds and coastal estuaries. To demonstrate these BMPs, HW worked with the Town on an assessment of existing stormwater discharges to evaluate how to best retrofit them to increase nitrogen and phosphorus treatment. Using best-available mapping and field visits, HW identified 19 sites with opportunities for installing new or retrofit stormwater systems in Brewster. Of these sites, three highest priority locations were selected in consultation with the Town and HW developed 20% designs for Town Hall, Breakwater Landing, and Walker’s Pond sites. Phase III will include the final design of the upgraded stormwater management system for one of these sites. Fresh Water Ponds Based on Phase I work, the water quality for Brewster’s approximately 80 ponds was reviewed and summarized. There are 28 ponds without data, 36 with zero or minor impacts, and 17 with major impacts. Of those with major impacts, five require a nutrient TMDL for phosphorus. The restoration of many of the impaired ponds will require a detailed, site specific assessment of the current phosphorus loadings from multiple sources within the watersheds that contribute surface Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page ES-4 January 2013 water runoff and groundwater to each pond. Brewster has begun this process with the funding of a detailed study of the Mill Ponds with results expected by the end of 2012. In the absence of a specific study for each pond, HW developed a series of recommendations that can be adopted by the Town, or implemented by pond shore residents to minimize phosphorus inputs. These include recommendations to: Require specific design standards for upgrades of septic systems within 300 feet of a pond shore; Continue to identify and retrofit direct stormwater discharges to ponds from roads and parking lots; Continue outreach to homeowners on proper fertilizer practices and low/no phosphorus detergents; Create a pilot vegetative buffer adjacent to a pond; and Continue to encourage proper management of pet waste. It is anticipated that many of these proposals will be advanced as part of Phase III to help minimize current phosphorus loadings to Brewster’s ponds. Outreach and Education To engage the Brewster residents in the IWRMP, HW developed a project website with a description of the project and links to many prior reports and maps. The website can be accessed from the Town’s home page (www.town.brewster.ma.us) by clicking on the “Water Planning” button. HW also provided informational materials including a brochure and a poster. The project progress was documented and presented at four public community meetings (see the “Get Involved!” Tab of the website for copies of the presentations). Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page B-1 January 2013 B. INTRODUCTION The Town of Brewster is blessed with an abundance of water resources that make it a desirable place to live or visit. These resources include coastal waters and estuaries, fresh water ponds, streams, and wetlands. Connecting all of these surface water features is groundwater, which is also the sole source of drinking water for the Town. These water resources are interconnected therefore pollutants that impact one of them can also be transported to another. Hence there is a need for an integrated water resource management plan (IWRMP) to evaluate and protect one of the Town’s greatest assets: clean water. 1) OVERVIEW OF INTEGRATED WATER MANAGEMENT Integrated water management stems from the fact that impacts to groundwater also impact surface waters and impacts to surface waters also can impact groundwater. Water quality and water quantity impacts are possible, so the evaluation of the Town’s water resources need to consider both. The interrelationships between groundwater and surface water and different sources of pollutants can be seen in Figure B-1. The graphic shows how day-to-day activities of town residents impact the quality of drinking water and the quality of fresh water ponds and coastal estuaries. What is flushed down a toilet into a septic system can impact water quality in downgradient ponds or coastal estuaries. Pollutants on town roadways (automobiles, fertilizers, and pet wastes) are collected in stormwater runoff that flows into waterways or soaks into the ground and impacts groundwater quality. The Town, through its Comprehensive Water Planning Committee (CWPC), recognized that an integrated approach was needed to holistically protect and restore the Town’s waters and began a planning process back in 2009. This planning process recognizes individual plans or actions are needed for specific watersheds in town; those areas that contribute groundwater or surface water to fresh water ponds or coastal estuaries (see Figure B-2). For example nitrogen management within the Pleasant Bay watershed is needed to restore water quality within this coastal estuary and actions specific to this watershed will be needed to meet this goal. The IWRMP process also recognizes that site specific analysis is needed for those areas that contribute groundwater to the Town’s public drinking water wells. These areas are known in Massachusetts as Zone IIs or wellhead protection areas. These watersheds and Zone II areas are a focus of some of the analysis conducted during this project and will be discussed in more detail in later sections of the report. One key finding of these analyses is the value the Town receives from its ongoing efforts to acquire and preserve open space. The high quality of the Town’s drinking water supply is directly related to the lack of development in areas that contribute water to its public supply wells. And, as will be explained in more detail in Sections C and H, the extent of wastewater management in Brewster’s portion of the Pleasant Bay watershed is reduced because of the extensive areas of preserved open space within the Brewster part of Pleasant Bay watershed. Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page B-2 January 2013 Figure B-1. The Integrated Nature of Water Resources £¤6 UV137UV124 UV6A DENN IS HARWICH YARMOUTH ORLEAN S CHATHAM Cape Cod Bay Stony BrookQuivett Creek Pleasant Bay Bass River Herring River Namska ke t Swan Pond Little Na mskaket / 0 10.5Miles Date: 11/19/2012 - eym Path: H:\Projects\2011\11109 Brewster Int.Wtr.Res.Mgt Plan\GIS\Maps\Report\Figure B-2.mxd Figu re B-2. Bre wster's WaterResources C ape C od B ayP l e a s a n t B a y Cape Cod Bay Legend Ponds Streams Subwatersheds Wetlands Brewster Zone II Other Zone IIs Town of Brewster Watersheds Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page B-4 January 2013 2) BREWSTER’S ONGOING IWRMP PROCESS The analysis and recommendations contained here represent the completion of Phase II of the Town’s IWRMP. The process began in 2009 when the CWPC hired consultant CDM-Smith to perform Phase I of the IWRMP. Phase I documented existing water quality conditions for the Town’s public supply wells, fresh water ponds and coastal waters. The final report (see CDM, 2011) for Phase I was released in February, 2011. Horsley Witten Group (HW) was hired to perform the Phase II work in December 2011. The goals of Phase II were to: Analyze the extent of nitrogen reduction needed to protect and restore Pleasant Bay, with a focus on septic system management as the largest source of nitrogen to the Bay; Evaluate current and future water quality conditions for the Town’s public supply wells and also determine if there is sufficient water available for potable uses based on future growth in town; Conduct a preliminary retrofit analysis to identify stormwater improvements that will provide water quality treatment and reduce impacts on receiving waters, and identify improvements to the Town’s regulations to better manage stormwater across the Town; and Further evaluate fresh water pond impacts in town, and make recommendations for how the Town and pond shore residents can minimize phosphorus inputs to the ponds that have a direct impact on water quality. In November, 2012, the Town authorized funding to continue to Phase III where specific alternatives to manage nitrogen impacts to Pleasant Bay will be evaluated and a recommended solution will be selected. Phase III will also include the full design of a stormwater retrofit based on work begun in Phase II as a pilot project to promote improved stormwater management across Brewster. In addition, a focused study of one fresh water pond to identify potential restoration opportunities will be conducted. It is anticipated that Phase III will start in early 2013. It is important to note that before initiating this phase of the project, the Town began a number of projects to supply the available data needed for Phase II. These intermediate “bridge” projects between Phase I and II included: Creation of a town-wide geographic information system (GIS) that allowed HW to link water use and septic records with parcels in order to conduct needed nitrogen loading assessments (HW, completed in January 2013); Completing a build-out analysis used to evaluate future growth throughout town (HW, completed January 2013); Collecting additional pond quality data on the Mill Ponds (School of Marine Science and Technology, ongoing); and Two municipal stormwater system surveys identifying catch basins, stormwater controls, and outfalls that assisted with the Phase II stormwater retrofit assessments (Kleinfelder/SEA Consultants, completed in 2012, additional follow-on work underway). The following sections of the report provide details on the wastewater, stormwater and fresh water pond analyses completed in Phase II. Section H of the report provides an overall look at the program recommendations that result from these analyses, with descriptions of what will be developed as part of Phase III. Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page C-5 January 2013 C. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 1) INTRODUCTION To begin the process of understanding how Brewster’s water resources can best be protected from potential threats, HW reviewed the regulatory scheme that currently exists. A summary of the existing regulatory framework that is applicable in this Integrated Water Resource Management Plan (IWRMP) is provided below. a) The Difference between Laws, Regulations and Guidance/Policy It is important to make the distinction between laws, regulations and guidance/policy as each plays its own role in an IWRMP. At any level of government, laws are enacted by legislative bodies. At the federal level, laws are passed by Congress, and signed by the President. At the state level, laws are passed by the state legislature. At the local level, laws (also called codes, ordinances, or in Brewster’s Town code – by-laws) are passed by the legislative body in the municipality. In Brewster, the legislative body is Town Meeting. Therefore, all by-laws in Brewster must be passed by Town Meeting. Regulations are substantive rules that supplement a law or statute. The authority to enact regulations comes from the law. Many federal statutes give federal governmental agencies (i.e., the Environmental Protection Agency, USEPA) the power to create regulations, which are published in the Federal Register and codified into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). Similarly, at the State level, different agencies (i.e., the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, DEP) can adopt regulations for state laws, which are codified into the Code of Massachusetts Regulations (CMR). At the local level, local government departments adopt regulations pursuant to state law to implement local by-laws. Guidance and policy documents are created to encourage or discourage certain activities. As opposed to laws and regulations, which include requirements, and outline what “must” or “must not” be done, guidance and policies recommend what “should” or “should not” be done. Policy recommendations can also be incorporated as conditions on permits or grant/loan applications; in this case they are often required for the applicant to obtain approval. 2) FEDERAL REGULATIONS a) Federal Clean Water Act The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United States. It also regulates quality standards for surface waters. The basis of the CWA was enacted in 1948 and was called the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, but the Act was significantly reorganized and expanded in 1972. "Clean Water Act" became the Act's common name with the amendments in 1972. The CWA is the cornerstone of surface water quality protection in the United States. The overarching goal of the CWA is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page C-6 January 2013 integrity of the Nation’s waters.” To do this, the statute employs a variety of both regulatory and non-regulatory tools to reduce direct pollutant discharges into waterways, finance municipal wastewater treatment facilities, and manage polluted runoff. The CWA protects America’s surface waters. However, protection of groundwater is not directly addressed in the CWA. The CWA establishes environmental programs to protect the Nation's waters and directs the USEPA to develop, implement, and enforce regulations consistent with the CWA. States, territories, and authorized tribes may be given primacy to implement federal CWA programs. The CWA programs that are highlighted in this report are those that have the most applicability to an IWRMP at the local level in Brewster. These include: Water Quality Standards (WQS; Section 303(c) of the CWA); Report on the Condition of the Nation’s Waters (Section 303(d) and 305(b) of the CWA); Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs; Section 303(d) of the CWA); Water Quality Certification (Section 401 of the CWA); and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program (Section 402 of the CWA). (i) Water Quality Standards Water quality standards are the foundation of any state or tribal water quality management program. They serve a variety of functions. Water quality standards have the primary purpose of defining goals for surface waters and criteria to support those goals. The goals for a waterbody are defined by establishing designated uses. Water quality criteria describe the conditions that, if met, will support the designated use. Water quality standards serve as the basis for water quality-based control actions such as establishing a NPDES permit limit or making decisions about providing water quality certifications for certain federal licenses or permits. Examples of decisions based on water quality standards include: Reporting on conditions of state or tribal water quality; Developing water quality based limits in NPDES permits; Setting targets for calculating TMDLs; and Making decisions regarding Section 401 certification of permits and licenses. These decisions are made on the federal level, or sometimes by states that have been granted authority to do so by the USEPA. (ii) Report on the Condition of the Nation’s Waters The CWA (Section 305(b)) requires each state and territory to monitor and submit a status report every two years on its surface water and groundwater quality. Additionally, the CWA (Section 303(d)) requires each State to develop a list of waterbodies that are not attaining or not expected to meet state water quality standards. The 303(d) list is a subset of all of the impaired waters listed in the comprehensive 305(b) report. Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page C-7 January 2013 (iii) TMDLs The CWA requires that states and territories establish priority rankings for waters on the 303(d) list and develop a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for these waters. A TMDL is a technical calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still safely meet water quality standards. Although it is not a regulatory document by itself, subsequent permits will be governed by the results of the TMDL. The waterbodies in Brewster that are on the 303(d) list as well as their impairment and TMDL status (DEP, 2012) are summarized in Table C-1. Table C-1. Brewster’s Impaired Surface Waters Water body Pollutants of concern Status of TMDL Pleasant Bay Nitrogen TMDL completed Quivett Creek Fecal coliform TMDL completed Namskaket Creek Fecal coliform TMDL completed Herring River1 Fecal coliform TMDL completed Bass River1 Estuarine bioassessments, Fecal coliform TMDL completed Lower Mill Pond Chlorophyll-a; Excess algal growth; Phosphorous (total); Secchi disk transparency; Turbidity TMDL required: not yet completed Long Pond Oxygen, dissolved TMDL required: not yet completed Sheep Pond2 Mercury in fish tissue TMDL completed Walkers Pond Excess algal growth; Phosphorous (total); Secchi disk transparency; Turbidity TMDL required: not yet completed Baker’s Pond Mercury in fish tissue TMDL completed 1 River not in Brewster, but a portion of the contributing watershed area is within the Town boundary. 2 The Town has requested that Sheep Pond be removed from the 303(d) list. A response is pending. An example TMDL is the Pleasant Bay nitrogen TMDL. Based on studies as part of the Massachusetts Estuaries Project (MEP), portions of Pleasant Bay have been found to have severe impacts from excessive nitrogen. DEP has issued a TMDL report for Pleasant Bay setting a limit on the sources of nitrogen within the contributing watershed to portions of Pleasant Bay, including contributing watersheds originating in Brewster. This IWRMP makes recommendations for the Town of Brewster to reduce its contributing nitrogen load to Pleasant Bay. These recommendations will help Brewster meet its goals in achieving its share of the regional requirements of the TMDL. (iv) Water Quality Certification Under Section 401 of the CWA, no federal agency can issue a permit or license that may result in a discharge to waters subject to the CWA, unless a state or authorized tribe certifies the discharge Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page C-8 January 2013 would be consistent with water quality standards and other water quality goals. The state or authorized tribe can grant this certification with or without conditions, deny certification (at which time the permit or license cannot be issued), or waive certification (meaning that the state or tribal agency decides not to act on a 401 application request). Section 401 will have little impact on this IWRMP, except in the case of any recommendations that include a proposed dredge and/or fill project because such a project can result in the discharge of pollutants to waters subject to the CWA. (v) NPDES Program The NPDES permit program is the result of enactment of the CWA and implementation of federal regulations (primarily 40 CFR Part 122). The NPDES permit program controls water pollution by regulating point sources that discharge pollutants into Waters of the United States. Point sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes or man-made ditches. Individual homes that are connected to a municipal system, use a septic system, or do not have a surface discharge do not need a NPDES permit; however, industrial, municipal, and other facilities must obtain permits if their discharges go directly to surface waters. In many states the NPDES permit program is administered by the state; however, in Massachusetts, the EPA administers the NPDES program. Small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (Small MS4s), such as that in Brewster, are considered point sources, and are required to comply with a NPDES General Permit, and reduce stormwater pollution entering their small MS4 to the "maximum extent practicable." Each operator is required to develop and implement a stormwater management program that consists of six minimum control measures. These elements are expected to result in significant reductions of pollutants discharged into Brewster’s waters. The six program elements are: Public education and outreach; Public participation/ involvement; Illicit discharge detection and elimination; Construction site runoff controls; Post-Construction runoff control; and Pollution prevention and good housekeeping. The permit process begins when EPA writes the general permit and publishes it in the Federal Register. Each general permit is written to cover a category of discharges under the CWA. The current NPDES Phase II MS4 general permit, which would apply to Brewster’s MS4 is currently in draft form. The requirements of the expired NPDES Phase I permit apply until promulgation of the Phase II permit. b) Federal Safe Drinking Water Act The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is the main federal law that ensures the quality of America’s drinking water. Under the SDWA, the EPA sets standards for drinking water quality and oversees the states, localities, and water suppliers who implement those standards. Although the SDWA requires many actions to protect drinking water and its sources, it does not regulate private wells which serve fewer than 25 individuals or fewer than 15 service connections. Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page C-9 January 2013 3) STATE REGULATIONS a) Massachusetts Clean Water Act The Massachusetts Clean Water Act (MGL Chapter 21, Sections 26 – 53) essentially mirrors the federal Clean Water Act. The Act authorizes the DEP to adopt standards of minimum water quality, which are more stringent than the federal limits, and prescribe effluent limitations, permit programs and procedures applicable to the management and disposal of pollutants, including, where appropriate, prohibition of discharges. b) Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act and Regulations The Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (WPA) and supplementing Regulations were adopted in an effort to protect wetland resource areas in Massachusetts. The WPA is administered at the state level by the DEP and at the local level by local Conservation Commissions. The regulatory process often begins when a project is proposed either within a wetland resource area or its buffer area. To determine whether the WPA applies, applicants may file a Request for Determination of Applicability (RDA). If a project is subject to regulation under the WPA and requires a permit from the Conservation Commission to continue, the applicant must file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with both the Conservation Commission and the DEP indicating an intent to perform work in or near a wetland resource area and requesting a permit for that work. The NOI must contain enough supporting material to allow the Commission and members of the public to evaluate possible impacts of the work on the wetland resource area. If the Commission decides that the project will not endanger the nearby wetland resource areas as long as the work proceeds subject to certain conditions, then it issues an Order of Conditions, or permit, for the proposed work. This permit lists any conditions the Commission is placing on the work in order to protect the wetland resource area(s). c) Massachusetts Environmental Protection Agency The Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) is a law, which was promulgated to provide meaningful opportunities for public review of the potential environmental impacts of larger projects, and to assist each governmental agency in using all feasible means to avoid, minimize and/or mitigate damage to the environment. Dependent on which MEPA threshold(s) a project meets, applicants are generally required to submit either just an Environmental Notification Form (ENF) or an ENF and a mandatory Environmental Impact Report (EIR). For example, the following include some MEPA thresholds for an ENF: Direct alteration of 25 or more acres of land; Creation of five or more acres of impervious area; Construction of a new wastewater treatment and/or disposal facility with a capacity of 100,000 or more gallons per day (gpd); Construction of one or more new sewer mains five or more miles in length; and New withdrawal or expansion in withdrawal of 100,000 or more gpd from a water source. Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page C-10 January 2013 Some of the thresholds for an ENF and mandatory EIR include: Direct alteration of 50 or more acres of land; Creation of ten or more acres of impervious area; New wastewater treatment plants with a capacity of 2,500,000 or more gpd; Construction of one or more new sewer mains ten or more miles in length; and New withdrawal or expansion in withdrawal of 2,500,000 or more gpd from a surface water source or 1,500,000 or more gpd from a groundwater source. The proposed implementation options of this IWRMP will be analyzed to determine whether a MEPA threshold is met. d) Title 5 Most wastewater discharges in Brewster are from individual onsite septic systems, which are regulated by Title 5 of the State Environmental Code (regulations at 310 CMR 15.00). The “Title 5” regulations outline requirements for the siting, construction, inspection, upgrade and expansion of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems for the transport and disposal of septage. Although enacted by the State, Title 5 is administered and enforced by local health departments. Title 5 regulates both vertical and horizontal separation to water resources. The main purpose of vertical separation to groundwater is to provide enough distance beneath the leaching facility, or Soil Absorption System (SAS) to the groundwater table to naturally treat the wastewater before it reaches groundwater. With horizontal setbacks, attenuation of contaminants is considered as the effluent mixes with and is carried away from the disposal site by groundwater toward receiving waters. Title 5 requires that the vertical distance of separation between the bottom of a leaching field and groundwater is more than four feet in regular soils and more than five feet in coarse sands and gravel. Because of the vertical separation requirement, septic systems in areas with high groundwater tables may need to be raised above the ground surface. Regarding horizontal separation distances, Table C-2 is an abbreviated excerpt of the table provided in 310 CMR 15.211, related to Title 5 minimum setback distances. In addition, Title 5 systems are prohibited within a Zone I for a public water supply well or wellfield. A Zone I is the 400 foot protective radius around a public water supply well. Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page C-11 January 2013 Table C-2. Title 5 Minimum Setback Distances Item Setback (feet) Property line 10 Surface Waters (except wetlands) 50 Bordering Vegetated Wetlands (BVW), Salt Marshes, Inland and Coastal Banks 50 Surface Water Supply – Reservoirs and Impoundments 400 Tributaries to Surface Water Supplies 200 Wetlands bordering Surface Water Supply or Tributary thereto 100 Certified Vernal Pools 100 Private Water Supply Well or Suction Line 100 Irrigation Well 25 Title 5 also regulates shared systems up to 10,000 gallons per day (gpd) and innovative/alternative (I/A) systems. Shared systems are those which serve more than one facility. Often higher levels of treatment can be attained through a shared system. An I/A system is any septic system or part of one that is not designed or constructed in a way consistent with a conventional Title 5 system. I/A systems can often be used to meet higher treatment requirements, such as for nitrogen removal. Title 5 currently limits the intensity of development in nitrogen sensitive areas, such as residential lots with onsite wells and DEP approved Zone IIs of public water supply wells, by restricting development to that which would discharge a maximum of 440 gallons per day of wastewater (four bedrooms) per acre. Under Title 5, the use of an I/A system, which provides higher nitrogen treatment, could allow for development in these areas, which would discharge up to 660 gallons per day of wastewater (six bedrooms) per acre. e) Groundwater Discharge Permit Program Facilities that discharge over 10,000 gpd of wastewater to the subsurface generally require a groundwater discharge permit under the Groundwater Discharge Permit regulations (314 CMR 5.00). Groundwater discharge permits are issued primarily for domestic and commercial wastewater, carwashes, laundromats and certain industrial facilities. There are five groundwater discharges in Brewster (three year-round and two summer-only). Like all wastewater systems permitted in this fashion, they must meet an effluent discharge limit of 10 mg/L for total nitrogen. The approximate nitrogen load from these facilities is 700 pounds nitrogen per year, equivalent to about 65 septic systems. The type and amount of wastewater discharged will determine which application the facility files under. For non-industrial discharges there are individual permits and general permits. For industrial discharges, the application is based on the discharge type. A general permit is a set of limits and conditions for one or more categories of discharges which warrant similar control measures. The DEP develops and issues the general permit and the discharger then applies for coverage under those permit terms and conditions. Currently, there are two general permit categories: sewage treatment facilities (public & private) that treat less than 50,000 gpd; and car Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page C-12 January 2013 washes. The individual permit is a site-specific permit for those discharges not covered under a general permit or not approved to operate under one. f) Massachusetts Stormwater Policy and Handbook In 1996, the DEP issued the Stormwater Policy that established stormwater management standards aimed at encouraging recharge and preventing stormwater discharges from causing or contributing to the pollution of the surface waters and groundwater of the Commonwealth. In 1997, DEP published the Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook as guidance on the Stormwater Policy. Then, in 2008, DEP revised the stormwater management standards and Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook to promote increased stormwater recharge, the treatment of more runoff from polluting land uses, low impact development (LID) techniques, pollution prevention, and the removal of illicit discharges to stormwater management systems, and improved operation and maintenance of stormwater best management practices (BMPs). Currently, jurisdiction for the Massachusetts stormwater management standards is only in areas covered under the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act. g) Massachusetts Drinking Water Regulations The State of Massachusetts has enacted Drinking Water Regulations (310 CMR 22.00), which apply to public water systems. These regulations were enacted to protect drinking water quality and ensure public safety. They include standards for various drinking water contaminants. For example, the Massachusetts Drinking Water Regulations include a nitrogen standard of 10 milligrams per liter (mg/L). Massachusetts has also adopted a planning goal for nitrogen that is one-half of the drinking water standard, because a consistent background concentration of greater than 5 mg/L has been shown to correlate to isolated exceedances of the drinking water standard. h) Water Management Act The Water Management Act (WMA; M.G.L. c. 21G) authorizes the DEP to regulate the quantity of water withdrawn from both surface water and groundwater supplies. The supplementing regulations (310 CMR 36.00) are intended to ensure adequate water supplies for current and future water needs. The WMA consists of a few key components, including a registration program and a permit program. Since 1988, persons planning to withdraw water from ground or surface sources for purposes in excess of an annual average of 100,000 gallons per day or nine million gallons in any three month period must apply for a WMA Permit. Withdrawers typically requiring a permit include public water suppliers, 18 hole golf courses, cranberry growers, sand and gravel facilities, fish hatcheries and agricultural and industrial users. Withdrawers with a Water Management Registration (issued to users in place before the Act was passed) do not need a permit if they do not increase withdrawals over their registered volumes or add any new withdrawal points to their system. The Town of Brewster currently has about a dozen entities with a WMA permit, including cranberry grower operations, golf courses, and the Brewster Water Department. The Brewster Water Department WMA permit requires residential gallons per capita per day water use (rgpcd) of 80 gallons or less and unaccounted for water (UAW) of 15% or less. Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page C-13 January 2013 WMA Permits are subject to review and renewal by the DEP every five years. Renewal requirements are currently being reviewed and revised as part of the update to the State’s new framework for the Sustainable Water Management Initiative (SWMI). Although still in draft form, the new SWMI framework may require renewal applicants to comply with new sustainable flow requirements (http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/resources/swmi.htm). 4) REGIONAL REGULATIONS AND PLANNING INITIATIVES a) The Cape Cod Commission The Town of Brewster must also consider the regional regulatory framework. Unlike most other counties in Massachusetts which are generally recognized solely as geographic entities, Barnstable County (which includes the Town of Brewster) maintains a regional form of governance. The Cape Cod Commission (CCC) is the regional planning authority in Barnstable County created in 1990 by an Act of the Massachusetts General Court and confirmed by a majority of Barnstable County voters. The CCC was established as a regional planning and regulatory agency to prepare and implement a regional land use policy plan for all of Barnstable County, review and regulate Developments of Regional Impact (DRIs), and recommend designation of certain areas as Districts of Critical Planning Concern (DCPCs). (i) Developments of Regional Impact The CCC has the authority to review projects that meet DRI thresholds. Projects of a certain scale or those that require an EIR under the MEPA regulations are deemed a DRI. For a DRI to be approved, a project must be consistent with the Cape Cod Regional Policy Plan (RPP), the Town’s local comprehensive plan, local development by-laws, and any DCPCs (areas that have been designated for special protection of important resources). There are a number of performance standards within the RPP related to the protection of water resources. For example, minimum performance standard LU 1.2 states that “nonresidential development and redevelopment shall be clustered on the site and with adjacent uses to the maximum extent possible…and employ shared wastewater treatment, community water supply alternatives and Low Impact Development (LID) landscaping to allow more compact development.” A project must also show that its benefits to Cape Cod outweigh its detriments. The DRI review process incorporates local concerns as much as possible. (ii) Districts of Critical Planning Concern The CCC is also charged with recommending the designation of DCPCs. A DCPC is a powerful planning tool that can allow a town to adopt special rules and regulations to protect natural resources. Brewster is one of the Towns in Barnstable County that has a designated DCPC. Although designated at the regional level, the regulations related to the DCPC have been enacted and implemented at the local level through Brewster’s Water Quality Protection By-law within its Zoning By-laws. See Figure E1 for the location of the DCPC in Brewster. Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page C-14 January 2013 (iii) Regional Wastewater Management Plan The CCC also recognizes that wastewater management is one of the most significant regional concerns affecting Cape Cod. The CCC is currently in the process of developing a Regional Wastewater Management Plan (RWMP) that will introduce residents and policy makers to the science, the challenges, and the potential solutions for managing wastewater on Cape Cod in an efficient and cost-effective way. The RWMP has not yet been published, but may play a role in the management of Brewster’s wastewater in the future. 5) LOCAL REGULATIONS AND PLANNING INITIATIVES a) Board of Health Regulations Local Board of Health Regulations (Division 3 of the Brewster Town Code) can outline local requirements and procedures related to integrated water resource management. For example, they can include provisions for the siting, design, operation, and maintenance of wastewater treatment facilities as long as they are at least as stringent as those required by Title 5. Local Board of Health Regulations can also include requirements for the maintenance of private drinking water wells. (i) Existing Best Practice: setback of septic systems from surface waters There have been recent recommendations that a 300-foot setback of septic systems from freshwater ponds might reduce the phosphorus inputs and prevent eutrophication, which is the result of excessive richness of nutrients in a body of water, causing dense growth of plant life and death of animal life from lack of oxygen (BCDHE, 2012). Brewster has recognized the importance of protecting its surface water resources and has established Board of Health regulations that currently require all leaching facilities to be at least 100 feet from any surface water and 300 feet from a pond or lake. This also applies to upgrades of existing systems at the time of any required inspection such as at the time of a real estate transfer. (ii) Existing Best Practice: Private Well Regulations The Town of Brewster maintains private well regulations, which require wells to be registered, and include provisions for well construction as well as decommissioning. There are also specific requirements for well location. Pursuant to the regulations, onsite private wells shall be permitted only if a protection zone around the well does not include any septic systems. The protection zone is measured as a 100-foot radius around the well and a 100 foot radius around an imaginary line extending 150 feet upgradient from the well. (iii) Existing Best Practice: Small Wastewater Treatment Facilities Local Board of Health regulations in the Town of Brewster also regulate the permitting, siting, and operation of small wastewater treatment facilities. These local regulations are more stringent than Title 5 in a number of ways, including: A disposal works permit fee and professional review fee of two percent of the design and construction costs of the plant or $5,000, whichever is greater; Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page C-15 January 2013 A hydrogeological report that requires a determination of all of the expected effects on public and private water supplies consistent with Brewster’s five parts per million (ppm) planning goal for nitrates; Design and construction to allow for odor control by activated carbon filtration; Groundwater monitoring wells, including: one up-gradient cluster of three monitoring wells, two down-gradient clusters of three monitoring wells each, and one monitoring well for groundwater level only near the center of the leaching works; and Operational guarantee provided as a security in an amount specified by the Board of Health to guarantee the operation of the SWWTP for a period of at least two years. (iv) Variance Requests in Environmentally Sensitive Areas The Board of Health has specific requirements for variances requests for septic system construction for both new and upgraded facilities. They limit the opportunities for a variance in Zone II area, within 300 feet of ponds, and in areas of shallow depths to groundwater. A variance for a system within 300 feet of a pond is only granted for existing system upgrades if no additional bedrooms are proposed and/or the design flow does not increase. For new construction within 300 feet of a pond, the applicant must limit the number of bedrooms to 1 per 10,000 square feet of buildable upland. b) Water Conservation By-law Brewster’s water conservation By-law (Chapter 112 of the Brewster Town Code) can be used to regulate the use of water in town, and prescribe conditions and requirements for water emergencies. Many communities have adopted water conservation by-laws to reduce residents’ water consumption during the summer season. The by-laws typically establish enforceable limits on the use of water during periods of high water demand by controlling activities such as lawn watering, swimming pool filling, and car washing. Typically, water conservation by-laws are structured so that the Town can declare a state of “water supply conservation” or “water supply emergency” after determining that a water shortage exists, thereby triggering a variety of water use restrictions. While the By-law grants authority to impose restrictions, the details of the restrictions are often specified separately in drought management plans (IRWA, 2012). c) Zoning By-laws Brewster’s zoning By-law (Chapter 179 of the Brewster Town Code) specifies where certain types of land uses, such as residential, commercial, or mixed use activities, can take place in the community. The By-law also outlines dimensional standards (i.e., lot size, setbacks) and performance standards (i.e., noise, nutrient loading) for different types of development or zoning districts. Zoning by-laws can (purposefully or accidentally) encourage different development patterns depending on the required standards. In the past, many towns instituted large lot size zoning in an effort to protect natural resources, particularly groundwater; however, by requiring large lot sizes and high setback distances, zoning by-laws have inadvertently encouraged sprawling development patterns, which have had negative environmental consequences. Smaller lot sizes and shorter setback requirements can promote clustered development patterns. Clustered development patterns Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page C-16 January 2013 provide more opportunities for homeowners and businesses to tie into a shared system, which may allow higher levels of treatment than a conventional onsite septic system. Zoning by-laws also influence the minimum amount of impervious cover required for certain development types as a result of standards, such as minimum parking space requirements. Thoughtfully considered amendments to the zoning by-laws for the purposes of reducing impervious cover and encouraging LID can better manage stormwater runoff on a community scale. Zoning by-laws can also be used to conserve land areas for natural resource protection (i.e., wellhead protection areas) by prohibiting different land uses, such as those that produce hazardous materials, within identified zoning districts. Brewster’s zoning by-laws include a number of provisions directed at water resource protection, which are further discussed below. (i) Existing Best Practices: Natural Resource Protection Design, Cluster Residential Development, and Planned Residential Development The Town has several mechanisms in the zoning by-laws that encourage clustered development, namely: Natural Resource Protection Design (NRPD; Article XIII)), Cluster Residential Development (CRD; Section 179-35), and Planned Residential Development (PRD; Section 179- 36). These mechanisms all allow for varying degrees of flexibility in dimensional requirements (i.e., minimum lot size, setback distances) beyond those allowed for under conventional development schemes, and NRPD even allows for density bonuses if the development meets certain criteria like the provision of an onsite wastewater denitrification system. Brewster used its zoning by-laws to implement the Brewster Water Protection DCPC. Requirements for the DCPC are included within Article XI, Water Quality Protection By-law, of the Town’s zoning by-laws. (ii) Existing Best Practice: Water Quality Protection By-law Probably the most proactive regulatory tool that the Town currently uses for drinking water protection is its Water Quality Protection By-law (WQPB), which is provided as Article XI of the Town’s zoning by-laws. The WQPB sets standards for development throughout the Town for protection of water resources and was one of the implementing regulations associated with the DCPC. It also establishes an overlay zoning district for the purposes of preserving the natural land surface providing high quality recharge to the drinking water aquifer. The overlay district includes the designated DCPC and places more stringent controls on development. For example, pursuant to the WQPB, development within a Zone I, Zone II and/or the DCPC area must meet additional performance standards, such as a 5 ppm nitrogen loading standard for units other than single family dwellings. The Water Quality Review Committee (WQRC) regulates uses governed by the WQPB. (iii) Existing Best Practice: Impervious Cover Limits Within the zoning by-laws, the WQPB prohibits “land uses that result in rendering impervious any lot or parcel more than 15% or 2,500 square feet, whichever is greater, unless a system for artificial recharge of precipitation is provided that will not result in the degradation of groundwater quality.” Although there may be issues related to the artificial recharge exemption, this is a progressive standard, and directly limiting impervious cover is a recommended approach for water quality protection. Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page C-17 January 2013 (iv) Existing Best Practice: Shared Parking Shared parking, allowing for a reduction in total parking spaces, is encouraged in Brewster’s zoning by-laws, which is another good strategy to limit imperviousness. 6) SUBDIVISION RULES AND REGULATIONS Similar to local Zoning By-laws, the Subdivision Rules and Regulations (Chapter 290 of the Brewster Town Code) also specify development standards, and encourage varying development patterns depending on these standards. The Subdivision Rules and Regulations can also encourage clustered development patterns which are more amenable to shared septic systems. Roadway and driveway standards are mostly governed by the Subdivision Rules and Regulations. Minimum required roadway and driveway widths can have a dramatic effect on impervious cover and associated stormwater runoff. Construction material requirements for roadways and driveways can also prohibit the use of pervious materials. Other provisions that are intended to improve public health, safety, and welfare, such as requirements for sidewalks on both sides of a street can inadvertently discourage LID strategies to treat stormwater runoff. a) Existing Best Practice: Flexible Sidewalk Requirements Brewster’s Subdivision Rules and Regulations maintain relatively flexible sidewalk design standards that allow for creativity with sidewalk layout to limit impervious cover and accommodate roadside LID practices. Sidewalks are required to be alongside roadways; however, as stated in Section 290-14.A, “the Board may approve the placement of a sidewalk at a greater distance from the roadway or at a higher or lower elevation in relation thereto, provided that such variation is indicated on the definitive plan.” 7) LOCAL WETLANDS PROTECTION BY-LAW In Massachusetts, municipalities have the authority to adopt more stringent local Wetlands Protection By-laws and Regulations than the state’s Act and Regulations. The Town of Brewster has adopted a local Wetlands Protection By-law (Chapter 172 of the Brewster Town Code) and supplementing regulations to provide further protection of wetland resource areas. a) Existing Best Practice: Extending Wetland Values. The Brewster Wetlands Protection By-law extends the wetland values protected in the By-law to include: groundwater quality, water quality in the numerous ponds of the Town, erosion and sedimentation control, and aesthetics and historic values. These values are above and beyond the values listed in the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act Regulations. The Town also extends applicability to include land subject to inundation by groundwater or surface water, which goes beyond the state’s Regulations. Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page C-18 January 2013 8) BY-LAW GOVERNING DISCHARGES TO THE MUNICIPAL STORM DRAIN SYSTEM Adopted in November of 2011, the By-law Governing Discharges to the Municipal Storm Drain System (Chapter 115 of Brewster Town Code) was adopted to regulate illicit connections and discharges to the municipal storm drain system, which is necessary for the protection of the Town of Brewster’s waterbodies and groundwater, and to safeguard the public health, safety, welfare and the environment. The objectives of this By-law are: To prevent pollutants from entering the Town of Brewster’s MS4; To prevent illicit connections and unauthorized discharges to the MS4; To require removal of all such illicit connections; To comply with state and federal statutes and regulations relating to stormwater discharges; and To establish the legal authority to ensure compliance with the provisions of this By-law through inspection, monitoring, and enforcement. 9) SUMMARY OF REGULATORY FRAMEWORK As described above, the regulatory framework that is currently in place provides varying degrees of protection for groundwater and surface water in the Town of Brewster. The following sections of this report will look at how society’s use of water and management of wastewater and stormwater pose threats to Brewster’s water resources. Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page D-19 January 2013 D. WASTEWATER Pollutants in wastewater impact groundwater quality and can contribute to the degradation of fresh water ponds and coastal estuaries. Nitrogen and phosphorus are the main pollutants of concern. Nitrogen causes problems with coastal estuaries and phosphorus is the primary pollutant impacting fresh water ponds. Both nitrogen and phosphorus act as a fertilizer, contributing to excess growth of aquatic plants and algae, changing natural ecosystems and leading to the loss of fish and shellfish habitat. The main focus of this section is to describe current and future nitrogen impacts to Pleasant Bay recognizing that septic systems provide the main source of nitrogen within the watershed. A series of potential management solutions to reduce and limit future nitrogen loading from the watershed are proposed and explained in greater detail in the Program Recommendations section of the report (Section H). In addition, HW analyzed locations in town where poor soils or shallow depth to groundwater or proximity to a pond make the siting of a septic system difficult. This includes an evaluation of properties where the depth to water will be reduced as a result of sea level rise over the upcoming decades. 1) PLEASANT BAY NITROGEN LOADING ASSESSMENT Pleasant Bay is within the Towns of Brewster, Chatham, Harwich, and Orleans and all four towns have watersheds draining to the Bay (see Figure D-1). The eastern edge of the Bay is a narrow barrier beach with outlets to the ocean at the southern end of the Bay. Pleasant Bay is comprised of large open water areas as well as many small sub-embayments. These small sub-embayments are poorly flushed by tidal action and suffer from eutrophication as they receive elevated nitrogen loads from the contributing watersheds. a) MEP Study The Massachusetts DEP through its Massachusetts Estuaries Project (MEP), commissioned a comprehensive study of land-derived nitrogen loading and flushing on the nitrogen concentrations in the Bay. This MEP study divided the Bay into 95 contributing sub-watersheds and 22 receiving water sub-embayments (MEP, 2006). The study modeled the annual nitrogen loading from individual sub-watersheds, routed the attenuated load to the downstream sub-embayments, and accumulated the total annual load to each sub-embayment. Sources of nitrogen to Pleasant Bay include atmospheric deposition, wastewater, stormwater runoff, fertilizer use on residential, agricultural, or golf course land, and natural sources (see Figure D-2). Of these sources, the manageable sources are from wastewater, stormwater runoff, and fertilizer use (see Figure D-3). All wastewater sources in Pleasant Bay at the time of the study were from septic systems. Significant water quality problems exist in the receiving water sub-embayments despite attenuation of nitrogen loads that occurs when the water flows through streams and a series of ponds. The Bay component of the study also includes nitrogen loading from benthic nutrients based on site measurements. £¤6 UV137 UV124 UV6A HARWICH DENN IS CHATHAM ORLEAN S YARMOU TH / 0 10.5Miles Date: 11/19/2012 - eym Path: H:\Projects\2011\11109 Brewster Int.Wtr.Res.Mgt Plan\GIS\Maps\Report\Figure D-1.mxd Figure D-1. Pleasant Bay Watershed and Su rrounding Towns C ape C od B ayP l e a s a n t B a y Cape Cod Bay Legend Pleasant Bay Watershed PondsTown of Brewster Groundwater Contours Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page D-21 January 2013 Figure D-2. All Sources of Nitrogen to Pleasant Bay Figure D-3. Manageable Sources of Nitrogen in Pleasant Bay 42% 9% 5% 3% 41% Wastewater Fertilizers Impervious Surfaces Natural Sources Atmospheric Deposition 75% 16% 9% Wastewater Fertilizers Impervious Surfaces Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page D-22 January 2013 The nitrogen dynamics in the Bay were simulated using a two-dimensional hydraulic model that includes water quality. The model was originally developed by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (US-ACOE, 2012) and is now part of the Surface Water Modeling System (SMS). The embayment model was used to simulate the tidal action on the mixing of the source loads, distribute the nitrogen, and then estimate nitrogen concentrations throughout the waters of the Bay. Sentinel or reference stations were used to set the target nitrogen concentrations necessary to maintain healthy beds of eel grass in each sub-embayment. By lowering the contributing source loads from current conditions, the acceptable or threshold loads that meet the target concentrations were determined for each sub-embayment. From these sub-embayment loads, the required reductions for each sub-embayment were determined for current and buildout conditions. b) TMDL Study Subsequent to the MEP report, DEP issued a TMDL report (DEP, 2007). The TMDL report identified the sources of pollution that are causing the current water quality problems and set limits on these sources so that over time the end result is an acceptable improvement in water quality. DEP used the MEP reports to aggregate the results of the analysis to 19 sub- embayments, setting TMDL loads and reductions for both current and buildout conditions (see Figure D-4). All loads were expressed in terms of attenuated loads since that is the load entering the sub- embayments. Attenuation of the nitrogen load occurs through denitrification in surface waters like ponds and streams as the water moves from the land to the Bay; no attenuation is assumed to occur in groundwater. All required reductions were expressed in terms of manageable loads (septic plus land loads) since other external loads like atmospheric deposition and benthic sources of nitrogen cannot be actively managed. Under current conditions, the required TMDL reductions for the manageable (land plus septic) attenuated loads to the sub-embayments varied from 0 to 82.9% depending on the degree of nitrogen loading and flushing (see Table D-1). The average required TMDL reduction for current conditions in Pleasant Bay is 36.3%. Under future conditions, the required TMDL reductions for the manageable (land plus septic) attenuated loads to the sub-embayments varied from 9.2 to 87.2% depending on the degree of nitrogen loading and flushing (see Table D-1). The average required TMDL reduction for future conditions in Pleasant Bay is 50.9%. £¤6 UV137 UV124 UV6A ¬«13 ¬«12 ¬«3 ¬«18 ¬«4 ¬«14 ¬«17 ¬«2 ¬«7 ¬«10 ¬«19 ¬«6 ¬«9 ¬«8 ¬«16 ¬«1 ¬«15 ¬«11 ¬«5 HARWICH DENN IS ORLEAN S CHATHAMYARMOUTH / 0 10.5Miles Date: 12/20/2012 - eym Path: H:\Projects\2011\11109 Brewster Int.Wtr.Res.Mgt Plan\GIS\Maps\Report\Figure D-4.mxd Figu re D -4. Pleasant Bay TMDLSub-Embayments C ape C od B ayP l e a s a n t B a y Cape Cod Bay 1. Areys Pond2. Bassing Harbor3. Chatham Harbor4. Crows Pond5. Frost Fish Creek6. Lonnies Pond7. Meetinghouse Pond8. Muddy Creek - Lower 9. Muddy Creek - Upper10. Namequoit River11. Paw Wah Pond12. Pleasant Bay - Little13. Pleasant Bay - Main14. Pochet Neck15. Quanset Pond16. Round Cove 17. Ryder Cove18. The River - Lower19. The River - UpperLegend Pleasant Bay Embaym ents Town of Brewster Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page D-24 January 2013 Table D-1. Sub-Embayment TMDL Loads and Reductions for Manageable Nitrogen Sub- embayment Number Sub-embayment Name TMDL Manage- able Load (lb/day) Current Manage- able Load (lb/day) Buildout Manage- able Load (lb/day) Current Reduction (%) Buildout Reduction (%) 1 Areys Pond 2.03 2.89 4.51 29.8 55.0 2 Bassing Harbor 3.68 3.68 4.34 0.0 15.1 3 Chatham Harbor 37.71 37.71 42.02 0.0 10.3 4 Crows Pond 9.31 9.31 10.25 0.0 9.2 5 Frost Fish Creek 1.54 6.39 7.32 75.9 78.9 6 Lonnies Pond 3.59 5.38 7.84 33.2 54.2 7 Meetinghouse Pond 2.34 13.67 18.22 82.9 87.2 8 Muddy Creek – lower 4.72 18.70 22.47 74.8 79.0 9 Muddy Creek – upper 10.17 22.03 29.86 53.9 66.0 10 Namequoit River 3.81 6.04 8.93 36.9 57.3 11 Paw Wah Pond 1.61 4.10 6.19 60.8 74.0 12 Pleasant Bay – Little 12.97 17.95 28.73 27.8 54.9 13 Pleasant Bay – Main 48.18 64.56 83.31 25.4 42.2 14 Pochet Neck 9.08 18.57 26.22 51.1 65.4 15 Quanset Pond 2.38 3.92 5.28 39.3 54.9 16 Round Cove 6.53 9.31 11.42 29.9 42.8 17 Ryder Cove 9.86 21.65 24.56 54.5 59.9 18 The River – lower 5.38 8.56 14.66 37.1 63.3 19 The River – upper 3.84 6.11 8.77 37.2 56.3 ALL Pleasant Bay 178.72 280.52 364.88 36.3 50.9 c) Development of Grouped Sub-Embayments or Planning Units HW used the TMDL data from the above studies to determine the reductions in nitrogen needed from local watershed sources to restore Pleasant Bay. In order to trace the required TMDL reductions from the sub-embayments back to the originating land, there needs to be a one-to-one correspondence between watersheds and sub-embayments. A peculiarity of this groundwater- driven system is that water from an upstream sub-watershed can drain into a pond, then exit from the pond into multiple downstream sub-watersheds, which in turn might split again at the next pond. The result is a convoluted flow pattern with one sub-watershed possibly contributing to multiple sub-embayments and having multiple TMDL reductions assigned to it. Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page D-25 January 2013 Using this approach, HW traced the flow of groundwater throughout the watershed and developed flow diagrams for the complete systems. The flow diagrams for all 19 TMDL sub- embayments (see Appendix D-1) allowed HW to identify groups of sub-watersheds that function together and contribute mostly to a single sub-embayment or a group of sub-embayments with similar TMDL reductions. Some small cross-connections (usually less than 10% of the flow) were disregarded to facilitate the breakdown into separate planning units. The simplification resulted in 12 planning units for Pleasant Bay, four of which are related to Brewster (see Figure D-5 below). d) Nitrogen Loading and Reductions for Towns in Brewster’s Planning Units Using this approach, HW was able to appropriately transfer the TMDL nitrogen reductions from the sub-embayments to the appropriate sub-watershed areas. The TMDL nitrogen reduction rates for manageable loads in the four planning units associated with the Town of Brewster are provided in Table D-2 below. The reductions for current conditions are highlighted in gray. Table D-2. Brewster Planning Unit TMDL Loads and Nitrogen Reductions Planning Unit Number Planning Unit Names TMDL Manage- able Load (lb/day) Current Manage- able Load (lb/day) Buildout Manage- able Load (lb/day) Current Reduction (%) Buildout Reduction (%) 1 The River Group 6,809 10,575 16,319 35.6 58.3 8 Quanset Pond 869 1,433 1,928 39.3 54.9 11 Little Pleasant Bay 4,732 6,551 10,485 27.8 54.9 12 Pleasant Bay 17,585 23,565 30,410 25.4 42.2 TOTAL ALL 29,996 42,125 59,142 28.8 49.3 HW used a memorandum prepared by the Cape Cod Commission (Eichner, 2007) on the towns’ relative nitrogen contributions to Pleasant Bay to estimate the unattenuated manageable loads. The unattenuated loads were used because these are the actual loads applied to the land and required reductions in loads must be quantified in those terms. Note that the percent reductions are the same irrespective of whether the load is attenuated or unattenuated since percent attenuation through the pond-river system is assumed to be a constant, irrespective of management. £¤6 UV137 UV124 UV6A ¬«12 ¬«1 ¬«2 ¬«11 ¬«5 ¬«7 ¬«9 ¬«8 ¬«4 ¬«10 ¬«3 ¬«6 HARWICH DENN IS CHATHAM ORLEAN S YARMOU TH / 0 10.5Miles Date: 11/19/2012 - eym Path: H:\Projects\2011\11109 Brewster Int.Wtr.Res.Mgt Plan\GIS\Maps\Report\Figure D-5.mxd Figure D-5. Pleasant Bay Planning Units C ape C od B ayP l e a s a n t B a y Cape Cod Bay1. The River Group2. Chatham Group3. Frost Fish Cr eek4. Meetinghouse Pond5. Muddy Creek6. Paw Wah Pond 7. Pochet Neck8. Quanset Pond9. Ryder Cove10. Round Cove11. Little Pleasant Bay12. Pleasant Bay Legend Pleasant Ba y Watershed Po nds Su b-Embayments within Brewster Su b-Embayments outside Brewster Su b-EmbaymentsTown of Brewster Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page D-27 January 2013 The appropriate reduction percentages from Table D-2 were applied to the unattenuated loads reported by Eichner (2007) to compute the unattenuated load reductions for each town contributing to each planning unit (see Table D-3 below). For current reductions, Table D-3 shows that the reductions required for each town vary depending on the planning unit. For the River Group and Little Pleasant Bay, most of the reductions originate from Orleans. For Quanset Pond, the reductions are split between Brewster and Orleans. For the main part of Pleasant Bay, all towns are responsible, with Brewster having the largest required reductions. For future reductions, the breakdown among towns follows a similar pattern, but the towns with the larger contributions tend to have even larger proportional contributions at buildout. Table D-3. Planning Unit Nitrogen Analysis by Town Planning Unit / Town Reduction (lbs/yr) Brewster Chatham Harwich Orleans TOTAL Current Conditions The River Group 672 0 0 4,146 4,818 Quanset Pond 239 0 0 506 744 Little Pleasant Bay 141 0 0 1,678 1,819 Pleasant Bay 3,240 625 1,532 980 6,378 TOTAL 4,291 625 1,532 7,310 13,759 Buildout Conditions The River Group 947 0 0 10,505 11,451 Quanset Pond 395 0 0 966 1,361 Little Pleasant Bay 643 0 0 5,110 5,753 Pleasant Bay 5,359 1,788 3,687 3,031 13,864 TOTAL 7,344 1,788 3,687 19,612 32,430 The nitrogen loading values under buildout conditions described in Table D-3 are based on a buildout analysis conducted as part of the MEP’s assessment of Pleasant Bay. HW has compared the extent of future development estimated by the MEP to that developed by HW as part of our buildout assessment. HW’s analysis showed there will be slightly less residential development than that predicted by the MEP as our more recent analysis included regulatory changes as part of the adoption of the DCPC within Brewster. The main difference is in the extent of future industrial development as HW’s assessment shows this could grow at twice the amount predicted by the MEP. Recommendations to limit future commercial and industrial development in the Pleasant Bay watershed are provided in Section H and this issue will be evaluated further in Phase III. e) Strategies for Reducing Nitrogen Loadings HW has evaluated the number of homes for which treatment will be needed to meet the nitrogen loading reductions required in Table D-3 under current conditions. This was done in two ways. The first assessment determined how many homes would need an advanced nitrogen treatment system added to their onsite septic system. The assumption was that these systems would be able to provide a treated nitrogen concentration of 19 mg/L in the effluent discharged to groundwater. The second evaluated how many homes would need to connect to a neighborhood Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page D-28 January 2013 or cluster treatment plant that treats nitrogen to an effluent concentration of 5 mg/L. The results of both of these scenarios are shown in Table D-4. Table D-4. Estimated Number of Residential Households in Brewster to be Treated Planning Unit Residential Parcels Available Advanced Septic (46% reduction) Advanced WWTF1 (86% reduction) The River Group 229 103 55 Quanset Pond 48 37 20 Little Pleasant Bay 12 22 12 Pleasant Bay2 351 152 81 TOTAL 641 314 168 1 WWTF = wastewater treatment facility 2 Assumes past reductions in fertilizer applications at Captains and Cape Cod National golf courses In reviewing Table D-4 it is important to note that both the Captains and Cape Cod National Golf Courses are located within the Pleasant Bay planning unit and contribute significantly to the nitrogen load for that unit. Both golf courses have reduced their fertilizer applications by a total of 2,250 pounds of nitrogen per year (lb N/yr) since the time that the MEP report was developed, with the highest reductions in nitrogen fertilizer applications taking place at the Captains Golf Course (2,050 lb N/yr). The overall nitrogen reduction needed for the Pleasant Bay planning unit is 3,240 lb N/yr under current conditions, so the reductions already achieved at the golf courses mean only an additional 990 lb N/yr must be removed from this portion of the watershed. The reduction values in Table D-4 account for these golf course reductions. In three of the four planning units, it appears that the use of onsite, alternative nitrogen treatment systems could be used to meet the nitrogen reduction goals needed for Brewster’s part of the Pleasant Bay Watershed. For the Little Pleasant Bay planning unit in Brewster, a more advanced level of treatment may be needed, treating all 12 properties in the watershed, to reach the required goal. The analysis shows that alternative onsite treatment at 22 houses would be needed, and there are only 12 houses in the watershed where treatment could be applied, making this option infeasible. The following series of strategies, including those discussed above, will be considered in Phase III to develop a nitrogen management plan for the Pleasant Bay watershed. The list of potential options includes: The use of onsite, alternative nitrogen treatment systems; One or more cluster or neighborhood treatment systems; Additional fertilizer reductions at the Captains Golf Course; The use of irrigation wells to capture nitrogen and return it to a beneficial use such as golf course irrigation; Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page D-29 January 2013 The use of permeable reactive barriers to treat nitrogen in groundwater before it reaches Pleasant Bay. These could be constructed as shallow trenches with a media that promotes the treatment of nitrogen, or could be built as injection wells where a solution is injected into groundwater to promote nitrogen treatment; and The use of alternative toilets, such as composting or urine diverting toilets to prevent nitrogen from entering groundwater through a septic system. Further discussion of these options is provided in Section H. In addition, HW will work with the Town to analyze opportunities for cooperation with the other towns in the Pleasant Bay watershed, where combined, regional actions might be beneficial to all. 2) OTHER WATERSHED ASSESSMENTS There are a total of six MEP watershed studies associated with the Town of Brewster, including Pleasant Bay (see Figure D-6). Pleasant Bay is the only watershed with a TMDL that has been issued. The status of all these reports and the area of the watershed within Brewster are summarized in Table D-5. Table D-5. Status of Watershed Assessments Watershed Area (ac) Brewster (ac) MEP Report TMDL Bass River 11,158 160 Incomplete Pending Herring River 9,558 2,349 Draft Pending Little Namskaket Creek 484 7 Complete None required Namskaket Creek 1,576 1,272 Complete None required Pleasant Bay 21,606 3,530 Complete Issued Swan Pond River 2,082 2 Draft Pending Besides the Pleasant Bay watershed, which has a TMDL, there are two other watersheds with completed MEP studies. The Namskaket Creek report is complete and has been assessed by DEP as not needing a TMDL since the salt marsh assimilates much of the nitrogen load. In fact, this system could potentially assimilate about double the existing load that drains through the creek and associated marsh system. The Little Namskaket TMDL report is complete and no TMDL is required. This system also has excess capacity and could assimilate greater than 25% more nitrogen. The outstanding MEP reports are for Bass River, Herring River and Swan River. The Bass River and Swan River watersheds have only a small part of their area in Brewster, so if they have future TMDLs they will only represent a small level of effort required by Brewster. The watershed to the Herring River includes land in the southwestern part of Brewster and currently has a draft MEP report. The draft report indicates that the required nitrogen reductions range from 34.6 to 78.9% to meet acceptable water quality conditions in the sub-embayments. This system will likely require a TMDL and appropriate action may be needed in Brewster to comply with the TMDL nitrogen load reductions. £¤6 UV137 UV124 UV6A DENN IS HARWICH YARMOUTH ORLEAN S CHATHAM Pleasant Bay Bass River Herring Riv er Sw an Pond Namska ket Little Namskaket / 0 10.5Miles Date: 11/19/2012 - eym Path: H:\Projects\2011\11109 Brewster Int.Wtr.Res.Mgt Plan\GIS\Maps\Report\Figure D-6.mxd Figu re D -6. MEP Watersheds and Surrounding Towns C ape C od B ayP l e a s a n t B a y Cape Cod Bay Legend PondsTown of Brewster Groundwater ContoursMEP Watersheds Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page D-31 January 2013 3) IDENTIFICATION OF OTHER WASTEWATER NEEDS Beyond the nitrogen issues with Pleasant Bay, HW evaluated parcels across town where it may be challenging to site a properly function onsite system. Issues that impact the siting of a septic system include areas of poor or low permeability soils, and areas where the depth to the maximum water table is too shallow. High groundwater issues were examined under current conditions and under an estimated rise in the water table elevation due to sea level rise. The proximity of a septic system to a fresh water pond is also an issue in Brewster as phosphorus from the effluent can migrate to the pond if the discharge is close enough to the pond shore. The Board of Health has a regulation that prohibits construction of a new septic system within 300 feet of a pond shoreline. The implications of this and a discussion of additional mitigation measures for existing systems near a pond are discussed in Sections G and H. a) Current Soils Constraints Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soils data, extracted from the Barnstable County soil survey, was used to evaluate soils constraints across Brewster. Local NRCS staff assisted in choosing the best extraction and averaging methods. Criteria were chosen based on Title 5 (310 CMR 15.000) septic regulations for system design. Soils were considered restrictive if the reported depth-to-high groundwater table is less than five feet or the percolation rate is less than 1 inch/hr (60 min/in). Using these criteria, maps were constructed for Brewster based on the soil restrictions (see Figure D-7). In the map, the green areas show shallow depths-to-high groundwater table, while the orange areas show slow percolation rates. Wetland and pond areas were excluded. These areas represent a restrictive zone where alternative septic systems or traditional wastewater treatment could be necessary to limit potential septic system failure. HW evaluated how many parcels might be affected by current soil constraints. The numbers of parcels that have all of the upland (non-wetland) area affected are listed in Table D-6, along with those parcels where there is less than 3,000 square feet of available land. HW assumed that if a lot had less than 3,000 square feet of available area for an onsite leaching facility, it may pose problems in the design or upgrade of a septic system. The number of residential parcels (which is the predominant use) constrained by soil limitations can be summarized as follows: 256 (no land) and 73 (less than 3,000 sf available). Of the 256 residential parcels with no land available, 203 have been developed, meaning a septic system exists on the property now. It is interesting to note that these soil constraint areas correspond to the Quivett Creek and Namskaket Creek which both have bacteria TMDLs. It is possible that the constrained areas have failing septic systems and are contributing to the source of high bacteria levels in the watershed and downstream waters. More discussion on this issue is provided in Section H and further work to define options for system upgrades on these parcels, such as requiring drip irrigation drainfields, will be included in the Phase III analysis. £¤6 UV137 UV124 UV6A HARWICH ORLEAN S DENN IS CHATHAM / 0 10.5Miles Date: 11/19/2012 - eym Path: H:\Projects\2011\11109 Brewster Int.Wtr.Res.Mgt Plan\GIS\Maps\Report\Figure D-7.mxd Figure D-7. Soil Permeabilityand Depth to HighGroundwater Table C ape C od B ayPleasant B ayCape Cod Bay Legend Ponds Town of Brewster Parcels Parcels completely affected Parcels partially affected Depth to High GWT Percolation < 1 in/hr < 5 ft * GWT: Groundwater table Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page D-33 January 2013 Table D-6. Parcels Affected by Soils Constraints Parcel Type No Land Available1 < 3,000 sf available2 Multiple use 16 3 Residential3 203 / 53 53 / 20 Commercial/Industrial 8 5 Open/Agricultural/Recreational 0 0 Municipal/State 41 40 Other/Unknown 2 4 TOTAL 323 125 1 No unconstrained upland area in the parcel 2 Less than 3,000 square feet of unconstrained upland area in the parcel available for septic system construction/upgrade 3 developed / vacant residential b) Future Sea Level Rise Constraints One of the projected effects of climate change is a sea level rise (SLR) due to the melting of polar icecaps and the thermal expansion of the warmer sea water. Many global circulation models have been used to quantify SLR. The average projected SLR for the Massachusetts coast is 1-6 feet by 2100 (IPCC, 2007). In Massachusetts, a planning value is a three feet rise by 2100 (EOEEA, 2010). The effect of SLR is ocean encroachment along the coastline and groundwater rise. Groundwater will rise because the ocean represents the outlet boundary condition for all groundwater movement, and if that boundary rises, then all groundwater upgradient must also rise. The actual rise in groundwater is site specific, but is expected to range from near zero to the maximum SLR at the ocean. Areas near hydraulically-connected streams or ponds will be less affected because the increase in groundwater rise will be offset by additional groundwater discharge into streams and more streamflow out to the ocean. Areas far from these drainage features or near the coastline will see the groundwater levels rise by the maximum SLR amount. Potential ocean encroachment and groundwater rise could have the following effects on septic system function and permitting:  Decreased setback distances from ocean; and  Less separation from septic drain field to groundwater. The local Board of Health regulations sets a 100-foot minimum setback from the ocean for septic leach fields. The State’s Title 5 regulations governing septic systems (310 CMR 15.000) set the minimum separation of a leach field to groundwater to four feet for regular soils and five feet for highly permeable soils. Figure D-8 shows how SLR affects both the separation distance from the bottom of the drain field to the groundwater level and the setback distance from the sea to the drain field. Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page D-34 January 2013 Figure D-8. Effect of Sea Level Rise on Septic System Compliance Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page D-35 January 2013 HW calculated the potential effect of SLR on septic systems. First, the extreme high water groundwater table (GWT) level was calculated since the Title 5 regulations specify at least a four-to-five-foot separation between the bottom of the leach field and the extreme (or long-term) high GWT. Second, HW calculated the depth to extreme high GWT by finding the difference between ground elevation and extreme high GWT elevation. Third, HW reduced the depth to extreme high GWT by the SLR amount. Finally, maps were created to illustrate where depth to future high GWT could potentially be limiting for septic leach fields. HW estimated the regional extreme high GWT using the Frimpter (1990) method. The Frimpter method is a well-documented method for estimating high groundwater on the Cape, but is usually only implemented on a site-by-site basis. HW adapted the Frimpter method using GIS grid-based techniques in order to perform the calculations on a 100 ft by 100 ft grid throughout the Town. The method uses information from four reference-well groundwater elevations; maps of reference well influence and average water table ranges; and known site groundwater elevations to perform the calculation. The formula is as follows: Sh = Sc + [ (Sr / Wr) x (Wh - Wc) ] where Sh= estimated depth to extreme high groundwater level at a site (ft) Sc= observed depth to groundwater level at a site (ft) Sr= annual range of groundwater level at the site (feet) Wh= depth to extreme high groundwater level at the reference well (feet) Wc= observed depth to groundwater level at the reference well (feet) Wr= annual range of groundwater level at the reference well (feet) The original paper maps in the Frimpter method were scanned and georeferenced, screen- digitized into GIS polygons, and then converted into grid layers. HW used the modeled average groundwater levels (USGS, 2004) as the basis for the “observed” site groundwater values (Sc). To find the depth to extreme high GWT, the latest Light Detection and Radar (LiDAR) data available for ground elevation on Cape Cod were used. The LiDAR data have an extremely high vertical resolution (about +/- 8 inches). The depth to high GWT was computed by subtracting the extreme high GWT elevation from the ground elevation from the LiDAR data. To validate this approach, HW compared the calculations of depth to extreme high GWT with estimates from the NRCS soils data. The NRCS maps show depth to extreme high GWT by using a number of test pits to physically inspect for the shallowest indication of soil mottling caused by a transient high GWT. The following map (Figure D-9) shows a comparison of the depth to extreme high GWT for the two methods. The green areas show the results for HW’s Frimpter-based method while the yellow areas show the results from the NRCS data. £¤6 UV137 UV124 UV6A HARWICH ORLEAN S DENN IS CHATHAM / 0 10.5Miles Date: 11/19/2012 - eym Path: H:\Projects\2011\11109 Brewster Int.Wtr.Res.Mgt Plan\GIS\Maps\Report\Figure D-9.mxd Figure D-9. Comparison of Depth to Grou ndwater Metho ds C ape C od B ayPleasant B ayCape Cod Bay Legend Ponds Town of Brewster *GWT: Groundw ater table NRCSDepth to High GWT < 5 ft FrimpterDepth to High GWT < 5 ft Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page D-37 January 2013 In general, both methods agree quite well except that the Frimpter approach shows a smaller area of high groundwater than the NRCS data. This discrepancy is probably because the Frimpter approach only considers the regional high groundwater, whereas the NRCS data shows a larger extent because it includes high GWT conditions from both regional and localized perched high groundwater estimates based on observations from soil test pits. To calculate the potential effect of SLR on septic systems, HW subtracted SLR from the depth to extreme high GWT to provide an estimate of future depth to high GWT. HW assumed a value of SLR of three feet, which represents the State’s 2100 planning value, applied conservatively across the entire town. As explained above, this rise is likely to be lower near some water features. Figure D-10 shows the potential impacts of SLR on septic systems. The blue areas are those areas that would be affected by a SLR of three feet. Areas near streams and hydraulically- connected ponds would be expected to have less than our predicted high GWT rise because of increased streamflow. Areas that will be most affected currently have moderately high groundwater and the projected rise in the groundwater from SLR pushes them into the impacted category. It should be noted that even inland areas will be affected since all groundwater is expected to rise by the same amount unless the area is near an outlet like a stream. HW evaluated how many parcels might be affected by the simulated future SLR. The previous method had to be modified to account for the small size of the SLR effects relative to the size of the parcels. To do this analysis HW looked at the number of impacted parcels with high GWT alone and then high GWT and SLR combined. The difference represents the incremental change in the number of parcels affected by SLR alone. The number of parcels that have all or part of the upland (non-wetland) area affected by SLR are summarized in Table D-7. The number of residential parcels (which is the predominant use) constrained by SLR without sufficient available upland area to properly site a septic leach field can be summarized as follows: 71 (no land) and 21 (less than 3,000 sf available). The small number of impacted properties is related to the topography in Brewster where the land surface rises up quickly from the shoreline on the northern coast. This allows for an adequate separation between a septic system and the water table for most properties, even under SLR conditions. In inland areas, the only places where sea level rise will impact septic system performance is in low lying areas or depressions where the land surface is closer to the water table. Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page D-38 January 2013 Table D-7. Parcels Affected by Sea Level Rise Parcel Type No Land Available1 < 3,000 sf Available2 Multiple use 5 0 Residential3 49 / 22 9 / 12 Commercial/Industrial 4 3 Open/Agricultural/Recreational 0 0 Municipal/State 24 2 Other/Unknown 1 0 TOTAL 105 26 1 No unconstrained upland area in the parcel 2 Less than 3,000 square feet of unconstrained upland area in the parcel available for septic system construction/upgrade 3 Developed / vacant residential £¤6 UV137 UV124 UV6A HARWICH ORLEAN S DENN IS CHATHAM / 0 10.5Miles Date: 12/20/2012 - eym Path: H:\Projects\2011\11109 Brewster Int.Wtr.Res.Mgt Plan\GIS\Maps\Report\Figure D-10.mxd Figure D-10. Projected Sea Level Rise for Brewster C ape C od B ayPleasant B ayCape Cod Bay Legend Ponds Town of Brewster SLR Im pacts on High GWT Parcels Parcels completely affected Parcels partially affectedSLR: Sea Level Rise of 3 feet GWT: Groundwater Table Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page E-40 January 2013 E. WATER SUPPLY This section describes Brewster’s water supply system, including public and private water supplies, identifies future demands on the system, and evaluates potential conflicts between water availability and water need both now and in the future. It also provides a summary of emergency response training conducted at the Brewster Water Department, with participation from many other town departments, including Fire, Police, Health, and Planning, among others. The ability of town departments to respond to an emergency that threatens water supply is critical to the IWRMP. 1) MANAGING WATER USE AND WATER QUALITY TO PROMOTE A SUSTAINABLE DRINKING WATER SUPPLY The Town of Brewster sits on top of its drinking water supply, a sole source aquifer, so any activities on the land surface can potentially affect the condition and sustainability of the water supply. Achieving sustainability for water supply requires the evaluation of both water quality (i.e., is the water safe to drink today and in the future?), and water quantity (i.e., is there enough water to meet demand now and in the future?). The Town of Brewster currently has excellent water quality across its public drinking water wells, and most of its private wells. This is a result of planning for water supply protection through land acquisition and land use regulation over the last 20 to 30 years. The Town of Brewster owns the land of the Zone Is to all the Town’s drinking water wells. A Zone I is the protective radius required around a public water supply well or wellfield, which is 400 feet for Brewster’s drinking water wells, as they have approved yields of over 100,000 gallons per day. Figure E-1 shows the extent of conservation and protective land use practices in Brewster, including town-owned properties and other conservation easements, the Town’s District of Critical Planning Concern (DCPC) area, as well as Zone IIs to the Town’s public drinking water wells. A Zone II is the area of an aquifer which contributes water to a well under the most severe pumping and recharge conditions that can be realistically anticipated (i.e., 180 days of pumping at approved yield with no recharge from precipitation). Any contamination of groundwater in a Zone II could impact drinking water quality at the public well drawing water from that area. Land acquisition in the Zone II areas to public drinking water wells is a pro- active approach to protecting drinking water quality. The Zone II areas in Brewster represent approximately 4,360 acres (excluding surface water ponds), of which 40%1, or 1,740 acres, are protected by conservation, as shown in Figure E-1. Conservation lands include a combination of town and state-owned properties, conservation restrictions, and other conservation mechanisms. 1 This estimate is based on parcels considered protected by conservation as of October 2012. "J "J "J %L !A !A !A !A !A !A UV6A £¤6 UV137 UV124 WELL # 6 WELL #5 WELL # 4 WELL # 1 WELL # 2 WELL # 3 DENN IS HARWICH ORLEAN S CHATHAMYARMOUTH / 0 10.5Miles Date: 12/20/2012 - eym Path: H:\Projects\2011\11109 Brewster Int.Wtr.Res.Mgt Plan\GIS\Maps\Report\Figure E-1.mxd Figu re E1. Bre wster Conservation Lan ds a nd Zone II Areas C ape C od B ayPleasant BayCape Cod Bay !A Public WellsWater Facilities %L Storage Tanks "J Water Treatment F acility Legend Conservation Lands Ponds DCPC Areas Brewter Zone IITown of Brewster Other Zone II Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page E-42 January 2013 Meeting water demand has not been an issue for the Town of Brewster due to the pro-active management of both its water system by the Brewster Water Department, and of the Town’s growth with a focus on conservation and resource preservation. The Brewster Water Department frequently directs funding towards managing both water quantity and quality. These investments have included the redevelopment of certain wells for which the yield had decreased, the permitting of two wells, the drilling of one of those wells, and the repeated inspection and cleaning of water storage facilities, among other elements discussed in further detail in section E.2.e. 2) OVERVIEW OF BREWSTER’S WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM According to the Assessor’s office, the Town of Brewster has approximately 7,600 parcels, distributed across a number of land uses, including residential use of various densities, commercial, industrial, conservation, etc. Most parcels (i.e., approximately 68%) are connected to the Town’s water distribution system and receive public water from the Brewster Water Department, while other residents and businesses have their own private wells. This section presents the condition and capacity of existing public wells, drinking water quality across the Town for both public and private wells and public water treatment facilities and storage locations, as well as some of the recent investments and capital improvements made by the Brewster Water Department. a) Condition and Capacity of Existing Wells Drinking water in Brewster comes from the Cape Cod Aquifer, a sole source aquifer, through public wells owned and operated by the Brewster Water Department, and a number of private wells, owned and operated by individual homeowners as well as businesses. The Cape Cod Aquifer is comprised of six lenses, including the Monomoy Lens, the second largest of the Cape Cod groundwater lenses. The Monomoy Lens is 66 square miles with a maximum elevation of 30 feet, and provides water to the Town of Brewster, but also to the towns of Dennis, Harwich, Chatham, and Orleans. In the off-season, over five million gallons per day are withdrawn from the lens, while in the summer season, the water volume withdrawn rises to an average of 12 million gallons per day (Cape Cod Environmental Resource Center, 1999). DEP through the Town’s Water Management Act (WMA) permit regulates the quantity withdrawn from Brewster’s public water wells. Other entities in Brewster, such as Captain’s Golf Course, have their own WMA permit that regulates their withdrawals. Private wells pumping less than 100,000 gallons per day are not subject to the WMA, and the quantity withdrawn from these wells is not regulated or measured. Data on the location and number of private wells are also limited. At the time of this report, the Brewster Water Department operates four public water wells connected to its distribution system, with a fifth well to be placed into service soon, and plans for a sixth well, if needed. These wells are all subject to the same WMA permit. The first two wells (well #1, and well #2) initially became operational in 1972, followed by well #3 in 1986, and well #4 in 1992. Well #6 was drilled in 2012, and the Brewster Water Department is building the well’s pump house and water treatment system to adjust the pH of the water. Well #6 should be online and fully operational by summer 2013. While well #5 is listed on the WMA permit, it Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page E-43 January 2013 has not yet been drilled, and is not yet in operation. Initial testing on both wells #5 and 6 had indicated that the yield for well #6 would be much higher than for well #5, and the Brewster Water Department moved forward with the well with the highest yield first. Due to the close proximity of some of these wells, their Zone IIs overlap. Figure E-1 shows the overall Zone II areas to the six public drinking water wells, which are clustered in two areas in the southwest and southeast corners of Brewster. These two areas are primarily located within Brewster, with small extensions into Harwich. Zone IIs from neighboring towns also extend into Brewster. Brewster’s conservation efforts and its collaboration on open space preservation with neighboring towns are protecting the quality of these water resources in Brewster and beyond the Town’s boundaries. Over time, well screens can become partially clogged with build-up of a number of solids, including minerals, sulfates, iron and manganese, and/or bacteria that feed on them. Clogged well screens reduce the pumping capacity of the wells, causing reduced flow rates at increased energy expense. For example, wells #3 and 4 went from original pumping capacities of 88.6 and 78 gallons per minute (gpm) per foot (ft) of well in 1985 and 1992, respectively, to reduced capacities of 52.1 and 67.1 gm/ft in 2001. Water from both wells contains iron, which contributes to the clogging both physically by blocking the screen and reducing the amount of water that flows through it, and chemically by corroding the well screen. Pumping capacity of an individual well can be partially restored through a redevelopment process using one of a variety of techniques to remove solids and encrustations from the well screen to increase flow into the well. Wells #3 and 4 were redeveloped by the Brewster Water Department in 2001, which increased their capacity to 68 and 79 gpm/ft, or 78 and 101 percent of their original capacity, respectively. Since their 2001 redevelopment, capacity for these wells has continued to decrease, most likely due to iron particles blocking the screens, and possibly due to corrosion of the well screens. These wells were redeveloped again in 2011. The specific capacity for wells #1 and 2 has never decreased since they were first placed into service, and they have never been redeveloped. A number of residences and businesses in Brewster withdraw water from the Cape Cod Aquifer through their own private wells. As previously discussed, these wells are not subject to a WMA permit, and records for individual wells are difficult to come by. However, many wells are tested by their owners to ensure they meet water quality standards, and the samples collected from the private wells are often then analyzed by the Barnstable County laboratory. Based on water quality data from the County lab, HW was able to locate a number of Brewster’s private wells. While the data are not comprehensive, and do not include all private wells in town, the County lab data enabled HW to identify over 300 private wells on residential properties. In addition, HW reviewed data from the Brewster Water Department on water accounts, and identified approximately 300 additional residential parcels in town that are not served by the Brewster Water Department, but have a building on the parcel. These residential parcels are presumed to have a private water well. Altogether, there appears to be approximately 600 private water wells in Brewster, as mapped in Figure E-2. UV6A £¤6 UV137 UV124 HARWICH DENN IS ORLEAN S CHATHAM / 0 10.5Miles Date: 11/9/2012 - eym Path: H:\Projects\2011\11109 Brewster Int.Wtr.Res.Mgt Plan\GIS\Maps\Report\Figure E-2.mxd Figu re E-2. Pa rcels Assumed toHave Private DrinkingWater Wells C ape C od B ayPleasant BayCape Cod Bay Legend Town of Brewster Ponds Parcels w ith Assum ed Wells Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page E-45 January 2013 b) Current Drinking Water Quality The Brewster Water Department regularly monitors water quality from its wells, while private wells are tested by their owners on a voluntary basis. HW reviewed water quality data from the Brewster Water Department, as well as from the County laboratory, representing over 300 private drinking water wells in town. Overall, the Town of Brewster experiences excellent drinking water quality, whether from public or private drinking water wells. The Brewster Water Department has won the DEP Outstanding Performance Award nine times since 1990 and “New England’s Best Drinking Water Taste” from the New England Water Works Association in 2012. Concentrations for nitrate nitrogen in 2011 and 2012 across wells #1 through 4 ranged from 0.13 milligrams per liter (mg/L) to 0.25 mg/L, which is low. The USEPA sets the drinking water standard for nitrate nitrogen at 10 mg/L, and the Cape Cod Regional Policy Plan established a nitrogen concentration of 5 mg/L to ensure that nitrate levels in drinking water will not approach the federal standard. Brewster public drinking water quality is well below those two standards. Based on HW’s review of Barnstable County laboratory data, some samples in a few Brewster private drinking water wells exceeded concentrations of 5 mg/L in nitrate nitrogen, with a handful of samples in excess of 10 mg/L. There is no clear pattern or cluster for these high nitrogen concentrations, which cannot be explained on a town-wide level, but may be due to a number of site-specific factors, including wells located downgradient from septic systems for which a cross-contamination may occur, contamination of the test sample, and others. Other measured parameters from samples collected in private wells showed that water quality for Brewster private wells is generally very good. Only a few wells showed contaminant concentrations in excess of their maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) or secondary MCLs. These contaminants include nitrogen and iron. Iron concentrations exceed the secondary MCL in approximately 50 private wells. Other contaminants detected in small concentrations in a very small number of wells include fecal coliform bacteria, methyl-t-butyl ether (MTBE), and oil and grease. These contaminants may occur from contamination associated with stormwater runoff. Their occurrence is limited to less than one percent of private wells. In addition to sampling for primary contaminants, such as nitrate nitrogen, which can be health threatening and for which the USEPA has set MCLs, the Brewster Water Department tests its public water for secondary contaminants. Secondary contaminants are associated with aesthetic rather than health issues and are tested by public water systems on a voluntary basis. The USEPA established secondary MCLs for 15 contaminants, including iron and manganese, as guidelines to assist public water systems in managing their drinking water for aesthetic considerations, such as taste, color and odor, but these contaminants are not considered to present a risk to human health at the secondary MCL. As discussed in the next section, the Brewster Water Department treats water from well #4 to remove iron and manganese prior to distribution, but this treatment facility is located too far from well #3 to provide treatment for that well. Some samples from well #3 have exceeded the secondary MCL for iron of 0.3 mg/L, and the Brewster Water Department redeveloped the well in 2011 to address the issue. In the past, the Brewster Water Department had treated water from this well with sequestration prior to the 2011 redevelopment of the well, but current Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page E-46 January 2013 concentrations are too high for effective sequestration. The Brewster Water Department is considering other options including chemical treatment of the clear well, and gravel pack replacement. If these fail to reduce iron concentrations, the Brewster Water Department may consider installing a filtration system. c) Location and Capacity of Water Treatment Facilities The Brewster Water Department treats public water to control corrosion, remove iron and manganese, and disinfect water prior to its distribution. Treatment facilities include a corrosion control and disinfection treatment system for wells #1 and 2, a separate similar facility to treat water from well #3 for corrosion control and disinfection, and a third treatment facility located near well #4. This third treatment facility consists of a greensand filtration system for iron and manganese removal, followed by corrosion control and disinfection processes. A water main also connects well #6 to the greensand treatment facility. The three treatment facilities are shown in Figure E-1. Across the three water treatment facilities, the Brewster Water Department uses the following three chemicals: potassium and calcium hydroxide for corrosion control, potassium permanganate for greensand filter regeneration, and sodium hypochlorite for metal oxidation and disinfection. Groundwater is often naturally acidic (i.e., its pH is below 7.0), which can corrode and dissolve metals in the distribution system and storage facilities, including individual water heaters and appliances. This damages the infrastructure, but also potentially adds harmful metals, such as lead and copper, dissolved from pipes and storage facilities, to the water. To neutralize the water, or render it slightly alkaline, the Brewster Water Department adjusts the pH of the water by adding hydrated lime to the water from wells #1, 2, and 3, and potassium hydroxide to the water from well #4. In addition, the Brewster Water Department regularly tests water in private residences for lead and copper. Testing throughout the system has shown that the corrosion control chemicals are effective at reducing lead and copper concentrations, as reported in the Brewster Water Department’s 2011 Consumer Confidence Report (Brewster Water Department, 2011). As discussed earlier, iron and manganese are secondary contaminants that do not pose a threat to human health at low concentrations, but can cause unpleasant odor or taste. To remove these contaminants from the drinking water, the Brewster Water Department built a greensand filtration system near well #4, off Run Hill Road. The treatment system went into service in 2001, and has a capacity of 1.4 million gallons per day (mgd), sufficient to treat the maximum daily withdrawal of 1.01 mgd from well #4, and some of the flow from well #6, if necessary. The treatment system uses a combination of chemicals and filtration to remove these metals. Sodium hypochlorite is first mixed into the water to oxidize and precipitate the metals, which are then filtered out of the water by the greensand filter. As particles are filtered out of the water, they reduce the filtration capacity by clogging the filter, which must then be backwashed. Backwash water can contain high levels of iron and manganese, but over 95% of that backwash water can be recycled through the treatment facility to minimize waste discharge. The remaining concentrated backwash water is pumped onto trucks to an offsite wastewater treatment facility. In addition to the sodium hypochlorite used to oxidize the metals ahead of the filtration system, Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page E-47 January 2013 the Brewster Water Department periodically uses potassium permanganate to regenerate the greensand filter. Water treated through the greensand filtration system is always disinfected by adding sodium hypochlorite prior to its entering the distribution system. The Brewster Water Department also adds sodium hypochlorite to the water as a preventative disinfectant at the other treatment facilities during system flushing. To ensure safe drinking water throughout the distribution system, the Brewster Water Department adds this for approximately six weeks each spring and fall, and during the summer as needed. d) Storage Locations and Capacity Water storage is an essential part of the water system because it enables more uniform pressures within the system, facilitates meeting demand during peak hours or emergencies (i.e., fire), and provides a pressure relief outlet to reduce the impacts of pressure surges when valves are closed and opened. Water storage across the Brewster distribution system is provided by two steel standpipes (i.e., water storage tanks) of approximately 2.0 and 3.1 million gallons (MG), for a total nominal storage capacity of 5.1 MG. Both standpipes are located next to each other (see Figure E-1 for an approximate location of both standpipes), and are in use year-round. The first standpipe was constructed in 1971 with a capacity of 2.0 MG, and the second standpipe was constructed in 1989 with the capacity of 3.1 MG. The first standpipe is used to control well operations, but both are connected to the Brewster Water Department’s supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system. While the total nominal capacity of these standpipes is 5.1 MG, only a portion of that volume provides sufficient pressure to be used throughout the water distribution system. This is based on the elevation of the water in the standpipe compared to the elevation of the highest water service connection in town. DEP established the minimum pressure in water distribution systems as 35 pounds per square inch (psi) for non-emergency conditions, and 20 psi for emergency conditions that include fire fighting. The total “usable” water volumes (i.e., for both tanks) are approximately 1.0 and 2.9 MG at 35 and 20 psi, respectively (EarthTech, 2006). The 2010 inspections showed that both standpipes are in good condition, and sediment accumulation from the bottom of the standpipes was removed at that time. The sediment was accumulated precipitate, possibly iron precipitate, in uniform layers of one and 12 inches for the 2 and 3 MG standpipes, respectively. After observing such a large amount of sediment accumulation in the 3 MG standpipe, the Brewster Water Department re-inspected it the following year. Between October 2010 and June 2011, approximately half an inch of sediment accumulated, which was removed following the re-inspection. The inspection reports indicate that both standpipes are in generally good condition with no obvious leakage or metal fatigue, but with localized exterior and interior protective coating issues. The reports recommended spot- grinding and re-coating of the exterior surface areas experiencing coating issues on both standpipes, as well as recoating of the interior floor in the 3 MG standpipe and all interior surfaces in the 2 MG tank. The Brewster Water Department is reviewing maintenance options for its standpipes, and considering entering into a long-term maintenance contract with a firm that would develop and implement a maintenance program for the standpipes. Recoating and other maintenance tasks would be conducted under that contract. Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page E-48 January 2013 In addition to the standpipes for water storage, the Brewster Water Department distribution system is interconnected to the distribution systems of other neighboring towns, including Dennis, Orleans and Harwich. These interconnections could provide a valuable source of water to the Town in the event of an emergency in Brewster. As was discussed during the emergency response training, and identified as a potential improvement for Brewster and its neighbors (see section E.5.c), the interconnections are not regularly exercised, or flushed, and it is unclear how they would perform in the event of an emergency. Since the training, Paul Anderson, the superintendent to the Brewster Water Department has been coordinating with neighboring towns on upgrading some of the interconnections to enable them to be tested (i.e., install additional hydrants to test gate valves). e) Recent Investments and Capital Improvements In 2006, the Brewster Water Department completed a Master Plan for their water system (EarthTech, 2006). This Master Plan identified short-term (2006-2010), medium-term (2011- 2020), and long-term (2021-2030) improvements to the water system. Since then, the Brewster Water Department has invested in a number of these improvements. Short-term capital improvements recommended in the 2006 Master Plan totaled approximately $6.3 million. All improvements have been completed, except for the construction of certain sections of water mains, which were rerouted. In an effort to improve operations, the Brewster Water Department constructed and moved into a new office facility with state-of-the-art operations that include an upgraded network and connectivity for the SCADA system, a large garage to store and maintain equipment, and installed a field of solar panels to reduce energy costs for both the Water Department and the Town. To improve water supply and provide added flow, the Brewster Water Department drilled and developed well #6, and constructed its pump station. The Brewster Water Department also made significant modifications to well stations #1 and 2, including site access improvement and replacement of old motor control equipment, to improve the reliability of the overall distribution system. The Brewster Water Department has already implemented approximately $1 million worth of the medium-term recommendations from the 2006 Master Plan, and prepared permitting and other documents for long-term investments such as the development of well #5. Well #5 was approved by DEP in 2007 for a maximum daily flow of 1.3 MG under an amendment to the Brewster Water Department’s WMA permit. A new water main along West Gate Road now connects well #6 to the greensand filter treatment facility near well #4. Fire flow has been improved by an additional water main along A.P. Newcomb Road connecting Route 6A to Stony Brook Road. The connection of well #6 to the treatment facility is a preventative investment that provides an opportunity to treat water from well #6 for iron and manganese. The decision to route the water from well #6 was made following steady increases in iron concentrations at well #4. In addition to the major capital investments just discussed, the Brewster Water Department is investing regularly in the inspection and maintenance of its system, including water quality monitoring, leak detection, storage tank inspections, and water meter calibrations among others. For example, between 2006 and 2010, the Brewster Water Department surveyed on average 50 Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page E-49 January 2013 miles of service lines per year, and identified one to two leaks per year, that were promptly repaired. On average, the Brewster Water Department tries to survey approximately half the system for leaks; and the last survey of the entire system was conducted in 2011. The Brewster Water Department also recently updated their hydrant flushing program. Overall, the Brewster Water Department is pro-active in developing and maintaining its water system. 3) ANALYSIS OF WATER AVAILABILITY Drinking water in Brewster comes exclusively from groundwater, and its availability at each well is a function of the recharge rate of the aquifer compared to the withdrawals from that aquifer. Sustainable withdrawals can only be achieved when withdrawals are fully compensated for by recharge from all sources, including precipitation, but also wastewater returns from septic systems and other groundwater discharge systems. Brewster properties are primarily served by individual onsite systems, and approximately 85% of water pumped from a well is estimated to return to the aquifer through groundwater discharge, resulting in approximately 15% of consumptive use. This applies to properties served by the Brewster Water Department, as well as by private wells. While the Massachusetts Water Resources Commission’s 2001 Stressed Basins Report identified the Cape Cod basin as a “low stress or unassessed basin” for lack of sufficient data, a 2003 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) study (Walter & Whealan, 2005) reviewed and modeled the hydrologic balance for the Monomoy and Barnstable lenses in the Cape Cod basin. According to this study, the Monomoy lens experiences approximately 103 mgd of recharge that enters the groundwater system and then flows to coastal boundaries and freshwater streams, or is pumped for drinking water. As of 2003, public drinking water withdrawals from the Monomoy lens were estimated at 7.6 mgd, and could increase to 11.8 mgd by 2020. This USGS study also indicates that while 2003 pumping levels for public water wells in Brewster resulted in an average of one foot of drawdown near the wells, drawdown by 2020 may increase by an additional two feet in some areas, lowering water table levels near the wells. 2003 pumping levels in the Monomoy lens also impact stream flows, including flow from the outlet of Lower Mill Pond, which is estimated to be reduced by 19% when comparing 2003 pumping rates to zero pumping. Water resource protection for both underground and surface waters is regulated in part by DEP through the WMA. The WMA requires DEP to issue permits that balance a variety of factors including water resource protection and conservation while allowing “reasonable economic development and job creation” among others. Under the WMA, DEP identifies withdrawal conditions for each WMA permit. Water availability for Brewster is therefore also a function of its WMA permit requirements. This section compares current water withdrawals by the Brewster Water Department with permitted levels under its WMA. It also estimates future water demand. It describes potential water conflicts that may arise from competing water uses, and identifies water conservation opportunities and land use changes to further protect Brewster’s drinking water resources. Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page E-50 January 2013 a) Permitted Water Management Act Withdrawals and Yields of Existing Wells When the WMA became effective in March 1986, DEP enabled large water users to register their previously existing withdrawals based on their use between 1981 and 1985. As part of this program, the Brewster Water Department was granted the renewable right to a registered water withdrawal volume of 0.63 mgd. In addition to the registration program, the WMA provides for a permitting program that allows large water users to request a permit to withdraw water in excess of their registered volume. Under its WMA permit, the Brewster Water Department can withdraw a total of 1.57 mgd; including a 0.63 mgd registered volume, and a 0.94 mgd permitted volume. Figure E-3 shows average and maximum daily water demand from 1974 to 2011, compared to the current permitted average daily withdrawal, as well as population from 1990 to 2011. While the trend for the average daily demand increased significantly from 1974 to 2000, correlating to the population increase, the trend has stabilized over the past ten years, with some added annual variability. Average daily withdrawals have remained below the current permit limit of 1.57 mgd. Figure E-3. Daily Demand for Public Water in Brewster (1974 to 2011) In addition to capping average water withdrawals, the WMA permit sets maximum daily withdrawals from individual wells. Table E-1 lists the maximum daily withdrawal permitted from each of the Brewster Water Department’s six permitted wells, and the maximum daily 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 PopulationDaily Demand (MGD)Year Average-Day Demand Maximum-Day Demand Permitted Average-Day Demand Brewster Population Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page E-51 January 2013 withdrawals from each well in the past five years. Well #5 has not yet been drilled, but was recently permitted under the same WMA permit, and well #6 was drilled in 2012. Table E-1. Permitted and Actual Maximum Daily Withdrawals Withdrawal / Yield (mgd) Well #1 Well #2 Well #3 Well #4 Well #5 (proposed) Well #6 Maximum Daily Withdrawal Permitted 1.37 1.58 1.01 1.01 0.96 1.30 Max Day 2011 0.98 1.13 0.82 0.91 n/a n/a Max Day 2010 1.32 1.41 0.96 1.12 n/a n/a Max Day 2009 0.87 0.98 0.60 0.84 n/a n/a Max Day 2008 0.95 1.01 0.84 0.90 n/a n/a Max Day 2007 0.93 1.09 0.89 1.0 n/a n/a Until well #6 was drilled, the total maximum amount of water that could be pumped by the Brewster Water Department under its WMA was 4.97 mgd. As shown in Figure E-3, maximum day demands of 4.37 MG and 3.99 were reached in 2011 and 1997 respectively, but maximum demand has remained below those levels in all other years, and well below the maximum permitted total of 4.97 mgd. The addition of well #6 provides an opportunity to add 1.3 mgd to the distribution system, for a total maximum daily withdrawal of 6.27 mgd, well above the maximum daily demand experienced by the system. It also provides more flexibility to the Brewster Water Department in case one of the wells must be taken out of service for maintenance or other issues. Well #2 has the highest permitted withdrawal, at 1.58 mgd. If that well was taken out of service for maintenance, 4.69 mgd would be available from the remaining four wells, and the Brewster Water Department would still be able to meet its recent peak demand, even if this occurred during summer months. The Brewster Water Department exceeded its permitted maximum daily withdrawal for well #4 in 2010 (Table E-1), but this only occurred on a single day (July 5, 2010) and prior to that this had not occurred since 2002. The addition of well #6 to the system, and of well #5 in the future, will make it easier for the Brewster Water Department to meet their peak demand. As previously discussed, the Cape Cod basin is characterized as a “low stress or unassessed basin” (Massachusetts Water Resources Commission, 2001), and DEP requires that withdrawals under the WMA from these types of basins meet the following minimum performance standards: Residential gallons per capita day water use of 80 gallons or less; and Unaccounted for water of 15% or less. The Brewster Water Department has been consistently exceeding these performance standards according to their 2005 through 2011 annual statistical reports (ASRs), while meeting their other permit requirements. Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page E-52 January 2013 The Brewster Water Department’s WMA permit #9P-4-22-041.1 was set to expire on November 30, 2010, but was automatically extended for an additional four years under the Massachusetts Permit Extension Act. The automatic extension was made without modification to the WMA permit, so the permitted average daily volume and maximum daily withdrawals for each well did not initially change. However, in a letter to the Brewster Water Department dated March 20, 2012 discussing Brewster’s WMA permit renewal, DEP noted that water demand projections from the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) indicate the need for additional water withdrawals in the future, up to 1.64 mgd by 2016, 1.82 mgd by 2021, and 2.1 mgd by 2026. This letter also discusses upcoming modifications to Brewster’s WMA permit, such as changes to performance standards under the new permits. Due to the high seasonal variability of population in Brewster (as in other Cape Cod communities), the residential gallon per capita per day (gpcd) water use performance standard will be removed until a new consistent methodology for estimating seasonal population has been developed. The performance standard for unaccounted for water will be changed from 15% to 10% to reflect the 2006 Massachusetts Water Conservation Standards, and Brewster will be required to meet this new standard within five years of receiving its modified permit. b) Existing Water Demand Water demand can vary significantly within a single day, with a typical surge in demand during daytime hours compared to evening or night time hours. These demand variations are usually equalized by storage within the distribution system. In Brewster, storage tanks and wells are connected to the SCADA system so that a decrease in storage volume can trigger the well pumps to start. Water demand fluctuations within a single day have not been an issue for the Brewster Water Department. Water demand also varies significantly on a seasonal basis, with outdoor watering use playing an important role, starting in the spring and into the fall. Seasonal demand variability is further increased with population variability, particularly in resort areas such as Cape Cod in general, and Brewster in particular. A review of historical pumping rates for wells #1 to 4 from 1988 to 2011 indicates that the year can be separated into approximately three seasons in Brewster based on the amount of water used: A high-season in the summer that includes the months of June through August; A mid-season in the spring and fall that includes the months of May, September and October; and A low-season the rest of the year that includes the months of November through April. Water demand patterns for these three times of year are most likely related to a combination of changes in outdoor watering use, and of seasonal population increase. Figure E-4 shows the average daily water demand for each of these three “seasons” from 1988 to 2011, as well as the trend lines for each season, and the permitted daily average. Water demand Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page E-53 January 2013 in the off-season has remained approximately stable over the past 24 years, despite an increase in year-round population from 7,876 in 1990 to over 10,800 in 2004, followed by a decrease to approximately 10,000 in 2011, according to town population records. This seemingly flat demand despite population growth may be due to improved water efficiency in home plumbing fixtures resulting from changes to the federal plumbing code under the 1992 Energy Policy Act. Among other things, the 1992 Energy Policy Act mandated maximum flow rates for toilets, urinals, showerheads, and faucets. Figure E-4. Average Daily Demand for Public Water in Three Representative Seasons Average water demand the rest of the year has increased steadily over the past 20 years, with high season demand increasing faster than mid-season demand. This could be the result of increased seasonal population or increased outdoor water use, but most likely is a combination of both. In an effort to separate the effects of increased seasonal population from outdoor watering use, HW reviewed National Oceanic and Atmospheric (NOAA) historical precipitation records from stations located in Chatham and Hyannis. HW compared average daily precipitation to pumping records from 1988 to 2011, and in general, very dry months tend to lead to higher pumping rates, while very wet months show lower pumping rates. However, the overall correlation between precipitation and pumping rates is not very strong. This low correlation could be due to the use of automatic sprinkler systems that are rarely tied to soil humidity. If individual residents have 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 Average Daily Demand (MGD)Year Off-season Mid-season High-season Permitted Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page E-54 January 2013 installed automatic timed sprinkler systems in their yards, outdoor watering on those properties will not be directly tied to precipitation. Seasonal population fluctuations are difficult to quantify. Vacant summer homes become occupied, but year-round residences also see an increase in average occupancy. The real estate market in some areas of the Cape is such that some residences are only available for winter rentals, or have such a large difference between summer and winter rental rates that they are rented during these seasons by different renters (i.e., large family on summer vacation compared to a couple or single resident who cannot afford the summer rate). This increases the complexity of estimating population variability. In 2010, DCR estimated an average Brewster population for June through September of 18,483, compared to 10,078 year-round, resulting in an annualized seasonal population of 3,898. The Brewster Water Department’s 2007 to 2009 ASRs also estimated an annualized population of approximately 16,500 people based on full occupancy of all residences. Approximately 80% of the water in Brewster is distributed to residential customers, and the Water Department estimates that approximately 98% of residents are connected to public water. Over the past five years (2007 to 2011), total water use in the off-season has averaged approximately 0.77 mgd. The residential share of that is approximately 0.62 mgd for an average population of 10,427, representing an average water demand of 58 gpcd. Average per capita use in the high season is highly variable depending on population estimates: from 52 gpcd based on a population of 35,000 to 93 gpcd based on the DCR summer population. Actual water demand per capita is probably somewhere in between. Table E-2 provides a summary of the average daily water use based on different population estimates. As noted previously, until DEP develops a consistent methodology for estimating seasonal population, the Brewster Water Department’s WMA renewed permit is not subject to a maximum daily use per capita, but these are helpful to understand future demand. Table E-2. Average Water Demand Based on Different Population Estimates Average Water Demand Brewster Water Department Population Estimates DCR Population Estimates Off-season Annual Jun-Sep. Annual Residential Water Use (mgd) 0.62 1.05 1.74 1.0 Population Estimate 10,427 16,500 18,483 13,696 Residential Water Use (gcpd) 58 62 93 73 Large water users can account for disproportionate amounts of water demand. For example, based on a review of water billing information from the Brewster Water Department, the top ten water accounts in terms of total use between 2005 and 2011 are responsible for an annual water demand of approximately 23 MG, or approximately 5% of the total water demand. These large water users consume on average over 3,500 gpd per parcel, and include campgrounds, a nursing home and senior living facility, condominiums, and the Town’s soccer field irrigation system. Some of these users appear more than once in the top-ten list, including the Ocean Edge Resort, Camp Wono, and the Epoch senior living facility. In an effort to group some of the water Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page E-55 January 2013 accounts, HW mapped the water demand by combining water accounts associated with the same parcel. Figure E-5 shows the parcels associated with total daily water use over 2,500 gpd, or about 0.93 MG per year. These parcels total an approximate water demand of 228,240 gpd, 83.3 MG per year, or 18% of total annual demand. In addition to the types of large users identified from the water account review, this parcel-based analysis added the Nickerson State Park and the Brewster Fire Department. Some of the discrepancy between produced water and metered water can be explained by a number of elements including bleeders and blow-offs throughout the system, and distribution system flushing. The remaining discrepancy is called unaccounted-for water, and results from leaks, lack of metering (i.e., fire fighting), and metering inaccuracies. It is the goal of all water utilities, including the Brewster Water Department, to minimize unaccounted for water, as it contributes to operating costs, but does not generate any revenue. To minimize unaccounted for water, the Brewster Water Department conducts a leak detection survey over at least half of its system on an annual basis to minimize unaccounted for water due to leaks. Water meters at the pumps are calibrated and tested on an annual basis to reduce metering inaccuracies. Between 2010 and 2012, the meter inaccuracies at the pumps to wells #1 through 4 ranged from 0.01 to 5.62%, with annual averages of 1.2% in 2010, 1.7% in 2011, and 0.5% in 2012. Between 2005 and 2011, the Brewster Water Department’s unaccounted for water averaged approximately 35 MG per year, or 7% of its produced water, and ranged from 4.5% to 11.2%, which can be explained in part by the measured meter inaccuracies at the pumps. The Brewster Water Department exceeded the upcoming DEP performance standard of 10% unaccounted for water in only one of the past seven years. c) Future Water Demand The 2006 Master Plan for the water system (EarthTech, 2006) forecasted public water needs for Brewster through 2030 based on historical data from the Brewster Water Department, and population forecasts from the Massachusetts Institute for Social and Economic Research (MISER). The Master Plan also discussed the results from the 2001 Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA) buildout, which represents a worst case scenario for development, but is not associated with a particular time frame, making forecasting difficult. Using the MISER average population forecasts of 12,000 and 14,500 residents by 2010 and 2020 respectively, the Master Plan estimated that the average daily water demand would exceed the permitted limit of 1.57mg by or before 2020. Based on historical trends for water demand, the Master Plan estimated that the Brewster Water Department would exceed its permitted average daily withdrawal by 2025. Maximum daily withdrawals were forecasted to exceed the total limit across wells #1 through 4 between 2015 and 2020. UV6A £¤6 UV137 UV124 HARWICH DENN IS ORLEAN S CHATHAM / 0 10.5Miles Date: 11/19/2012 - eym Path: H:\Projects\2011\11109 Brewster Int.Wtr.Res.Mgt Plan\GIS\Maps\Report\Figure E-5.mxd Figu re E-5. Large WaterUsers Based onWater Demand by Parcel C ape C od B ayPleasant BayCape Cod Bay Legend Town of Brewster Ponds Large Water Users > 2,500 gpd per parcel Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page E-57 January 2013 In 2010, DCR forecasted water needs into 2030 for the Town of Brewster based on population projections from regional planning agencies and the 2008 Survey of Cape Cod Second Home Owners (UMass, 2008). DCR estimated an annualized seasonal population of 3,898 residents based on the 2008 UMass report, and assumed that annualized population would remain constant through 2030. HW contacted DCR to confirm the methodology and the data behind the estimates. When DCR estimated water needs in 2010, the U.S. Census Bureau had not yet released data from the 2010 census, and the population estimates and forecasts provided to DCR by the regional planning agencies were made in 2009 based on data from the 2000 census. Based on the 2000 census, population in Brewster was expected to grow faster than it actually did, which may have led to an overestimate in both population and water needs forecasted. Table E-3 summarizes the DCR water needs forecast for Brewster. DEP used the DCR numbers italicized in Table E-3 in its initial review of the Brewster Water Department’s WMA permit renewal application. Table E-3. DCR Water Needs Forecast 2015 2020 2025 2030 Population Projection (including annualized seasonal estimate) 16,221 18,434 20,596 22,757 Projected Water Use1 (in mgd) Assuming 73 gpcd and 6.4% unaccounted for water 1.47 1.65 1.82 2.00 (+0.1 buffer) Projected Water Use (in mgd) Assuming 65 gpcd and 10% unaccounted for water 1.38 1.55 1.71 1.87 (+0.09 buffer) 1 This projected water use was used by DEP in its initial review of the Brewster Water Department’s permit renewal application. As previously discussed, population in Brewster during the high season is very difficult to estimate, let alone forecast. The DCR water needs forecast provides an estimate of average water need based on estimated population growth, so HW focused on forecasting water demand based on historical data for water demand, as obtained from the Brewster Water Department and the 2006 Master Plan (Earth Tech, 2006). The two main constraints imposed by DEP’s WMA permit are average daily withdrawals (currently capped at 1.57 mgd), and maximum withdrawals by well (Table E-1). Figure E-6 shows the historical data (1988-2011) used to establish a trend for water demand increases over the years. The trend itself only provides one piece of the information needed to forecast needs into the future. The variability around that trend is the other element. As can be seen on Figure E-6, the historic data do not match a perfect line, but rather oscillate around the trend line. Therefore HW estimated the variability around the trend, and plotted upper and lower bounds to the trend two standard deviations away from the trend. These lower and upper bounds capture most of the variability in the historical data, and indicate that the Brewster Water Department may need to request additional volume their WMA permit by or before 2020. The water demand forecast in Figure E-6 shows a slower growth than the growth estimated by DCR and listed in Table E-3. This is consistent with the fact that population growth in Brewster Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page E-58 January 2013 stabilized, and even decreased in the recent years, which was not anticipated based on 2000 census data. Figure E-6. Historic and Forecasted Average Daily Demand A similar methodology was used to forecast maximum daily demand, the other main constraint imposed by the WMA permit. Figure E-7 shows the historical data (1988-2011) used to establish a trend for increases in maximum daily demand over the years. Compared to average demand, maximum daily demand experiences greater variability, which is captured by a wider forecasted band around the trend than in Figure E-6. The total permitted volume for the five wells currently in operation and/or soon to be in operation is also shown in Figure E-7. It was obtained by adding the total maximum withdrawal permitted at each well, but true maximum demand is more complex than that. If one of the wells is out of operation, the total maximum permitted withdrawal for that day would be significantly reduced. For example, well #2 is the largest well, with a maximum daily withdrawal of 1.58 mgd. If that well is out of service, the total maximum daily permitted withdrawal will be reduced to 4.69 mgd instead of 6.27 mgd. In addition, wells may not be automatically shut down as soon as they reach their maximum daily withdrawal, so the maximum daily withdrawal for an individual well may be reached well before the total daily maximum withdrawal is reached across all four wells. However, Figure E- 7 does show that by drilling Well #6, the Brewster Water Department has added flexibility to the operation of its water system. Without well #6, the total maximum daily withdrawal would be 4.97 mgd instead of 6.27 mgd. This added flexibility is particularly important if iron concentrations in well #3 continue to increase, and the well must be taken offline during 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50 1.75 Average Day (MGD)Year Historic Data Historic Trend Permitted Volume Estimated Range Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page E-59 January 2013 redevelopment or another type of upgrade (i.e., construction of filtration facility). The remaining four wells could easily meet demand during the time well #3 has to be kept offline. Figure E-7. Historic and Forecasted Maximum Daily Demand d) Identification of Potential Water Use Conflicts Water demand in Brewster is primarily driven by residential users. As indicated in the previous section, water withdrawal limits under the current WMA permit appear adequate over the next five to ten years given the current pattern of demand growth. The Brewster Water Department should continue to monitor water demand relative to the average daily permitted volume to anticipate the need for additional withdrawals. e) Evaluation of Water Conservation Opportunities The primary goal for a public water system is to deliver safe drinking water to its customers, which requires significant investment in the initial infrastructure, but also in the long-term management and maintenance of the water system. Like most other public water systems, the Brewster Water Department’s rate structure includes a flat connection fee based on the size of the connection, and a usage fee based on the amount of water used during the billing period. From a financial standpoint, the higher the water demand throughout the year, the greater the revenue to the water system, which can pay for upgraded infrastructure and maintenance. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Maximum Day (MGD)Year Historic Data Historic Trend Permitted Volume (5 wells) Estimated Range Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page E-60 January 2013 Therefore, water systems have a limited incentive to promoting water conservation, unless water resources are limited by regulation or scarcity (i.e., drought). However, sustainability of the water system is two-fold: while the long-term sustainability of a water system is in part financial, it also depends on the continued availability of water in the required quantity and quality. One way to ensure continued availability while limiting potential financial losses is to implement conservation measures that tie water waste to a financial penalty, such as a higher rate per gallon of water beyond what would be considered normal demand. For example, some residents use timed sprinkler systems in their yard that turn on automatically on a daily basis, sometimes even on wet days, and even though an average lawn does not require daily watering. This type of water use is considered by most to be non-essential and could potentially conflict with other types of use. The Brewster Water Department already has a two-tiered rate that charges customers $2.12 per 1,000 gallons for the first 5,000 gallons of usage per six-month billing period, followed by a higher rate of $4.46 per 1,000 gallons for any use beyond 5,000 gallons. This represents an annual water bill of less than $300 for an average household using 80 gpcd, or about 68,000 gallons per year. If a third billing tier is implemented such that water demand above and beyond a certain level is charged at a much higher rate than $4.46, cost-conscious customers would reduce their non-essential water use, while those who decide they still want a green lawn despite the cost would pay a higher water bill. If the third tier is structured adequately, higher water users would then be “sponsoring” conservation at no overall cost to the Brewster Water Department. This third rate in Brewster should be structured carefully to avoid penalizing condominiums and multi-family residences compared to individual homes. It may also need to be based on the type of water account, with different rate structures for residential, commercial, and industrial users. Some customers pay very large water bills due to a great number of residents per water account, or to a water-intensive commercial activity (i.e., laundry), not necessarily to excessive water waste. In addition to ongoing conservation efforts by the Brewster Water Department, and to potential rate adjustments, DEP has been increasing its focus on water conservation. WMA permit renewals are likely to require additional conservation efforts by water utilities on the Cape (Barnstable County Water Utilities Association, 2012). These efforts target non-essential use during drought conditions, by imposing strict restrictions on outdoor watering use triggered by groundwater levels, and requiring the development of a drought management plan. The Brewster Water Department has been working closely with other neighboring towns and DEP to develop a draft drought management plan that would be acceptable to both DEP and the water departments. In June and September 2007 and 2008, the Brewster Water Department did implement water use restrictions to help conserve water and limit non-essential use, but the drought requirements under the upcoming permit would be stricter and possibly triggered more frequently. An adequate public outreach and education campaign about these new thresholds and requirements will make them much easier to implement. A change in behavior towards conservation is a long-term process that involves a sustained outreach effort, but if the public Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page E-61 January 2013 understands the issues, and is aware of potential water use restrictions, it will be that much easier and effective for the Brewster Water Department to implement water use restrictions when they are needed. 4) ZONE II NITROGEN LOADING ASSESSMENT As mentioned previously, the quality of water pumped by the Town’s wells is excellent, with nitrogen concentrations (an indicator of potential contamination in the water supply) typically below 0.25 mg/L. By comparison, the federal and state drinking water standard for nitrogen is 10 mg/L. HW conducted a nitrogen loading analysis of the Zone IIs to the Town’s public supply wells to evaluate current and future nitrogen loadings to the wells. This analysis involved calculating the nitrogen load to the Zone IIs from septic systems, lawn fertilizers, road runoff and other sources and calculating a nitrogen concentration based on the amount of rainfall recharge that enters the Zone II area and flows to the wells. The Zone II estimates of average nitrogen concentrations represent a conservative estimate of the long-term well-water concentrations. Time delays from land to groundwater are ignored and the actual recharge area is exaggerated by the use of the Zone II as the size of the Zone II area is larger than the actual capture area to the wells under average rainfall and water withdrawal conditions. Estimates of nitrogen loads and concentration were developed for both current and buildout conditions using the buildout information developed by HW in a separate study (HW, 2012). a) Methodology Used for the Nitrogen Loading Assessment The nitrogen loading factors used in the analysis were derived from the Pleasant Bay MEP report Tables IV-3 and IV-4. The MEP nitrogen factors were converted into a consistent set of units, either in pounds per year per gallon per day (lb/yr/gpd) or pounds per year per square foot (lb/yr/sf) of area. The resulting factors, multiplied by 1,000 for ease of presentation, are presented in Table F-4 below. The equations below convert the water use or area into a load: Septic N load (lb/yr) = Factor (lb/yr/gpd) x Water Use (gpd) Area N load (lb/yr) = Factor (lb/yr/sf) x Area (sf) The factor multiplied by the input variable yields the annual nitrogen load (lb/yr) for that portion of the parcel. The total nitrogen load for the parcel sums all the sub-component nitrogen loads. Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page E-62 January 2013 Table E-4. Loading Factors Used in Land-Based Nitrogen Model Input Factor x 1000 Comment Water Use (gpd) 71.89 90% non-consumptive use factor Roof Area (sf) 0.16 Paved Area (sf) 0.31 Lawn Area (sf) 0.22 20% leaching factor Bog Area (sf) 0.47 66% leaching factor Water Area (sf) 0.23 Atmospheric deposition only Natural Area (sf) 0.01 Golf Courses Captains CCN* Green Area (sf) 6.00 4.50 Tee Area (sf) 5.50 2.25 Fairway Area (sf) 4.50 1.75 Rough Area (sf) 4.50 2.00 *CCN = Cape Cod National To get accurate water use data on a parcel basis, HW worked extensively with the Town’s water department and the Town’s water use database consultant (Data West). HW inserted a GIS- located parcel number (the new map/lot/ext number) into the water use data so that water use for each parcel location could be calculated and plotted in GIS. To accomplish this, HW developed a ranking system to match the water accounts to parcels based on parcel address, condominium address, old tax identification code, mailing address, owner name, water department information, and other information. Physical address matches had the highest ranking (rank=2) while other factors had a lower ranking (rank=1). A total rank of 2 was required for an acceptable match. HW was able to match 7,266 of the 7,316 water accounts to a parcel, a 99% match. Private water use for residences not on public water supply was estimated from the average public water use (155 gpd per house) for residences connected to the public water system. For this analysis HW used the assessor land use codes for residential parcels (013, 101, 102, 104, 105, and 109) as in the MEP studies. Private water use residences were identified from residential parcels that had no public water use but had a building on the parcel. To do this HW used the Town’s buildings layer and improved on its accuracy in the areas of interest, which included the Town’s Zone IIs and the portion of the Pleasant Bay watershed within Brewster. A combined parcel database was created from the complete Brewster parcel database (from the Town) and Harwich parcels (from MassGIS) that are Brewster’s Zone II areas. Natural area was determined as the remainder of the total parcel area after accounting for all the other sub-areas. Some areas outside of the Town parcel boundaries like roads and some waterbodies were also treated as “parcels.” A number of area-based checks were performed to ensure that all contributing areas were included. The outcome of applying the nitrogen factors to all parcels is the total parcel nitrogen load (lb/yr) for current conditions. For buildout conditions, HW used the parcel-based analysis described in the “baseline” buildout scenario from HW’s buildout analysis as this represents the greatest Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page E-63 January 2013 potential level of development in the Zone II areas (HW, 2012). The additional nitrogen load from projected development was added to the existing load to obtain the buildout nitrogen load for each parcel. For the small number of Harwich parcels in Brewster’s Zone IIs, HW applied the same buildout method used for Brewster, but used the density allowances in Harwich’s Rural Residential zoning district. b) Results from the Nitrogen Loading Assessment The nitrogen loads were summed over each Zone II area and converted into an average groundwater concentration using the average recharge rate of 27.25 inches per year (in/yr). These concentrations are given in Table E-5 for both current and buildout conditions. For current conditions, the estimated nitrogen concentrations ranged from 0.33 to 1.31 mg/L, which are below any limit of concern. The predicted values are higher than currently measured well values probably because of the lag time from land to well and the different areas of contribution for regular versus Zone II conditions. For buildout conditions, the estimated nitrogen concentrations ranged from 0.60 to 1.57 mg/L, still below any limit of concern. This is not surprising given the extent of preserved open space within each Zone II area. In fact, approximately 40% of the land area within the Brewster portion of the Zone IIs is preserved as open space, providing a significant measure of protection to the Town’s drinking water supply. Table E-5. Measured and Modeled Nitrogen Concentrations for Zone IIs Zone II Number Brewster’s Public Wells in Zone II Measured Current NO3- Nitrogen Concentration (mg/L) Estimated Current Nitrogen Concentration (mg/L) Estimated Buildout Nitrogen Concentration (mg/L) 96 #1, #2 0.18 1.42 1.57 95 #3 0.19 0.47 1.12 45 #4 0.28 1.31 1.39 188 #5* - 0.55 0.84 654 #6* - 0.33 0.60 * not yet in operation Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page E-64 January 2013 5) SUMMARY OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE TRAINING In consultation with the Brewster Water and Fire Departments, HW developed a day-long training program focused on emergency preparedness and response to an incident affecting the water sector, and conducted the training on August 28, 2012. The overall goal of the training was to foster a better understanding of the roles, responsibilities, and capabilities of the partner agencies/organizations that would respond to a water sector incident in Brewster. A copy of the after-action report for this training event is provided in Appendix E-1. The following training objectives were established for this training event by the Brewster Water and Fire Departments, and HW ahead of the training: Define roles and responsibilities of emergency response partners during an incident affecting the Water Department; Review communication plans, policies, and procedures; Encourage interagency cooperation; and Develop an Improvement Plan based on identified planning gaps. To meet the training goal and objectives, the training event consisted of refresher training in the morning on the Incident Command System (ICS) and the National Incident Management System (NIMS), followed by a facilitated tabletop exercise in the afternoon. The ICS/NIMS refresher training was geared towards personnel of the Brewster Water Department. Representatives from the Water, Fire, Police, Health, Planning, and other town and county departments then engaged in a facilitated discussion-based exercise (tabletop exercise) utilizing a fictional scenario involving both a fire and an unintentional contamination. The exercise scenario was sequenced to promote a discussion of water sector preparedness for, and response to, an incident in Brewster. The exercise concluded with an improvement planning session in which key discussion elements were summarized and with a hotwash/after action review during which participants were asked to voice their number one lesson learned from the exercise. a) Refresher Training Summary Both the ICS and NIMS sessions were attended by staff from the Brewster Water Department, some of whom had previously attended other ICS and NIMS training events. These sessions provided a refresher for most staff in preparation of the afternoon tabletop exercise. HW developed the ICS refresher training based on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)’s IS-100 Introduction to Incident Command System course. HW reworked the course to be more reflective of the roles and responsibilities that the water sector could be expected to perform within an incident command structure during a natural or manmade disaster. In addition, HW replaced the traditional first responder examples/photos/depictions with others that are more relevant to the water sector. HW highlighted recent real world incidents affecting the water sector to illustrate key learning points. While the overall course was shortened to meet the allotted schedule, HW covered the basic features of ICS, Incident Commander and staff functions, ICS facilities, and common responsibilities. Participants were encouraged to become Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page E-65 January 2013 certified in IS-100 through FEMA’s Emergency Management Institute’s online training program (http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/IS/is100PWb.asp). Similar to the ICS refresher, HW developed the NIMS refresher training based on FEMA’s IS- 700 National Incident Management System (NIMS), An Introduction course. HW also modified this course to be more relevant to a water sector audience. HW covered the five components of NIMS: preparedness, communications and information management, resource management, command and management, and ongoing management and maintenance. Participants were encouraged to become certified in IS-700 through the Emergency Management Institute’s online training program (http://training.fema.gov/emiweb/is/is700a.asp). b) Tabletop Exercise Summary The afternoon tabletop exercise was attended by staff from the Water, Fire, Police, Health, Planning, and other town and county departments, and was facilitated by HW following opening remarks by Paul Anderson, Superintendent to the Brewster Water Department, and introductions of all participants. HW created a community-level tabletop exercise based on the fictitious scenario of a large fire followed by a backflow of pesticide into the water distribution system on a hot summer day prior to the July 4th holiday weekend. This scenario provided participants the opportunity to discuss the plans, policies, and procedures needed to guide the prevention of, response to, and recovery from a hypothetical, unintentional contamination scenario. HW presented the exercise scenario using a combination of PowerPoint slides and discipline-specific injects. Injects are specific pieces of information the help build the story of the scenario to better simulate what would happen in a real world situation. Appropriate individuals (based on role) were given an opportunity to react to each inject, then discussion was opened to the entire group. Participants discussed the scenario and the water sector response to the cascading events caused by the fire and contamination. Detailed comments and lessons learned during the exercise are summarized in the after action report (Appendix E-1). c) Improvement Planning and Lessons Learned At the conclusion of the exercise, the group engaged in a discussion to highlight the major concepts and objectives that will be important for improving response to water incidents in the community. Specific recommendations made by the participants include: Developing a plan to exercise the interconnections between Brewster and neighboring towns; The water department providing training to the fire department on how to shut off domestic water at the curb stop; The water department sharing both paper and GIS maps of the distribution system with the fire department; The Brewster water department joining the Massachusetts Water/Wastewater Agency Response Network (MaWARN) – www.mawarn.org; Contacting the Harwich Water Department, which is a MaWARN member, for more information; Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page E-66 January 2013 Conducting regular “all-hazards” tabletop exercises within the Town; and Conducting training so that multiple individuals are able to update the Brewster town website. A number of lessons were learned during the training event on the vulnerabilities of the water system; the benefits of collaboration across town departments; potential planning gaps that could be addressed; and on the importance of communication, information management, and interagency cooperation during an incident. Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page F-67 January 2013 F. STORMWATER Stormwater management is an important component of the IWRMP. Stormwater runoff can potentially impact drinking water supplies, ponds, streams and coastal waters. Proper management of stormwater is critical to the protection of these resources. The focus of this section is to describe Brewster’s current stormwater management system and potential stormwater impacts on the Town’s water resources. Examples of three conceptual stormwater retrofit projects are included. These can be used as models to guide future retrofits to the Town’s stormwater management system. Specific strategies for stormwater management improvements are included in Section H. Stormwater runoff is the excess precipitation that runs off over the land and discharges to nearby receiving waters such as streams, ponds, wetlands, and estuaries. Stormwater can impact all of Brewster’s water resources in different ways. As land development occurs, impervious surfaces block the natural infiltration of rainwater, thereby reducing the recharge rate and lowering the water table. Increased runoff volumes and increased peak flows can cause more stream-related flooding and can also modify streambeds with increased erosion and sedimentation. Water temperature is also increased in streams near impervious areas. New land uses can introduce pollutants and nutrients that are carried by stormwater to receiving waters. Ponds are susceptible to phosphorus loads which can exacerbate algae and aquatic plant levels. Wetlands are susceptible to impacts from stormwater in terms of both hydrology and water quality changes. Wetlands are very sensitive to water level changes and to alterations in water inputs. Coastal waters, including estuarine systems, are sensitive to stormwater inputs that alter salinity levels and to nitrogen loads that promote algae growth and impact eel grass health. Stormwater impacts on receiving waters are shown in Table F-1. Increased development brings with it an increase in impervious ground cover. The greater the area of imperviousness, the greater the stormwater impact on water resources. At over 25% impervious area, receiving waters are highly impaired (NRDC, 1999). Some studies have shown that the health of water resources is impacted at levels as low as 5 to 7% impervious cover. More recently, even lower impervious thresholds (1 to 2%) have been found to reduce riverine fish populations in Massachusetts (Armstrong, et al., 2011) with about 5% impact on fish for every 1% increase in impervious cover. While most watersheds are developed with a variety of land uses, significant residential, commercial and industrial development often bring impervious cover levels that exceed ecological stress thresholds. Typical impervious levels for various land uses are given in Table F-2. Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page F-68 January 2013 Table F-1. Impacts of Stormwater Pollutants Stormwater Pollutant Impacts Sediments—Suspended Solids, Dissolved Solids, Turbidity Stream turbidity; Habitat changes; Recreation/aesthetic loss; Contaminant transport Filling of fresh and estuarine waterbodies, and freshwater and coastal wetlands Nutrients—Nitrate, Nitrite, Ammonia, Organic Nitrogen, Phosphate, Total Phosphorus Algae blooms; Eutrophication; DO depletion Ammonia and nitrate toxicity; Recreation/aesthetic loss Pathogens—Bacteria (Fecal Coliforms, Fecal Streptococcus or Enterococci, E.coli), Viruses, and Protozoans (Cryptosporidium, Giardia). Ear/Intestinal infections; Shellfish bed closure; Recreation/aesthetic loss Organic Matter—Vegetation, Sewage, Other Oxygen Demanding Materials DO depletion; Odors; Fish kills Toxic Pollutants—Heavy Metals (cadmium, copper, lead, zinc), Organics, Hydrocarbons, Deicing Salt, Pesticides/Herbicides Human & aquatic toxicity Bioaccumulation in the food chain Thermal Pollution DO depletion; Increased toxic algae; Habitat changes Trash and debris Recreation/aesthetic loss Table F-2. Typical Impervious Cover by Land Use Land Use Impervious Cover (%) Commercial and Business District 85 Industrial 72 High Density Residential (1/8 ac zoning) 65 Medium-High Density Residential (1/4 ac zoning) 38 Medium-Low Density Residential (1/2 ac zoning) 25 Low Density Residential (1 ac zoning) 20 Low Density Residential (10 ac zoning) 2 1) MS4 IMPLEMENTATION Brewster’s stormwater system is currently regulated by its NPDES Phase II MS4 permit. As discussed in Section C, the NPDES permit is administered by the USEPA. An initial general MS4 permit was issued in 2003 and a new draft permit was re-issued in 2010. The new final MS4 permit is slated for release in 2013. A more complete description of the draft stormwater permit can be found at USEPA (2010). Implications of this permit change for Brewster were included in the Phase I study (CDM, 2011). Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page F-69 January 2013 The MS4 permit is designed to reduce the amount of sediment and pollution that enters surface and groundwater from municipal storm sewer systems to the maximum extent practicable. This is in accord with Brewster’s goal of protecting its water resources. The Town’s current MS4 permit specifies particular actions that must occur on regulated lands, which are those so called “urbanized” areas by the 2000 U.S. Census. The regulated lands are shown in Figure F-1. These generally cover the northern and central sections of town. A stormwater management program that meets the current MS4 requirements should include the following: A detailed mapping of stormwater facilities and outfalls; A stormwater system illicit discharge detection and elimination program; An update of town by-laws to prohibit illicit connections to storm drains and to ensure proper stormwater management during and after construction activities; A public outreach program; Good housekeeping practices for municipal operations; and Implementation of best management practices to meet approved TMDL waste load allocations. The following describes Brewster’s efforts to date to meet the MS4 requirements. Infrastructure Inventory As part of compliance with the MS4 permit, the Town commissioned three projects to help complete the inventory of existing stormwater infrastructure in Brewster. The first study was completed in 2007 by Sterns and Wheeler, now called GHD Engineering, and started the process of locating, documenting, and mapping stormwater infrastructure. The second follow-on study was completed by SEA Consultants, which is now Kleinfelder, in 2011 and continued the infrastructure mapping with more detailed reports, photos, and a GIS stormwater map book. The last project was performed by Kleinfelder in 2012 and focused on mapping outstanding outfalls and drainage areas to all outfalls. The inventory status is recorded in Table F-3 and Figure F-2. Flyover data indicated that there were at least 1610 catch basins in the Town, but only about 817 of these are Town-owned, and therefore subject to the MS4 permit. About 103 town-owned catch basins and 50 outfalls have been inventoried in the three previous studies. £¤6 UV137 UV124 UV6A HARWICH ORLEAN S DENN IS CHATHAM / 0 10.5Miles Date: 11/6/2012 - eym Path: H:\Projects\2011\11109 Brewster Int.Wtr.Res.Mgt Plan\GIS\Maps\Report\Figure F-1.mxd Figure F-1. MS4 RegulatedLands in Brewste r C ape C od B ayPleasant B ayCape Cod Bay Legend Ponds MS4 Urbanized Areas (2000 Census) Town of Brewster Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page F-71 January 2013 Table F-3. Stormwater Infrastructure Inventory Structure 2007 2011 2012 Total Catch Basin* 23 45 35 103 Headwall 6 0 0 6 Leaching Pit 14 0 0 14 Outfall 2 29 19 50 Other Runoff 2 28 2 32 Scupper 6 0 0 6 Drain Manholes 0 0 28 28 Interconnections to other MS4s 0 0 2 2 * At least 1610 from flyover and about 817 of these are Town-owned The 2012 work should complete the inventory of Town-owned outfalls and the delineation of drainage areas to these outfalls as required by the 2003 MS4 permit. The new draft MS4 permit will require complete mapping of all Town-owned stormwater infrastructure. The more complete the stormwater inventory is, the easier it is to define contributing watersheds, make estimates of pollutant loading, and design appropriate stormwater Best Management Practice (BMPs) or retrofits to control stormwater volume and improve water quality. 2) STORMWATER BMPS Brewster, like other areas across the United States, is faced with the challenge of protecting the water quality of its rivers, streams, ponds and estuaries while promoting desired development and revitalization. Conventional stormwater best management practices (BMPs) have used closed pipe systems, underground water quality units, and tanks to manage and/or treat stormwater runoff. More recently, green stormwater infrastructure designs have evolved to provide stormwater BMPs that provide both treatment and additional green benefits. Well- designed stormwater BMPs can be aesthetically pleasing and also provide highly effective stormwater management and treatment. a) Stormwater BMPs and Performance The potential benefits of modern green stormwater BMPs are multiple. Listed below are some of the widely recognized benefits of green stormwater implementation: Runoff volume and peak flow reduction – infiltration, increased evapotranspiration, and storage reduce runoff volumes and rates; Recharge to groundwater – infiltration of precipitation reduces runoff but also helps to recharge groundwater supplies; Uptake of pollutants – soils and vegetation manage stormwater and introduce a range of natural pollutant removal processes; Cleaner water – water quality treatment through multiple treatment pathways including settling, microbial breakdown, and infiltration can yield good effluent quality; Less flooding – less runoff and greater infiltration equates to less localized flooding impacts and property damage; and Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page F-72 January 2013 Multiple benefits – aesthetic enhancements and increased habitat, cooler summer temperatures, combined use for stormwater treatment and parks, and increased property values. Some of the many green infrastructure BMPs are listed below with additional fact sheets on the following websites (stormwatercenter.net, water.epa.gov/infrastructure/green infrastructure): Infiltration (basins, trenches, underground chambers, drywells); Bioretention and Green Streets (biorentention, tree filters, planters, rain gardens); Permeable/Porous/Pervious Pavements (pavers, asphalt, poured concrete, concrete slabs); Green and Blue Roofs (extensive vegetated, intensive vegetated, non-vegetated); Storage (rain barrels, cisterns, underground tanks, detention basins); and Non-Structural (preserve open space, reduce impervious cover, natural landscaping, street sweeping). As part of the evaluation of Brewster’s regulations on stormwater management (discussed in Section H), HW has made specific recommendations for the use of many of the BMPs listed above to purposely treat and remove nitrogen and phosphorus from stormwater before it can impact the Town’s water resources. Further effort is expected in Phase III to work toward implementation of these recommendations. £¤6 UV137 UV124 UV6A HARWICH ORLEAN S DENN IS CHATHAM / 0 10.5Miles Date: 12/20/2012 - eym Path: H:\Projects\2011\11109 Brewster Int.Wtr.Res.Mgt Plan\GIS\Maps\Report\Figure F-2_1.mxd Figure F-2. Existing Inventoryof Brewster's Stormwater System C ape C od B ayPleasant B ayCape Cod Bay Legend Ponds Town of Brewster Drainag e Structures (2007/2011)Other#* Catch basins"/ Catch basins from flyover"! Outfa llsXW Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page F-74 January 2013 3) STORMWATER RETROFIT ANALYSIS HW assessed several sites in the Town for potential stormwater retrofits to improve water quality. The assessments were conducted in two steps, with discussion and consultation with the Town throughout the process. First, a desktop analysis was conducted to identify possible locations for retrofitting. This was followed by a field reconnaissance and assessment to confirm the feasibility of these potential locations. The desktop analysis was conducted using Geographic Information System (GIS) data provided by the Town, Massachusetts GIS (MassGIS), and prior consultants. Town data included parcel delineation and ownership information, and easements and rights of way. These data were laid over high-resolution MassGIS aerials to conduct a preliminary watershed assessment and choose potential sites for the field assessments. Opportunities for stormwater retrofits were identified and mapped from these GIS layers and aerials, and were then presented to the Town for review. Next, HW finalized a list of approximately 19 potential retrofits for field assessment. The field assessment was completed on June 20, 2012, with a team of HW staff, and town staff from multiple departments. The field sites were then ranked, based on their feasibility to construct, ownership of the property (i.e., private vs. public), and educational opportunity to identify the highest priority locations for a preliminary design. Initial focus was on public property because potential retrofits located on public properties do not require negotiations with, or approval from property owners, and are therefore often easier to implement than retrofits proposed on private properties. Public properties also provide good educational opportunities as they are usually easy to access and often visited by residents. Signage can be posted and viewed near the retrofit location to describe the stormwater practice and its purpose. Locations with public traffic, such as schools or municipal buildings, and locations accommodating large gatherings, such as churches, provide the best educational opportunities. In addition, public locations such as schools and parks can involve stakeholders such as students, teachers, and volunteers in some of the retrofit maintenance (i.e., weeding, re- planting). A summary of the field work, including data concept drawings showing retrofit opportunities was provided to the Town in a memorandum which is included as Appendix F-1. The Town then selected three of the 19 sites for further analysis, and HW developed a 20% design for these locations. They included the Town Hall parking lot, the parking lot at Breakwater Landing, and the access road and boat ramp at Walkers Pond. These retrofit projects are examples of what future stormwater management could look like, as the Town moves forward with the IWRMP. Similar methods could be applied to other sites in Brewster over time. a) Concept Design for Top Three Stormwater Retrofit Opportunities The following are details for the 20% design concepts for the three preferred stormwater retrofit opportunities. Each example includes a summary of existing conditions and the proposed retrofit, including key design features, and sizing assumptions. A preliminary design sketch in AutoCAD is also included, which is overlain on existing and aerial photos with two-foot Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page F-75 January 2013 contours, taken from existing GIS mapping. Typical cross-sections and site photos are also included. A list of additional data needs and alternative design considerations are also presented. The amount of impervious cover draining to each retrofit, the estimated water quality volume (WQv), and the required and available surface area for proposed practices are summarized in Table F-6. According to the Massachusetts Stormwater Management Standards, management of the WQv, which is equivalent to managing one inch of runoff from the impervious cover in the contributing drainage area, is a requirement for new development and a design target for retrofits. Table F-4. Sizing Requirements and Planning Level Costs for Proposed Retrofits Site Imp. Area (sf) WQv(cf) Surface area (sf) $/cf1 Planning Level $ Required Provided Town Hall- rain garden 9,765 810 1,620 1,650 $14.002 $23,100 Breakwater Landing- bioretention 24,000 1,992 727 670 $27.00 $54,000 Walkers Pond- permeable pavement 3,932 330 3,932 3,932 $40.00 $13,500 Walkers Pond- bioretention 6,947 580 210 420 $27.00 $16,000 Walkers Pond- conveyance channel 1,340 -- -- -- -- $10,000 1 Unit cost estimates per cubic foot treated are based on data from the literature and from HW as presented in a 2011 retrofit financing study for the Upper Charles River Watershed. Additional design effort is required before cost information can be refined. 2 Rain Garden costs based on a price per square foot of surface area instead of the Water Quality Volume as other estimates are calculated. A unit cost per cubic foot (cf) of treatment was used to estimate preliminary construction costs, but will need to be refined once designs are further developed. Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page F-76 January 2013 (i) Brewster Town Hall Description Approximately 9,700 sf of parking lot drains directly into an existing grassed area near the rear entrance to Town Hall. This runoff is currently untreated, but discharges directly into a grassed area adjacent to a wetland. The proposed concept is to install a rain garden in the grassed area (Figure F-3) to treat parking lot runoff, serve as a community demonstration project, and to protect the side slope from further erosion (Figure F- 4). A rain garden (Figure F-5) is a vegetated depression designed to retain, infiltrate, and clean stormwater runoff. Rain gardens are similar to bioretention facilities in that they are vegetated filters, but they lack the complex soil matrix and underdrain system of a bioretention facility. Rain gardens rely primarily on native soils, but may require minor soil amendments depending on site conditions. Rain gardens are typically used to capture runoff from rooftops and small parking lots, and are ideal for residential applications. Key Design Features Excavation of approximately 1,650 sf rain garden with 3:1 side slopes and six-inch ponding depth; Use of native soils (with minor amendments depending on infiltration potential); Paved flume and stone channels to serve as inflow points from the parking lot; Sediment forebay(s) created by timber weirs installed at the inlets to provide pretreatment and to facilitate maintenance; Stabilized spillway to direct overflows into the wooded area; Diversity of non-invasive vegetation selected based on nativity, tolerance to dry and wet conditions, aesthetics, maintenance requirements, and wildlife benefits; and Picnic table and interpretive signage to promote awareness. Figure F-3. Location of Proposed Rain Garden in Grass Area Below Rear Parking Lot Figure F-4. Slope Erosion where Concentrated Parking Lot Runoff Flows Downslope Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page F-77 January 2013 Figure F-5. Installations of Rain Gardens and Bioretention Systems These stormwater practices were installed by HW at a senior housing site in Barnstable, MA (top left), in landscape islands at the Barnstable airport in Hyannis, MA (top right), at a school in Norwich, CT (bottom left), and at Green Briar parking lot in Sandwich, MA (bottom right). These are all applicable at the Town Hall, Eddy School, and the church sites. Design Alternatives If there is sufficient depth to groundwater, consider the installation of a bioretention facility with an underdrain and engineered soil media. A bioretention facility would allow for a reduction in the overall practice footprint. An increase in ponding depth from six to nine inches, soil amendments, or reductions in drainage area could also help to reduce the overall size of the practice. Sizing This rain garden was sized to manage one inch of runoff with a ponding depth of six inches. The target surface area required to manage the WQv is estimated using the following equations: Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page F-78 January 2013 Impervious Area x Rainfall Depth= WQv WQv= 9,765sf x 0.083 ft=810 cf 9,765sf x (.083ft) = 1,621 sf Req. Surface Area 0.5 ft There is sufficient space available for a rain garden to meet the sizing criteria. Site Selection This site was selected primarily due to the following factors: Public property; High visibility to community members; Relatively low cost of installation; Improved aesthetics of existing open area; Easy access for installation and maintenance; and Potential to host community outreach and training opportunities. The rain garden’s installation could serve as an educational event for the Town’s residents and homeowners. Additional Information Needs Take a test pit/boring to confirm soil conditions and depth to groundwater, and to determine if underdrain and additional soil amendments are necessary; and Determine if the adjacent unpaved lot is to be paved and if it will ultimately discharge to the rain garden. Conversion of the practice to a bioretention facility would help to accommodate this increased drainage area. Preliminary Cost Estimates Rain gardens are relatively inexpensive due to their lack of structural underdrain/outlets, and reliance primarily on native soils. Often plants are the most expensive component. Unit cost per square foot of rain garden area is approximately $14. 1,650 x $14 = $23,000 (rounded) Concept Plan A preliminary concept plan is provided in Figure F-6. Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page F-80 January 2013 (ii) Breakwater Landing Description Unmanaged surface runoff from approximately 24,000 sf beach parking lot currently drains to the northwestern corner where it ponds and/or causes erosion of adjacent sand dunes. The parking lot contains approximately 60 parking spaces along the east and west sides of the lot and has an oversized central drive aisle. The proposed retrofit is to divide the lot with a central linear bioswale (Figure F-7) to collect and treat runoff. A bioswale (or linear bioretention facility) is a vegetated depression designed to retain, infiltrate, and filter stormwater runoff. Treatment occurs as the runoff filters through the soil media and eventually seeps into an underdrain system to be discharged, or is taken up by plants. In addition, some area of the pavement may be removed to provide for additional beach and reduce erosion (Figure F-8). Key Design Features Excavation of approximately 670 sf linear, lined bioswale along the center line of the parking lot; Removal of pavement within 20 ft of existing dune, widening of lot by six ft, and re-grading to drain to central island; Redesign of parking lot to include 51 angled parking spaces of 9 ft x 18 ft dimension; and 16 ft wide drive aisles (including three handicap spaces closest to beach access); Curb cuts with paved flume to direct inflow into pretreatment cells with timber weirs; A berm will be constructed at the parking lot and road interface to keep road runoff out of the lot; Shell or sand bottom planted with beach appropriate species (i.e., beach grass, bayberry, beach plum, seaside goldenrod, and beach heather); The overflow structure and underdrain are intended to be tied into the existing pipe discharge on the western side of the parking lot; and Figure F-7. Central Bioswale Proposed for Wide Parking Lot Figure F-8. Area of Pavement to be Removed Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page F-81 January 2013 An underdrain designed with a gravel and filter fabric blanket to prevent clogging of the piping system. Design Alternatives Placement of a bioswale along the western edge of the parking lot would reduce loss of spaces (but would also lose the traffic calming feature); Placement of bioretention at the far end of the lot closest to dune; Permeable pavers (grid or grass pavers); and Wet swale option, depending on depth to groundwater. In Figure F-9, the first image (left) was installed a few months ago at Grey’s Beach in Kingston, MA; and the second (right) was installed in 2011 at Sandy Neck in East Sandwich. Both are good examples of what proposed practices may look like at Breakwater and Crowells Bog Landings. Sizing The bioretention area was sized to treat the runoff from a one-inch storm event and temporarily pond water up to a depth of nine inches. The following equations were used: Impervious Area x Rainfall Depth = WQv WQv = 24,000 sf x 0.083 ft =1,992 cf Where design assumptions include: 1-ft depth of filter bed (df), 1 ft/day permeability coefficient (K), 2 days drain time (tf), and 0.375 ft average ponding height (hf). Surface Area Required = 727sf Surface Area Provided = 668 sf The preliminary design shows that there is sufficient room to accommodate the proposed retrofit. Figure F-9. Bioretention Facilities Recently Designed by HW Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page F-82 January 2013 Site Selection This site was selected for a bioretention retrofit primarily due to the following factors: Public ownership; High visibility; Potential reduction in erosion of the sand dune; Easy access to install and maintain; and Added aesthetics and traffic calming to the beach parking lot. Additional Information Needs Take a test pit/ boring to verify that soil conditions and depth to groundwater are appropriate for the proposed design; Determine the location of the existing drain pipe; Ensure that bypass of road runoff does not create additional flooding issues; Is loss of parking spaces acceptable; and Is widening of lot feasible. Preliminary Cost Estimates Bioretention unit cost of approximately $27/cf treated. 1,992 cf x $27.00 = $54,000 Concept Plan A preliminary concept plan is provided in Figure F-10. Figure F-10 Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page F-84 January 2013 (iii) Walker’s Pond Description Walker’s Pond has a small parking area (4,300 sf) and two access roads leading to a boat launch. Stormwater runoff from a portion of the main road, the full parking area, and the access roads are conveyed directly into the pond untreated. There is some erosion of the vegetated side slope where road runoff is conveyed down the east of the parking area (Figure F-11). The proposed retrofit is to utilize a combination of permeable pavement (Figure F-12), bioretention, and a stepped conveyance system to reduce and manage stormwater before it is discharged. Permeable asphalt (Figure F-13) is an alternative to conventional asphalt, designed to infiltrate precipitation rather than generate surface runoff. A bioretention area is a vegetated depression designed to retain, infiltrate, and filter stormwater runoff. A rock conveyance structure is a step pool designed to dissipate energy and reduce erosion. Key Design Features Replace approximately 3,900 sf of asphalt in the parking area with porous asphalt installation; include stripping of at least five parking stalls; Install bioretention island to separate parking area from road and to formalize entrance and exit from parking area; Install asphalt berms across the entrance to direct road runoff into the bioretention and to prevent run-on to pervious pavement; Provide paved flumes to sediment forebay; The bioretention has been oversized to accommodate runoff from the parking area if porous asphalt is not used (or if it fails to fully infiltrate); The selected vegetation is typical of New England and was selected for aesthetic appeal with minimal maintenance; Overflow from the bioretention plus road runoff from the west is diverted into a rock step channel to convey flows in a non-erosive manner down the slope; and Interpretive signage can be installed near a proposed picnic table. Figure F-11. Slope with Spotty Vegetation Leading Down to Boat Launch. Figure F-12. Parking Area for Proposed Porous Asphalt and Bioretention Island Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page F-85 January 2013 Figure F-13. Porous Asphalt Parking The first picture is taken from a retrofit HW designed in Plymouth, MA (left), and the other picture shows HW testing the porosity at a recent installation for a bike path in Norwell, MA (right). This would be a good application for Walkers Pond. Design Alternatives A terraced bioretention could be used on the slope instead of in the parking area, but this a more complex and costly design; and An inlet/pipe system could be used instead of stepped conveyance to convey flows down slope. Sizing The size of the porous pavement is the same as the parking area. The bioretention area was sized to accept the WQv of one-inch of runoff from the roadway, as well as the porous asphalt in case of failure, and to temporarily pond water up to a depth of nine inches. Impervious Area x Rainfall Depth = WQv 6947sf x 0.083 ft = 577 cf Where design assumptions include 1-ft depth of filter bed (df), 1 ft/day coefficient of permeability(K), 2 days drain time (tf), and 0.375 ft average ponding height (hf). Surface Area Required = 210sf Surface Area Provided = 480 sf The preliminary design shows that there is sufficient room in the existing parking lot to accommodate the bioretention cell. Site Selection The site was selected for retrofitting because: The road and parking lot directly discharge into Walker’s Pond; Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page F-86 January 2013 This location has some visibility to pond users, and signage could be installed; and It is easy to access for installation and maintenance. Additional Information Needs A test pit/ boring should be taken to verify that soil conditions and depth to groundwater are appropriate for the proposed design; and Alternative design approaches should be reviewed to confirm the preferred approach. Preliminary Cost Estimates Costs of bioretention (approximately $27/cf treated) are dependent on the required quantity of excavation, fill, and planting materials, and piping system. The cost of the permeable asphalt is approximately $40/cf treated, depending on the subsurface material and underdrain (if any). Cost of the stepped conveyance will include excavation, materials such as rocks, and general work (approximately $10,000). Porous Asphalt: 330 cf x $40 = $13,500 Bioretention: 580 cf x $27/cf = $16,000 Stepped channel: $10,000 The construction of all three stormwater practices would cost approximately $40,000 total. Concept Plan A preliminary concept plan is provided in Figure F-14. Phase III of the IWRMP will complete design and implementation of the above retrofit examples and continue examining opportunities for stormwater retrofits in the Town. Through the implementation of the IWRMP Brewster will mitigate negative stormwater impacts on its water resources and ensure continued compliance with the requirements of the MS4 permit. Figure F-14 Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page G-88 January 2013 G. FRESH WATER PONDS In Brewster, there are about 80 ponds that lie either completely or partially within the Town boundaries (CCC, 2003; MassGIS, 2012). The ponds are mostly kettle ponds that were formed as depressions left by ice following the retreat of the glaciers. There are also several other very small ponds. The ponds are diverse in depth, pond type and water quality. The ponds range in size from 0.1 acre to 730 acres with known depths ranging from eight feet to nearly 85 feet (Cliff Pond). All ponds appear to be well-connected to the regional groundwater table, that is, not perched on top of a restrictive clay layer. Most ponds are flow-through ponds, with inflows and outflows (aside from direct inputs) solely from groundwater flow. Some ponds within Brewster also release water through streams (i.e., Cobbs and Upper Mill), while a few ponds have both inlet and outlet streams (i.e., Lower Mill). About 14 ponds are regularly stocked with fish by the Massachusetts Division of Fish and Wildlife and at least 11 ponds support public swimming. Ten ponds are sufficiently deep to have the potential to support cold-water fish (e.g. Long, Seymour, Sheep, and Slough Ponds). Ponds in the Stony Brook and Herring River watersheds provide essential habitat for anadromous fish like alewife and blueback herring, which migrate from salt to fresh water to spawn, and catadromous fish like eels that spawn in salt water and live in fresh water. 1) REVIEW OF POND WATER QUALITY STATUS In their original state, the ponds on Cape Cod were naturally clear and acidic, due to few sources of nutrients and soils of granitic origin. Many of the ponds in Brewster today have compromised water quality due to excessive loadings of phosphorus, the nutrient of concern that controls the level of excess plant and algae growth, a process known as eutrophication (see Figure G-1). Eutrophication can deplete oxygen levels, cause fish kills and noxious odors, and reduce water column visibility. At the end of the algal growing season, the algae die off and settle on the pond bottom causing sediment buildup. This can impact the biota on the pond bottom. Common sources of phosphorus include phosphate-containing cleaners or detergents, human and animal waste, vehicle exhaust deposits, and fertilizers from lawns, golf courses, and agriculture. Figure G-1. Photos of Algae Growth in Mill Ponds Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page G-89 January 2013 Many of Brewster’s ponds are ecologically impaired and some do not meet state regulatory standards (SMAST, 2009). Of the 80 ponds, 29 are monitored by the Pond and Lakes Stewards (PALS). The PALS program normally samples the ponds once a year at the end of the growing season when the pond reflects the worst algal conditions. Deeper ponds are sampled at both the top and bottom. The PALS program commenced in 2001 and is on-going. These data were the primary data used to classify the ponds. Other sources of data used to evaluate the ponds were the Town pond report (SMAST, 2009) and the Cape Cod Commission pond guidelines (Eichner, 2003). In addition, the Town has commissioned SMAST to conduct a detailed water quality analysis for the Mill Ponds complex, and that study is ongoing. Some indicators of poor water quality in ponds are the following:  Poor water clarity;  High phosphorus concentrations;  High concentrations of algae in water column and/or coverage of the bottom;  Large diurnal changes in dissolved oxygen;  Low dissolved oxygen at the bottom of the pond; and  High trophic status based on the above parameters. The Phase I report developed a set of criteria to classify the ponds based on these indicators (CDM, 2011). A summary of the condition of Brewster’s ponds is given in Table G-1 and Figure G-2. Of the 17 ponds in the impaired category, there are five that require a TMDL for phosphorus or organic enrichment. Table G-1. Condition of Brewster’s Ponds Description Number of Ponds High quality 5 Meets most uses 2 Some WQ impairment 5 No data but possible impairment 24 Impaired 17 No data 28 £¤6 UV137 UV124 UV6A Long Po nd Cliff Pond Upper M ill Pond Seymour P ond Sheep P ond Walkers Pond Flax Pond Lower M ill Pond Elbow Pond Slough Pond Cahoon Pond Griffiths Pond Bakers Pond Greenland Pond Pine Pond Little C liff Pond Higgins P ond Cobbs P ond Mill PondSmalls Pond Blueberry Po nd Canoe Pond Grassy PondMud Pond Smith Pond Black Pond Sols Pond Owl Po ndMyricks P ond Eel PondSchoolhouse Pond Round Pond Lees Pond Widger Hole No B ottom Pond HARWICH ORLEAN S DENN IS CHATHAM / 0 10.5Miles Date: 12/20/2012 - eym Path: H:\Projects\2011\11109 Brewster Int.Wtr.Res.Mgt Plan\GIS\Maps\Report\Figure G-2.mxd Figure G-2. Status of Brewster's Ponds C ape C od B ayPleasant B ayCape Cod Bay Legend Ponds Town of Brewster Ponds Health Assessment Water Quality Category 1 - High Quality 2 - Meets Most Uses 3 - Some Im pairment 4 - ImpairedWetlandsNo Data Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page G-91 January 2013 The SMAST study also included phosphorus budget calculations for six ponds (Seymour, Canoe, Blueberry, Walkers, Upper Mill and Lower Mill). Evaluation of the phosphorus budgets for these ponds revealed significant uncertainty in the loading analysis. A better understanding of sediment phosphorus regeneration and the phosphorus contribution from bird populations are needed. Stormwater systems around the ponds should also be evaluated to develop measured, pond-specific phosphorus inputs from this highly variable source. These recommendations prompted the more in-depth study of the Mill Ponds. a) Sources and Transport of Phosphorus and Pathogens to Ponds (i) Phosphorus Although phosphorus is part of the natural environment, additional inputs to a watershed come from wastewater, stormwater runoff, and accumulated organic sediments on the pond and river bottoms. A major source of phosphorus to ponds in Brewster comes from the septic systems discharging effluent close to the pond shore. Phosphorus discharged from a septic system is absorbed by the sediments below the leaching facility, and phosphorus can only move downgradient from a septic system once sediments below the system have adsorbed all the phosphorus they can uptake. Therefore, the closer a system is to a pond shore, the more likely that it will be a source of phosphorus to a pond. Conversely, siting a septic system farther from the pond makes it less likely that it will contribute phosphorus. Many communities, including Brewster, have implemented a 300 foot setback to control septic systems near a pond to mitigate these impacts. Intensity of development increases phosphorus loads from stormwater both through the increase in impervious area and also the intensity of the land use. Higher density activities tend to have higher phosphorus loads than low or medium density land uses. Many human activities exacerbate sources of phosphorus in stormwater; lawn and agricultural fertilizers; car wash products; vegetative debris such as lawn clippings; some detergents; car exhaust and other oil byproducts; and animal or pet waste. Organic benthic sediment accumulates at the end of the growing season when aquatic plants die off and settle to the bottom of the pond, this creates a potential source of nutrients that are re- released the following growing season when the organic matter begins to decay as the water temperature rises. Years of accumulation of organic matter on a pond bottom can create a significant source of nutrients that are released back to the water column long after the water column has been cleaned up. This is especially true if the historic period had high phosphorus discharges from the upstream watershed. In general, only the top few inches of sediment actively contribute to nutrient release. Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page G-92 January 2013 (ii) Pathogens Although viruses, bacteria, and protozoa are ubiquitous in the natural environment, pathogenic forms are normally from human or animal feces. Inputs to a watershed come from wastewater as well as both urban and rural stormwater runoff. There is little evidence that pathogens multiply in the environment but they might survive there for a considerable time. The major wastewater sources of pathogens in Brewster are septic systems and groundwater discharge systems. Transport of pathogens in groundwater is related to size and distance. Viruses are very small (0.005 to 0.2 microns), bacteria are medium-sized (0.2 to 5 microns), and protozoa are relatively large comparatively (3-13 microns). Transport of bacteria and protozoa from septic systems and groundwater discharge systems is normally small because these organisms are relatively large compared to soil pores and can be adsorbed to the soil particles. However, septic systems near the edge of ponds could be sources of pathogens, especially if the systems are not functioning correctly. Viruses, on the other hand, can move thousands of feet through groundwater. Stormwater runoff from urban and rural areas contains pathogens with higher loads from higher intensity land uses. Human and animal waste are the largest sources of pathogens in stormwater. Additionally, wastewater can enter the stormwater system illicitly via wastewater pipes that are incorrectly connected to the stormwater system (illicit connections). Agricultural application of manure and the presence of wild animals also contribute to animal waste sources in stormwater. Stormwater runoff readily conveys pathogens from land surfaces to rivers and to downstream ponds. The efficiency of the drainage network enables transport, connecting yards to waterways. Stormwater runoff carries pathogen particles in solution, along with those adsorbed to sediment. Bacterial and virus die-off in the transport chain limits the impact of the pathogens in stormwater. However, it should be noted that protozoa are extremely long-lived, although their viability might be reduced with time. Organic benthic sediment can also be a source of hardy pathogens that have settled to the bottom and are transported back into the water column by disturbances like wave action or swimmers. 2) SEPTIC SYSTEMS CLOSE TO POND SHORELINES HW performed an analysis of the parcels affected by the Board of Health regulations that specify the setback distance for septic leaching fields around ponds be at least 300 feet. The analysis used a 300-ft buffer to determine parcels completely or partially within the setback zone. A map was developed based on the regulated pond setbacks (see Figure G-3). On the map, the light brown areas show the setback distance around ponds and the gray outlines show the parcel boundaries. The yellow areas show the parcels that are affected by the pond setback regulation. £¤6 UV137 UV124 UV6A HARWICH ORLEAN S DENN IS CHATHAM / 0 10.5Miles Date: 11/19/2012 - eym Path: H:\Projects\2011\11109 Brewster Int.Wtr.Res.Mgt Plan\GIS\Maps\Report\Figure G-3.mxd Figu re G -3. Regulated PondSetbacks for Brewster C ape C od B ayPleasant B ayCape Cod Bay Legend Ponds Parcels Ponds Setback 300 ft Town of Brewster Parcels completely affected Parcels partially affected Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page G-94 January 2013 HW evaluated how many parcels might be affected by current setback constraints. The numbers of parcels that have all or part of the upland (non-wetland) area within the setback zone are listed in Table G-2. The number of residential parcels (which is the predominant use) constrained by the pond setbacks requirement without sufficient available upland area to properly site a septic leach field are as follows: 277 (no land) and 110 (less than 3,000 sf available). The 3,000 square foot area was selected to represent an area small enough where the construction of a traditional septic system may be challenging. For the 277 residential lots where there is no land outside the 300 foot buffer, 222 lots currently have a house built upon the lot and utilize an onsite system. Therefore, there is value in finding ways to minimize phosphorus inputs for these septic systems as discussed in the following subsections and in Section H. Table G-2. Parcels Affected by Pond Setbacks Parcel Type No Land Available1 < 3,000 sf2 available Multiple use 4 Residential3 222 / 55 93 / 17 Commercial/Industrial 1 0 Open/Agricultural/Recreational 2 2 Municipal/State 70 15 Other/Unknown 11 0 TOTAL 365 127 1 No unconstrained upland area in the parcel 2 Less than 3,000 square feet of unconstrained upland area in the parcel available for septic system construction/upgrade 3 Developed / vacant residential 3) TECHNIQUES TO REDUCE PHOSPHORUS AND PATHOGEN IMPACTS The Town and its residents have already taken a proactive stance on protecting the health and integrity of the ponds in Brewster and this work should be continued. The PALS program is invaluable in creating a long-term water quality database that can be used to identify any problems and also document any improvements over time. Stream restoration work like that for Stony Brook will help improve access for anadromous and catadramous fish and reduce stream bank erosion. The Town is also completing the in-depth studies on the Mill Ponds that can guide future restoration efforts. Moving forward, there are a series of long-term and short-term actions that the Town can take to protect ponds and other freshwaters. Long-term actions are needed to properly assess and mitigate phosphorus inputs to those ponds that are currently impacted, and to protect those ponds that still have excellent water quality. However, to do this properly, there needs to be an in- depth study of each pond to identify the sources of phosphorus specific to each pond, determine Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page G-95 January 2013 the current and future phosphorus load, and make appropriate mitigation and management recommendations. An example of this is the ongoing study of the Mill Ponds by SMAST mentioned above. By creating a detailed profile of the health of these ponds, the Town can make appropriate cost effective decisions to restore them to health. Similar studies are needed for additional ponds throughout the Town and Phase III will include the analysis of one new system to keep the pond restoration work moving forward. In the short-term, while the studies of the individual ponds are developed, there are still a number of actions that the Town and pond shore residents can take to reduce current phosphorus loadings. This will help protect healthy ponds, and help keep impaired ponds from getting any worse. A series of actions are described here and discussed in more detail in Section H, it is anticipated that many of these proposals will be advanced as part of Phase III to help minimize current phosphorus loadings to Brewster’s ponds. Require specific design standards for the immediate upgrade of septic systems within 300 feet of a pond shore. The timing of these upgrades will need to be discussed with the Board of Health; Continue to identify and retrofit direct stormwater discharges to ponds from roads and parking lots; Continue outreach to homeowners on proper fertilizer practices; Create a pilot vegetative buffer adjacent to a pond; and Continue to encourage proper management of pet waste. Again, further details on these recommendations are provided in Section H. And, as part of the planned Phase III work, a guide for pond shore homeowners could be prepared describing many of the actions that property owners can take to reduce pond impacts from their day-to-day activities. Finally, the “Practical Guide to Lake Management in Massachusetts” (DEP, 2004) has many good suggestions for pond restoration and protection. Long-term methods focus on source control of phosphorus while short-term approaches can include the use of chemicals or biological control to limit algae and aquatic plant growth in ponds. This report can be found at: http://www.mass.gov/dcr/watersupply/lakepond/downloads/practical_guide.pdf. Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page H-96 January 2013 H. PHASE II RECOMMENDATIONS HW has developed a series of regulatory and non-regulatory recommendations to address issues identified in the Phase II analysis. Many of these recommendations were mentioned briefly in earlier sections of the report and they will be described more fully here. They are grouped into the following categories: General recommendations; Nitrogen management recommendations for the Pleasant Bay watershed; Recommendations for drinking water quality and quantity management; Town-wide stormwater management recommendations; and Short term management strategies to reduce phosphorus loadings to fresh water ponds. In developing the recommendations for changes or additions to the Town’s current regulations, HW has reviewed the local plans, by-laws and regulations that have the greatest capacity to support the IWRMP. These include: The Brewster Zoning By-laws (Chapter 179 of the Brewster Town Code) including the following: o Natural Resource Protection Design (NRPD) By-law (Article XIII), o Water Quality Protection (WQP) By-law (Article XI), o Cluster Residential Development (CRD) By-law (Section 179-35), and o Planned Residential Development (PRD) By-law (Section 179-36). The Brewster Subdivision Rules and Regulations (Chapter 290 of the Brewster Town Code); The Brewster Development Plan Review By-law (Chapter 83 of the Brewster Town Code), now called Staff Review; The Brewster Wetlands Protection By-law (Chapter 172 of the Brewster Town Code); The Brewster Board of Health Regulations (Division 3 of the Brewster Town Code); The Brewster Comprehensive Plan (1997); and By-law Governing Discharges to the Municipal Storm Drain System (Chapter 115 of Brewster Town Code, Added 11-7-11). The regulatory recommendations presented here are intended to highlight areas for potential code changes. HW’s review did not include an evaluation of administrative, inspection, or enforcement procedures; cost/benefit analyses; interviews with agency staff; or work sessions engaging the local regulatory, development, and environmental communities, all of which would likely precede any formal code update process, potentially as part of Phase III. Where practical, HW provides alternatives for addressing some of the issues identified, but ultimately it is up to the Town to determine the most appropriate recommendations for local implementation. 1) GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS The Town should continue to protect open space in sensitive watersheds and in Zone IIs to the Town’s public supply wells. This is perhaps the most important recommendation to come from the Phase II analysis. Protected open space in the Zone II areas is a main reason why drinking Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page H-97 January 2013 water in Brewster is excellent, and will continue to be in the future. Preserving open space has also minimized the extent of wastewater management needed in the Pleasant Bay watershed, and future land use acquisitions in this watershed will only reduce the efforts needed to restore water quality in the Bay. In November 2012, the Town voted to approve the purchase of 82 acres of open space. All of the land lies within one of two Zone II areas, and a portion of it is within the Pleasant Bay watershed. Continued efforts to identify and purchase key open space parcels is recommended. 2) NITROGEN MANAGEMENT FOR PLEASANT BAY In Section D, HW identified a series of nitrogen management options to restore water quality within the Pleasant Bay watershed. These options will be evaluated in detail in Phase III and the most appropriate and cost effective management strategy will be recommended for implementation. Opportunities to work in conjunction with neighboring towns to promote cost effective management strategies will also be explored. The options to consider in Phase III are described below: The use of onsite, alternative nitrogen treatment systems. HW identified that the potential exists for the alternative systems to provide the needed nitrogen reduction for three of the four planning units in the Brewster portion of the Pleasant Bay watershed. In Phase III HW will confirm the acceptance of this approach with DEP, and work to identify the cost, operation and maintenance requirements, management approaches and phasing of this approach for comparison with the other options; One or more cluster or neighborhood treatment systems. In Phase III HW will identify neighborhoods that may provide opportunities for a cluster treatment system that treats nitrogen to a higher level than onsite alternative systems. Such an approach may be needed for the Little Pleasant Bay planning unit. Once potential opportunities are identified, HW will evaluate the effectiveness of this approach in comparison with the other options; Additional fertilizer reductions at the Captains Golf Course. The managers and superintendent of the golf course have already undertaken significant, voluntary reductions in fertilizer applications at the golf course, simplifying the nitrogen management issues in the Pleasant Bay planning unit. In Phase III, HW will work with the Town and golf course managers to identify any additional fertilizer reductions that could be achieved at the golf course, and thereby offset the need for some or all of the wastewater alternatives in this part of the watershed. These options can then be presented to town residents for their consideration; The use of irrigation wells to capture nitrogen and return it to a beneficial use such as golf course irrigation. Capturing groundwater containing nitrogen and reusing it for irrigation may reduce the extent of wastewater management needed in parts of the watershed. This option will be evaluated for its feasibility and cost, and compared to the other options; The use of permeable reactive barriers to treat nitrogen in groundwater before it reaches Pleasant Bay. Permeable reactive barriers have proven effective in treating nitrogen that has entered groundwater from onsite systems. They can be constructed as shallow trenches with a media that promotes the treatment of nitrogen, or could be built Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page H-98 January 2013 as injection wells where a solution is injected into groundwater to promote nitrogen treatment. Their effectiveness and feasibility for application in Brewster will be evaluated in Phase III; and The use of alternative toilets, such as composting or urine diverting toilets to prevent nitrogen from entering groundwater through a septic system. Both composting toilets and urine diverting toilets capture most of the nitrogen that normally enters a septic system from a home and prevent it from reaching a downgradient estuary. Both have issues with their application including acceptance by the public, retrofit issues with installing them in existing homes, and long-term management and operation issues. However, they may prove to be cost effective options for some portions of the watershed in Brewster and will be evaluated in Phase III. Opportunities to reduce increased nitrogen impacts from buildout development. The extent of nitrogen impact to Pleasant Bay will only grow with new development within the watershed. Techniques to mitigate buildout impacts will be evaluated, including restrictions on the number of bedrooms for existing and proposed development to reduce future loadings. Requirements for owners of new development to offset their impacts by treating or eliminating nitrogen sources elsewhere in the watershed will also be considered as these can translate to a no-net increase in nitrogen loading. Finally, it should be noted that many of the options evaluated here may also be appropriate to manage wastewater on properties described in Section D where it was determined there may be issues due to poor soils, depth to water and increases in the water table elevation due to sea level rise. As the Phase III analysis for Pleasant Bay is conducted, attention will also be paid to opportunities to provide input on how to best upgrade systems on lots challenged by poor soils and shallow depths to water. 3) WATER SUPPLY a) Strengthen the Water Conservation By-law The Town of Brewster already maintains a Water Conservation By-law (Chapter 112, Article 1 of the Brewster Town Code). This By-law provides requirements and procedures for a declaration of state of water supply conservation. In Phase III, HW will evaluate how this By- law could be strengthened and perhaps reduce future water demands during peak use times to prevent long term issues with the Town’s peak day water withdrawal permit restrictions. b) Strengthen the Zoning By-law provisions for drinking water quality protection The Town already maintains a number of provisions for protection of drinking water quality, including a Water Quality Protection By-law as discussed in Section C. During HW’s review of the zoning by-laws and discussion with the Town, a few items warrant additional attention during Phase III. For example, the Town successfully adopted a NRPD By-law for its DCPC, which was written to promote smart growth and conservation by encouraging developers to set aside the most environmentally sensitive areas of a property, and cluster development on the remaining land. With NRPD, up to 80% of a parcel can be permanently preserved as open space, with the result of reduced overall density. Although the use of NRPD is not a requirement in the DCPC areas, developers are encouraged to implement it. HW understands that the NRPD is Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page H-99 January 2013 being implemented to its fullest extent by the planning board, particularly for residential development, and that development plans omitting NRPD may not be approved. Alternative designs are still required to meet the lot area requirements of NRPD. However, making NRPD a requirement would strengthen the regulations. In addition, the Town should consider whether commercial and industrial development are being required to meet the more stringent NRPD requirements as well. If not, this may cause the DCPC area to be more vulnerable to commercial or industrial development in the future. 4) STORMWATER Some recommendations related to stormwater management have been provided specific to nitrogen management for Pleasant Bay (Section H.2) and for freshwater ponds (Section H.4). However, there are additional town-wide regulatory measures that can be implemented from a development perspective. The two primary recommendations here are the implementation of a stormwater management By-law and associated provisions and amendments to development regulations that encourage LID. a) Implement a Stormwater Management By-law Stormwater is currently regulated under both state (WPA) and federal (NPDES) legislation. Under the Wetlands Protection Act, stormwater management can only be controlled in areas under the jurisdiction of the Conservation Commission, typically within 100 feet of a wetland resource area. A stormwater management By-law could reduce confusion from overlapping and potentially conflicting regulations and create a single set of standards to regulate stormwater discharges. The stormwater management By-law could also be used to promote environmentally sensitive development such as Low Impact Development (LID) techniques that both filter stormwater and promote local groundwater recharge. HW will consider the efficacy of a stormwater management By-law during Phase III. Specific considerations for a stormwater management By-law are described in the following subsections. (i) Post-Construction Practices and Erosion and Sediment Control The proposed stormwater management By-law should include a post-construction and an erosion and sediment control section. Alternatively these provisions could be added to the IDDE By-law (Chapter 115) that was adopted last year. This will need to be addressed at least within Brewster’s regulated MS4 area in order to be in compliance with the new MS4 Permit (currently in draft stage). (ii) Implement MA Stormwater Management Standards The stormwater management By-law should also apply the Massachusetts Stormwater Management Standards (MA SWMS) to all development and redevelopment projects disturbing more than one acre, regardless of the proximity to wetlands. Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page H-100 January 2013 (iii) Adopt Water Quality Targets that Go Beyond the MA SWMS Requirements There are some cases where the Town should consider going beyond the MA SWMS. The Town’s Water Quality Protection (WQP) District provides an example of more stringent water quality requirements; however, most of the Town’s MS4 and corresponding impervious area are located outside of the WQPD. For example, the Town could: Increase the total suspended solids (TSS) removal requirements under the MA SWMS from 80% to 90% town-wide; Add a 40% total phosphorus (TP) reduction requirement for all projects located in contributing drainage areas to freshwater ponds, or even consider making this applicable town-wide; and Add a 90% bacteria reduction for all projects draining to coastal or impaired waters, or even consider making this applicable town-wide. These provisions should be added to the stormwater management By-law; however, alternatively these provisions could be added to the WQP By-law stating that they apply town-wide. (iv) Requiring Retrofits The pending updates to stormwater permits are moving towards providing a regulatory mechanism for Small MS4s to address unmanaged stormwater from existing development (both public and private properties). The draft MS4 permit requires communities to conduct retrofit inventories on public properties. The draft Residual Designation Authority (RDA) for MS4s in the upper Charles River Basin, for example, will require existing private properties with over two acres of impervious cover to install stormwater retrofits to meet phosphorus reduction targets. RDA requirements are not likely to be applied to Brewster. However, one of the most feasible mechanisms for retrofitting existing development is through the redevelopment permitting process. The MA SWMS require redevelopment projects to improve stormwater management as feasible, but the standards are subjective. The following approaches could be adopted in Brewster to better capitalize on redevelopment, parking lot repaving, or other small-scale projects to retrofit: Require all new development and redevelopment projects that generate additional stormwater runoff and disturb more than 2,500 square feet to obtain a stormwater permit, similar to requirements in the City of Attleboro, Massachusetts. Generally, single family dwellings are exempted; Define redevelopment as any construction, alteration, or improvement on existing land that contains impervious cover, provided the activity does not increase net impervious cover. Any additional impervious cover should be considered new development subject to stormwater standards; Require redevelopment projects to treat, infiltrate, or reuse stormwater from 40% of existing impervious cover, similar to the redevelopment requirements adopted by the City of Attleboro, Massachusetts; and Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page H-101 January 2013 Establish a threshold for parking lot repaving that triggers stormwater improvements. In Rhode Island, for example, resurfacing projects that remove down to the base course/dense grade trigger redevelopment stormwater standards. (v) Require Load Reductions HW recommends that the stormwater management By-law specify that load reduction calculations for pollutants of concern will be required for all projects draining to current and future waterbodies on the 303(d) list. HW recommends incorporating this requirement into the stormwater application submittal requirements of the stormwater management By-law. Alternatively, this provision could be incorporated into the post-construction By-law and site plan review submittal requirements. (vi) Track and Report Changes in Directly Connected Impervious Area HW recommends incorporating Directly Connected Impervious Area (DCIA) in the list of required elements for the stormwater management permit (see Figure H-1). DCIA should be tracked and changes reported on an annual basis. Alternately, DCIA could be added to the list of required elements included for all site plan review/special permit application submittals. (vii)Prohibit the Use of Detention Basins to Meet Water Quality Requirements Although commonly used, conventional detention basins (see Figure H-2) have a poor performance record (RIDEM and CRMC, 2010). Instead, HW recommends providing a short list of BMPs most suitable for removing pollutants of concern (i.e., infiltration practices work the best for removing phosphorus or bacteria). If these practices are not used, applicants should be required to provide documentation explaining why. HW recommends adding these provisions to the proposed stormwater management By-law; however, alternatively these provisions could be added to the Site Plan Review submittal requirements. Figure H-1. DCIA Includes all Impervious Areas Connected to the Drainage System Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page H-102 January 2013 Figure H-2. Conventional Detention Basin Versus Bioretention System (viii) Require Pretreatment for Leaching Catch Basins HW recommends that pretreatment be required for all leaching catch basins in order to reduce the maintenance burden and improve nitrogen removal. HW recommends adding these provisions to the proposed stormwater management By-law; however, alternatively these provisions could be added to the Site Plan Review submittal requirements. (ix) Require the Most Recent Rainfall Data HW recommends that the stormwater management By-law require the use of the most recent rainfall data from the Northeast Regional Climate Center (NRCC; www.precip.net) for stormwater calculations. Currently, DEP requires the use of TP-40 Rainfall Data for calculations under the WPA and the MASWMS; however, more stringent design storms could be required under the local By-law. For example, TP-40 lists 2.5 inches for the one-year 24-hour storm in Barnstable County, whereas NRCC shows a value between 2.7 and 2.8 inches. Alternatively, this provision could be required in the Site Plan Review submittal requirements. (x) Allow Peer Review of Projects by Consultant Professional Engineers Brewster does not currently explicitly allow peer review by consultant professional engineers and environmental professionals. By incorporating a provision to allow this, Brewster can request fees from developers to pay for outside review of the project to ensure that proper stormwater management is provided. This could afford the Planning Board the ability to ensure that stormwater management is adequate. HW proposes incorporating language into the proposed stormwater management By-law (or alternatively, the zoning by-laws) to allow peer review by consultant professional engineers and environmental professionals, pursuant to M.G.L. Chapter 44, Section 53G. Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page H-103 January 2013 b) Encourage LID through Zoning By-laws and Subdivision Rules and Regulations There are some provisions that would be more appropriate in the zoning by-laws and/or Subdivision Rules and Regulations instead of in a separate stormwater management By-law. These are mostly provisions related to land use and dimensional requirements that can reduce imperviousness. By reducing impervious cover (i.e., paved parking lots, roadways, driveways, etc.) and encouraging development that is carefully designed to protect natural resource areas, communities can decrease stormwater runoff and associated pollution. Codes related to protecting natural areas, providing flexibility in site design (i.e., yard setbacks, driveways, rooftop runoff) and reducing excess impervious cover for street and parking requirements are primarily found in the zoning By-law. The recommendations presented herein are intended to consider the potential for reducing imperviousness and promoting LID by helping to avoid, reduce, and better manage stormwater impacts during the site design process. (i) Reference the Stormwater Management By-law within Site Plan Review We recommend that the Town amend the Site Plan Review By-law to require projects that meet site plan review thresholds to be in compliance with the stormwater management By-law and associated standards. (ii) Parking Article VII of the Brewster Zoning By-laws outlines the Town’s off-street parking and loading standards. In addition, parking design standards are included in Section 179-66, Site Plan Standards, in the Brewster Zoning By-laws. Parking is also governed through the definition of “parking space” within the definitions section. We recommend the Town consider addressing the following related to parking: Set off-street parking maximums. Currently, the Town of Brewster has minimum parking requirements, but does not have maximum parking requirements. Brewster is encouraged to adopt maximum requirements to limit imperviousness associated with excessive parking areas (see Figure H-3). For example, HW recommends a maximum of three off-street parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area in professional office buildings, a maximum of 4.5 off-street parking spaces per 1,000 square feet gross floor area of shopping centers, and a maximum of two off-street parking spaces per single family home. This approach would discourage the over-sizing of parking lots and associated excess impervious surfaces. In many cases, it might also be appropriate to lower the parking minimum requirements; Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page H-104 January 2013 Figure H-3. Parking Standards often Create Excessive Impervious Surface Areas Permit and encourage the use of permeable paving for parking stalls and spillover parking areas. According to Section 179-23.A(2) of the zoning by-laws, “parking and loading areas containing ten or more spaces shall be surfaced with bituminous concrete or cement concrete material.” Although an exception is provided in Section 179-23, Parking and Loading Requirement Tables, for the Planning Board to allow a permeable surface, it is recommended that Brewster more explicitly allow permeable paving for parking areas in order to encourage this practice; Provide shared parking calculation requirements. Although the Town of Brewster allows and even encourages shared parking through the site plan review process, the burden is on the applicant to determine the calculation for the shared parking requirements. It might be in the Town’s best interest to specify a shared parking calculation in order to maintain consistency across applications and simplify the review process. Having a more straight-forward process might also further encourage applicants to seek shared parking schemes; Reduce parking space stall dimensions. “Parking Space” is defined within the zoning by-laws as an “off-street space having an area of not less than 200 square feet approximately 10 feet by 20 feet, plus access and maneuvering space...” Impervious cover associated with parking spaces could be reduced by almost 20% if the spatial requirements were reduced to nine feet by 18 feet, which would still accommodate average size vehicles (MAPC, 2011); and Recommend or require smaller stalls for compact cars. Brewster does not currently provide allowances for smaller stalls for compact cars. HW would recommend allowing up to 30% of the total number of parking spaces for compact cars (MAPC, 2011). This provision could be incorporated into the site plan review process. (iii) Landscaping Landscaping design standards are included in Section 179-66, Site Plan Standards, of the Brewster Zoning By-laws. HW recommends the Town consider addressing the following related to landscaping requirements: Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page H-105 January 2013 Establish landscaping requirements for parking areas that include vegetated islands with bioretention functions. Brewster’s large parking areas require some landscaped islands pursuant to Section 179-66.E.4 of the Brewster Zoning By-laws (see Figure H-4). However, there is no language to encourage these landscaped areas to function as LID practices. This language should be modified to encourage vegetated islands with bioretention functions explicitly; Encourage and/or require native and natural landscaping. Conventional landscaping practices can often include excessive fertilization and pesticide application. The pesticides and fertilizers used to maintain lawns and landscaping can infiltrate into groundwater contaminating surface waters and drinking water supplies. Municipalities have started to realize the negative implications of conventional landscaping practices and have begun to implement policies and standards that require more environmentally conscious landscaping practices that save water, prevent pollution, and protect the environment. HW recommends that Brewster include standards for native and natural landscaping either as provisions within the site plan review process or within a separate landscaping By-law within the zoning by-laws; Reinstate the limit in lawn area on residential lots either by area or percentage of lot. In the past, the Brewster Zoning By-laws limited cultivated lawn sizes to 10% of the lot area within the groundwater protection district. When the new WQPB was adopted, this provision was removed. However, all new, altered or expanded uses within Zone I, Zone II and/or DCPC area must meet a nitrogen loading performance standard of five 5 ppm, which includes nitrogen generated by fertilizer application. The extent of lawn area is therefore indirectly limited by this standard within these areas. HW would recommend reinstating the lawn limit as a more direct approach to reducing lawn area. As documented in the Pleasant Bay Fertilizer Management Plan (PBFMP), “restricting the size of new lawns will directly reduce the amount of fertilizer applied to the turf and could be readily quantified in the context of achieving compliance with the Pleasant Bay Figure H-4. Parking Lot Bioretention Facility Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page H-106 January 2013 TMDLs.” The PBFMP suggests limiting the size of new lawns to less than 2,500 sf (PBA, 2010); and Require pesticide and fertilizer management at golf courses. As discussed in Section H.2, golf courses in Brewster have already undertaken voluntary measures to reduce fertilizer use, decreasing associated nitrogen loading. To strengthen and formalize these practices as requirements, the Town could adopt zoning By-law provisions that require golf courses to develop improved management programs to limit pesticide and fertilizer applications. (iv) Street Cross-Sections and Driveways Roadway and driveway standards are mostly governed by the subdivision rules and regulations. The Town should consider addressing the following changes related to roadways and driveways: Amend Section 290-11.B(1) of the subdivision rules and regulations to include the protection of natural features and hydrology plus reduction in imperviousness as goals related to street layout. Standards should then be added to meet these goals; Provide flexibility in local street design by reducing the minimum required pavement and right-of-way widths for minor streets or roads (see Figure H-5). For example the 40-foot right-of-way minimum requirement could be reduced to 22 feet (MAPC, 2011). It is especially important to involve public works and emergency response officials in this discussion; Figure H-5. Scenic Roads are Usually Narrower than Allowed by Local Regulations. Permit the use of permeable paving for road shoulders, parking lanes, sidewalks and driveways. In most cases the subdivision rules and regulations require that these be paved with bituminous concrete (asphalt) pavement; Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page H-107 January 2013 Require sidewalks to be designed so that the runoff is disconnected from the stormwater system. The current specifications for sidewalk layout under Section 290- 14 of the subdivision rules and regulations require that sidewalks slope toward the roadway so that stormwater flows onto the roadway and into the stormwater collection system. HW also recommends that developers be required to disconnect sidewalks from the roadway with the use of a planting strip; Minimize the use of cul-de-sacs. One-way loop streets and hammer-head turnarounds (see Figure H-6) should be allowed and encouraged in place of cul-de-sacs in order to limit overall imperviousness (MAPC, 2011). When cul-de-sacs are used, the required radii for cul-de-sacs should be reduced. The radius for at least minor streets should be decreased to 35 feet, depending on emergency vehicle needs (MAPC, 2011). As with street width minimums, it is especially important to involve public works and emergency response officials in this discussion. Landscaped islands and bioretention cells should also be allowed; currently the subdivision rules and regulations encourage that cul-de- sacs be completely paved; 1 Source: http://www.codepublishing.com/wa/clallamcounty/html/ClallamCounty29/ClallamCounty2930.html 2 Source: http://www.huntingtonma.us/SubDivCon/fig2.html Figure H-6. Examples of One-way Loop Streets and Hammer Head Turnarounds Permit the use of common driveways (see Figure H-7). Common driveways are currently encouraged for projects going through the site plan review process, which are applying for access to Route 6A, Route 124, Route 137, Underpass Road or Tubman Road. HW recommends that using common driveways to serve up to four houses be explicitly included in the provisions for CRD, PRD, and NRPD; Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page H-108 January 2013 Figure H-7. Example of a Common Driveway Require driveway widths of no more than nine feet and allow the use of pervious material for single family driveways. Driveway widths are controlled through the definition of “driveway” within the zoning by-laws: “any open space, located on a lot, which is not more than 24 feet in width built for access to a garage, or off-street parking or loading space.” It is recommended that the 24-foot maximum referenced in the definition be reduced to nine feet. The subdivision rules and regulations govern driveway construction materials. Currently, the subdivision rules and regulations, street construction requirements (Section 290-11.L.) require the use of bituminous concrete for all road construction (including driveways). Revising Section 290-11.L to include specifications for permitting the use of pervious material for single family driveways is recommended; and Permit the use of “open section” roadways with roadside swales (see Figure H-8). Pursuant to Table 1, Street Cross-Sectional Design Standards, of the Brewster Subdivision Rules and Regulations, curbs are required for major arterial streets and major collector streets. This could be amended to allow “open section” roadways with roadside swales under certain circumstances. In addition, Section 290-13, Curbing and Berms, of the subdivision rules and regulations, requires that curbing be standard granite, precast concrete or bituminous concrete. These regulations could be amended to allow the use of perforated curbs (that allow runoff to flow into swales) or “invisible curbs” (flush with the road surface). Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page H-109 January 2013 Figure H-8. Perforated Curb and Invisible Curb with Lip (v) Allow Stormwater Management Techniques in Required Setback Areas The Town may want to consider permitting the location of some stormwater management techniques in required setback areas at least for lots on secondary roads. For example, Brewster could allow bioretention areas, rain gardens, filter strips, swales, and constructed wetlands, within setback areas by appending a footnote to the table (Area Regulations – Minimum Required Lots) of the zoning by-laws stating that these practices would be allowed. (vi) Allow Stormwater Management Techniques within Open Space Areas Depending on the intended function and use of the designated open space areas, it might be appropriate to allow stormwater management techniques, such as bioretention, swales, and filter strips, within these areas. For example, both CRD and PRD require that 60% of the site be dedicated as open space. In CRD areas (Section 179-35.B(10)), open space areas is required to be preserved as undisturbed natural landscape. However, in PRD areas (Section 179-36.C(9)(a)) open space may contain golf courses, parks, and gardens. LID stormwater management techniques, such as bioretention, swales, and filter strips, might also be appropriate within PRD open spaces areas, and, if the Town agrees, should be referenced as such. 5) FRESH WATER PONDS HW recommends changes to existing health regulations to strengthen phosphorus management near fresh water ponds, especially for existing systems when they need an upgrade. Other potential recommendations include increased public outreach, stormwater retrofits, and landscape improvements near pond shoreline. Specific recommendations include the following: Require specific design standards for upgrades of septic systems within 300 feet of a pond shore. The Town currently requires new septic systems to be built a minimum of 300 feet from a pond shore; recognizing that systems in proximity to the pond are a significant source of phosphorus. However there are no specific requirements for the upgrade of existing systems within 300 feet of a pond. HW recommends that the Town consider additional health regulations requiring upgrades over time for systems within the Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page H-110 January 2013 300 foot setback and stricter limits on the number of variances. The upgrades should include design standards requiring leaching facilities to be built as far from the shoreline as feasible and perpendicular to groundwater flow direction to maximize the uptake of phosphors in the subsurface sediments (see Figure H-9). The Town should also consider requiring the use of drip irrigation leaching facilities to capture additional phosphorus in the shallow soils below the drip system (see Figure H-9). Further analysis of this recommendation is expected in Phase III; Continue to identify and retrofit direct stormwater discharges to ponds from roads and parking lots. The Town is currently mapping stormwater discharges to fresh water ponds throughout town and supported the conceptual design of three retrofits (Brewster Town Hall, Breakwater Landing, Walker’s Pond) as part of this study. This retrofit process should continue with the Town identifying additional sites stormwater remediation and treatment and seeking funding to design and construct stormwater treatment systems that will reduce phosphorus loadings. One retrofit design will be conducted in Phase III and could be focused on a site adjacent to a fresh water pond; Continue outreach to homeowners on proper fertilizer practices. The Town can continue to work with local property owners to get them to reduce fertilizer applications on lawns and gardens directly adjacent to ponds. Providing education on alternatives to phosphorus fertilizers can help reduce impacts to the ponds; Create a pilot vegetative buffer adjacent to a pond. One way to reduce fertilizer impacts on a pond is to recreate a vegetative buffer between a lawn and a pond (see Figure H-10). The Town could identify a town-owned site adjacent to a pond where a vegetated buffer could be created that replaces the existing lawn area. The buffer should be planted with local, non-invasive species that do not need fertilizer and will act to capture runoff from upgradient areas. The vegetation will capture nutrient in runoff from upgradient areas and will also reduce shoreline erosion during extreme weather events; and, Continue to encourage proper management of pet waste. Pet waste is a source of phosphorus and pathogens to ponds and the Town can continue to encourage pet owners to clean up after their animals and dispose of their waste properly. The Town should also consider providing pet waste baggies for town-owned parks near critical waterbodies. Continue the ongoing studies of individual ponds to determine the sources of phosphorus and identify strategies for remediation to improve pond water quality. Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page H-111 January 2013 Figure H-9. Proposed Septic Leachfield Layout for Systems near Ponds Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page H-112 January 2013 BEFORE AFTER Figure H-10. Proposed Vegetative Buffer Between the Lawn and Edge of Pond Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page I-113 January 2013 I. PUBLIC EDUCATION AND OUTREACH Outreach and educational activities are an integral part of this IWRMP. Phase II outreach activities focused on developing a project website, developing educational materials for display and handouts, and making public presentations on the project progress to keep the residents informed about the project and the work of the CWPC. Future phases of the project could involve making some difficult and conflicting decisions so it is in the interests of the Town to have more residents involved in the project and prevent problems with dissenting residents at a later stage. 1) WEBSITE The project website was developed at an early stage of the project (early 2012) and served as a way of informing the Town residents about the project, announcing the upcoming public meetings, and providing downloadable material. The website is accessed from the Town’s home page (www.town.brewster.ma.us) by clicking on the “Water Planning” link. The website is arranged into eight sections using horizontal tabs: Home: provides background on the Town, introduces the IWRMP, and defines the goals of the project; Project Details: describes the water resources issues in Brewster and describes the actions of the Town and the formation of the CWPC; Prior Projects: describes Phase I of the IWRMP and the Town’s intermediate “bridge” projects to provide data for Phase II; Reports: provides links to be able to download reports related to this project; Maps: provides links to be able to download maps related to this project; Calendar: provides a calendar to announce upcoming activities related to the project including the public meetings; Get Involved!: provides a summary and links to outreach and education information produced or presented by HW for this project; and Contact: provides contact information for the CWPC, the Town Planner, and HW’s project engineer. 2) EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS Two products were developed for the Town as outreach and education materials and are available on the website under the “Get Involved!” tab. They are: An educational poster for use at the Lower Cape Home and Garden Expo, Town Hall and the Brewster Ladies Library; and A brochure to hand out at any meeting on natural resources describing the issues and potential solutions identified during the planning process. Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page I-114 January 2013 3) PUBLIC MEETINGS Four public meeting were presented for CWPC and the Town residents. These presentations are available on the website under the “Get Involved!” tab. These meetings can be summarized as follows: A kick-off meeting discussing the IWRMP and describing the wastewater/nitrogen loading issues within the Pleasant Bay Watershed, and identifying the magnitude of the issues based on current development in the watershed. This meeting was held on April 24, 2012; A meeting describing the build out analysis, stormwater retrofit concepts, and potential sea level rise impacts on septic systems in Brewster as examples of integrated water resource management issues. This meeting was held on August 6, 2012; A meeting describing the health of fresh water ponds and the connection between watershed management and pond water quality. Opportunities for watershed management on public lands and at home were presented. This meeting was held on September 27, 2012; and A meeting on future development impacts of wastewater management in the Pleasant Bay watershed with preliminary discussions on alternatives to reduce nitrogen loading to comply with the TMDL. Options for nitrogen reduction from fertilizers and other non- wastewater sources might be considered to the extent they help solve any identified problems. This meeting was held on October 23, 2012. Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page J-115 January 2013 J. GLOSSARY Anthropogenic – Effects, processes, or materials are those that are derived from human activities. Aquifer – Any geological formation containing or conducting groundwater, esp. one that supplies the water for wells, springs, etc. Atmospheric Deposition – Nitrogen that comes into a waterbody from the atmosphere. BMP – Best Management Practices. Buffer Zone – The distance from a sensitive water resource to the point where development would not impact the resource. Buildout – Theoretical Planning estimate of the amount and location of potential development for an area as permitted under current or proposed planning regulations or zoning by-laws. CMR – Code of Massachusetts Regulations. Coastal Waters – Saline or brackish waters, including estuaries, embayments, and oceans. CWA – Clean Water Act. CWMP – Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan. CWPC – Brewster’s Comprehensive Water Planning Committee. CRD – Cluster Residential Development. DCPC – District of Critical Planning Concern. DEM – Digital Elevation Model. DEP – Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. Developed Land – Land containing a structure or use or land cleared for a specific purpose. Development Density – A measure of development within an area, measured in square footage of floor space per acre. DO – Dissolved Oxygen. DPH – Department of Public Health. DPW – Department of Public Works. DRI – Development of Regional Impact. Ecosystem – A collection of living things and the environment in which they live. Effluent – Sewage that has been treated in a septic tank or sewage treatment plant. EIR – Environmental Impact Report. EIS – Environmental Impact Statement. Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page J-116 January 2013 Embayment – A recess in a coastline forming a bay. ENR – Engineering News Record. EOEEA – Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs. EPA – Environmental Protection Agency. Estuarine System – Tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands that are usually partially closed by land but have open, partly obstructed, or sporadic access to the open ocean. Estuary – The wide lower course of a river where it flows into the ocean. Estuaries experience tidal flows and their water is a changing mixture of fresh and salt. Eutrophication – A process by which pollution from such sources as sewage effluent or leachate from fertilized fields causes a lake, pond, or fen to become overrich in organic and mineral nutrients, so that algae and bacteria grow rapidly and deplete the oxygen supply. FEMA – Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Plain/Zone – a flat or nearly flat land adjacent to a stream or river that stretches from the banks of its channel to the base of the enclosing valley walls and experiences flooding during periods of high discharge. Fresh Waters – Non-saline waters, including ponds, wetlands, streams, rivers, and upper levels of groundwater. GIS – Geographic Information Systems. gpcd – Gallons per capita per day. gpd – Gallons per day. Groundwater – Saturated water zone located beneath the Earth's surface. Water is stored in soil pore spaces and in the fractures of rock formations. Groundwater originates from rain and from melting snow and drains to the nearest water feature like a river or the ocean. GWD – Groundwater Discharge, normally of treated wastewater. Hypolimnion – The lower and colder layer of water in a pond. I/A Systems – Innovative/Alternative septic systems. IDDE – Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination. Impervious cover – Any land use alteration which causes water to flow over a surface instead of soaking into the ground. IWRMP – Integrated Water Resources Management Plan. LiDAR – Light Detection and Radar. A remote-sensing method for accurately determining ground elevation. MGL – Massachusetts General Laws. Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page J-117 January 2013 Marshlands – Low-lying wet land with grassy vegetation; usually is a transition zone between land and water. MassDOT – Massachusetts Department of Transportation. MassGIS – Massachusetts Office of Geographic and Environmental Information. MCL – Maximum Contaminant Level. MEP – Massachusetts Estuaries Project. MESA – Massachusetts Endangered Species Act. mg/L – Milligrams per liter. mgd – Million gallons per day. Monomoy Lens – The Monomoy groundwater lens is the sole source of water for the towns of Brewster, Chatham, Dennis, Harwich, and Orleans. MS4 – Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems. NHESP – Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program. Nitrogen – Nitrogen is an essential nutrient for plants and animals. Excessive amounts can have negative impacts, including poor habitat conditions for fish and other aquatic organisms. Nitrogen Sink – an area capable of absorbing large amounts of nitrogen. Non-Point Source Pollution – Diffuse pollution sources (i.e. without a single point of origin or not introduced into a receiving stream from a specific outlet). The pollutants are generally carried off the land by storm water. Common non-point sources are agriculture, forestry, urban, mining, construction, dams, channels, land disposal, saltwater intrusion, and city streets. NPDES – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. NRPD – Natural Resource Protection Design. Nutrient – Nutrients are chemical elements that are essential to plant and animal nutrition. Nitrogen and phosphorus are nutrients that are important to aquatic life, but in high concentrations they can be contaminants in water. Open Space – areas that are undeveloped, but not protected from development. PALS – Ponds and Lake Stewards. Perched water table – A perched water table is a transient water table that occurs because a clay or rock layer limits downward movement of water through the soil. It is not connected to the regional water table and is unlikely to be affected by sea level rise. Pervious Surfaces – Any surface which allows water to pass through it eventually soaking into the ground. Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page J-118 January 2013 Phosphorus – Phosphorous is an essential nutrient for plants and animals. Excessive amounts can have negative impacts, including poor habitat conditions for fish and other aquatic organisms. Plume – A visible or measurable discharge of a contaminant from a given point of origin. Point Source Pollution – A stationary location or fixed facility from which pollutants are discharged; any single identifiable source of pollution; i.e. a pipe, ditch, ship, ore pit, factory smokestack. Pollutants – Generally, any substance introduced into the environment that adversely affects the usefulness of a resource or the health of humans, animals, or ecosystems. PRD – Planned Residential Development. Protected Open Space – Areas that are undeveloped and protected from future development by covenants or restrictions. Public Access – Often refers to a property or a facility that is open to the general public for a specific use such as recreation, education, etc. Regional water table – A regional water table is an extensive permanent water table. It is highest in the spring and lowest in the fall and will be affected by sea level rise. rgpcd – Residential gallons per capita per day. Salt Marsh – A type of wetland that does not accumulate appreciable peat deposits and is dominated by herbaceous vegetation. Marshes may be either fresh or saltwater, tidal or non- tidal. SDWA – Safe Drinking Water Act. Septic System – An onsite system designed to treat and dispose of domestic sewage. SMAST – School of Marine Science and Technology, UMass Dartmouth. Sole Source Aquifer – Principal supply of drinking water from groundwater where there is no alternative source. Stormwater Discharge – Precipitation that does not infiltrate into the ground or evaporate due to impervious land surfaces but instead flows onto adjacent land or water areas and is routed into drain/sewer systems. Stormwater Outfalls – Every point where a conveyance of a storm water system discharges into streams, lakes, and wetlands. Stormwater Runoff – That part of precipitation, snow melt, or irrigation water that runs off the land into streams or other surface-water. It can carry pollutants from the air and land into receiving waters. Sub-Embayment – A sub-unit of an embayment. A number of sub-embayments combine to form an embayment. Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page J-119 January 2013 Sub-Watershed – A sub-unit of a watershed. A number of sub-watersheds combine to form a watershed. Surface Water – All water naturally open to the atmosphere (rivers, lakes, reservoirs, ponds, streams, impoundments, seas, estuaries, etc.). SWMI – Sustainable Water Management Initiative. Title 5 – Onsite sewage disposal systems are governed by Title 5 of the Massachusetts State Environmental Code (310 CMR 15.000). Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) – A regulatory term in the U.S. Clean Water Act (1972), specifying the maximum amount of a pollutant that a body of water can receive while still meeting water quality standards. Alternatively, a TMDL is an allocation of water pollutant deemed acceptable to the receiving waters. TSI – Trophic Status Index. Turbidity – A cloudy condition in water due to suspended silt or organic matter. UMass – University of Massachusetts. Undeveloped Land – Land that has not had improvements made either to the land or on the land. USGS – United States Geological Survey. Wastewater – The spent or used water from a home, community, farm, or industry that contains dissolved or suspended matter. Wastewater Flows – The average amount of wastewater (usually measured in gpd or mgd) water from a home, community, farm, or industry. Water Table – The water table represents the highest level of groundwater. Above the water table, the zone is unsaturated. Watershed – The area of land where all surface and groundwater originating from precipitation converge on a single point, then exits into a river, lake, wetland, estuary, or the ocean. Also known as a drainage basin. Surface-water watersheds and groundwater watersheds can be similar but are not usually coincident. Wellfields – Area containing one or more wells that produce usable amounts of water. WQRC – Water Quality Review Committee. WWTF – Wastewater Treatment Facility. Zone I – The 400 foot protective radius around a public supply well with a withdrawal rate greater than 100,000 gallons per day. In this are only activities associated with the withdrawal and treatment of drinking water are allowed. Zone II – The land area above an aquifer that contributes water to a well under the most severe pumping and recharge conditions. Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page K-120 January 2013 K. REFERENCES 310 CMR 15.000. The State Environmental Code, Title 5: Standard requirements for the siting, construction, inspection, upgrade and expansion of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems and for the transport and disposal of septage. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Boston, MA. www.mass.gov/dep/service/regulations/310cmr15.pdf. Armstrong, DS, TA Richards, and SB Levin, 2011. Factors Influencing Riverine Fish Assemblages in Massachusetts. Scientific Investigations Report 2011–5193, 58p. United States Geological Survey, Northborough, Massachusetts. Available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2011/5193. Barnstable County Department of Health and Environment (BCDHE). No date provided; accessed May, 2012. Title 5 Correspondence Course. http://www.learntitle5.org/. Barnstable County Water Utilities Association. 2012. Water Management Act – Draft Outdoor Water Use Condition for Cape Cod. Letter to the DEP Bureau of Resource Protection dated May 3, 2012. Brewster Water Department. 2005 to 2011. Annual Statistical Reports. Brewster Water Department. 2011. Consumer Confidence Report. Available online at: http://www.town.brewster.ma.us/component/docman/doc_download/1333-2011-water-quality- report. Cape Cod Environmental Resource Center. 1999. Cape Cod - A Community Connected By Water. CCC, 1992. Technical Bulletin 91-001, Nitrogen Loading. Cape Cod Commission, Water Resources Office, Barnstable, Massachusetts. CDM, 2011. Town of Brewster, Massachusetts Integrated Water Resource Management Plan Phase 1 - Needs Assessment Final Report. CDM-Smith, Cambridge, MA. Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning. January, 2001. Building a Regional Framework: Transit Oriented Development. DEP, 2004. The Practical Guide to Lake Management in Massachusetts Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, Boston, Massachusetts. EarthTech, 2006, Water Department System Study – Town of Brewster, Massachusetts. Eichner, E., 2003. Cape Cod Ponds and Lakes Atlas. Cape Cod Commission, Barnstable, MA. Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page K-121 January 2013 Eichner, E., 2007. Individual Town Nitrogen Loads by Individual Subwatersheds to Pleasant Bay. Memorandum dated September 25, 2007. Cape Cod Commission, Barnstable, MA. Gibbons, Jim. 1999. Parking Lots. Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO). Technical Paper #5. www.nemo.uconn.edu/publications/tech_papers/tech_paper_5.pdf. HW, 2012. Town of Brewster Buildout Analysis. Final Report completed on October 15. Horsley Witten Group. Inc., Sandwich, MA. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). June, 2008. Climate Change and Water. IPCC Technical Paper VI. www.ipcc.ch/pdf/technical-papers/climate-change-water-en.pdf. International City/County Management Association (ICMA) and US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2006. This is Smart Growth. Smart Growth Network. 32 pp. http://www.smartgrowthonlineaudio.org/pdf/TISG_2006_8-5x11.pdf. Ipswich River Watershed Association (IRWA). No date provided; accessed May, 2012. Water Wise Communities: A Handbook for Municipal Managers in the Ipswich River Watershed. Chapter 4: Water Use Restriction By-law. http://ipswich-river.org/resources/water-wise- communities-handbook/4-water-use-restriction-By-law/. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP). 2000. Golf Course Water Use Policy. BRP/BWM/PeP-P00-5. http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/laws/policies.htm#wmgtpols. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP). 2002. Hydrology Handbook for Conservation Commissioners. http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/laws/policies.htm#wetlguid. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP). 2003. Massachusetts Erosion and Sediment Control Guidelines for Urban and Suburban Areas. http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/laws/policies.htm#storm. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP). 2009. Model Water Use Restriction By-law/Ordinance. http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/laws/policies.htm#wmgt. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP). February, 2008a. Massachusetts Stormwater Handbook. Revised and updated in accordance with revisions to the Wetlands regulations, 310 CMR 10.00, and the Water Quality Regulations, 314 CMR 9.00, relating to stormwater. http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/laws/policies.htm#storm. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP). February, 2008b. Private Well Guidelines. 96 pp. Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page K-122 January 2013 Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP). January 2012. Massachusetts Year 2012 Integrated List of Waters: Proposed Listing of the Condition of Massachusetts’ Waters Pursuant to Sections 305(b), 314 and 303(d) of the Clean Water Act http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/resources/tmdls.htm#ilsr. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MA DEP). November, 2011. Final Massachusetts 2010 Integrated List of Waters. http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/resources/10list6.pdf. Massachusetts Department of Fish & Game Riverways Program (Riverways). 1997. Riparian Areas Factsheets. http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/der/riverways/resources/riverfactsheets.htm. Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (MA EOEEA). 2007. Massachusetts Smart Growth / Smart Energy Toolkit. http://www.mass.gov/envir/smart_growth_toolkit/. Massachusetts Water Resources Commission, 2001, Stressed Basins in Massachusetts. Approved December 13, 2001. Available online at: http://www.mass.gov/dcr/watersupply/intbasin/stressed_basins.htm. MassGIS, 2012. Geographic Information System Layers for Massachusetts. Office of Geographic Information, Boston, MA. MEP, 2006. Massachusetts Estuaries Project. Linked watershed-embayment model to determine critical nitrogen loading thresholds for the Pleasant Bay system, Orleans, Chatham, Brewster and Harwich, Massachusetts. School of Marine Science and Technology, University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, Massachusetts. Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC). 2011. Massachusetts Low Impact Development Toolkit. http://www.mapc.org/sites/default/files/LID_Local_Codes_Checklist.pdf. North and South River Watersheds Association (NSRWA). 2006a. Model General By-laws for Water Conservation and Irrigation System Regulation. Massachusetts Environmental Trust, Horsley Witten Group, Inc. http://www.greenscapes.org/Page-222.html. North and South River Watersheds Association (NSRWA). 2006b. Model Landscaping By-law. Massachusetts Environmental Trust, Horsley Witten Group, Inc. http://www.greenscapes.org/Page-222.html. North and South River Watersheds Association (NSRWA). January, 2007. Opportunities for Local Regulation and Management of Pesticide and Fertilizer Application. Massachusetts Environmental Trust, Horsley Witten Group, Inc. http://www.greenscapes.org/Page-222.html. NRDC, 1999. Stormwater Strategies: Community Responses to Runoff Pollution. Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington, DC. Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page K-123 January 2013 Pleasant Bay Alliance (PBA). December, 2010. Pleasant Bay Fertilizer Management Plan. Horsley Witten Group, Inc. http://www.pleasantbay.org/programs-and-projects/watershed- planning/pleasant-bay-fertilizer-management-plan. Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) and Coastal Resources Management Council (CRMC). December, 2010. Rhode Island Stormwater Design and Installation Standards Manual. http://www.dem.ri.gov/pubs/regs/regs/water/swmanual.pdf. RI-DEM, 2010. Rhode Island Stormwater Design and Installation Standards Manual. Department of Environmental Management, Providence, Rhode Island and Coastal Resources Management Council, Wakefield, Rhode Island. SMAST, 2009. Brewster Freshwater Ponds: Water Quality Status and Recommendations for Future Activities. School for Marine Science and Technology, University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, MA. The Golf Consulting Group. 2012. An Operational Analysis of the Captains Golf Course, Brewster, Massachusetts. Available online at: http://www.golfcommission.com/wp- content/uploads/2012/01/An-Operational-Analyses-of-The-Captains-Golf-Course-.pdf. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2010. Green Building: Conserving Water. http://www.epa.gov/greenhomes/ConserveWater.htm#landscaping. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012. Mercury: Basic Information. http://www.epa.gov/hg/about.htm. University of Massachusetts (UMass) Donahue Institute. 2008. 2008 Survey of Cape Cod Second-Home Owners. Technical Report of Finding. US-ACOE, 2012. RMA2/4 Models. Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, United States Army Corps of Engineers. http://chl.erdc.usace.army.mil/rma2 or http://chl.erdc.usace.army.mil/rma4. Walter, DA and AT Whealan, 2004. Simulated Water Sources and Effects of Pumping on Surface and Groundwater, Sagamore and Monomoy Flow Lenses, Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Scientific Investigations Report 2004–5181, 85p. United States Geological Survey, Northborough, Massachusetts. Available online at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2004/5181. Watershed Action Alliance of Southeastern Massachusetts (WAASEM). 2012. Watershed 101. http://www.watershedaction.org/watershed101.html. Integrated Water Resources Management Plan Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Town of Brewster, MA Page L-124 January 2013 L. APPENDICES Appendix D-1 Appendix E-1 Appendix F-1 APPENDIX D-1 Appendix D1: Pleasant Bay Sub-Watershed to Sub-Embayment Flowcharts HW traced the flow of groundwater throughout the Pleasant Bay watershed and developed flow diagrams for the all sub-embayment systems. These flow diagrams allowed us to identify groups of sub-watersheds that function together and contribute mostly to a single sub-embayment or a group of sub embayments with similar TMDL reductions. Some small cross-connections (usually less than 10% of the flow) were ignored to facilitate the breakdown into separate planning units. The simplification resulted in 12 planning units for Pleasant Bay, four of which are related to Brewster. The flow diagrams for all 19 TMDL sub-embayments are given in this appendix. Ruth Pond GT10 (15)Baker Pond GT 10 (1)Higgins Pond (10)Cliff Pond Well_ORL (26)Ruth Pond LT10 (16)Cliff Pond GT 10 (3)Cliff Pond LT 10 (4)Out75.7Little Cliff Pond (11)24.349.421.413.1Out16.1Baker Pond LT 10 (2)Areys Pond GT 10N (32)Gould Pond Well_ORL(28)52.0%Areys Pond GT 10S (33)Areys Pond LT 10 (34)[29.8%]24.4%5.218.4Pilgrim Lake LT10 (13)Lower River LT10 (41)[37.1%]Name-quoIt River LT10 (45) [33.9%]23.628.99.2Kescayo Gansett Pond GT 10 (37)Crystal Lake GT 10 (5)31.3Crystal Lake GT 10 (5)Out40.2Upper River GT10 (66)12.858.628.6Upper River LT10 (67)[37.2%]Kescayo Gansett Pond LT 10 (38)Kescayo Gansett Stream (40)KG River/Lonnies Pond (39) [33.2%]25.1``58.6 Meetinghouse Pond LT 10 (43)Meeting House Pond LT10 (453)[82.9%]Meetinghouse Pond GT 10 (42)Bassing Pond (75)Bassing Harbor (90)[0%]Bassing Harbor 10 (91)16.0Chatham Harbor (95)[0.0%]Chatham Harbor (95)Upper Frostfish Crk (94)Frostfish Creek (92)[(75.9%]Frostfish Creek 10 (93)Frostfish Creek (92)Pahwah Pond (49)[60.8%]Pahwah Pond GT10 (47)Pahwah Pond LT10 (48)Out84.0 Ryders Cove (84)[54.5%]Stillwater Pond (6)Lovers Lake (73)Ryders Cove 10S (42)Ryders Cove 10W (87)Ryders Cove 10E (86)26.5%22.8%50.7%Schoolhouse Pond (71)Crows Pond 10 (89)4.7%69.5%25.8%Crows Pond (88)[0.0%] Hawknest Pond (76)14.4Mill Pond Fresh (I68)Upper Muddy Creek 10 W (83)Upper Muddy Creek (I81)[53.9%]Goose Pond (69)19.55.6Trout Pond (70)Upper Muddy Creek 10 E (I82)31.61923.0Out71.4Out49.4Out66.1Muddy Ck WELL (77)Lower Muddy Creek (78) [74.8%]Lower Muddy Ck 10W (80)Lower Muddy (78)Lower Muddy Ck 10E (79)89.210.8 Tar Kiln Steam GT10 (63)Tar Kiln Steam LT10 (64)Freemans Way Well_BRE (27)Main PB=75%*Pleasant Bay 75%*LT10 (53)[25.4%]Pleasant Bay GT10 ORLBRE (52)Pleasant Bay GT10 BREHAR (49)Pleasant Bay GT10 HAR (50)Pleasant Bay Road Well HAR (29)Round Cove GT 10 (61)Grassy Pond (9)Round Cove LT 10 (62)[29.8%]Mud Pond (12)91.09.069.524.06.5Quanset Pond LT 10 (60)[39.3%]Silas Rd Well_BRE (30)Rafe Pond (14)Pleasant Bay GT 10_ORL (51)Quanset Pond GT 10 (59)Twinings Pond GT 10 (21}41.059.0Twinings Pond LT 10 (22)Quanset Pond Bog (58)44.255.818.581.5WELL 7 WELL_ORL (31)Little PB=25%*Pleasant Bay 75%*LT10 (53)[27.8%]Sarahs Pond GT 10 (17)Sarahs Pond LT 10 (18)The Horseshoe (65) Pochet Neck Sub-embayment (TMDL 51.07%)Barley Neck GT 10 (35)Barley Neck LT 10 (36)Pochet Neck GT 10 (54)Pochet Neck LT 10 (55)Pochet Neck Stream GT 10 (56)Pochet Neck Stream LT 10 (57)Uncle Harvey Pond (23) APPENDIX E-1 TOWN OF BREWSTER, MASSACHUSETTS BREWSTER WATER DEPARTMENT WORKSHOP AND TABLETOP EXERCISE AFTER ACTION REPORT Brewster, MA August 28, 2012 Sponsored by: Town of Brewster Facilitated by: Horsley Witten Group, Inc. Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 2 Event Objectives ......................................................................................................................... 2 ICS/NIMS Refresher Training .................................................................................................... 2 Tabletop Exercise ........................................................................................................................ 3 Improvement Planning ................................................................................................................ 3 Hotwash/Evaluation .................................................................................................................... 3 Event Overview ............................................................................................................................. 3 Refresher Training Summary ...................................................................................................... 3 Tabletop Exercise Overview ....................................................................................................... 4 Scenario Description ................................................................................................................... 4 Lessons Learned .......................................................................................................................... 5 Improvement Planning Recommendations ................................................................................ 8 Hotwash Comments ...................................................................................................................... 8 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 9 Appendix A: Evaluation Summary ........................................................................................... 10 Appendix B: List of Participants ............................................................................................... 12 Morning ICS/NIMS Training .................................................................................................... 12 Afternoon TTX .......................................................................................................................... 12 Appendix C: ICS/NIMS Training and TTX Schedule ............................................................ 14 Appendix D: Action Planning Guide ........................................................................................ 15 Brewster Workshop and TTX After Action Report September 19, 2012 Horsley Witten Group, Inc. 1 Executive Summary On August 28, 2012 representatives from the Brewster Water Department and from several other town departments participated in a day-long training event focused on emergency preparedness and response to an incident affecting the water sector. This training was facilitated by the Horsley Witten Group, Inc. (HW). The following were identified as objectives for the event: 1. Define roles and responsibilities of emergency response partners during an incident affecting the Water Department; 2. Review communication plans, policies, and procedures; 3. Encourage interagency cooperation; and 4. Develop an Improvement Plan based on identified planning gaps. The event consisted of water sector specific Incident Command System (ICS) and National Incident Management System (NIMS) training in the morning and of a multi-agency tabletop exercise (TTX) in the afternoon. Immediately following the TTX, an improvement planning session was held to further discuss the key concepts raised during the event. A facilitated hotwash/after action review was then held to encourage comments from attendees regarding their lessons learned from the training. The workshop and TTX were designed to provide participants with an opportunity to discuss the response to incidents affecting the water sector in the Town of Brewster. The well-attended event succeeded in meeting the objectives described above. This After Action Report (AAR) summarizes the results of the event and makes recommendations for future improvements to strengthen the Brewster Water Department. Brewster Workshop and TTX After Action Report September 19, 2012 Horsley Witten Group, Inc. 2 Introduction The Brewster Water Department (BWD) conducted a one-day water sector emergency response training event on August 28, 2012. The event focused on water sector emergency preparedness and response and consisted of an ICS/NIMS refresher training followed by a facilitated TTX. The overarching goal of the training was to foster a better understanding of the roles, responsibilities, and capabilities of the partner agencies/organizations that would respond to a water sector incident in Brewster. The morning consisted of the ICS/NIMS refresher training for personnel of BWD. Representatives from the Brewster Fire Department (BFD), Brewster Police Department (BPD), and other town and county departments then engaged in a facilitated discussion-based exercise utilizing a fake scenario involving both a fire and an unintentional contamination. The exercise scenario was sequenced to promote a discussion of water sector preparedness for, and response to, an incident in Brewster. The exercise concluded with an improvement planning session in which key discussion elements were summarized and with a hotwash/after action review during which players were asked to voice their number one lesson learned from the exercise. A summary of hotwash comments is provided on page 8. All exercise participants were asked to fill out an exercise evaluation form at the conclusion of the training. A summary of written evaluation comments is attached as part of Appendix A. A total of ten people participated in the ICS/NIMS Refresher Training and 19 people participated in the TTX. Refer to Appendix B for a complete list of participants. Event Objectives The following training objectives were established for this workshop and TTX: x Define roles and responsibilities of emergency response partners during an incident affecting the Water Department; x Review communication plans, policies, and procedures; x Encourage interagency cooperation; and x Develop an Improvement Plan based on identified planning gaps. A program was developed to address the objectives. The full agenda can be found in Appendix C. ICS/NIMS Refresher Training The ICS/NIMS Refresher Training was provided to personnel in BWD who had not yet received the training and certification. The training included water sector specific examples which helped the participants relate the concepts presented as part of the training. It was recommended that BWD personnel go online to take the examinations to achieve their certifications in IS-100, an Introduction to ICS for Public Works Personnel and in IS-700, an Introduction to NIMS. Brewster Workshop and TTX After Action Report September 19, 2012 Horsley Witten Group, Inc. 3 Tabletop Exercise The multiagency TTX in the afternoon was designed to bring together representatives from the water and public safety sectors to discuss roles and responsibilities during an unintentional contamination incident. TTX participants engaged in a facilitated discussion regarding the incident with the basic goal of improving water utility preparedness. Improvement Planning An improvement planning session was held following the TTX discussion period to identify important concepts and elements raised. Participants were also encouraged to identify next steps, actions, tasks, and other follow-up activities to further strengthen the Brewster Water Department. Hotwash/After Action Review A facilitated hotwash was held to collect comments from the players. Participants identified their own lessons learned and other key elements raised during the TTX. A summary of participant feedback, including comments and evaluation scores, is provided in Appendix A of this AAR. Event Overview Participants arrived at 8:30 a.m. on August 28, 2012 for the Brewster water sector training event. The morning consisted of an ICS/NIMS Refresher Training and the afternoon consisted of a TTX. Paul Anderson of the Brewster Water Department and Carl Simons of HW provided opening remarks and welcomed everyone to the workshop. All participants introduced themselves to the other participants and were encouraged to share their experiences regarding water sector related incidents. Refresher Training Summary ICS Refresher Training HW developed the ICS refresher training based on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)¶VIS-100 Introduction to Incident Command System course. HW reworked the course to be more reflective of the roles and responsibilities that the water sector could be expected to perform within an incident command structure during a natural or manmade disaster. In addition, HW replaced the traditional first responder examples/photos/depictions with other that are more relevant to the water sector. HW highlighted recent real world incidents affecting the water sector to illustrate key learning points. While the overall course was shortened to meet the allotted schedule, HW covered the basic features of ICS, Incident Commander and staff functions, ICS facilities, and common responsibilities. Participants were encouraged to become certified in IS-100 through the Emergency Management InstLWXWH¶VRQOLQHWUDLQLQJSURJUDP (http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/IS/is100PWb.asp). Brewster Workshop and TTX After Action Report September 19, 2012 Horsley Witten Group, Inc. 4 NIMS Refresher Training +:GHYHORSHGWKH1,06UHIUHVKHUWUDLQLQJEDVHGRQ)(0$¶VIS-700 National Incident Management System (NIMS), An Introduction course. HW also modified this course to be more relevant to a water sector audience. HW covered the five components of NIMS: preparedness, communications and information management, resource management, command and management, and ongoing management and maintenance. Participants were encouraged to become certified in IS-700 through the Emergency Management InstLWXWH¶VRQOLQHWUDLQLQJ program (http://training.fema.gov/emiweb/is/is700a.asp). Tabletop Exercise Overview Participants arrived back from their lunch break at 1:30 p.m. for the second portion of the day, the TTX. Paul Anderson of the Brewster Water Department provided opening remarks and welcomed everyone to the workshop. All participants introduced themselves to the other participants. Carl Simons of HW served as the exercise facilitator and Will Keefer of HW took detailed notes. HW created a community-level TTX to provide participants the opportunity to discuss the plans, policies, and procedures needed to guide the prevention of, response to, and recovery from a hypothetical, unintentional contamination scenario. HW presented the exercise scenario using a combination of PowerPoint slides and discipline-specific injects. Injects provide additional information regarding the scenario in a building block fashion. Appropriate individuals (based on role) were given an opportunity to react to each inject, then discussion was opened to the entire group. Participants discussed the scenario and the water sector response to the cascading events caused by the fire and contamination. Scenario Description Scenario: Large Fire with Pesticide Backflow Scenario Background: The town of Brewster is experiencing a very hot summer. Tourism has been at record levels. The date is Friday July 3rd, just before the July 4th holiday weekend. Scenario Progression: Early Morning Hours (information not known by the participants): x 6:30 a.m., An employee from Cape Wide Lawn Care Company illegally opens a hydrant, attaches a hose to fill his truck and dilute the pesticide inside the tank. He goes and grabs a coffee at the local Dunkin Donuts while the tank fills. x 6:50 a.m., He checks on the tank and it has not filled at all. Believing that the hydrant must be broken, he unhooks the hose and drives away. Scenario Begins (the scenario presented using injects and a PowerPoint presentation): x 6:30 a.m., Newspaper delivery driver calls 911 to report a large fire at the Ocean Edge Resort at 2907 Main Street in Brewster. Brewster Workshop and TTX After Action Report September 19, 2012 Horsley Witten Group, Inc. 5 x 7:15 a.m., Customer calls the Brewster Water Department to complain of low water pressure and states that other friends throughout town are having the same problem. x 9:00 a.m., Customer complaint to the Brewster Water Department of milky, foul smelling water. x 9:30 a.m., NEWS BULLETIN: Major fire destroys a large portion of the mansion at the Ocean Edge Resort, and customers report low water pressure throughout town. x 9:45 a.m., Citizen calls 911 to report an open hydrant. Additionally, the person notices that the water smells very bad and is going into the storm sewer. x 10:00 a.m., Multiple customers complain to the Brewster Water Department of milky, foul smelling water. x 10:45 a.m., NEWS BULLETIN: Insider knowledge from Brewster Water Department of multiple customer complaints. x 11:00 a.m., 911/Dispatch receiving multiple calls requesting medical assistance from people who say they have been exposed to the water. x 11:30 a.m., NEWS BULLETIN: Customers contacting news media about feeling sick from drinking their water. x 12:00 p.m., Brewster Police Department receives anonymous tip about a suspicious individual hooking their truck up to a hydrant earlier this morning. x 1:00 p.m., Brewster Police Department receives the material safety data sheet (MSDS) sheet confirming the likely pesticide to be Glyphosate. x 2:00 p.m., A fire breaks out at a home, can the water be used? x 9:00 p.m., Lab results confirm that drinking water is contaminated with Glyphosate. x 11:00 p.m., NEWS BULLETIN: Water system is contaminated due to an illegal hookup to a hydrant and a subsequent backflow into the system due to the response during the early morning fire. Lessons Learned Throughout the exercise, participants were given injects (additional information on the scenario) to move the discussion forward. The following is a summary of the verbal comments provided during the TTX discussion. Comments are listed in chronological order. x If a fire was reported to the 911 Dispatch Center, the BFD would respond. Additional support can be provided by the Orleans and Harwich Fire Departments. o Most BFD personnel have their gear in their personal vehicles, so they can respond immediately. x The BPD would respond to the location of the fire and set up traffic control. BPD can also conduct rescues or evacuations until BFD arrives. x A member of the BFD would assume the role of the Incident Commander (IC) and the Brewster Town Administrator would act as the Public Information Officer (PIO) if needed. Other departments may join the BFD in a Unified Command (UC) depending on how the incident progresses. x The Brewster Emergency Operations Center (EOC) may be activated during this type of incident. x Water tanks are normally at their lowest during the early morning hours. Brewster Workshop and TTX After Action Report September 19, 2012 Horsley Witten Group, Inc. 6 o The tanks are filled at night, but even with all wells operating, water demand in the morning outpaces supply until noon. The maximum flow if all pumps are on is 4,300 gallons per minute (gpm). ƒ A new well is expected to come online soon, which will provide an additional flow of 1,300 gpm. x Water may need to be provided by another jurisdiction if the response to the fire is depleting water available in the distribution system. o There are interconnections between Brewster and neighboring towns, but those interconnections are not regularly tested and BWD is not sure if the gate valves are operational. There is also the concern that opening an interconnection could FDXVHVWDJQDQWZDWHUEHWZHHQHDFKWRZQ¶VJDWHvalve to cause water quality problems. BWD has the contact information for their counterparts in the neighboring towns. These interconnections are not metered. o The BFD can also use tender trucks or draft from ponds or pools as an alternate source. x BWD has Geographic Information System (GIS) maps which allow the user to determine water main size and the location of fire hydrants. x In the elevated areas of town, some customers have experienced low pressures during routine flushing activities and previous fire responses. x Brewster has a rapid notification system which can be used to notify the residents within 20 minutes. o The system is tested quarterly and multiple BFD personnel are trained to send out messages. o Only residents with landline phones can be notified, so this notification would not reach the majority of vacationers. x BWD would likely find out about a large fire through a Supervisory Control and Data $FTXLVLWLRQ 6&$'$ DODUPDWWKHSODQWLQGLFDWLQJD³ORZWDQN´DODUPDWDVWRrage tank. x If the fire occurred at night when BWD locations are not staffed, the on-call operator would receive a SCADA alarm notification, and the operator would then respond to the plant and verify the alarm. o If the alarm was confirmed, the operator would contact the Water Superintendent. x Both the BWD and BFD have the ability to shut down water to a burning building. o BWD can shut the water down at the curb stop and BFD can shut the water down inside the building. x Response to a fire in the town has the potential to change the hydraulics of the distribution system and cause water quality problems including: o Low water pressure; o Dirty or cloudy water; or o Contamination due to backflows into the system. Air in the distribution system is an indicator that a backflow could occur. x BWD will send personnel to the residence to verify any customer complaints. If the complaint is confirmed, they may also ask neighbors if they are having the same problem. If the customer reports a smell to the water, it is important for the customer to describe the smell. x BWD has limited sampling capability and would send the majority of their samples to the Barnstable County Lab for analysis. Brewster Workshop and TTX After Action Report September 19, 2012 Horsley Witten Group, Inc. 7 x The locations of the complaints could help determine if a problem is isolated to one part of the distribution system or is system-wide. x If an incident occurs which affects the quantity or quality of the drinking water, advisories can be communicated to the public in the following ways: o Knocking on doors and leaving door tags; o Radio/television/print media; o Reverse 911; o Brewster town website; o Lighted sign boards provided by BFD; or o Social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter). x Personnel in other departments can be provided with a standard message to deliver if they receive calls regarding an incident in town. x Brewster Emergency Management (EM) could contact private vendors or make a request to the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency (MEMA) for alternate water options. o Poland Springs could provide bottled water. In addition, there are bottled water supplies at the Otis Air Force Base, but this is a National Guard asset. x During previous incidents, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) has not recommended issuing a water advisory (e.g., boil, do not use) until there has been a sample which confirms a problem. o BWD would confer with other agencies and the town selectmen if they felt there was a need to issue a precautionary advisory. x In the event that illnesseVDUHOLQNHGWRZDWHUFRQVXPSWLRQD³'R1RW8VH´RUGHUZRXOG be issued. o The Brewster Health Department and Cape Cod Hospital have trained epidemiologists who would try to determine the cause based on the symptoms. x There are several ways to find out more information about potential water contaminants: o Chemtrec (www.chemtrec.com) o Emergency Response Guidebook (http://phmsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/PHMSA/DownloadableFiles/Files/Hazmat/ERG2 012.pdf) o Water Contamination Information Tool (WCIT), which is a secure, on-line database that provides information on chemical, biological, and radiological contaminants of concern for water security (http://water.epa.gov/scitech/datait/databases/wcit/index.cfm). x If any interconnections were opened to provide water during the response to a fire, there is the potential that contaminated water could have entered their distribution system. x If BPD received information regarding an open hydrant, they would begin an investigation. If there were suspicious circumstances, they would contact BWD. o Many storm drains discharge into ponds or environmentally sensitive areas, so discharging water could cause an ecological issue. x Individuals or companies cannot hook up to a hydrant without a permit. x BWD has a hydrant at their headquarters where permitted users can legally hook up to it. The hydrant is metered and under video surveillance. x BWD would likely flush the distribution system once the contaminant was identified and confirmed. Brewster Workshop and TTX After Action Report September 19, 2012 Horsley Witten Group, Inc. 8 o MassDEP could provide recommendations about the disposal of the water and other recommended actions. x Distribution water may not be used to fight fires in the community depending on the contaminant. x The Town of Brewster would pay for the initial response to an incident, but would try to recapture any expenses if a responsible party was identified. o It is important to document the entire response so that the information can be used in court. Improvement Planning Recommendations At the conclusion of the TTX, the group engaged in a discussion to highlight the major concepts and objectives that will be important for improving response to water incidents in the community. Specific recommendations that were discussed include: x Developing a plan to exercise the interconnections between Brewster and neighboring towns; x BWD providing training to BFD on how to shut off domestic water at the curb stop; x BWD sharing both paper and GIS maps of the distribution system with BFD; x BWD joining the Massachusetts Water/Wastewater Agency Response Network (MaWARN) ± www.mawarn.org; o Contact the Harwich Water Department, which is a MaWARN member, for more information. x Conducting UHJXODU³DOO-KD]DUGV´77;VZLWKLQthe town; and x Conducting training so that multiple individuals are able to update the Brewster town website. Hotwash Comments At the conclusion of the event, the facilitator asked each participant to offer feedback on the workshop and TTX. A summary of comments is presented below. In some instances, duplicate comments were combined: x Many attendees thought it was great to see how well the town departments work together. However, they were still able to identify some planning gaps. x Participants learned more about the BWD. x The TTX stressed the importance of communication, information management, and interagency cooperation during an incident. x Overall, participants liked the discussion-based format and the progression of the information during the TTX. At the conclusion of the training day, participants were asked to fill out an evaluation form. Of the 19 participants at the TTX, 16 filled out the forms. Participants rated the overall training using a scale of 1-5 (1=Strongly Disagree, 3=Agree, and 5=Strongly Agree). When asked Brewster Workshop and TTX After Action Report September 19, 2012 Horsley Witten Group, Inc. 9 whether the TTX was a valuable use of their time, the average score was 4.7. Average scores for the other questions are summarized in Appendix A. Written evaluation comments can also be found in Appendix A. Conclusion Overall, this event successfully met the objectives that were defined in advance. The ICS/NIMS Refresher Training and TTX allowed participants to evaluate their current capabilities, become more comfortable with their roles and responsibilities, and identify opportunities for enhancement. Additional planning, training, and exercises can ensure that personnel maintain and enhance their level of preparedness. Discussion of the improvement planning recommendations will be instrumental in further improving the BWD and local response capabilities. Overall, participants agreed that the event was a valuable use of their time. Brewster Workshop and TTX After Action Report September 19, 2012 Horsley Witten Group, Inc. 10 Appendix A: Evaluation Summary A total of 16 participants turned in evaluations which are summarized in the following tables. Strongly Disagree Agree Strongly Agree (1 2 3 4 5) Average* 1. The ICS refresher was well structured and organized. 5.0 2. The NIMS refresher was well structured and organized. 5.0 3. The tabletop exercise was well structured and organized. 4.8 4. The exercise allowed the opportunity to identify the roles and response partners during an incident affecting multiple agencies. 4.8 5. The exercise provided an opportunity to review communications plans, policies, and procedures. 4.5 6. The exercise provided an opportunity to identify potential gaps in response planning. 4.8 7. The exercise encouraged interagency cooperation. 4.9 8. Overall the tabletop exercise was a valuable use of my time. 4.7 Brewster Workshop and TTX After Action Report September 19, 2012 Horsley Witten Group, Inc. 11 Evaluation Comments (Comments are not listed in any priority order.) 1. Excellent! 2. Great Job. 3. Very informative ± glad I could be a part of it. 4. Excellent and thank you! 5. Great job by the presenters in promoting discussion and knowledge of emergency issues. 6. Great Job! Brewster Workshop and TTX After Action Report September 19, 2012 Horsley Witten Group, Inc. 12 Appendix B: List of Participants Morning ICS/NIMS Training Count Name Agency Affiliation 1 Paul Anderson Brewster Water Department Water Utility 2 Robert Crowley Brewster Water Department Water Utility 3 David Gage Brewster Water Department Water Utility 4 Laura Hanna Brewster Water Department Water Utility 5 Dana Kew Brewster Water Department Water Utility 6 Mark Lang Brewster Water Department Water Utility 7 Fred Meyer Brewster Water Department Water Utility 8 Seth Ritchie Brewster Water Department Water Utility 9 Pamela Springer Brewster Water Department Water Utility 10 John Stewart Brewster Water Department Water Utility Afternoon TTX Count Name Agency Affiliation 1 Paul Anderson Brewster Water Department Water Utility 2 George Bausch Brewster Police Department Police Department 3 Bob Bersin Brewster Department of Public Works Local Government 4 Jeffrey Day Brewster Department of Public Works Local Government 5 William Harrison Brewster Fire Department Fire Department 6 Elisabeth Haskell Barnstable County Department of Health and Environment County Government 7 Nancy Ice Brewster Health Department Public Health 8 Donna Kalinick Town of Brewster ± Selectmen¶s Office Local Government 9 Richard Koch Brewster Police Department Police Department 10 Don Labonte Brewster Fire Department Fire Department 11 Susan Leven Brewster Planning Department Local Government 12 Sherrie McCullough Brewster Health Department Public Health 13 Chris Miller Brewster Department of Natural Resources Local Government 14 Robert Moran Brewster Fire Department Fire Department 15 Denise Rego Brewster Council on Aging Local Government Brewster Workshop and TTX After Action Report September 19, 2012 Horsley Witten Group, Inc. 13 16 Peter Rubel Brewster Fire Department Fire Department 17 Pamela Springer Brewster Water Department Water Utility 18 Jeff Sturtevant Brewster Fire Department Fire Department 19 Charles Sumner Town of Brewster Local Government Brewster Workshop and TTX After Action Report September 19, 2012 Horsley Witten Group, Inc. 14 Appendix C: ICS/NIMS Training and TTX Schedule 8:00 a.m. ± Check-In / Welcome and Introductions 8:30 a.m. ± ICS Refresher Training Carl Simons, HW 10:00 a.m. ± Break 10:15 a.m. ± ICS Refresher Training (continued) Carl Simons, HW 11:00 a.m. ± NIMS Refresher Training Will Keefer, HW 12:30 p.m. ± Lunch 1:30 p.m. ± Tabletop Exercise Overview, Objectives, and Ground Rules 1:45 p.m. ± Scenario Discussion 2:30 p.m. ± Break 2:45 p.m. ± Scenario Discussion 3:30 p.m. ± Improvement Planning Session 4:00 p.m. ± ³+RW:DVK´6HVVLRQ 4:15 p.m. ± Evaluations and Closing 4:30 p.m. ± Adjourn Brewster Workshop and TTX After Action Report September 19, 2012 Horsley Witten Group, Inc. 15 Appendix D: Action Planning Guide The Brewster Water Department can use the chart below to identify priority actions/tasks/follow- up requirements and assign responsibilities for each and can choose improvement planning objectives based on the discussions during the event. Action/Task/ Follow-up Responsible Individual or Agency People Who Should Be Involved Resources and Possible Sources Short Term Activity Long Term Activity APPENDIX F-1 Brewster Retrofit Sites Horsley Witten Group 1 MEMORANDUM DATE: 6/27/12 TO: Sue Leven, James Gallagher, Robert Bersin, and Chris Miller (Town of Brewster) FROM: Anne Kitchell, Geraldine Camilli, and Grace Cambareri (Horsley Witten Group) RE: Stormwater Retrofit Opportunities Summary This memorandum summarizes findings from the retrofit inventory conducted primarily on publicly-owned land by the Town and Horsley Witten Group (HW) on June 20, 2012. Nineteen of 27 proposed sites were assessed for opportunities to improve the performance of existing stormwater infrastructure or to provide treatment where none currently exists. Refer to the Memorandum dated 5/29/12 and Meeting Minutes dated 6/14/12 for more information on the objectives of stormwater retrofitting in Brewster and candidat e retrofit sites, respectively. Table 1 summarizes the retrofit alternatives considered at each site. To help visualize some of the proposed retrofit practices, example photographs of similar retrofits are included after Table 1. For your additional reference, copies of our unrevised field notes showing the locations of proposed retrofits are also attached. The next step is to identify up to three of these sites for concept refinement. Based on discussions in the field and in consideration of site factors (e.g., feasibility of implementation, site constraints, land ownership, visibility, demonstration diversity, cost, and water quality and/or drainage improvement benefits), we have attempted to narrow the list to the following recommended sites:  Town Hall Rain Garden—A proposed rain garden (no underdrain system) in the existing grassed area below the rear parking lot. Runoff from the parking lot and a portion of the out-building roof already drains to this area. The rear entrance is used by the public attending meetings, so visibility is high. A rain garden could be designed and installed relatively quickly as an education/outreach event. Before moving forward, we should look at soils and depth to groundwater, as well as determine if the Town wants to include improvements to the existing gravel lot.  Breakwater Landing—Parking lot runoff results in the ponding of water in the northwest corner of the lot and blow out of the adjacent dune system. The Town is interested in improving the parking lot and pulling it back from the dune. Options at this site include Brewster Retrofit Sites Horsley Witten Group 2 infiltrating bioretention and/or permeable pavers. The bioretention could be situated as a parking island or as a buffer between the lot and the dunes. Alterations to the current parking layout are likely, with a goal of no net reduction in the number of spaces. Before moving forward, we will need to review the Town’s parking stall and aisle dimensional requirements.  Crowells Bog Landing—This retrofit would provide a great educational opportunity to showcase water quality treatment for a direct, untreated discharge to Long Pond, which is an impaired waterbody. Currently, runoff from the parking area and a portion of the entrance road are directed to the end of the parking area (floating dock storage) by an asphalt berm. We propose relocating the dock storage area to behind the port -a-potties and/or shed, and converting the paved area at the end of the parking lot into a bioretention facility. Repair of the existing berm would prevent flow to the beach. Before moving forward, we must determine if relocating the dock storage is feasible.  Eddy Elementary School—Redirect downspouts on the north-side of the gym into a rain garden or bioretention facility (with underdrain) in the existing gra ssed area. While not in the front of the school, the adjacent sidewalk is heavily used by students. The project could be integrated with educational signage describing the existing innovative wastewater system. Installation of one or two rain barrels at the downspouts on either side of the school entrance would also be an easy implementation/outreach project (rain barrel workshop), and could provide irrigation for the existing landscaped beds. Before moving forward, a consultation meeting with school officials is advised.  Walker’s Pond Landing—This small parking area and the two drive lanes drain directly to an impaired waterbody. Runoff from the main road is also contributing to erosion down steep slopes. Options considered include parking lot pavement reduction via installation of porous pavement and/or landscaped island, as well as slope stabilization with terracing or stone/step pool conveyance channels. A more sophisticated (and expensive) engineered design could include a terraced bioretention to increase infiltration and provide additional nutrient/pollutant removal.  Stony Brook Elementary School—A number of alternatives were discussed here, and more information on existing drainage infrastructure and use rights of the Cape Cod Baseball League will be needed before advancing concepts. An underground rainwater harvesting system between the base of the hill, the grassed parking lot, and the ballfield would help address standing water issues, slope erosion at discharge location, and irrigation for the ball field without interfering in the use of the above-ground space.  Our Lady of the Cape—A significant amount of impervious cover at this site, combined with (reported) catchbasin overflows and off-site runoff, and down-gradient drainage improvements by the Town make this a candidate site. Dry swales along Stony Brook Rd. and a linear bioretention/bioswale in the middle parking lot are two possible options. Brewster Retrofit Sites Horsley Witten Group 3 Table 1. Summary of Retrofit Options Site Name Retrofit Options Considered Pros and Cons Town Hall Rain garden in back parking lot In rear, but still high visibility; good location for education; outreach opportunity for installation; low cost; stabilize eroding slope Bioretention between parking lot & home plate More complex design to route water; may reduce access; high visibility in front of the building; reduce volume directed to outfall pipe Dry swale between entrance road and baseball field Reduce ponding on road/at bench; reduce overall flow to outfall pipe Eddy Elementary School Rain barrels in front of school at main entrance and front classroom doors Rainwater reuse for irrigation of existing landscaped/garden areas; high visibility Rain garden or bioretention (depending on soils) along on northern side of building Medium visibility; could be tied in with education on existing innovative septic system. Landscape island bioretention (front) Pretreatment of parking lot and/or entrance road runoff prior to infiltration; high visibility; enhance aesthetics Landscape island bioretention (rear) Pretreatment for leaching basins of parking lot runoff; have to expand parking lot island width; underground utilities and leaching basins could constrain; drive aisles appear oversized Stony Brook Elementary School Rainwater harvesting/ underground storage behind school (also discussed gravel wetland option) Reduce discharge to wetland; potential water source for field irrigation; costly Bioretention in depressed front area High visibility for education, but difficult to route water; have to modify existing catchbasins to convey flows to practice Rain garden in front of school, rain barrels High visibility for education; water storage/reuse; limited space due to existing tree in area Point of Rocks Rd. Install leaching catch basins with pretreatment sumps up- gradient along road Reduce runoff reaching outfall into creek; at cranberry bog culvert where no ROW is available Crowells Bog Landing Repair broken curb direct runoff to wooded area at end of parking lot to prevent gully in middle of beach area Bioretention at end of parking lot high visibility; drains to impaired waterbody; berms already direct flow to proposed practice location; need to relocate dock storage area; may lose parking space? Holly Ave. (Robinwood) Bioretention in island Reduce runoff discharging to adj. pond; would have to remove existing trees; high cost; Infiltration basin Direct road and driveway runoff into existing depression; NSTAR easement; overflow structure required; does not capture as much impervious Brewster Retrofit Sites Horsley Witten Group 4 Site Name Retrofit Options Considered Pros and Cons area as the other option Our Lady of the Cape Dry swale along Stony Brook Rd. Private property and road ROW; manage additional runoff volume being conveyed to new DPW drainage improvement project; plenty of space in ROW Bioswale along parking lot Private property; improved aesthetics; pretreatment for existing leachers; emergency overflow to wooded area Bioretention at small upper lot Private property; Modification of existing curb inlet; small drainage area Catchbasin cleaning Simple, non-structural practice Walkers Pond Landing- Slough Rd. Reduce pavement area via porous asphalt replacement and/or landscaped island Volume reduction of direct drainage to impaired waterbody Stepped conveyance system along slope and drive lanes Minimize erosion; provide for some storage/infiltration Slough Pond Fix curbing Convey runoff to existing leaching catchbasin; reduce runoff to pond; minimal cost Frederick Court Apartments Rain garden on corner of residential building or in central grassed area Reduce runoff; minimal impact; limited space with existing tree Breakwater Landing Beach bioretention between dune and parking lot and/or in central island Retreat from dune; reduce ponding and dune erosion Permeable pavers Utilize gridded paving block to enhance infiltration; requires alteration to parking layout Brewster Baptist Church, Main St Bioswale between paved and unpaved lots Private property; increase infiltration, potentially high cost Ladies Library Convert existing island to bioretention cell Reduce runoff; small area treated; memorial tree to be removed; high cost Police Station Vegetated swale along entrance lane Provides water quality treatment; not highly visible Old Town Hall Disconnect downspout, install stormwater planters at base of building Reduce rooftop runoff, potential example of planter use Schoolhouse Pond Landing Remove discharge pipe On private property Replace pavement with pervious asphalt High groundwater and parking challenges may limit options for surface vegetated practices John Wings and Leeland Rds. Private Property. Retrofits not suggested N/A Canoe Pond Rd. No retrofit suggested N/A Cahoon Rd. (not visited in field) Not visited. Potential for constructed wetlands up- gradient of causeway Reduce runoff to pond, high cost; partner with Harwich for installation at Landing Latham School (not visited) Not visited. Potential bioretention(s) Private property; treat parking lot runoff prior to wetland or leaching catchbasin discharge Brewster Retrofit Sites Horsley Witten Group 5 Examples of bioretention facilities HW recently designed: (left) installed a few months ago at Grey’s Beach in Kingston, MA; and (right) installed in 2011 at Sandy Neck in East Sandwich. Both are good examples of what proposed practices may look like at Breakwater and Crowells Bog Landings. Examples of dry swale HW designed for a recreation facility at Bare Hill Pond in Harvard, MA and bioswale (linear bioretention) in Duxbury, MA. These swale applications could be used at the Town Hall, churches, and road ROW projects. Brewster Retrofit Sites Horsley Witten Group 6 Rainwater harvesting is becoming more popular at schools, particularly where there is high demand for irrigation of ballfields. Options may exist at the Stony Brook Elementary School for underground storage chamber option or alongside the building (if roof overflow is common, as reported). Porous asphalt parking for a retrofit HW designed in Plymouth, MA (left), and HW testing porosity at a recent installation for a bike path in Norwell, MA (right). This would be a good application for Walkers Pond and, perhaps, Schoolhouse Pond parking area. Brewster Retrofit Sites Horsley Witten Group 7 Rain garden and bioretention installations at a senior housing site in Barnstable, MA (top left), in landscape islands at the Barnstable airport in Hyannis, MA (top right), at a school in Norwich, CT (bottom left), and at Green Briar parking lot in Sandwich, MA (bottom right). These are all applicable at the Town Hall, Eddy School, and the church sites. Attachment Retrofit Field Notes