HomeMy Public PortalAboutIntegrated Water Resource Management Plan Phase 1 - Needs AssessmentTown of Brewster,
Massachusetts
Integrated Water Resource Management Plan
Phase 1 - Needs Assessment
Final Report
February, 2011
i
MJ01109toc.doc
Contents
Executive Summary
Section 1 - Project Background
1.1 Introduction...............................................................................................................1-1
1.2 Town of Brewster Overview...................................................................................1-2
1.3 Brewster’s Water Resources....................................................................................1-4
1.4 Characteristics of Brewster’s Watersheds.............................................................1-7
1.5 Individual Subwatersheds (50 Study Areas)......................................................1-13
1.6 Protection of Water Resources / Drivers............................................................1-13
Section 2 - Existing Data
2.1 Introduction...............................................................................................................2-1
2.2 Brewster Facilities Plans/Studies...........................................................................2-2
2.2.1 Significance of this Data...........................................................................2-4
2.3 Individual Meetings.................................................................................................2-4
2.3.1 Planning Department................................................................................2-4
2.3.2 Health Department ...................................................................................2-5
2.3.3 Conservation Department........................................................................2-6
2.3.4 Assessor’s Department.............................................................................2-7
2.3.5 Natural Resources Department...............................................................2-7
2.3.6 Water Department.....................................................................................2-8
2.3.7 Department of Public Works...................................................................2-8
2.3.8 Recreation Department.............................................................................2-9
2.4 Report / Data Review..............................................................................................2-9
2.4.1 Data, Documents and Reports Provided by the Town......................2-10
Section 3 - Groundwater
3.1 Background ...............................................................................................................3-1
3.2 Watershed Study Areas...........................................................................................3-2
3.3 Groundwater Protection Criteria ...........................................................................3-2
3.3.1 Zone II.........................................................................................................3-4
3.3.2 District of Critical Planning Concern (DCPC).......................................3-4
3.3.3 Zoning.........................................................................................................3-7
3.3.4 Impervious Areas......................................................................................3-9
3.3.5 Soil Suitability (Wetlands Conservancy District)................................3-11
3.3.6 Protected Open Space.............................................................................3-15
3.3.7 Parcel Size.................................................................................................3-17
3.3.8 Development (Building) Density..........................................................3-19
3.3.9 Groundwater Problem Areas / Depth to Groundwater....................3-19
3.3.10 Flood Zone...............................................................................................3-21
3.3.11 Identified Title 5 Areas of Concern......................................................3-24
3.4 Groundwater Needs Assessment Results...........................................................3-24
Table of Contents
Town of Brewster, Massachusetts
ii
MJ01109toc.doc
Section 4 - Estuaries
4.1 Background ...............................................................................................................4-1
4.2 Major Watershed Study Areas................................................................................4-2
4.3 Watershed Study Area Categories.........................................................................4-3
4.4 Summary of Findings...............................................................................................4-3
Section 5 - Freshwater Ponds
5.1 Introduction and Scope............................................................................................5-1
5.1.1 Brewster’s Kettle Ponds............................................................................5-1
5.1.2 Scope ...........................................................................................................5-4
5.2 Available Data...........................................................................................................5-5
5.3 Pond Health Assessment.........................................................................................5-6
5.3.1 Water Quality Parameters........................................................................5-6
5.3.2 Criteria Used for the Pond Health Assessment ....................................5-7
5.3.3 Results of the Pond Health Assessment...............................................5-10
5.4 Threats to Pond Water Quality.............................................................................5-20
5.4.1 Evaluated Threats....................................................................................5-20
5.4.2 Area of Potential Impact.........................................................................5-21
5.4.3 Data Used for Threat Analysis..............................................................5-21
5.4.4 Ponds with Water Quality Data............................................................5-26
5.4.5 Ponds with No Water Quality Data......................................................5-34
5.4.6 Summary of Threat Analysis and Health Status.................................5-36
5.5 Combined Pond Assessment................................................................................5-39
5.6 Next Steps................................................................................................................5-41
Section 6 - Needs Evaluation
6.1 Introduction...............................................................................................................6-1
6.2 Groundwater Results...............................................................................................6-2
6.2.1 Groundwater Protection...........................................................................6-2
6.2.2 Prioritizing the Watersheds.....................................................................6-5
6.2.3 Recommendations.....................................................................................6-5
6.3 Estuaries.....................................................................................................................6-7
6.3.1 Wastewater Flow Estimates in Pleasant Bay for Brewster,
Orleans and Harwich................................................................................6-8
6.3.2 Nitrogen Removal in the Pleasant Bay Watershed...............................6-9
6.3.3 Prioritizing the Subwatersheds...............................................................6-9
6.3.4 Recommendations.....................................................................................6-9
6.4 Ponds........................................................................................................................6-11
6.4.1 Pond Condition Assessment..................................................................6-11
6.4.2 Prioritizing Pond Needs.........................................................................6-12
6.5 Coastal Water Resources.......................................................................................6-16
6.6 Stormwater..............................................................................................................6-16
6.7 Summary..................................................................................................................6-17
Table of Contents
Town of Brewster, Massachusetts
iii
MJ01109toc.doc
Section 7 - IWRMP Phase 1 Recommendations1
7.1 Recommendations to be Addressed Immediately or on an Ongoing Basis.....7-1
7.2 Recommendations to be Addressed in the Next 2 to 4 Years.............................7-4
7.3 Recommendations to be Addressed within the Next 5 Years............................7-6
7.4 Recommendations to be Addressed Beyond 5 years...........................................7-7
7.5 Regional Recommendation.....................................................................................7-7
Appendices
Appendix A Community Meetings
iv
MJ01109lof.doc
Figures
Figure ES-1 Town of Brewster, 1951................................................................................ ES-1
Figure ES-2 Town of Brewster, 1999................................................................................ ES-1
Figure ES-3 Major Watersheds in Brewster.................................................................... ES-6
Figure ES-4 Results of Groundwater Needs Assessment............................................. ES-8
Figure ES-5 Results of MEP Status................................................................................... ES-9
Figure ES-6 Ponds by Category in Brewster ................................................................ ES-12
Figure ES-7 Results of Stormwater Needs Assessment.............................................. ES-14
Figure 1-1 Town of Brewster, Massachusetts.................................................................1-3
Figure 1-2 Nitrate Concentrations in Brewster’s Water Supply Wells........................1-4
Figure 1-3 Major Watersheds in Brewster.......................................................................1-8
Figure 1-4 Subwatersheds in Brewster..........................................................................1-14
Figure 1-5 Waterbody Assessment, TMDL Status and MS4 Regulated Lands in
Brewster, Massachusetts...............................................................................1-16
Figure 3-1 Subwatersheds in Brewster............................................................................3-3
Figure 3-2 Zone II Protection Areas in Brewster............................................................3-5
Figure 3-3 District of Critical Planning Concern (DCPC) in Brewster........................3-8
Figure 3-4 Zoning in Brewster........................................................................................3-10
Figure 3-5 Impervious Surfaces in Brewster.................................................................3-12
Figure 3-6 Wetlands Conservancy District in Brewster..............................................3-14
Figure 3-7 Open Space in Brewster................................................................................3-16
Figure 3-8 Parcels in Brewster.........................................................................................3-18
Figure 3-9 Development Density in Brewster...............................................................3-20
Figure 3-10 Depth to Groundwater in Brewster.............................................................3-22
Figure 3-11 Flood Zones in Brewster...............................................................................3-23
Figure 3-12 Results of Preliminary Groundwater Needs Assessment........................3-26
Figure 5-1 Surface Water Resources in Brewster............................................................5-2
Figure 5-2 Distribution of Area for Brewster’s Ponds...................................................5-1
Figure 5-3 Category 1 – High Quality Ponds in Brewster...........................................5-12
Figure 5-4 Category 2 – Ponds that Generally Meet Uses in Brewster .....................5-13
Figure 5-5 Category 3 – Ponds with Some Water Quality Impairment in
Brewster...........................................................................................................5-14
Figure 5-6 Category 4 – Ponds with Impaired Health
Category 4A – Ponds with Impaired Health with Other Factors
In Brewster......................................................................................................5-15
Figure 5-7 Category 5 – Ponds with No Water Quality Data in Brewster................5-16
Figure 5-8 Ponds with 300-ft Buffer Area in Brewster ................................................5-22
Figure 5-9 Percent Impervious within 300-ft Buffer Area in Brewster .....................5-23
Figure 5-10 Catch Basins in Brewster...............................................................................5-25
List of Figures
Town of Brewster, Massachusetts
v
MJ01109lof.doc
Figure 5-11 Buildings in Brewster....................................................................................5-27
Figure 5-12 Cranberry Bogs in Brewster .........................................................................5-28
Figure 5-13 Potential Threats to Water Quality: Ponds with Data..............................5-29
Figure 5-14 Impervious Cover Potential Threats to Water Quality:
Ponds with Data.............................................................................................5-30
Figure 5-15 Catch Basin Potential Threat to Water Quality: Ponds with Data..........5-32
Figure 5-16 Buildings (Septic Systems) Potential Threat to Water Quality
Ponds with Data.............................................................................................5-33
Figure 5-17 Cranberry Bog Potential Threat to Water Quality: Ponds with Data.....5-35
Figure 5-18 Impervious Cover Potential Threats to Water Quality:
Ponds with No Data......................................................................................5-37
Figure 5-19 Ponds by Category in Brewster ...................................................................5-40
vi
MJ01109lot.doc
Tables
Table ES-1 Results of Combined Pond Assessment............................................... ES-10
Table ES-2 Combined Needs Assessment ............................................................... ES-15
Table ES-3 Phase 1 IWRMP Recommendations Summary ................................... ES-16
Table 1-1 Characteristics of the Six Major Watersheds in Brewster.......................1-9
Table 3-1 Land Use Data...............................................................................................3-6
Table 3-2 Soil Names and Drainage Characteristics...............................................3-13
Table 4-1 MEP Status.....................................................................................................4-4
Table 5-1 Brewster Ponds on MassDEP Draft 2010 Integrated Waters List..........5-4
Table 5-2 Values used to Evaluate Primary Criteria for Pond Health...................5-9
Table 5-3 Results of Pond Health Assessment.........................................................5-10
Table 5-4 Number of Sample Depths Meeting CCC Pond Guidelines................5-17
Table 5-5 Results of Pond Heath Assessment: Category 4 Ponds.........................5-18
Table 5-6 Results of Pond Threat Assessment.........................................................5-38
Table 5-7 Results of Combined Pond Assessment..................................................5-39
Table 6-1 Groundwater Analysis Recommendations – Brewster, MA..................6-3
Table 6-2 Estuary Analysis Recommendations – Brewster, MA...........................6-10
Table 6-3 Values for Ponds Prioritization Criteria..................................................6-12
Table 6-4 Prioritization of Pond Needs ....................................................................6-15
Table 6-5 IWRMP Recommendations – Brewster, MA ..........................................6-18
vii
Glossary
A
ACO - Administrative Consent Order
Anthropogenic - Effects, processes, or materials are those that are derived
from human activities
Aquifer – Any geological formation containing or conducting ground water, esp. one
that supplies the water for wells, springs, etc
ASMFC - Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission
Atmospheric Deposition – Nitrogen that comes into a water body from the
atmosphere
B
BMP - Best Management Practices
Buffer Zone – The distance from a sensitive resource (wetland or public water supply
well) to the point where development would not impact the resource.
Buildout – Development of land to its full potential or theoretical capacity as
permitted under current or proposed planning regulations or zoning bylaws
C
CCC - Cape Cod Commission
CDM - Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc.
CMR - Code of Massachusetts Regulations
CWA - Clean Water Act
CWPC - Comprehensive Water Planning Committee
CWMP - Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan
CZM - Coastal Zone Management
D
DCPC - District of Critical Planning Concern
DEM - Digital elevation model
Development Density - A measure of development within an area, measured in
square footage of floor space per acre
Glossary
viii
Developed Land – Land containing a structure or use or land cleared for a specific
purpose
DFW - Division of Fisheries and Wildlife
DO - Dissolved Oxygen
DPH - Department of Public Health
DPW - Department of Public Works
DRI - Development of Regional Impact
DWPC - Division of Water Pollution Control
E
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
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
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.
Esturian System -Tidal habitats and adjacent tidal wetlands that are usually
semienclosed by land but have open, partly obstructed, or sporadic access to the open
ocean
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
F
FEMA - Federal Emergency Management Authority
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
Glossary
ix
G
GIS - Geographic Information Systems
gpcd - Gallons per capita per day
gpd - Gallons per day
Groundwater – Water that collects or flows beneath the Earth's surface, filling the
porous spaces in soil, sediment, and rocks. Groundwater originates from rain and
from melting snow and ice and is the source of water for aquifers, springs, and wells.
GWD - Groundwater Discharge
H
Hypolimnion – The lower and colder layer of water in a pond
I
I/A Systems – Innovative/Alternative septic systems
IDDE - Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination
Impervious land cover -Any land use alteration which causes water to flow over a
surface instead of soaking into the ground
IUP - Intended Use Plan
IWRMP - Integrated Water Resources Management Plan
J
K
L
LCP - Local Comprehensive Plan
M
Marshlands - Low-lying wet land with grassy vegetation; usually is a transition zone
between land and water
Glossary
x
MassDEP - Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
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
MGD - Million gallons per day
M.G.L.- Massachusetts General Laws
mg/L - Milligrams per liter
MHC - Massachusetts Historical Commission
Monomoy Lens -The Monomoy groundwater lens is the sole sources of water
for Dennis, as well as the Towns of Harwich, Brewster, Orleans and Chatham
MS4 - Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems
N
N/A - Not Applicable
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
Nonimpervious Surfaces -any surface which allows water to pass through it
eventually soaking into the ground
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
O
Open Space –areas that are undeveloped, but not protected from development
Glossary
xi
P
PALS - Pond and Lakes Stewards (PALS)
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.
Pollution – Point:A stationary location or fixed facility from which pollutants are
discharged; any single identifiable source of pollution; e.g. a pipe, ditch, ship, ore pit,
factory smokestack.
Pollution –Nonpoint: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.
Pollutants -Generally, any substance introduced into the environment that adversely
affects the usefulness of a resource or the health of humans, animals, or ecosystems
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 that is open to the general
public for a specific use such as recreation, education, etc.
Q
R
S
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 on-site system designed to treat and dispose of domestic sewage
SMAST - School of Marine Science and Technology
Glossary
xii
Sole Source Aquifer –An aquifer that supplies at least 50 percent of the drinking
water consumed in the area overlying the aquifer
Subwatershed -Topographic perimeter of the catchment area of a stream tributary
Surface Water -All water naturally open to the atmosphere (rivers, lakes, reservoirs,
ponds, streams, impoundments, seas, estuaries, etc.)
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
T
Title 5 - On-site sewage disposal systems are governed by Title 5 of the Massachusetts
State Environmental Code (310 CMR 15.000)
Turbidity - A cloudy condition in water due to suspended silt or organic matter
TMDL - Total Maximum Daily Load
TSI - Trophic Status Index
U
UMass - University of Massachusetts (UMass)
Unsuitable Soils - Soil that is unsuitable for a soil absorption system if the percolation
rate is too fast or too slow
Undeveloped Land -Land that has not had improvements made either to the land or
on the land
USGS - United States Geological Survey (USGS)
V
Glossary
xiii
W
Watershed -The land area that drains into a stream; the watershed for a major river
may encompass a number of smaller watersheds that ultimately combine at a
common point
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
Wellfields -Area containing one or more wells that produce usable amounts of water
WQRC - Water Quality Review Committee
WWTF - Wastewater Treatment Facility
X
Y
Z
Zone II -That area of an aquifer which contributes water to a well under the most
severe pumping and recharge conditions
ES-1
MJ01109es.doc
Executive Summary
Introduction
In 2009, the Town of Brewster initiated its Integrated Water Resources Management
Plan (IWRMP) in developing a comprehensive program to address water and
wastewater management needs and protect its valuable water resources: a sole source
aquifer used for drinking water, dozens of ponds, and over 5 miles of coastline
including sandy beaches and salt marshes. This critical process of integrated planning
will establish a course for protecting and/or restoring these valuable resources. This
report summarizes the work of Phase 1 of the planning process and is focused on:
1. Evaluating the current water quality of Brewster’s groundwater, drinking water
supplies, fresh water ponds, and coastal/estuarine resources.
2. Evaluating existing and potential future impacts upon Brewster’s water resources.
3. Identifying and evaluating wastewater and water management measures.
4. Preparing a list of priorities for immediate and long-term actions.
Today, many of the Town’s water resources
are being stressed by pollution – some
continue to have high quality resources,
others have been degraded, while others are
at risk. Brewster’s population growth in the
last 50 years is partly responsible for the
threats that the community is currently
facing. Figures ES-1 and ES-2 from the
Woods Hole Research Center show the
increase in developed areas (yellow, pink
and red areas) from 1951 to 1999. Without a
better understanding of the current health of
water resources and the continuing or future
risks posed to them, the water quality and
ecosystems of the water resources could be
degraded or further degraded. In addition,
the Town recognizes that water resources
in other towns can be impacted by the land
and water activities in Brewster and
conversely activities in other towns can
affect the water quality in Brewster.
Overall, the Town has done an excellent
job of protecting its sole source aquifer by
managing development in Town, which
results in high quality drinking water. It
Figure ES-1: Town of Brewster, 1951
Figure ES-2: Town of Brewster, 1999
Executive Summary
ES-2
MJ01109es.doc
supports a citizen volunteer program (Pond and Lake Stewards or PALS) to monitor
water quality in the larger ponds and has undertaken actions to study and restore
(e.g., alum addition to Long Pond in 2007) degraded ponds. The recent progress of
the Massachusetts Estuaries Project (MEP) has also prompted Brewster to examine
how pollution sources, primarily nitrogen from domestic septic systems, can
negatively impact the fragile ecosystems of estuaries in Brewster and adjacent towns
(e.g., Pleasant Bay). The Town also has an on-going stormwater management
program and is aware that proper stormwater management can have a lasting effect
in protecting the natural resources throughout the Town. Several specific local
regulations have been put in place to address the nutrient controls and groundwater
protection in Brewster. Some of these progressive regulations include a water quality
bylaw, a sand and gravel mining bylaw, subdivision bylaws and several board of
health bylaws. The Brewster Conservation Trust and the land bank have been active
in affording land acquisition in environmentally sensitive areas in Town. Finally, the
Brewster Water Quality Review Committee (BWQRC) was founded to monitor
activities in the Zone II’s
Background and Purpose
The Town contracted with Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. (CDM) in 2009 to work with
the Comprehensive Water Planning Committee (CWPC) in developing this Phase 1
Needs Assessment report. The need for integrated planning at this time is driven by
many factors including increased population growth and development impacting
some of the water resources, the studies being completed under the MEP, and the
actions by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP)
establishing Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) limits for pathogens and nitrogen
for the impacted water resources.
A significant number of studies have previously been completed in and around
Brewster for the purpose of gaining a better understanding of the natural resources in
Town that include three wastewater plans that were conducted in 1970, 1988 and
1997. While the 1970 facilities plan was likely appropriate for the time it was
conducted, the population of Brewster was very different and nitrogen sensitivity in
estuaries was not the issue that it is today. Similarly, the 1988 wastewater facilities
plan that suggested continued reliance on on-site Title 5 septic systems was
appropriate for the time. The 1997 Draft Local Comprehensive Plan (LCP), however,
addresses wastewater needs but also begins to examine other issues that may affect
Brewster’s water resources, including point and non-point sources of pollution; the
water quality of ponds and estuaries; impacts from excess nitrogen and phosphorous;
and best management practices.
The recently completed Brewster Freshwater Ponds: Water Quality Status and
Recommendations for Future Activities report, 2009, by SMAST and the Cape Cod
Commission summarized the water quality of 29 ponds and evaluated six ponds in
detail resulting in recommendations for further study for those ponds and others in
Town.
Executive Summary
ES-3
MJ01109es.doc
Brewster’s stormwater system is currently regulated by its National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)Phase II Municipal Separate Storm Sewer
System (MS4) permit; a draft for renewal of this permit was issued by MassDEP in
November 2010. The MS4 program advocates best management practices to reduce
pollution from stormwater runoff. When the new permit is finalized the Town will
continue its efforts to bring all of its stormwater facilities into compliance with the
regulations. This will reduce the amount of sediment and other pollution entering to
Brewster’s water resources and will compliment Brewster’s goal of protecting its most
sensitive or potentially at risk watersheds.Only a portion of Brewster is subject to the
NPDES MS4 permit requirements as they are only applicable to “urbanized areas” as
defined in the 2000 U.S. Census.
Various department heads in the Town contributed to this report by providing
information that was used in the IWRMP. ThisdataincludedGISlayers,aerial
photography, water use data, stormwater assessments, and relevant Town bylaws.
Additional information was obtained from the Cape Cod Commission (CCC) and the
Compact of Cape Cod Conservation Trusts.
Brewster utilizes many tools to protect the Town's historic character by establishing
bylaws, local codes and by continually purchasing significant parcels of land
throughout the Town for open space. Of special note are the efforts the Town has
taken to protect land in the contribution zones to the Town’s water supply wells. The
Towns efforts to protect these wellfields have also resulted in the protection of wells
in adjacent towns that share a zone of contribution with Brewster. The end result is
high quality drinking water.
More recently, nitrogen loading to estuaries and
embayments has become the driving issue for
further wastewater management. The
Massachusetts Executive Office of Energy and
Environmental Affairs (EOEEA), working
through MassDEP and the UMass-Dartmouth
School of Marine Science and Technology
(SMAST), has been working with Coastal Zone
Management, the Cape Cod Commission, and
several municipalities to determine the nitrogen
sensitivity of southeastern Massachusetts’
coastal embayments and estuaries. This effort is
referred to as the Massachusetts Estuaries
Project (MEP). As a result of this work, many
towns on Cape Cod have became aware that
reductions in nitrogen loading from on-site
wastewater disposal systems would be
instrumental in restoring and preserving the
health of local estuarine environments.
CWPC Members
Pat Hughes, Chair
David Michniewiecz, Vice Chair
(Resigned August 2010)
Lemuel Skidmore, Vice Chair &
Board of Health Representative
(June 2010 to present)
David Bennett, Secretary
Joanne Hughes
Jane Johnson
John Lipman
Elizabeth Taylor, Planning
Board Representative
Amy Usowski, Conservation
Commission Representative
Russ Schell (August 2010 to
present
Executive Summary
ES-4
MJ01109es.doc
CWPC Committee
Brewster’s CWPC was formed to oversee this water resources planning initiative. The
CWPC is charged with clearly defining which water management issues are unique to
Brewster and which must be addressed in a regional or specific watershed context.
Since 2009, CDM worked with the CWPC to develop a clear, concise set of goals and
objectives for water quality management and began developing (Phase 1) a draft
Integrated Water Resources Management Plan.
Ultimately, the Town will identify the optimum methods of achieving water resource
protection and water management.
This committee consists of members representing various Town interests, including
public health, planning, conservation and natural resources. The CWPC is made up of
both dedicated volunteers and Town employees with a diverse background that
includes engineers, planners, environmental scientists, biologists and informed
citizens working together for the common goal of water resources protection.
The committee’s liaison to the CDM is Sue Leven, Brewster’s Town Planner.
Throughout the first phase of water resources planning, the CWPC held twice
monthly committee meetings and conducted three community meetings, all of which
were open to the public.
The primary concerns of the CWPC were focused on:
1. Protecting the Towns water resources include developing a full understanding of
nutrient loading and nutrient sink capacity of the shared Namskaket watershed.
2. Understanding interbasin transfer of drinking water out of the Monomoy Lens.
3. Confirming Brewster’s nutrient contribution to Pleasant Bay.
4. Working with adjacent communities to resolve common water resource issues.
Organization of this Phase 1 of the IWRMP
The IWRMP is organized as follows:
Section 1 introduces the IWRMP project and details the purpose, scope, existing
conditions, and organization of the report.
Section 2 summarizes existing data and previous projects relevant to the IWRMP.
Section 3 summarizes the methodology to identify areas of Brewster where uses of
the land may put the groundwater at risk, and thus, require steps that can be taken
to improve groundwater protection.
Section 4 summarizes the findings of the MEP studies for the estuaries potentially
affected by activities in Brewster.
Executive Summary
ES-5
MJ01109es.doc
Section 5 uses available data on the freshwater ponds in Brewster to determine and
prioritize ponds for protection or restoration actions.
Section 6 uses the assessments in Sections 3, 4 and 5 to help define the IWRMP.
Section 7 presents the combined recommendations from Phase 1 of the IWRMP.
Focus of Resource Protection
Brewster’s water resources include a groundwater aquifer, estuaries, ponds, and the
Cape Cod Bay shoreline. The high point of the groundwater aquifer is found in
southern Brewster along Route 6 and this water flows to rivers, estuaries and bays in
Brewster and the surrounding towns. Based on these groundwater flow paths, lands
in Brewster can be divided into watersheds (as shown in Figure ES-3) most of which
are shared with an adjacent community as listed below:
Bass River watershed -- Towns of Dennis and Yarmouth
Cape Cod Bay watershed
Herring River watershed -- Town of Harwich
Namskaket Creek watershed -- Town of Orleans
Pleasant Bay watershed - Towns of Orleans, Chatham and Harwich
Quivett Creek watershed– Town of Dennis
Stony Brook watershed
Groundwater
To evaluate the groundwater, all areas in Town were evaluated based on physical
characteristics of the subwatersheds, human’s activities in the subwatersheds, and
regulatory tools that can be used to protect the watersheds from man’s activities.
Areas that may need improved methods of groundwater protection were identified.
This need could result from areas of the subwatershed that have lands that are
sensitive to potential degradation or lands where current or future activities threaten
water quality.
If excess nutrients or potential contaminants migrate to the groundwater, they can
negatively impact the Town’s drinking water supplies and the local ponds and
estuaries. By regulating development in sensitive areas to reduce the use or release of
pollutants that can degrade the groundwater supply (such as nutrients, bacteria or
man-made chemicals), groundwater protection can be improved.
Executive SummaryES-6MJ01109es.doc
Executive Summary
ES-7
MJ01109es.doc
The Town was divided into 50 subwatersheds that were evaluated using a two-step
process. First, criteria were established to define risks to groundwater and a threshold
value was assigned for each criterion. Available GIS data was used to determine if the
threshold was exceeded. In the second step, the number of criteria that were exceeded
was totaled and subwatersheds with three or more risk factors were considered to be
at risk. For the groundwater analysis, 16 of the 50 subwatersheds were determined to
be at risk, as depicted in the Figure ES-4.
Estuaries
Nitrogen is the nutrient of significant concern for estuaries. Typical nitrogen sources
are atmospheric deposition (deposited in precipitation), septic system effluent,
stormwater runoff, fertilizers, animal waste,and point sources such as effluent from
wastewater treatment systems. All but atmospheric deposition are considered
controllable sources. Nitrogen acts as a fertilizer to aquatic plants and leads to
changes in water quality and buildup of invasive weed and algal growth that cause
fish kills, close beaches, destroy productive shellfish areas, and create aesthetically
displeasing waters.
Four estuaries affected by land activities in Brewster are included in the MEP: Bass
River, Herring River, Namskaket Marsh, and Pleasant Bay. Quivett Creek is not
currently planned for evaluation.
To date, two of the four MEP evaluations have been published – the final Namskaket
report was completed in December 2008 and the final Pleasant Bay report was
completed in May 2006. The Bass River MEP Report is currently in draft form, but is
not ready for public release. The Herring River MEP Report is expected to be
completed in spring 2011. Of the 50 subwatersheds in Brewster, 36 have been
included in MEP studies; they are shown in Figure ES-5. The other 14 subwatersheds
are not included in MEP studies. It is important to note that the Namskaket Creek
estuary (representing 3 subwatersheds) is currently considered to be a nitrogen sink
(can accept additional nitrogen) since the nitrogen load to this embayment is below its
expected carrying capacity. As a result the Town may consider this system a resource
in terms of effluent recharge for future wastewater management scenarios.
Freshwater Ponds
Brewster’s ponds are a valuable asset to the community and an important water
resource. They provide opportunities for active and passive recreation, define the
appearance of Brewster’s landscape, are important aquatic habitats for plants and
wildlife.
Available information was gathered in an effort to conduct a needs analysis for
Brewster’s 81 ponds as listed in the CapeCodPondandLakeAtlasprepared by the Cape
Cod Commission. The primary source of data for assessing pond health is the water
quality data collected by Brewster’s Pond and Lakes Stewards (PALS) program for
29 ponds. The available data includes dissolved oxygen (DO), nutrients (primarily
phosphorus and nitrogen), chlorophyll a, Secchi depth, and trophic status.
Executive SummaryES-8MJ01109es.doc
Executive SummaryES-9MJ01109es.doc
Executive Summary
ES-10
MJ01109es.doc
Since data was not available to assess all of the ponds, a threat analysis was used as a
supplement to identify ponds that have no water quality but have the potential to be
negatively impacted. These ponds should be prioritized for confirmatory water
quality monitoring.
A water quality-based assessment of pond health was developed using the available
data combined with the threat analysis. The criteria included comparisons to CCC
pond guidelines, MassDEP water quality standards and other general indicators of
pond health.
The evaluation of the available water quality data using the criteria discussed in
Section 5 resulted in Brewster’s ponds being placed in
one of the following categories.
Category 1 – High Quality Ponds
Category 2 – Ponds that Generally Meet Uses
Category 3 – Ponds with Some Water Quality
Impairment
Category 3A – Ponds with Impairment Potential
Category 4 – Ponds with Impaired Health
Category 4A – Ponds with Impaired Health with
other Factors
Category 5 – Ponds with No Water Quality Data
The categories of ponds from the pond health assessment and the pond threat
assessment were combined to establish a priority list to address future management
needs. Most future management needs focus on further evaluations or changing
activities to protect ponds with high quality habitat or restore ponds that have been
degraded. Brewster’s ponds are depicted, by category, in Figure ES-6.
Coastal Resources
Brewster’s coastal water resources are located on the north side of Town between the
Namskaket Creek and the Quivett Creek. Brewster has eight designated public
beaches on Cape Cod Bay, and shellfishing is permitted at designated areas at certain
times of the year.
In general, the Cape Cod Bay waters have high quality. However, there are occasional
exceedances of water quality standards for fecal coliform bacteria and Enterococcus at
the public beaches. These exceedances have resulted in a few beach closures. Because
of these occasional high bacteria levels, the MassDEP issued pathogen TMDLs for
Quivett Creek and Namskaket Creek. The source of the bacteria was not specifically
identified in the TMDL report, but could be related to birds and other animals or the
TableES-1Resultsof
Combined Pond Assessment
Category Number of
Ponds
15
22
35
3A 24
412
4A 5
528
Executive Summary
ES-11
MJ01109es.doc
increased stormwater from the significant growth that Brewster has had over the
years.
Needs Assessment
The evaluations of the individual needs for groundwater, estuaries and ponds were
combined into an overall needs assessment to help define the Integrated Water
Resources Management Plan needs.For the groundwater and estuaries
recommendations, the assessment focuses on wastewater needs whether an area can
remain with onsite septic systems or shows a need for an offsite or decentralized
solution, and areas that would benefit from enhanced stormwater management. For
freshwater ponds, the assessment focuses on whether a diagnostic study is needed to
determine actions to restore degraded ponds or a watershed assessment is required to
determine actions to protect high quality ponds.
For the coastal resources, the needs assessment discusses the need for additional
bacteria monitoring to identify sources that could contribute to exceedances of water
quality standards for swimming and shellfishing and implementation of BMPs to
remedy these sources. Finally, stormwater improvements are recommended for areas
covered by the MS4 permit, the Namskaket Creek and Quivett Creek watersheds, and
the 16 subwatersheds identified as having potential impacts to groundwater. The
combined needs assessment for groundwater, estuaries, freshwater ponds, coastal
resources and stormwater is shown, with initial recommendations on Table ES-2.
For the combined groundwater and estuaries analysis, Table ES-2 shows the
recommendations for each of Brewster’s 50 subwatersheds. The categories assigned to
each watershed are listed below.
Areas that can remain with on-site septic systems.
Areas that can remain with on-site septic systems, but are currently waiting for the
MEP results.
Areas where needs for on-site innovative and alternative solutions or off-site
wastewater solutions are tentatively identified.
Areas that show a need for improved threat management through increased
stormwater protection.
For the freshwater ponds assessment, the table shows if a diagnostic study or a
watershed assessment is recommended for a particular pond within a 5-year planning
timeframe.
For the coastal resources, the needs assessment discusses the need for additional
bacteria monitoring to identify sources that could contribute to exceedances of water
quality standards for swimming and shellfishing and implementation of BMPs to
remedy these sources.
Executive SummaryES-12MJ01109es.doc
Executive Summary
ES-13
MJ01109es.doc
Effective stormwater management is required in the developed areas throughout the
Town and all MS4 permit requirements must be met. In addition, priority should be
given to the Namskaket and Quivett watersheds (due to the pathogen TMDL) and the
16 subwatersheds identified as having potential impacts to groundwater. The results
of this study have given priority to the subwatersheds most at risk and therefore, give
the Town a guide of where to begin its enhanced stormwater management efforts. By
utilizing stormwater management structures that minimize pollution, eliminating
illicit discharges and maintaining all stormwater management procedures (such as
regular catch basin cleaning, street sweeping etc) in the most critical areas, the Town
will minimize impacts to groundwater from stormwater sources. For the stormwater
analysis, the 18 (16 identified as having potential impacts to groundwater plus two
additional watersheds due to a pathogen TMDL) sensitive subwatersheds prioritized
for stormwater management are shown in Figure ES-7, along with subwatersheds that
are either entirely or partially regulated as part of the MS4 permit.
Recommendations
The combined recommendations from Phase 1 of the Integrated Water Resources
Management Plan are presented in Table ES-3. Each recommendation was assigned a
reference to the regulatory compliance requirement for conducting the task, an
estimate of the relative cost (high = $$$$$, low=$), and an assessment of whether the
activity would be undertaken by the Town itself or would require an outside
consultant. The recommendations in Table ES-3 are grouped by location/resources
type with actions to be taken in one of the following timeframes:
1. Issue to be addressed immediately or on an ongoing basis.
2. Issue to be addressed in the next 2 to 4 years.
3. Issue to be addressed within the next 5 years.
4. Issue to be addressed beyond 5 years.
5. Regional recommendation.
Executive SummaryES-14MJ01109es.doc
Executive SummaryTable ES-2Combined Needs AssessmentES-15MJ01109es.docNo.Main WatershedWatershedIDCombined GW and Estuaries RecommendationPond Names (Cat.)PondsRecommendation *Coastal ResourcesRecommendationStormwaterRecommendation1Herring RiverHR1Can Remain With Onsite Systems / Pending MEP Results2Herring RiverHR2Can Remain With Onsite Systems / Pending MEP ResultsElbow (4A)Diagnostic Study3Herring RiverHR3Can Remain With Onsite Systems / Pending MEP ResultsLittlefields (3A)MS4 Area4Herring RiverHR4Can Remain With Onsite Systems / Pending MEP ResultsMS4 Area5Herring RiverHR5Can Remain With Onsite Systems / Pending MEP ResultsMS4 Area6Herring RiverHR6Can Remain With Onsite Systems / Pending MEP ResultsPriority Mgt.7Herring RiverHR7Can Remain With Onsite Systems / Pending MEP ResultsSeymour (4A)Diagnostic StudyMS4; Priority Mgt.8Herring RiverHR8Can Remain With Onsite Systems / Pending MEP ResultsGreenland(1), Smalls(3), Black (3), Girl Scout(4), Mill (4), Long (4A), BR-317(3A)MS4 Area9Herring RiverHR9Can Remain With Onsite Systems / Pending MEP ResultsSheep Pond (1)WatershedAssessmentMS4; Priority Mgt.10Namskaket CreekN1Can Remain With Onsite Sys. & Improve Stormwater ManagementBR-150(3A), BR-155(3A), BR-156(3A),Additional MonitoringMS4; Priority Mgt.11Namskaket CreekN2CanRemainWithOnsiteSystemsOwl Pond (4), BR-148(3A), Lees Pond (3A), Vespers Pond(3A),Additional MonitoringMS4; Priority Mgt.12Namskaket CreekN3CanRemainWithOnsiteSystemsFlax (3), BR-185(3A)13Cape Cod BayNP1Can Remain With Onsite Sys. & Improve Stormwater ManagementBR-172(3A), BR-186(3A), BR-187(3A), BR-188(3A), BR-211(3A), No Bottom Pond (3A)MS4; Priority Mgt.14Cape Cod BayNP2CanRemainWithOnsiteSystemsMyricks (4) Schoolhouse (4)MS4 Area15Cape Cod BayNP3CanRemainWithOnsiteSystemsCobbs (2)MS4 Area16Cape Cod BayNP4Can Remain With Onsite Sys. & Improve Stormwater ManagementBR-146(3A), BR-157(3A), BR-193(3a), Widger Hole (3A)MS4; Priority Mgt.17Cape Cod BayNP5CanRemainWithOnsiteSystemsSols (4), Blueberry(4A)MS4 Area18Pleasant Bay/ Namskaket CreekPB/N1Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively IdentifiedMS4 Area19Pleasant Bay/ Namskaket CreekPB/N2Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively IdentifiedCliff (4A)MS4 Area20Pleasant BayPB1Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively IdentifiedMS4 Area21Pleasant BayPB10Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified22Pleasant BayPB11Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively IdentifiedPriority Mgt.23Pleasant BayPB12Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively IdentifiedPriority Mgt.24Pleasant BayPB13Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively IdentifiedMS4 Area25Pleasant BayPB14Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively IdentifiedPriority Mgt.26Pleasant BayPB15Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively IdentifiedPriority Mgt.27Pleasant BayPB16Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively IdentifiedPriority Mgt.28Pleasant BayPB17Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively IdentifiedMS4 Area29Pleasant BayPB18Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively IdentifiedMS4 Area30Pleasant BayPB19Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively IdentifiedMud Pond (3A)31Pleasant BayPB2Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified32Pleasant BayPB20Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively IdentifiedGrassy Pond (3A)Priority Mgt.33Pleasant BayPB3Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified34Pleasant BayPB4Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively IdentifiedEel (2)35Pleasant BayPB5Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively IdentifiedHiggins (1)36Pleasant BayPB6Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively IdentifiedLittle Cliff Pond (1)37Pleasant BayPB7Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified38Pleasant BayPB8Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively IdentifiedCahoon Pond (3)MS4; Priority Mgt.39Pleasant BayPB9Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified40Quivett CreekQ1CanRemainWithOnsiteSystemsBR-273(3A), Round Pond (3A)Additional MonitoringMS4; Priority Mgt.41Stony Brook/Bass RiverSB/BR1Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively IdentifiedPine (4)Priority Mgt.42Stony Brook/Bass RiverSB/BR2Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified43Stony Brook/ QuivettSB/Q1CanRemainWithOnsiteSystemsCanoe (4)44Stony BrookSB1CanRemainWithOnsiteSystemsBR-250(3A)MS4 Area45Stony BrookSB2CanRemainWithOnsiteSystemsSmith (3)MS4; Priority Mgt.46Stony BrookSB3CanRemainWithOnsiteSystemsGriffiths (3)MS4 Area47Stony BrookSB4CanRemainWithOnsiteSystemsLower Mill (4)MS4 Area48Stony BrookSB5CanRemainWithOnsiteSystemsUpper Mill (4)Diagnostic StudyMS4 Area49Stony BrookSB6CanRemainWithOnsiteSystemsWalkers (4)Diagnostic StudyMS4 Area50Stony BrookSB7CanRemainWithOnsiteSystemsSlough (1)WatershedAssessmentPriority Mgt.*All pond recommendations are for a five year timeframe only. Additional pond specific analyses/actions will likely be needed.
Executive Summary
Table ES-3
Phase 1 IWRMP Recommendations Summary
ES-16
MJ01109es.doc
Immediate or On-going Actions
Type Task Regulatory
Compliance Cost Who Can implement
Town Wide
1 Begin discussions adjacent communities N/A $Town / Consultant
2 Implement town-wide stormwater improvement
programs
MS4 Permit $$$$Town / Consultant
3 Incorporate water use data into GIS N/A $$Town / Consultant
4 Map all stormwater facilities and outfalls MS4 Permit $$Town / Consultant
5 Update bylaws for illicit connections to storm drains MS4 Permit $Town
6 Resample private wells with high nitrate levels
DEP Drinking
Water and
Private Well
Guidelines
$Town
7
Augment Health Department well and septic system
information maintained in the Town’s Permitting
System
Board of
Health $$$Town / Consultant
8 Analyze non-conforming uses in zoning districts N/A $$Town / Consultant
9 Develop inventory of allowed and non-conforming
uses in industrial zone
N/A $$Town
10 Develop citizen’s education program on actions to
protect water resources
CWA
Freshwater
Ponds
$Town / Consultant
11 Conduct town-wide build out analysis N/A $$$Town / Consultant
12 Continue protection land within Zone II’s
DEP Drinking
Water $$$$Town
Pleasant Bay
13 Review MEP build out analysis MEP/TMDL $$ Town / Consultant
14 Determine nitrogen load that originates in Brewster MEP/TMDL $$ Town / Consultant
15
Refine areas that will need nitrogen reduction and
develop master planning document to meet TMDL
requirements
MEP/TMDL
$$$ Town / Consultant
16 Identify and evaluate nitrogen removal alternatives MEP/TMDL $$ Town / Consultant
17 Identify land that can be purchased to offset nitrogen MEP/TMDL $$ Town / Consultant
Herring River and Bass River
18 Monitor progress of Herring River and Bass River
MEP studies
MEP/TMDL $Town
Freshwater Ponds
19 Continue PALS monitoring data collection
CWA
Freshwater
Ponds
$Town
Executive Summary
Table ES-3 (Cont’d)
Phase 1 IWRMP Recommendations Summary
ES-17
MJ01109es.doc
Immediate or On-going Actions
Type Task Regulatory
Compliance Cost Who Can implement
20 Define and initiate data collection for diagnostic
studies for 5 ponds
CWA
Freshwater
Ponds
$$$ Town / Consultant
21 Initiate watershed evaluation for 2 high quality ponds
CWA
Freshwater
Ponds
$$ Town / Consultant
22
Evaluate undeveloped lands in 300-ft buffer around 2
high quality ponds for land purchase/conservation
easements
CWA
Freshwater
Ponds
$$ Town / Consultant
23 Monitor Mass DEP TMDL progress for Stony Brook TMDL $ Town / Consultant
24 Collect additional depth samples at deep ponds
CWA
Freshwater
Ponds
$Town
25 Analyze Long Pond data to determine effectiveness of
treatment
CWA
Freshwater
Ponds
$$ Town / Consultant
26 Foster stakeholder input on appropriate uses of ponds
CWA
Freshwater
Ponds
$ Town / Consultant
27 Discourage 300-foot setback variances for high
quality ponds and consider education document
CWA
Freshwater
Ponds
$Town
28 Inventory cranberry bog practices with growers
association for bogs with direct hydraulic connections
CWA
Freshwater
Ponds
$$ Town
29 Develop guidance for owners on private ponds
CWA
Freshwater
Ponds
$ Town / Consultant
Executive Summary
Table ES-3 (Cont’d)
Phase 1 IWRMP Recommendations Summary
ES-18
MJ01109es.doc
Addressed in Next 2-4 Years
Type Task Regulatory
Compliance Cost Who Can
implement?
Town Wide
1 Finalize illicit discharge detection elimination program MS4 Permit $$$Town / Consultant
2 Use BOH database on Title 5 to identify problems Title 5 ; BOH $$Town / Consultant
Pleasant Bay
3 Finalize recommended program to address nitrogen
removal and meet TMDL
MEP/TMDL $$$ Town / Consultant
Herring River and Bass River
4 Begin Studies/Discussions of Regional Solutions for
these watersheds
MEP/TMDL $$Town / Consultant
Freshwater Ponds
5 Complete data collection for diagnostic studies for
impaired ponds
CWA
Freshwater
Ponds
$$$ Town
6 Complete watershed threats for high quality ponds
CWA
Freshwater
Ponds
$$ Town / Consultant
7
Target funding mechanisms for to purchase or add
conservation restrictions to for Sheep and Slough
Ponds
N/A
$$$ Town / Consultant
8
Evaluate undeveloped lands in 300-ft buffer around
additional ponds to target land for purchase or
conservation easements
CWA
Freshwater
Ponds
$$ Town / Consultant
9 Divert or disconnect stormwater systems discharging
to ponds
CWA
Freshwater
Ponds
$$$$ Town
10 Expand PALS program to ponds in Category 3A
CWA
Freshwater
Ponds
$$ Town
11 Comprehensive round of water quality sampling
CWA
Freshwater
Ponds
$$$ Town
12 Complete inventory of cranberry bog practices for
other bogs
MS4 Permit ;
CWA
Freshwater
Ponds
$$ Town / Consultant
13 Inventory private ponds potentially affected by town
roads or other activities
CWA
Freshwater
Ponds
$$ Town / Consultant
Coastal Resources
14
Conduct monitoring program to identify sources of
bacteria in Quivett and Namskaket if no illicit
discharges found
MS4 Permit ;
TMDL $$Town
Executive Summary
Table ES-3 (Cont’d)
Phase 1 IWRMP Recommendations Summary
ES-19
MJ01109es.doc
Addressed within the Next 5 Years
Type Task Compliance Cost Who Can
implement?
Town Wide
1 Correct illicit discharges MS4 Permit $$$$Town
Pleasant Bay
2 Begin wastewater solution implementation MEP/TMDL $$$$$ Town / Consultant
Freshwater Ponds
3 Perform comprehensive review of PALS Data
CWA
Freshwater
Ponds
$$Town / Consultant
4 Implement action plans - Seymour Walkers,
Upper Mill and Elbow
CWA
Freshwater
Ponds
$$$$Town / Consultant
5 Continue to identify funding to protect lands
around Sheep, Slough, and Greenland Ponds
CWA
Freshwater
Ponds
$Town / Consultant
Coastal Resources
6 Develop plan to eliminate controllable bacteria
identified in IDDE
MS4 Permit $$$ Town / Consultant
7 Review pathogen data for Quivett and Namskaket to
see if can be removed for state impaired waters list
MS4 Permit ;
TMDL $$ Town / Consultant
Addressed Beyond 5 Years
Type Task Compliance Cost Who Can implement?
Town Wide
1 Assess monitoring data at public and private wells
DEP Drinking
Water and
Private Well
Guidelines;
BOH
$$Town
Pleasant Bay
2 Complete wastewater solution Implementation
MEP/TMDL $$$$$ Town / Consultant
3 Complete action plans to restore Seymour, Walkers,
Upper Mill and Elbow Ponds
CWA
Freshwater
Ponds
$$$$$ Town / Consultant
4 Continue to identify funding to protect lands around
Sheep, Slough, and Greenland Ponds
CWA
Freshwater
Ponds
$ Town / Consultant
5
Evaluate undeveloped lands in 300-foot buffer
around other sensitive ponds to target land for
purchase or conservation restriction
CWA
Freshwater
Ponds
$$ Town / Consultant
6 Divert or disconnect stormwater systems discharging
to ponds
CWA
Freshwater
Ponds
$$$$ Town
7 Conduct additional diagnostic studies as needed
based review of additional years of PALS data
CWA
Freshwater
Ponds
$$$$ Town / Consultant
Executive Summary
Table ES-3 (Cont’d)
Phase 1 IWRMP Recommendations Summary
ES-20
MJ01109es.doc
Regional Recommendations
Type Task Compliance Cost Who Can implement?
1 Contact adjacent towns to discuss regional options
N/A $$Town / Consultant
2 Investigate sharing wastewater treatment options for
adjacent towns
MEP/TMDL $$Town / Consultant
3 Investigate nitrogen trading for Namskaket Creek
MEP/TMDL $$Town / Consultant
4 Confirm alternative solutions will meet TMDL
requirements by running MEP model scenarios
MEP/TMDL $$Town / Consultant
5 Share information with other NGOs, and reach out to
other communities
N/A $$Town / Consultant
6 Begin exploring uniform regulations etc. among towns
with shared watersheds
N/A $$$Town / Consultant
1-1
MJ01109s1.doc
Section 1
Project Background
1.1 Introduction
The Town of Brewster is developing an Integrated Water Resources Management
Plan to protect its valuable water resources: a sole source aquifer, dozens of ponds,
and over 5 miles of coastline including sandy beaches and saltwater marshes. Today,
many of the town’s resources are being stressed by pollution -- some continue to have
high quality, others have been degraded, while others are at risk. The critical process
of integrated planning will establish a course for protecting and/or restoring these
valuable resources. A first step in an integrated plan is to use available information to
assess the current state of the groundwater, ponds, estuaries and the bay. Without a
better understanding of the current health and the continuing or future risks posed to
its water resources, the water quality and ecosystems of the water resources could be
degraded or further degraded. Actions for protecting or restoring the water resources
can then be defined and prioritized using regulatory drivers and the town’s goals,
which are established through input from the Comprehensive Water Planning
Committee (CWPC) and the public. This report summarizes the work of Phase 1 of
the integrated planning process and concludes with recommendations of immediate
and long-term actions.
The town’s water resources are linked by the groundwater of the Monomoy Lens
which is the sole source aquifer for Brewster. The highest point (a groundwater
mound) in the lens occurs in the southern portion of Brewster, and from here the
groundwater flows out radially towards the north and south coasts of the Cape and to
Pleasant Bay. The town recognizes that water resources in adjacent towns can be
impacted by the land activities in Brewster. Thus, the interrelationships between
actions in Brewster and the quality and health of water resources in the adjacent
Towns of Dennis, Harwich and Orleans are also considered in this plan. With a better
understanding of these resources and how to manage them, the town is confident that
these resources can be managed and restored to a state that benefits both the
environment and the people that use them.
The main focus of Phase 1 is to:
1. Evaluate the current water quality of Brewster’s groundwater, drinking water
supplies, fresh water ponds, and coastal/estuarine resources.
2. Evaluate existing and potential future impacts upon Brewster’s water resources.
3. Identify and evaluate wastewater and water management measures.
4. Prepare a list of priorities for immediate and long-term actions.
Section 1
Project Background
1-2
MJ01109s1.doc
1.2 Town of Brewster Overview
Brewster is a historic sea captains' town located on the bay side of Cape Cod
(www.town.brewster.ma.us). Brewster encompasses approximately 23 square miles,
has over 325 acres of beach and marshlands, and numerous freshwater ponds.
Figure 1-1 shows the town boundaries of Brewster with USGS topography.
Topographically, the town is covered by hilly terrain that reaches over 100 feet above
sea level. Geologically most of Brewster is underlain by glacial outwash deposits
while the north coast of town is comprised of lake deposits. Areas of Quivett Creek
and Namskaket Marsh are underlain by marsh deposits, and Namskaket has a small
area of beach/dune deposits (USGS, 2001).
Independently incorporated as a town in 1803, the activities of European settlers
began in the mid-1600s with Brewster’s first permanent settlement between Quivett
Creek and Stony Brook.
Early use of the land that affected water resources includes dams to power mills in the
Stony Brook watershed and periods of extensive agricultural production. By WWII,
the economic base switched to catering to summer visitors and small cottage homes
began to be constructed along the bayfront. Post-WWII, the town’s population
burgeoned from 827 people in 1940 to 9,500 people in 2000.
A large portion of Brewster between Freemans Way and Route 6 became protected as
Nickerson State Park in the 1930s. The park is 1990 acres (more than 10% of Brewster’s
area) and has trails for biking and hiking, camping areas, and includes freshwater
ponds for swimming, fishing and boating.
Brewster has utilized many tools to protect the town's historic character by
establishing bylaws and local codes and by continually purchasing significant acres of
land throughout the town for conservation. Currently, approximately one-quarter of
Brewster's land (3,636 acres) has been retained for conservation, open space,
recreation and watershed protection. Significant minimally developed land is also
found in three nationally acclaimed golf courses.
Of special note are the efforts the town has undertaken to protect land in the
contribution zones to the town’s water supply wells, resulting in high quality
drinking water.
Brewster contributes groundwater flow to several estuaries: Namskaket Creek,
Quivett Creek, Pleasant Bay, Herring River and Bass River. The watersheds for
Namskaket Creek and Quivett Creek are predominately located in Brewster. A large
portion of Pleasant Bay watershed is in Brewster, but only a few feet of Brewster
waterfront is on Pleasant Bay. The headwaters of the Herring River are located in the
southern end of town. The headwaters of Bass River are located in the southwest
corner of Brewster.
Section 1Project Background1-3MJ01109s1.docFigure 1-1Town of Brewster, Massachusetts
Section 1
Project Background
1-4
MJ01109s1.doc
Figure 1-2
Nitrate Concentrations in Brewster’s
Water Supply Wells
1.3 Brewster’s Water Resources
Brewster’s water resources include a groundwater aquifer, estuaries, ponds, and the
Cape Cod Bay shoreline.
Groundwater Aquifer
Groundwater that underlies Brewster is part of the Monomoy Lens, which is one of
six groundwater lenses that comprise Cape Cod’s sole source aquifer. The Monomoy
Lens extends from the Bass River on the west to Pleasant Bay on the east, and is
located under the Towns of Brewster, Chatham, Dennis, Harwich, Orleans and a
section of Yarmouth. The groundwater divide (the high point of the aquifer surface)
in the Monomoy Lens is located in southern Brewster; from this point groundwater
flows radially toward Harwich and Nantucket Sound via the Herring River on the
south, Chatham and Orleans and Pleasant Bay on the east, Cape Cod Bay and the
Quivett and Namskaket marshes on the north, and Dennis and Yarmouth on the west.
Brewster has four active municipal water supply wells located in the southern end of
town, near the groundwater divide that indicates the high point in the aquifer. In
2001, the municipal wells pumped an average of 1.3 million gallons per day (MGD) to
a winter population of 9,500 and approximately 25,000 summer residents and visitors.
In this area, the groundwater is of very high quality, as much of the land that
contributes to the wells is protected. The 2003 Source Water Assessment and
Protection (SWAP) Report for Brewster Water Department prepared by the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) determined that
the Zone IIs for Freeman’s Way wells #1, 2, and 3 have a high potential to become
contaminated due to land uses and activities within the recharge area. The town’s
recently enacted Natural Resource Protection Design bylaw provides further
protection for undeveloped lands in the town’s District of Critical Planning Concern
(DCPC) area.
The quality of the groundwater
contributing to the public water supply
wells is excellent. One measure of the
health of the groundwater aquifer for
drinking water supply is the nitrate
concentration. Figure 1-2 shows the nitrate
level in the town’s four wells over five
years from 2006 to 2010. These
concentrations are consistent, very low,
and much less than the Massachusetts
drinking water standard of 10 mg/l.
Maintaining or restoring high
groundwater quality is also important because the groundwater is a significant source
of water for the town’s ponds and estuaries. Threats to groundwater quality come
from man’s activities on land including discharge of wastewater through septic
Section 1
Project Background
1-5
MJ01109s1.doc
systems, pollutants added to stormwater runoff over developed land, excess fertilizer
application and animal wastes. These potential threats were investigated, using
criteria such as occurrence in a Zone II, zoning, impervious land cover, soil suitability,
protected open space, lot size, development density and depth to groundwater, and
the results are described in Section 3.
Estuaries/Embayments
Estuaries are bodies of water that occur where the sea extends inland and meets the
mouth of a river or a stream; they are important ecosystems that provide habitat for
shellfish and sea grass as well as breeding grounds for offshore marine fish.
Embayments occur where an indentation of shoreline creates a bay. Brewster has two
estuaries in its municipal boundaries – Namskaket Creek and Quivett Creek, along
with limited frontage on Pleasant Bay.
Lands in Brewster are watersheds to several estuaries or embayments, all of which are
shared with an adjacent community as listed below:
Namskaket Creek -- Town of Orleans
Quivett Creek – Town of Dennis
Pleasant Bay -- Towns of Orleans, Chatham and Harwich
Herring River -- Town of Harwich
Bass River -- Towns of Dennis and Yarmouth
Brewster also includes significant portions of the watersheds draining to Pleasant Bay
and the Herring River. Only a small portion of the Bass River watershed lies in
Brewster’s southwest corner.
The health of the Cape’s estuaries and embayments is being evaluated as part of the
Massachusetts Estuaries Project (MEP), which is a joint initiative of the Massachusetts
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA) through the
MassDEP and the University of Massachusetts School of Marine Science and
Technology (SMAST). The project has also involved collaboration with Coastal Zone
Management (CZM), the Cape Cod Commission (CCC), and numerous Massachusetts
coastal communities. The goal of the MEP is to evaluate the nitrogen sensitivity of 89
estuaries and embayments along the southeastern Massachusetts coast using
comprehensive water quality sampling and quantitative Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL) modeling. The TMDL is the amount of load (nutrient or other) that an
estuary or embayment can receive and still remain in a healthy state. The outcome
will be a determination of whether nitrogen reductions are needed to preserve or
restore long-term water quality (www.oceanscience.net).
Section 1
Project Background
1-6
MJ01109s1.doc
The MEP project has studied or is scheduled to study each of the Brewster estuaries
except Quivett Creek. To date, three of the four watershed evaluations have been
published – the Namskaket Marsh Estuarine System final report was completed in
2008 and the Pleasant Bay System final report was completed in May 2006. The Bass
River report was prereleased as a draft in November 2010 and should be available to
the public in 2011. The Herring River report is anticipated to be completed in early
2011.
The findings of the MEP studied estuaries impacted by Brewster’s watersheds are
presented in Section 4.0.
Ponds
The Cape Cod Commission’s Cape Cod Ponds and Lakes Atlas (2003) identifies
81 freshwater ponds in Brewster ranging in size from less than 0.1 acres to more than
730 acres. In addition to those defined in the atlas, several other very small ponds are
present in Brewster. The ponds are diverse in depth, pond type and water quality.
The ponds are valued for their aesthetics and their recreational opportunities by
boaters, fisherman and swimmers.
Section 5.0 includes an evaluation of the health and threats to water quality to
Brewster’s ponds. The primary source of data for assessing pond health is the water
quality data collected by Brewster’s Pond and Lake Stewards (PALS) program. The
PALS data collected between 2001 and 2007 for 29 ponds was analyzed in the report
Brewster Freshwater Ponds: Water Quality Status and Recommendations for Future
Activities (Eichner et al., 2009). The report included detailed estimates of the
phosphorus load to six ponds from disposal of wastewater through septic systems,
overland flow or discharge of stormwater runoff, animal waste (especially birds),
excessive use of fertilizer, and atmospheric deposition.
Cape Cod Bay Shoreline
Brewster enjoys over five miles of shoreline along Cape Cod Bay. The shoreline
includes the valuable saltwater marshes of Quivett Creek and Namskaket Creek as
well as a number of sandy beaches. Salt marshes are coastal wetlands that are rich in
marine life and are sometimes called tidal marshes. These tidal marshes occur in the
zone between the high and the low tides. Salt marshes are typically dominated by
stands of rushes, sedges and grasses. Salt marshes provide nursery areas for fish,
shellfish and crustaceans, and help to stabilize the shoreline from storm surges. They
also act as pollutant filters since they can absorb and trap some of the pollutant loads
entering estuaries. Lastly, salt marshes can help in slowing coastal erosion by
preventing sediments from washing offshore.
Brewster has eight designated public beaches on Cape Cod Bay and shellfishing is
permitted at designated areas during specific times of the year.
In general Cape Cod Bay waters have high quality. However, there are occasional
exceedances of MassDEP water quality standards for fecal coliform bacteria and
Section 1
Project Background
1-7
MJ01109s1.doc
Enterococci at the public beaches. These resulted in a few beach closures
(Massachusetts Department of Public Health data for 2006 indicate two closures at
Robbins Hill Beach near Quivett Creek and one closure at Crosby Landing near
Namskaket Marsh). Due to these occasional high bacteria levels, MassDEP issued a
pathogen TMDL for Quivett Creek and Namskaket Creek. The source of the pathogen
was not identified in the TMDL report but could be related to birds and other animals
or the increased stormwater from the significant growth that Brewster has
experienced through the years.
1.4 Characteristics of Brewster’s Watersheds
For the purposes of this study, the town was divided into 6 major watersheds and
50 subwatersheds. The six major watersheds are Cape Cod Bay, Herring River,
Namskaket Creek, Pleasant Bay, Quivett Creek, and Stony Brook; Brewster’s portion
of the Bass River watershed is small, and is included in Table 1-1 in the Stony Brook
watershed column. Figure 1-3, at the end of this section, shows the six major
watersheds and their locations within the town boundaries.
This section briefly describes each of the watersheds and includes a discussion of
some of the unique features and issues in each. The characteristics of the six major
watersheds are described using the ten criteria listed below. Table 1-1 provides the
values for each criterion for the entire town and the six major watersheds.
Land area
Number of ponds identified in the Cape Cod Ponds and Lake Atlas (note that some
ponds are counted twice when they are shared among watersheds)
Number of buildings >200 square feet
Area of open space as defined by the town which includes: town conservation
lands and parcels with a classification description of US Government, Municipality,
Division of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Environmental Management or
Brewster Conservation Trust
Area of poorly drained soils as defined in Brewster’s Wetlands Conservancy
District bylaw
Number of golf courses
Number of cranberry bogs as defined in the MassGIS (from MassDEP) wetlands
conservancy program shapefile
Industrial areas
Section 1Project Background1-8MJ01109s1.docFigure 1-3Major Watersheds in Brewster
Section 1Project Background1-9MJ01109s1.docTable 1-1Characteristics of the Six Major Watersheds in BrewsterWatershed IDTown ofBrewsterCape CodBayWatershedHerring RiverWatershedNamskaketWatershedPleasantBayWatershedQuivettWatershedStony Brookand Bass RiverWatershedsLand Area (acres) 14,501 4,679 1,611 1,508 2,905 1,177 2,620Number of Ponds 81 20 15 18 15 4 18Number of Buildings >200SF 8,640 4,294 850 686 715 623 1,341Open Space (acres) 3,636 528 289 602 1,091 298 827Poorly Drained Soils (acres) 1,518 551 97 230 16 254 370Number of Golf Courses 3 1 0 0 2 0 0Number of Cranberry Bogs 19 3 7 3 1 0 5Industrial Area (acres) 253 0 0 0 253 0 0Watershed Area where Depth toGW is < 5 feet (acres)1,645 471 127 330 96 269 351Undeveloped Land 468 60 59 89 155 49 56
Section 1
Project Background
1-10
MJ01109s1.doc
Area of the watershed with groundwater < 5 feet from the surface as calculated
using the digital elevation map for Brewster and the groundwater table from the
2003 average pumping scenario from the USGS’s Monomoy Lens model
Undeveloped land as categorized the Brewster assessor’s database.
The Town of Brewster
The town’s parcel database (circa 2000) has 8,640 buildings greater than 200 square
feet with an overall building density of 0.60 buildings per acre (total of 14,650 acres in
town according to Mass GIS). Open space acreage as defined herein is estimated at
3,636 acres, or about 25% of town. The town is covered by 1,518 acres of unsuitable
soils or 10% of the town as defined by Brewster’s soil classifications found in their
Wetlands Conservancy District bylaw and 1,645 acres (11% of the town) are estimated
to have depth to groundwater at less than 5 feet, indicating potential septic system
failures. The town has 19 cranberry bogs and three golf courses. There are 253 acres of
industrial areas as defined by the town’s zoning map.
Cape Cod Bay Watershed
The Cape Cod Bay watershed is located in the north-central portion of the town. This
watershed has 20 freshwater ponds and encompasses 4,679 acres of land area. The
watershed has 4,294 buildings greater than 200 square feet, and, with nearly one
building per acre, it is the most densely developed of all the major watersheds. Open
space is estimated at 528 acres. The watershed has 551 acres of unsuitable soils, and
471 acres of the watershed are estimated to have depth to groundwater at less than
5 feet, which is the largest such acreage among the major watersheds; the lands with
less than 5 feet to groundwater are primarily located near the areas surrounding
Lower Road and Ocean Edge Drive. The watershed has 4,294 buildings greater than
200 square feet, with a density of 0.91 buildings per acre. The watershed has three
cranberry bogs and is home to the Ocean Edge Resort & Golf Club. As this watershed
does not discharge to an estuary, it is not included in the MEP.
Herring River Watershed
The Herring River watershed is located on the south side of town and extends from
Sheep Pond on the north to Cahoon Pond on the east to just past Elbow Pond on the
west. This watershed has 15 freshwater ponds and encompasses 1,611 acres of land
area in Brewster. It includes Long Pond - the largest freshwater pond on Cape Cod
and a valuable recreational resource for the town. Long Pond drains to Seymour Pond
and ultimately to the Herring River in Harwich; these linked ponds provide essential
habitat for alewife and blueback herring,
The watershed has 850 buildings greater than 200 square feet with a density of
0.53 buildings per acre. Open space is estimated to be 289 acres. The watershed has
97 acres of unsuitable soils and 127 acres of the watershed are estimated to be less
than 5 feet to groundwater. Of the six major watersheds, the Herring River is the
second lowest percentage for both categories. Two of the town’s eastern groundwater
Section 1
Project Background
1-11
MJ01109s1.doc
wellfields are located in the western part of the Herring River watershed. The
watershed also has seven cranberry bogs.
The MEP study for the Herring River estuary is on going and expected to be issued in
early 2011.
Namskaket Creek Watershed
At 1,508 acres, the Namskaket Creek watershed is the smallest watershed and is
located in the northeast side of town adjacent to Orleans. This watershed has
18 freshwater ponds. The watershed has 686 buildings greater than 200 square feet
with a density of 0.45 buildings per acre. Open space is estimated at 602 acres, most of
which is either in Nickerson State Park or the Namskaket Creek. At 39% of the
watershed, this watershed has the highest percentage of open space.
The watershed has 230 acres of unsuitable soils, as defined by Brewster’s soil
classifications found in their Wetlands Conservancy District bylaw and 330 acres of
the watershed are estimated to be less than 5 feet to groundwater, indicating potential
for septic system failures; however much of the unsuitable soils are located in the
marshlands to the north. This watershed has three cranberry bogs.
The MEP study for the Namskaket Creek marsh system was issued in December 2008.
The results indicate the Namskaket Creek “is presently supportive of high quality salt
marsh habitat for animals that live in or on the sediments [the metric the MEP study
uses to judge the potential for adverse impactsfromnitrogen].Whilethereis
occasional summertime low oxygen levels in the creeks, the levels are consistent with
healthy New England salt marsh systems.At present, significant macroalgal
(seaweeds) accumulations do not occur within this estuary. These results indicate that
the Namskaket Creek has the ability to receive additional nitrogen without impairing
the overall habitat quality throughout the estuary.
Pleasant Bay Watershed
The Pleasant Bay watershed is the second largest of the six major watersheds and is
located in the southeast side of town adjacent to Orleans and Harwich. This
watershed has 15 freshwater ponds and encompasses 2,905 acres of land area. The
watershed has 715 buildings greater than 200 square feet, which is the lowest density
of buildings per acre (0.25) when compared to the other watersheds in Brewster.
Open space in the Pleasant Bay watershed is estimated at 1,091 acres, most of which is
located in Nickerson State Park. The watershed has 16 acres of unsuitable soils,
96 acres of the watershed are estimated to be less than 5 feet to groundwater,
indicating a low possibility of septic system issues here as this watershed has the
lowest percentage of poor soils and high groundwater. The watershed has one
cranberry bog. It contains a portion of the Cape Cod National Golf Course and all of
the 36-hole Municipal Captains Golf Course. There are also 253 acres of industrial
area as defined by the town’s zoning map, indicating a possible threat to the
groundwater. This area, however, is located in the Zone II/DCPC area of town where
Section 1
Project Background
1-12
MJ01109s1.doc
development is significantly restricted. Three grandfathered facilities in this area
include a stump dump and two sand pits. The town’s eastern groundwater wellfields
are located in the southern part of the Pleasant Bay watershed.
The MEP study for the Pleasant Bay system was issued in May 2005. The watershed
contributing nitrogen to the waters of the Pleasant Bay Estuary is distributed among
the Towns of Orleans, Harwich, Brewster and Chatham. The results indicate that the
Pleasant Bay embayment system is “at risk of eutrophication (over enrichment from
too many nutrients or fertilizers) in its upper reaches due to enhanced nitrogen loads
entering through groundwater and surface water from the increasingly developed
watersheds to this large estuarine system. Eutrophication is a process that occurs
naturally and gradually over a period of tens or hundreds of years. However, human-
related (anthropogenic) sources of nitrogen may be introduced into ecosystems at an
(undesirable and) accelerated rate that cannot be easily absorbed, resulting in a
phenomenon known as cultural eutrophication.” The results indicate that nitrogen
sources from septic tank effluent in this watershed will need to be reduced to meet the
threshold value.
Quivett Creek Watershed
The Quivett Creek watershed is located in the northwest side of town adjacent to
Dennis. This watershed has four freshwater ponds and encompasses 1,177 acres of
land area. The watershed has 623 buildings greater than 200 square feet with a density
of 0.52 buildings per acre. It has an estimated open space acreage of 298 acres. The
watershed has 254 acres of unsuitable soils and 243 acres of the watershed are
estimated to be less than 5 feet to groundwater, mostly located along the Quivett
Creek. This watershed has the highest amount of poorly drained soils and high
groundwater of all the major watersheds. However, similar to the Namskaket Creek
watershed, the poor soils and high groundwater in the Quivett Creek watershed are
located primarily in the marshlands to the north. The watershed has no cranberry
bogs or golf courses. The MEP program has no current plans to study the Quivett
Creek watershed.
Stony Brook Watershed
The Stony Brook watershed is located in the west side of town adjacent to Dennis and
north and east to the Cape Cod Bay. This watershed has 18 freshwater ponds and
encompasses 2,620 acres of land area. All of the larger ponds (Walkers, Upper Mill
and Lower Mill) are linked by streams which provide for discharge of pollutants via
surface water in addition to groundwater. This linked pond system also receives
inputs from other ponds (Canoe and Slough)when their water levels are high, and is
reported to receive water from Elbow Pond through a pipe discharge.
The watershed has 1,341 buildings greater than 200 square feet with a density of
0.51 buildings per acre. Open space is estimated to be 827 acres. The watershed has
370 acres of unsuitable soils and 351 acres of the watershed are estimated to be less
Section 1
Project Background
1-13
MJ01109s1.doc
than 5 feet to groundwater. The watershed has five cranberry bogs and no golf
courses.
As part of the town’s efforts to preserve open space, the cranberry bog adjacent to
Pine Pond was recently acquired by the town and was subsequently inactivated. Part
of the town’s western groundwater wellfield is located in the southern part of the
Stony Brook watershed. The Stony Brook watershed does not discharge to an
embayment and is not included in the MEP program.
1.5 Individual Subwatersheds (50 Study Areas)
To facilitate water resource management decisions throughout the town, it was
important to further divide the major watersheds (described above) into smaller and
more manageable subwatersheds.
The town was divided into 50 subwatershed study areas using a combination of
watersheds defined by the Cape Cod Commission (CCC) and the MEP. The
watersheds represent the contributing area of land through which recharge reaches
the groundwater using the USGS model of the Monomoy Lens for 2003 average
pumping conditions. Thus they are “groundwatersheds,” which differ from the
typical watersheds which are drawn using surface topography to represent the flow
of water on the land’s surface. Subwatersheds were drawn to represent areas
contributing to water supply wells, major ponds, and arms of estuaries. In areas
where CCC and MEP did not define watersheds, CDM used the water table contours
from the USGS model of the Monomoy Lens to guide delineation of additional
subwatersheds for this analysis. This was done, for instance, to define the likely
groundwater area that discharges to Stony Brook. Figure 1-4, at the end of this section,
shows the 50 subwatersheds.
1.6 Protection of Water Resources / Drivers
A number of regulations, standards and laws are in place that guide the management
of Brewster’s resources.
Federal Standards
The objective of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly referred to as the
Clean Water Act (CWA), is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and
biological integrity of the nation's waters by preventing point and nonpoint pollution
sources, providing assistance to publicly owned treatment works for the
improvement of wastewater treatment, and maintaining the integrity of wetlands
(www.epa.gov). The CWA provides standards for the quality of the nation’s waters.
PleasantBayCape CodBayStony
B
r
o
o
k
Quivett CreekNamskaket CreekORLEANSORLEANSBREWSTERBREWSTERDENNISDENNISHARWICHHARWICHCHATHAMCHATHAM1371371371371246A6A396A2828PB15PB14PB10PB12PB11PB13PB5PB6PB3PB7PB2PB1PB8HR3HR1HR2HR6NP3HR4HR7HR8HR9PB/N2PB/N1NP4NP1SB1PB9PB4SB/BR2SB/Q1N3N2N1Q1SB5SB4SB6SB2NP2SB3HR5NP5SB/BR1SB7PB19PB20PB18PB17PB1660 0.25 0.5 0.75 1MilesSubwatersheds in BrewsterCape Cod BayCanoe Pond, Shared Quivett/Stony BrookStony BrookHerring RiverNamskaket CreekPleasant BayShared with Bass RiverQuivett CreekShared Pleasant Bay/NamskaketMEP/CCC Defined SubwatershedsFigure 1-4
Section 1
Project Background
1-15
MJ01109s1.doc
State Standards
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection has developed water
quality standards that must be at least as stringent as the federal standards. The state
can develop standards that are more stringent than the federal standards, but in the
absence of state standards, the federal standards govern. The MassDEP has developed
regulations for drinking water, groundwater, stormwater, Title 5/on-site septic
systems, water management, waterways and wetlands to name a few.
Protection of Water
Water Quality Standards
Water quality standards are the foundation of the water quality-based pollution
control program mandated by the CWA. Water quality standards define the goals for
a waterbody by designating its uses, setting criteria to protect those uses, and
establishing provisions to protect waterbodies from pollutants.
Every two years the MassDEP assesses the quality of the surface and ground waters
of the Commonwealth to determine their capacity to support designated uses as
defined by the state’s water quality standards. The uses include aquatic life support,
shellfish and fish consumption, primary (swimming) and secondary (boating) contact
recreation and drinking water supply. Where possible, causes or sources of
impairment of these uses are also identified. For impaired waters, the state must
prepare a total maximum daily load (TMDL) assessment that defines how much the
existing load of pollutants cause an impairment, how much pollutant can be
discharged to a water body without causing an impairment (the TMDL), and can
define actions needed to restore the waterbody. Figure 1-5 shows the results of the
FY10 waterbody assessment for Brewster’s waters. Both Namskaket Creek and
Quivett Creek have been determined to be impaired from bacteria on swimming
beaches and a published TMDL has been prepared and finalized. Sheep Pond and
Baker Pond (which is mostly in Orleans) were identified as impaired for mercury in
fish and TMDLs were prepared and finalized. Sheep Pond, Long Pond, and the ponds
in the Stony Brook complex (Walkers, Upper Mill and Lower Mill) have been
identified as impaired generally due to the consequences of too many nutrients being
discharged to them (Section 5 provides details on the impairments); TMDLs have not
been prepared to address this source of impairment. Finally, Pleasant Bay has been
identified as impaired due to excess nutrients and a TMDL for nitrogen was prepared
and finalized.
Dennis
Brewster
Harwich
Eastham
Orleans
Chatham
Mill PondMill Pond
GooseGoose
PondPond
HerringHerring
RiverRiver
LittleLittle
Cliff PondCliff Pond
HigginsHiggins
PondPond
FlaxFlax
PondPond
BakersBakers
PondPond
Crystal LakeCrystal Lake
EastEast
ReservoirReservoir
GrassGrass
PondPond
FlaxFlax
PondPond
PaddocksPaddocks
PondPond
TaylorsTaylors
PondPond SulphurSulphur
SpringsSprings
JosephsJosephs
PondPond
Aunt EdiesAunt Edies
PondPond CorneliusCornelius
PondPond
BucksBucks
PondPond
CobbsCobbs
PondPond
Seymour PondSeymour Pond
Grifiths PondGrifiths Pond
HinckleysHinckleys
PondPond
LongLong
PondPond
SheepSheep
PondPond
BlueberryBlueberry
PondPond
GreenlandGreenland
PondPond
WalkersWalkers
PondPond
Smalls PondSmalls Pond
BlackBlack
PondPond
Hawksnest PondHawksnest Pond
CliffCliff
PondPond
CahoonCahoon
PondPond
Olivers PondOlivers Pond
GrassyGrassy
PondPond
MudMud
PondPond
RafeRafe
PondPond
RoundRound
CoveCove
MuddyMuddy
CreekCreek
PleasentPleasent
BayBay
EagleEagle
PondPond
Swan PondSwan Pond
WestWest
ReservoirReservoir
RobbinsRobbins
PondPond
Sand PondSand Pond
SesuitSesuit
HarborHarbor
Cedar PondCedar Pond
AuntAunt
PattysPattys
PondPond
Quivett CreekQuivett Creek
PinePine
PondPond
SloughSlough
PondPond
WalkersWalkers
PondPond
Upper Mill PondUpper Mill Pond
ElbowElbow
PondPond
CanoeCanoe
PondPond
LowerLower
MillMill
PondPond
SmithsSmiths
PondPond
Cape Cod BayCape Cod Bay
137
6A
124
39
39
134
28koorB ynotSkoorBynotSQuivett CreekQuivett CreekHerring RiverHerring RiverMA96183_2008
Long Pond (5)
MA96331_2008
Walkers Pond (5)
MA96324_2008
Upper Mill Pond (5)
MA96008_2008
Baker Pond (4a) (TMDL)
MA96039_2008
Cliff Pond (3)
MA96289_2008
Sheep Pond (5) (TMDL)
MA96188_2008
Lower Mill Pond (5)
MA96-27_2008
Namskaket Creek (5)
MA96-09_2008
Quivett Creek (5)
MA96-09_2008
Quivett Creek (5)
6
6
Figure 1-5. Waterbody Assessment, TMDL Status and MS4 Regulated Lands in Brewster, MA
00.5
Miles
Map produced by EPA Region I GIS Center. Map Tracker ID 6678, February 25, 2010. Data Sources: TeleAtlas, Census Bureau, USGS, MassDEP
Waterbodies
MS4 Urbanized Areas (2000 Census)
Municipal Boundaries
Swamp/MarshState ID,
Waterbody Name (Category)
(TMDL(s) approved for this waterbody)
Waterbody Label Assessment of Waterbody Segment
Category 2: Attaining some uses; other uses
not assessed
Category 3: Insufficient information to make
assessments for any use.
Category 4a: TMDL is completed and approved for
one or more pollutants
Category 4c: Impairment not caused by a pollutant.
Category 5: Impaired or threatened for one or more
uses and requiring a TMDL.
Adapted from EPA 305(b)/303(d) Map for community-specific geographic extent of permit coverage and
surface water quality status (http://www.epa.gov/region1/npdes/stormwater/ma/305b303dMaps/Brewster_MA.pdf)
Lands Not Regulated by MS4
Section 1
Project Background
1-17
MJ01109s1.doc
Drinking Water and Zone II
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), EPA sets legal limits on the levels of
certain contaminants in drinking water. The legal limits reflect both the level that
protects human health and the level that water systems can achieve using the best
available technology (www.epa.gov). The drinking water quality in Brewster is
excellent and the town is proud of this fact. In general the town has worked hard to
protect the lands contributing flow to the groundwater pumped by its four water
supply wells (with an additional two planned). By protecting large amounts of land in
the Zone II areas, the town is working to maintain this resource. Sampling data for the
town’s water supply indicates that the source of drinking water is well protected
(Figure 1-2). As recently as 1998, the Water Department received a Best Overall
Community System and a Source Water Protection Award for its groundwater source.
DCPC
The District of Critical Planning Concern (DCPC) is a planning tool that enables the
community to identify areas where one or more resources are in need of greater
protections. It places a temporary moratorium on development and subdivision of
land, giving the community more time to adopt more effective bylaws, regulations
and policies. The Brewster DCPC was created in 2008 and the moratorium was lifted
in 2009. Regulations governing uses in this area were adopted in 2008 and 2009.
Protection of Natural Resources
Title 5 Regulations
Title 5 requires the proper siting, construction, and maintenance of all on-site
wastewater disposal systems. On-site systems that are not properly located and
maintained can contribute pathogens and nutrients to surface and groundwaters.
Stormwater
The stormwater program for National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Phase II Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) is designed to
reduce the amount of sediment and pollution that enters surface and groundwater
from storm sewer systems to the maximum extent practicable. Compliance with these
regulations complements Brewster’s goal of protecting their natural resources. The
town has a current MS4 permit which specifies particular actions (e.g.,citizen
education, illicit discharge monitoring) on regulated lands, which are those defined as
“urbanized” areas by the 2000 U.S. Census. The regulated lands are shown in
Figure 1- 5 as green fill. These generally cover the northern and central sections of
town.
The breakdown of actions for a stormwater management can vary from town to town,
but in general, a stormwater management program should include the following:
Detailed mapping of stormwater facilities and outfalls
Stormwater system illicit discharge detection and elimination program
Section 1
Project Background
1-18
MJ01109s1.doc
Update of town bylaws to prohibit illicit connections to storm drains and to ensure
proper stormwater management during and after construction activities
Public outreach program
Good housekeeping practices for municipal operations
Implementation of best management practices to meet approved TMDL waste load
allocations
Brewster Bylaws
Brewster has several bylaws that are designed to protect the natural resources in town
while directing the development so that it does not conflict with the town’s vision for
maintaining its rural character as a historic Cape Cod community. The bylaws in
Brewster that are specifically aimed toward resource protection include the Natural
Resource Protection Design, the Sand and Gravel Bylaw and the Water Quality
Protection Bylaw. The Old Kings Highway Historic District Commission also limits
development in the historic district.
Protection of Habitat
Estuaries/Salt Marshes
By working with the MEP, the Town of Brewster will help to ensure that the salt
marshes in Brewster will be protected. Currently the MEP is evaluating the nitrogen
sensitivity of Brewster’s major estuaries along the southeastern Massachusetts coast to
determine where nitrogen reductions are needed to preserve or restore long-term
water quality. After the MEP results are published, they will be used by MassDEP to
establish TMDLs for nitrogen; in general, these TMDLs establish the amount of
nitrogen from wastewater that needs to be reduced. MEP studies have been
completed for two coastal embayments that partially lie within Brewster - Namskaket
Creek and Pleasant Bay.
Ponds and Essential Pond Habitat
Long Pond was, and continues to be, a focus of study in the Towns of Brewster and
Harwich. In past years, Long Pond has been extensively studied as a result of
unwanted algae blooms and degrading water quality. In the fall of 2007, the pond was
treated with alum to control phosphorous and to reduce algae blooms. The town is
also engaged in studying its other ponds to determine the overall health and maintain
and restore the water quality, as needed. Currently the town is working with the local
Ponds and Lake Stewards (PALS) to sample many of Brewster’s ponds to determine
their water quality.
Alewife and Herring
River herring is a term used to collectively refer to alewife and the blueback herring.
River herring are important to freshwater, marine and estuarine ecosystems. Adult
herring and their young provide food for a variety of predators, including freshwater
gamefish, marine gamefish, osprey, bald eagle, seals, porpoise, heron, kingfishers,
Section 1
Project Background
1-19
MJ01109s1.doc
and river otters. Both Stony Brook and the Herring River (whose headwaters are in
Brewster) are designated as essential habitat by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries
Commission. Brewster is working to protect this resource as an indicator of the health
of the local environment.
Protection of Recreation
Fishing
Bay fishing in Brewster waters includes striped bass, bluefish, tautog and flounder,
and, in the winter, cod. The bay beaches offer some great fishing for striped bass at
high tide. The fresh water ponds also have a diversity of fish and are regularly fished
by locals and visitors alike. The Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH)
has reviewed fish toxics data generated by the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection for Sheep Pond and Bakers Pond. In Sheep Pond, the
general public is advised to limit consumption of all fish from this water body to two
meals per month. In Bakers Pond, the general public should limit consumption of
yellow perch to two meals per month. MDPH has also issued statewide fish
consumption advisories for pregnant women and children due to fish contaminated
with mercury. This advisory, however, does not apply to fish stocked in freshwater
lakes and ponds because stocked fish are typically found to have relatively lower
levels of mercury; the quote below is from the MassDEP website:
http://www.mass.gov/dep/toxics/stypes/hgch4.htm)“Because of the popularity of
"put-and-take" recreational fishing it is important to note that freshwater fish which are part
of the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife fish stocking program do not contain
elevated amounts of mercury when stocked. Hatchery-raised fish grow fast as a result of a
controlled, nutritious, pelletized diet and generally do not survive for long periods after
stocking. This is especially true for most stocked trout. The rapid growth induced by a hatchery
diet is reported to decrease fish longevity; most hatchery fish are also caught readily following
stocking and are generally less able to compete with wild fish”
Swimming and Beach Closures
At least 11 ponds in Brewster support swimming. Brewster beaches located on Cape
Cod Bay are known for their warm calm waters and miles of sandy flats at low tide.
Eight swimming beaches in Brewster are regularly tested for pathogens. More than 20
beach closings in Brewster were reported between 2003 and 2009 at six of the eight
beaches that are regularly tested.
Regional Drivers
Cape Cod Commission (CCC)
The CCC was established as a regional planning and regulatory agency to prepare
and implement a regional land use policy plan, the Cape Cod Regional Policy Plan, to
review and regulate Developments of Regional Impact, and to recommend
designations of certain areas as Districts of Critical Planning Concern (DCPC).
Section 1
Project Background
1-20
MJ01109s1.doc
Community Goals
The Town of Brewster is committed to town-wide sustainability and managed growth
while continuing economic viability throughout the town.
2-1
MJ01109s2.doc
Section 2
Existing Data
2.1 Introduction
The first step of the Integrated Water Resource Management Plan (IWRMP) is to
review the pertinent existing data in town. This review is intended to define the
existing conditions, and to identify existing sources of data including reports, GIS
data, boring logs, stream data, wastewater and stormwater data and any other
engineering/environmental information that will aid the IWRMP in moving forward
with this planning process.
To start the process, CDM met with various department heads in the town to establish
a point of contact to discuss the scope of the project and to determine what type of
existing data is available for use in the IWRMP.
CDM also met with the Cape Cod Commission to discuss the delineations of the
watersheds in Brewster, availability of data for the water resources, and use of the
Commission’s guidelines for water quality in ponds. CDM met with the Compact of
Cape Cod Conservation Trusts to obtain available data and understand the Compact’s
goals for protecting land in Brewster.
This section summarizes the data gathered and lists the existing published reports
obtained. Relevant information was discussed with different department heads in
townandtheysummarizedthetypesofoutreach activities that the town has already
performed with the public. The information gathered will be the basis for future tasks
and will help define the direction of the IWRMP.
As part of this task, CDM met with the following department heads:
1. Planning Department
2. Health Department
3. Conservation Department
4. Assessors Department
5. Natural Resources Department
6. Water Department
7. Department of Public Works
8. Recreation Department
Section 2
Existing Data
2-2
MJ01109s2.doc
2.2 Brewster Facilities Plans/Studies
Three wastewater facilities plans were conducted for the Town of Brewster in 1970,
1988 and 1997. These plans were provided to CDM at the beginning of the project. In
addition, the recently completed Brewster Freshwater Ponds: Water Quality Status
and Recommendations for Future Activities was provided to CDM; it is a significant
document for assessing the water quality of 29 ponds throughout the town for which
data are available. The recommendations found in these reports are summarized
below:
1970 Master Plan -Prepared by Metcalf and Eddy, the 1970 Master Plan suggested
continued wastewater management via onsite septic systems.
1988 Wastewater Facilities Plan -Conducted with a grant from the Massachusetts
Division of Water Pollution Control (DWPC), the April 1988 wastewater facilities
plan studied the nature and extent of wastewater disposal problems and made the
following recommendations:
- Continue use of on-site disposal systems for the entire town.
- Design or rehabilitation of all on-site systems to conform to current Title 5
regulations (Massachusetts’ regulation on subsurface disposal).
- Implementation of a Title 5 management program with a focus on septic system
upgrades, regulation enforcement, and water conservation.
- Continue participation in the Orleans, Massachusetts regional septage facility.
1997 Draft Local Comprehensive Plan -The town drafted a Local Comprehensive
Plan (LCP) under the local comprehensive planning committee. Thomas Planning
Consultants of Boston provided assistance in the preparation of the first draft. The
LCP provides the framework for local decision-making, suggesting numerous goals
for environmental protection and human health and services. Recommendations
relating to local water bodies, estuaries and wastewater issues included:
- Continue the present on-going environmental monitoring program by the
Department of Natural Resources to determine point and non-point
contamination and take appropriate actions.
- Evaluate watersheds and assess water quality for all inland waterbodies using
the Sheep Pond Clean Lakes Diagnostic/Feasibility Study as a model for
developing management strategies.
- Maintain a commercial base to serve the residents of Brewster.
- Investigate establishing pond protection districts for individual pond
recharge/watershed areas.
Section 2
Existing Data
2-3
MJ01109s2.doc
- Encourage joint management and water quality enhancement programs for
ponds which are shared with adjacent towns (Long Pond, Seymour Pond, Bakers
Pond, and Pine Pond).
- Discourage use of phosphorous fertilizers in pond recharge areas.
- Prohibit direct stormwater discharges to receiving water bodies and specify
minimum vegetated buffer strips (50 feet) to protect resource areas.
- Use Best Management Practices (BMP) to mitigate stormwater discharges.
- Maintain a substantial portion of open space, conserving the particular natural
landscape features of Cape Cod.
- Incorporate appropriate regional nitrate-nitrogen loading standards in new and
re-development areas in the coastal zone.
- Pursue plans to increase tidal exchange to Freemans Pond.
2009 Brewster Freshwater Ponds: Water Quality Status and Recommendations for
Future Activities Report -The Brewster Freshwater Ponds report (Eichner et al.,
2009) summarizes up to seven years of water quality data available for 29 ponds in
Brewster. In addition, the report included a more detailed evaluation of some
sources of phosphorus load and existing water quality of six ponds: Blueberry,
Seymour, Canoe, Walkers, Upper Mill and Lower Mill. The detailed review
indicated that Seymour, Canoe and Blueberry ponds are all impaired, based on the
state dissolved oxygen regulatory limits. Upper Mill Pond is borderline impaired,
and the Walkers Pond and Lower Mill Pond are not impaired under the state
regulatory limits. However, all six are impaired based on phosphorous and
chlorophyll a as compared to Cape Cod Commission guidelines on pond health.
This document includes numerous goals for monitoring and characterization of
these six ponds, as well as others in Brewster. Specifically, the report recommends
that the town:
- Submit the results from the detailed review of the six ponds to the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) for consideration and listing
on the 2010 Integrated List. Waters suggested as impaired and added to this list
are required to have TMDLs.
- Consider beginning the process of collecting the needed information required to
appropriately characterize the conditions in the six ponds.
- Consider continuing the citizen monitoring program for the ponds.
Section 2
Existing Data
2-4
MJ01109s2.doc
2.2.1 Significance of this Data
The above reports are significant for the IWRMP as they show the progression of
planning in the town throughout the years.These few reports illustrate that the level
of understanding of environmental threats and problems has significantly increased.
While the 1970 facilities plan was likely appropriate for the time it was created, the
population of Brewster was very different and nitrogen sensitivity in estuaries was
not the issue that it is today. Similarly, the 1988 facilities plan suggestion to continue
maintenance of Title 5 systems was appropriate for the time. The 1997 Draft LCP,
however, begins to look at other issues that may affect the resources in Brewster. The
report discusses point and non-point sources of pollution, the water quality of ponds
and estuaries, mentions nitrogen and phosphorous, and includes a section on best
management practices.
It is important to understand these reports and recommendations, and bring forward
those recommendations that are still appropriate in the current regulatory
environment.
2.3 Individual Meetings
CDM set up individual meetings with the heads of various departments in Brewster
to discuss the specific responsibilities of each department, and obtain known
published reports or studies that may affect the outcome of an IWRMP with a focus
on studies and environmental reports that include stream data, pond data, septic
system information, water supply information and any other data related to land use
or natural resource management. As a result of the meetings with the various
departments in Brewster, a number of other reports and various data were also
reviewed in addition to the four reports/facilities plans mentioned above.
2.3.1 Planning Department
On January 29th, 2010, Rob Musci and Marina Pereira met with Sue Leven, town
Planner. Ms. Leven discussed the Natural Resource Protection Design (NRPD) bylaw.
This bylaw results in the protection of water resources and the preservation of
contiguous open space and important environmental resources, while allowing
design flexibility within the town’s Zone II and the Pleasant Bay watershed.
The Planning Department made the following reports available to CDM:
1. Town of Brewster - MA, 1997.DRAFT Comprehensive Plan – electronic copy.
2. Town of Brewster - MA, 2009.Zoning Bylaw / Natural Resource Protection Design.
3. Cambareri, T. and E. M. Eichner, 1992.Hydrogeologic and Hydrochemical Assessment
of the Brewster Landfill.
Section 2
Existing Data
2-5
MJ01109s2.doc
4. Cape Cod Commission Water Resources Office, 1999.Long Pond Water Quality
Assessment.
5. Cape Cod Commission Water Resources Office, 1990.Harwich/Brewster Wellhead
Protection Project.
6. Dunford, F. J. Independent Archaeological Consultant, 1985.Archaelogical
Reconnaissance Survey of Pleasant Bay, Massachusetts.
7. Four towns Committee, 1986.Pleasant Bay Area of Critical Environmental Concern
Nomination Report.
8. IEP, Inc. 1987.Groundwater Recharge Area Determination for School House Pond,
Brewster, Massachusetts.
9. The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 2003.Quivett Creek Salt Marsh Restoration Project –
Dennis & Brewster, Massachusetts.
10. SEA Consultants, Inc., 1997.Consodine Ditch Preliminary Drainage Evaluation –
Brewster, Massachusetts.
Significant Planning Department Reports
The town’s bylaws and the Long Pond water quality assessment were the most
significant reports provided by the Brewster Planning Department. The natural
resource protection design bylaw indicates that Brewster is committed to open space,
not only by their acquisition of land but by their desire to develop the land, in a way
that maximizes the protection of the natural resources in town. The restoration of
Long Pond is a priority for Brewster. This pond is very large and is a recreational and
aesthetic resource for many of the town’s residents. The Long Pond water quality
assessment is a significant report that led to the alum treatment in Long Pond in 2007.
2.3.2 Health Department
On January 29th, 2010, Rob Musci and Marina Pereira met with Board of Health
member, Joanne Hughes and health director, Nancy Ice.
In the meeting, Ms. Hughes suggested that CDM contact David Bennett regarding
information on past cleanup of spills in Zone II aquifer protection areas due to mining
activities in town. The contaminants that entered the groundwater resulted in an
Administrative Consent Order (ACO).
Ms. Hughes also mentioned that the Ocean Edge Golf Course will have some reports
from MassDEP on file that may be helpful to the IWRMP. CDM contacted Steve
Mann, the golf superintendent who explained the golf course stores fertilizers in an
enclosed shed. Mr. Mann explained that storage of chemicals is kept to only a
seasonal supply so that the potential for accidental releases is minimized.
Section 2
Existing Data
2-6
MJ01109s2.doc
The board of health made the following reports available to CDM:
1. Cape Cod Commission Water Resources Office, 2003.Cape Cod Pond and Lake
Atlas.
2. Cape Cod Commission Water Resources Office, 1993.Monomy Lens Groundwater
Protection Project.
3. Groundwater Discharge Permit, July 2009. Nickerson State Park
4. The Nitrogen Loading Calculation Module - this is available online from the Cape
Cod Commission.
Significant Board of Health Reports
The Monomy Lens Groundwater Protection Project examined local groundwater
protection regulations and implementation and made recommendations for
groundwater protection at local and regional levels. The first recommendation
focused on the use of water protection districts and land use protections, a practice
Brewster has implemented.
The Cape Cod Pond and Lake Atlas was an invaluable resource that was used in the
preliminary assessment of the ponds in this report. Other Board of Health information
on individual septic systems in town is kept in the office and filed by individual lot.
Limited electronic data is available.
2.3.3 Conservation Department
On January 29th, 2010, Rob Musci and Marina Pereira met with Jim Gallagher, the
Brewster Conservation Administrator. The Commission’s main task is to oversee land
conservation, mostly in areas within 100 feet of wetlands. Mr. Gallagher downloaded
the town’s GIS system to CDM for use on future tasks. Mr. Gallagher also mentioned
that we may be able to obtain a ponds watershed map from the Cape Cod
Commission from the Internet.
The town’s limited GIS system has a number of layers that will be useful to this
planning process. Subsequent discussion with the town IT coordinator, Kathy
Lambert, revealed that the GIS’s most valuable layers of information to the IWRMP
include:
1. Zoning;
2. Assessors parcels;
3. Wind energy turbine overlay district;
4. District of Critical Planning Concern;
5. Old Kings Highway Historic District; and
6. Aerial photography.
Section 2
Existing Data
2-7
MJ01109s2.doc
Significant Conservation Commission Data
The GIS data provided by the Conservation Commission was a valuable tool
provided by the town. This data, coupled with data downloaded from Mass GIS and
the Cape Cod Commission (CCC), was used to build a powerful database to analyze
the land use data and create figures utilized in this study.
2.3.4 Assessor’s Department
On January 29th, 2010, Rob Musci and Marina Pereira met with David Tately, Deputy
Assessor of the Town of Brewster. Mr. Tately and CDM discussed the state of the
Assessor’s data and the data integrity.
The Assessor’s office uses a Microsoft Access-based system that is capable of creating
reports for any specific field requested by CDM. The Assessor’s data includes a layer
of town-owned-properties. Currently, data is available up to FY08. More recent data
may be available as early as summer 2010.
CDM provided Mr. Tately with an FTP site to download the data. This data was
downloaded to CDM for use in their work on this project phase.
2.3.5 Natural Resources Department
On January 29th, 2010, Rob Musci and Marina Pereira met with Chris Miller of the
Natural Resources Department of the Town of Brewster. Mr. Miller made the
following reports available:
1. Board of Selectmen & Board of Health – Town of Brewster, 1988.Wastewater
Facilities Plan.
2. USGS Wetland Plants and Algae in Coastal Marshes.
In the discussion, Mr. Miller suggested the following additional sources for the
information CDM was requesting:
1. Beach & Pond Sampling Information from Barnstable County Department of
Health and the Environment.
2. Annual groundwater sampling reports, including reports on the Cape Cod
National and Captains Golf Course, from the Cape Cod Commission
3. Drainage information for Cape Cod ponds from Cape Cod Mosquito Control
Significant Natural Resources Department Data
Beach and pond sampling information was obtained from the Barnstable County
Department of Health and the Environment. This data was used in the water
management study to determine swimming beach and pond closures and in the
ponds assessment in Section 5.
Section 2
Existing Data
2-8
MJ01109s2.doc
2.3.6 Water Department
On January 11th, 2010, Rob Musci met with Paul Anderson, Water Department
Superintendent. Julie Cahoon, the Administrative Supervisor, was also present at the
meeting. In the discussion Mr. Anderson and Ms. Cahoon agreed to provide the
following data to CDM:
1. Earth Tech, Inc. 2006.Water Department System Study
2. A GIS Layer of the Water System – Created by Earth Tech
3. Last Years (2008) Water Department Report
4. Water Use Data by Map/Lot 2009
According to Ms. Cahoon, the water meter is read and water bills issued twice a year.
CDM inquired about receiving a data download of the water use data. Ms Cahoon
explained that the department could provide this data, but it would be difficult to go
back more than two years since the database system was changed. The older data is
available, but it is not as readily accessible. CDM and the Water Department agreed
that obtaining water use data for 2009 would be appropriate at this time. If additional
years were required, this data could be obtained at a later date.
Significant Water Department Data
The water use data is considered helpful for the water management plan, but will
likely be utilized in later phases when data is needed for specific water use of a certain
area. At this time, the water use data has map and lot, but is not directly tied to the
GIS; additional database work would be needed to definitively tie it to the GIS.
2.3.7 Department of Public Works
On January 11th, 2010, Rob Musci met with Robert Bersin, Department of Public
Works Superintendent. In the discussion, Mr. Bersin mentioned that his department
had access to a basic roads database, catch basin hand sketches, and the Paines Creek
and Stony Brook Non-Point Source Pollution report. Mr. Musci mentioned that CDM
already had received a copy of the Paines Creek and Stony Brook Report, but the soils
data from the landfill closure would be helpful in the future. Since that meeting, CDM
received the soils data and a GIS catch basin data layer. The latter data layer is a work
in progress that shows many of the existing catch basins throughout the town. The
Department of Public Works is currently compiling a list, and possibly drawings, of
the known stormwater outfalls throughout the town.
Significant Public Works Department Data
The Public Works Department provided CDM with a catch basin GIS layer that shows
most of the catch basins in Brewster. This data is being used in the ponds assessment
to determine if the location of catch basins has any noticeable effect on the water
quality of the ponds. The Public Works Department is also working on a set of
Section 2
Existing Data
2-9
MJ01109s2.doc
drawings that detail the stormwater outfall configurations and locations throughout
the town.
2.3.8 Recreation Department
On February 11th, 2010, Rob Musci met with Wendy Allegrone, Recreation
Department Director. In the discussion, Mr. Musci asked about the department’s
activities as they relate to environmental concerns, and nutrient and wastewater
management. According to Ms. Allegrone, the Recreation Department coordinates
fertilizer application and grounds keeping of the recreation fields with the Public
Works Department. Ms. Allegrone did not have any data or reports that specifically
addressed environmental or other sampling data. She did mention that her
department, as well as the DPW, was restricted to applying minimal, if any, fertilizers
in the areas in and around the existing water supply wells in town.
2.4 Report / Data Review
Upon completion of the meetings with representatives from the individual
departments, CDM began to compile and review all of the information gathered for
the IWRMP. Some of the information is very useful for the process, while some is less
valuable due to its age or changes in management approach or the regulatory
environment. Some of the information can be used at a later date and may be valuable
for other future tasks.
The list of existing data, documents and reports provided by the town is listed below
in Section 2.4.1. This list is not final and only serves as a guide to the most recognized
resources in town. Each report/study was reviewed for the information they
provided. After each listing, the report is categorized by its expected usefulness in the
IWRMP followed by a brief summary of the report, if applicable. The following
categories were used:
1. Water Use Data –For use in future water use and wastewater estimates.
2. Stormwater Management –For use in Stormwater Management as part of the IWRMP
recommended plan.
3. IWRMP Recommended Plan –For use as part of the general IWRMP recommended
plan.
4. IWRMP Ponds –For use as part of the IWRMP approach to pond management.
5. IWRMP GIS –For use as part of the IWRMP GIS.
6. IWRMP History –Historical data and information not directly related to IWRMP.
7. IWRMP Effluent Disposal –May be used for siting effluent recharge sites in the future
(often contains boring logs or other land use data).
Section 2
Existing Data
2-10
MJ01109s2.doc
8. IWRMP Estuary/Nitrogen Loading –Information directly related to the MEP reports
and Nitrogen loading.
2.4.1 Data, Documents and Reports Provided by the town
Board of Selectmen & Board of Health – Town of Brewster, 1988.Wastewater Facilities
Plan. (IWRMP History). This report suggested continued Title 5 management.
Brewster Aerial Photos (2006), CD. (IWRMP – GIS)
Brewster Water Department –Annual Water Report (2006, 2007, 2008). (Water Use
Data). This report can provide pumping data, source water, future demand and
system improvements.
Brewster Water Department –Water Use Data (2009). This data source can provide
detailed water use data and wastewater estimates by specific areas.
Cambareri, T. and E. M. Eichner, 1992.Hydrogeologic and Hydrochemical Assessment of
theBrewsterLandfill.(IWRMP History/Effluent Disposal). This report provides an
assessment of the leachate plume at the landfill and suggestions for future
monitoring.
Cape Cod Commission Water Resources Office, 2003.Cape Cod Pond and Lake Atlas.
(IWRMP Ponds) This Atlas provides detailed information on many of the ponds and
lakes throughout the town.
Cape Cod Commission Water Resources Office, 1999.Long Pond Water Quality
Assessment.(IWRMP Ponds). This report recommends that the Towns of Brewster and
Harwich jointly prepare a pond management plan that improves the water quality in
the pond.
Cape Cod Commission Water Resources Office, 1993.Monomy Lens Groundwater
Protection Project.(IWRMP Recommended Plan) This report was initiated as a strategy to
examine regional water protection in the lens.
Cape Cod Commission Water Resources Office, 1990.Harwich/Brewster Wellhead
Protection Project.(IWRMP History) This report was initiated as a means to ensure the
long term protection of the water supply.
Coastal Systems Group School for Marine Science and Technology University of
Massachusetts Dartmouth, 2009.Brewster Freshwater Ponds: Water Quality Status and
Recommendations for Future Activities.(IWRMP Ponds) This document includes
numerous goals for monitoring and characterization of the six named ponds, as well
as others, in Brewster.
Section 2
Existing Data
2-11
MJ01109s2.doc
Dunford, F. J. Independent Archaeological Consultant, 1985.Archaelogical
Reconnaissance Survey of Pleasant Bay, Massachusetts.(IWRMP History) This report
summarizes the results of an archaeological reconnaissance survey in Pleasant Bay.
Earth Tech, Inc. 2006.Water Department System Study.(Water Use Data) This study
describes the water resources in Brewster including the infrastructure, future
projections and source protection management.
Fletcher. 1993.Soil Survey of Barnstable County, Massachusetts.This data is used to
determine the soil types throughout Brewster. Four towns Committee, 1986.Pleasant
Bay Area of Critical Environmental Concern Nomination Report.(IWRMP History)The
purpose of this nomination report is to seek formal recognition from the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts of the greater Pleasant Bay estuary.
Groundwater Discharge Permit, July 2009.Nickerson State Park.(IWRMP History)
IEP, Inc. 1993.Diagnostic/Feasibility Study of Sheep Pond, Brewster, Massachusetts.
(IWRMP Ponds) This study was initiated as a means to protect Sheep Pond and ensure
that the water quality remains good.
IEP, Inc. 1987.Groundwater Recharge Area Determination for School House Pond, Brewster,
Massachusetts.(IWRMP Ponds) This delineation was developed to evaluate any
possible impacts that the Brewster Village development may have had on the pond.
Landfill Closure Reports (with boring logs) (IWRMP History/Effluent Disposal)
(expected soon)
The Louis Berger Group, Inc. 2003.Quivett Creek Salt Marsh Restoration Project –
Dennis & Brewster, Massachusetts.(IWRMP History)ThisENFwassubmittedasa
culvert replacement project designed to increase tidal flushing in the salt marsh and
beneficially alter the salt marsh by slowing, or possibly reversing, the advance of
Phragmites in the marsh.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, 2003 Source Water Assessment
and Protection (SWAP)Report for Brewster Water Department. (Water Use Data) This
report helps the water department to inventory land uses within the recharge areas of
the public water supply and assess the susceptibility of the water supply sources to
contamination.
Massachusetts Estuaries Project (MEP) Report, 2008 – Namskaket Creek. (IWRMP
Estuary/Nitrogen Loading) The MEP reports set a limit for the total amount of nutrients
that a particular estuary can receive without becoming impaired.
Massachusetts Estuaries Project (MEP) Report, 2006 – Pleasant Bay. (IWRMP
Estuary/Nitrogen Loading) The MEP reports set a limit for the total amount of nutrients
that a particular estuary can receive without becoming impaired.
Section 2
Existing Data
2-12
MJ01109s2.doc
Natural Resources Protection Design by Law. 2009. (IWRMP Recommended Plan)town
bylaw that sets requirements for natural resource protection.
Sand and Gravel Bylaw. 2008-2009 (IWRMP Recommended Plan) town bylaw that sets
limits for sand and gravel operations.
Stearns & Wheeler, LLC. 2007.Paines Creek and Stony Brook Watershed Stormwater
Mitigation Assessment.(Stormwater Management) This assessment recommends
stormwater mitigation strategies that seek to reduce nutrient loads to local receiving
waters.
Water Quality Protection Bylaw. 2008-2009 (IWRMP Recommended Plan) town bylaw
that sets requirements for water quality protection.
3-1
MJ01109s3.doc
Section 3
Groundwater
3.1 Background
This section summarizes the methodology used to identify subwatersheds in Brewster
where uses of the land may put the groundwater at risk and hence actions may be
needed to improve groundwater protection. It includes an explanation of the data
used, how the evaluation rating matrix was developed, and the results.
All areas in town were evaluated based on physical characteristics of the
subwatersheds, man’s activities in the subwatersheds, and regulatory tools that can be
used to protect the watersheds from man’s activities. This need for enhanced
groundwater protection could result from areas of the subwatershed that have lands
that are sensitive to potential degradation or lands where current or future activities
threaten water quality.
The focus of groundwater evaluation is on reducing the amount of nutrients and
other potential contaminants (not just nitrogen) that migrate to the groundwater, thus
potentially impacting the town’s drinking water supplies and local water bodies,
including both freshwater ponds (phosphorus) and saltwater estuaries (nitrogen). By
regulating development in sensitive areas to reduce the use or release of pollutants
(such as nutrients, bacteria or man-made chemicals) that can degrade the
groundwater supply, groundwater protection is provided.
With assistance from various town departments, CDM gathered available data to
understand potential groundwater issues and needs. Key data for the groundwater
needs analysis included:
Geographic information system (GIS) coverages from the town (assessor’s data,
parcels, structures, aquifer protection zones, etc.);
GIS coverages from Mass GIS (Massachusetts Office of Geographic and
Environmental Information) (soils, floodplain, etc.);
GIS coverages from Cape Cod Commission (watershed delineations);
Water quality and Zone IIs for town drinking water wells;
Information from the town’s Water Protection District of Critical Planning
Concern (DCPC);
Groundwater contour map from the United States Geological Survey (USGS)
Monomoy Lens model; and
Lot density (developed parcels) lot size.
Section 3
Groundwater
3-2
MJ01109s3.doc
3.2 Watershed Study Areas
The town was divided into 50 watershed study areas as defined in Section 1.5.
Figure 3-1 shows Brewster’s 50 subwatersheds.
For the analysis of groundwater needs, several metrics use the land area of the
subwatershed. In this case, the area of the subwatershed did not include the area of
open water (such as ponds).
The groundwater needs analysis was based on both developed and undeveloped
parcels within each watershed. A developed parcel was defined as any parcel with a
building of greater than 200 square feet based on the town GIS building coverage.
3.3 Groundwater Protection Criteria
The criteria presented in this section were used to complete a needs analysis to
determine areas in town that may require or benefit from improved methods of
groundwater protection. These could include assessing whether on-site treatment and
disposal systems will be effective in meeting long-term wastewater needs, improving
control of non-point pollution sources,regulating the form of development, or
encouraging changes in local homeowner practices.
Eleven criteria were developed as they pertain to risk to and protection of
groundwater. The study areas were analyzed for the following criteria:
Zone II -Percent of land located in a Zone II
District of Critical Planning Concern (DCPC)-Percent of land located in the
DCPC area
Zoning -Districts, overlays, historic districts
Impervious Areas -Percent of impervious land in watershed
Soils -Types and limits of each type
Protected Open Space -Percent of land protected vs. unprotected
Parcel Size
Development Density
Potential Groundwater Problem Areas / Depth to Groundwater -An indicator of
potential groundwater problem areas; percent of land area with less than 5-ft to
groundwater.
Flood Zone -Percent of watershed in A or V zones.
Identified Title 5 Areas of Concern
PleasantBayCape CodBayStony
B
r
o
o
k
Quivett CreekNamskaket CreekORLEANSORLEANSBREWSTERBREWSTERDENNISDENNISHARWICHHARWICHCHATHAMCHATHAM1371371371371246A6A396A2828PB15PB14PB10PB12PB11PB13PB5PB6PB3PB7PB2PB1PB8HR3HR1HR2HR6NP3HR4HR7HR8HR9PB/N2PB/N1NP4NP1SB1PB9PB4SB/BR2SB/Q1N3N2N1Q1SB5SB4SB6SB2NP2SB3HR5NP5SB/BR1SB7PB19PB20PB18PB17PB1660 0.25 0.5 0.75 1MilesSubwatersheds in BrewsterCape Cod BayCanoe Pond, Shared Quivett/Stony BrookStony BrookHerring RiverNamskaket CreekPleasant BayShared with Bass RiverQuivett CreekShared Pleasant Bay/NamskaketMEP/CCC Defined SubwatershedsFigure 3-1
Section 3
Groundwater
3-4
MJ01109s3.doc
3.3.1 Zone II
The Town of Brewster operates municipal drinking water supply wells. Areas that
influence a municipal groundwater drinking supply are designated as Zone II
wellhead protection areas. According to 310 CMR 22.02, a Zone II area is "that area of
an aquifer which contributes water to a well under the most severe pumping and
recharge conditions that can be realistically anticipated (180 days of pumping at safe
yield, with no recharge from precipitation).It is bounded by the groundwater divides
which result from pumping the well and by the contact of the aquifer with less
permeable materials such as till or bedrock.”
Zone II areas are classified as nitrogen sensitive with the intent being to protect these
areas by limiting nitrate loading from on-site wastewater treatment and disposal
systems (Title 5 and other systems) to the water supply and to protect the
groundwater aquifers.
Brewster relies on drinking water from subsurface supply wells that are located
within the Zone II area as shown in Figure3-2.Itisimportanttoprotecttheland
surface within the Zone II because the activities that take place within the Zone II
have the potential to directly impact the wells. Stormwater, surface runoff with
contaminants and effluent from septic systems can infiltrate directly through the
ground and end up in the drinking water supply. If too many unwanted
contaminants migrate into the wells, they could contaminate the well, exceed
drinking water standards and prohibit the use of the well or require the addition of
expensive treatment systems. The Zone IIs are delineated to assist communities in
protecting their drinking water resources.
The percentage of the total subwatershed within each of the 50 study areas that falls
within a defined Zone II area was calculated and is presented in Table 3-1.
3.3.2 District of Critical Planning Concern (DCPC)
The DCPC is a planning tool that enables the communitytoidentifyareaswhereone
or more resources are in need of greater protection. It places a time-limited
moratorium on development giving the community additional time to develop
specific bylaws. Prior to the DCPC, the town approved a few bylaws to regulate
sand and gravel mining and uses within Brewster’s water resource protection
areas.
In 2008, Barnstable County designated two areas in Brewster as DCPCs; this
designation was sought by the town to protect the town’s public drinking water wells
and protect the portion of the Pleasant Bay watershed in Brewster. This initial
designation has now expired.
PleasantBayCape CodBayQuivett CreekNamskaket CreekStony
B
r
o
o
k FREEMAN'SWAY GPWELL # 2TW SITE27-03WELL #5(SITE19-84)RUN HILLROAD GPWELL # 4FREEMAN'SWAY GPWELL # 1FREEMAN'SWAY GP WELL# 3ORLEANSORLEANSBREWSTERBREWSTERDENNISDENNISHARWICHHARWICHCHATHAMCHATHAM1371371371371246A6A396A2828PB15100 %PB14100 %PB10100 %PB12100 %PB11100 %PB13100 %PB5100 %PB6100 %PB3100 %PB7100 %PB2100 %PB1100 %PB8100 %HR3100 %Q10 %HR2100 %HR6100 %HR5100 %HR4100 %HR70 %HR80 %HR90 %PB/N2100 %PB/N1100 %NP40 %NP10 %SB10 %PB9100 %PB4100 %SB/BR2100 %SB/Q10 %N30 %N20 %N10 %SB5100 %SB40 %SB6100 %SB20 %NP20 %NP30 %SB30 %HR1100 %NP50 %SB/BR1100 %SB7100 %PB19100 %PB20100 %PB18100 %PB17100 %PB16100 %60 0.25 0.5 0.75 1MilesZone II Protection Areasin BrewsterCommunity Groundwater SourceNon-Community Groundwater SourceZone II Protection AreasBrewster Pond and MEP WatershedsMEP/CCC Defined SubwatershedsFigure 3-2
Section 3Groundwater3-6MJ01109s3.docTable 3-1Land Use DataNumberMain WatershedIDWatershedArea%ofWatershed inZone II%ofWatershed inEstimatedDCPCZoning % of Watershed in:%ofWatershedthat isImpervious%ofWatershed inPoor Soils%ofWatershed inOpen SpaceParcels in WatershedBuildingsDepth ToGroundwaterRiskFactorsAcresAcres%Acres%Bus/CommDisp/IndMed-Low ResRes/RuralTotalAcres%Acres%Acres%<15,000 SF15,000 –60,000 SF> 60,000 SFTotal # ofParcels%ofparcels< 15,000 SFNumberBuildings/AcreAcres<5 feet<5 feet%Number1 Herring River HR1 Washburn Bog 70 70100% 69100% 0% 0% 0% 100%100% 0 4% 4 5% 1014% 3 11 92313% 180.26 11%22 Herring River HR2 Elbow Pond 62 62100% 62100% 0% 0% 0% 100%100% 0 8% 5 8% 1117% 1 11 15274% 220.36 12%23 Herring River HR3 Herring River Misc 197 197100% 197100% 0% 0% 0% 100%100% 0 7% 30 15% 4624% 7 46 21749% 580.29 32%24 Herring River HR4 Herring River Misc 200 200100% 19999% 0% 0% 0% 100%100% 0 2% 11 6% 10452% 3 16 26457% 130.06 31%15 Herring River HR5 Harwich town Well 88 88100% 8899% 0% 0% 0% 100%100% 0 1% 1 1% 6573% 0 0 10100% 00.00 11%16 Herring River HR6 Hinkley's Pond 13 13100% 1188% 0% 0% 0% 96%96% 0 5% 537% 16% 0 0 220% 00.00 16%37 Herring River HR7 Seymour Pond 199 8945% 8945% 0% 0% 85% 15%100% 016% 5 3% 42% 30 138 3019815% 1490.75 1910%48 Herring River HR8 Long Pond 715 265 37% 26537% 0% 0% 52% 48%100% 111% 36 5% 385% 32 278 1164268% 3240.45 9313%29 Herring River HR9 Sheep Pond 67 20 30% 2030% 0% 0% 78% 22%100% 023% 0 0% 1116% 51 61 111345% 1021.53 12%410 Namskaket Creek N1 Namskaket Creek 802 30 4% 304% 0% 0% 38% 62%99% 1 9% 19725% 30037% 31 259 703609% 3060.38 23029%311 Namskaket Creek N2 Namskaket Stream 342 103 30% 10330% 6% 0% 40% 53%100% 013% 34 10% 7221% 16 138 311859% 1650.48 5015%212 Namskaket Creek N3 Flax Pond 66 3350% 3350% 0% 0% 0% 100%100% 0 3% 0 1% 66100% 0 0 000% 100.15 1421%113 Cape Cod Bay NP1 Cape Cod Bay 2 2210 75 3% 753% 11% 0% 80% 10%100% 315% 361 16% 1436%272 1137 272168116% 17360.79 30514%414 Cape Cod Bay NP2 Schoolhouse Pond 92 0 0% 00% 0% 0% 100% 0%100% 013% 9 9% 88% 52 15670% 630.68 1213%215 Cape Cod Bay NP3 Cobbs Pond 255 0 0% 00% 0% 0% 97% 3%100% 013% 36 14% 21% 8 97 371426% 1420.56 4919%216 Cape Cod Bay NP4 Cape Cod Bay 3 1968 233 12% 23312% 6% 0% 77% 16%100% 315% 145 7% 37219%309 926 151138622% 16620.84 794%417 Cape Cod Bay NP5 Blueberry Pond 154 0 0% 00% 0% 0% 100% 0%100% 016% 0 0% 42% 1 59 2622% 1060.69 96%218 P.B./NAM PB/N1 Ruth Pond 52 52100% 52100% 0% 0% 28% 72%100% 0 8% 0 0% 4077% 11110% 120.23 48%119 P.B./NAM PB/N2 Cliff Pond 571 571100% 571100% 0% 0% 33% 67%100% 1 9% 5 1% 39269% 2 185 232101% 1920.34 397%120 Pleasant Bay PB1 Bakers Pond 110 110100% 110100% 0% 0% 0% 100%100% 0 6% 0 0% 4641% 1 1 15176% 110.10 65%221 Pleasant Bay PB10 Rafe Pond 10 10100% 10100% 0% 0% 0% 100%100% 0 0% 0 0% 224% 0 000% 00.00 113%222 Pleasant Bay PB11 Quanset Pond 20 20100% 20100% 0%42% 0% 58%100% 014% 0 0% 02% 0 1 450% 60.31 02%423 Pleasant Bay PB12 Twinings Pond 38 38100% 38100% 0%16% 38% 46%100% 0 7% 0 0% 00% 0 11 7180% 70.18 13%324 Pleasant Bay PB13 Brewster – Silas Rd Well 218 218100% 218100% 0% 0% 14% 86%100% 0 7% 2 1% 10448% 1 34 10452% 530.24 52%225 Pleasant Bay PB14 Shoal Pond 43 43100% 43100% 0%32% 31% 36%99% 011% 0 0% 00% 1 27 2303% 300.70 12%426 Pleasant Bay PB15 Deep Pond 44 44100% 44100% 0%50% 23% 25%99% 011% 0 0% 00% 1 10 3147% 130.29 25%427 Pleasant Bay PB16 Uncle Seths Pond 61 4472% 6199% 0%52% 33% 13%98% 0 9% 0 0% 00% 2 10 51712% 50.08 00%328 Pleasant Bay PB17 Brewster – Freeman's Way 430 430100% 430100% 0% 0% 30% 70%100% 0 10% 0 0% 20347% 6 175 322133% 1730.40 31%229 Pleasant Bay PB18 Tar Kiln Stream 268 14052% 268100% 0% 0% 44% 55%99% 0 9% 0 0% 10% 4 58 26885% 620.23 10%230 Pleasant Bay PB19 Mud Pond 23 23100% 22100% 0% 0% 0% 100%100% 0 5% 0 0% 1042% 1 0 3425%00.00 312%231 Pleasant Bay PB2 Pilgrim Lake 51 51100% 5199% 0% 0% 0% 100%100% 0 5% 2 4% 3569% 1 3 3714% 40.08 23%132 Pleasant Bay PB20 Grassy Pond 13 1185% 13100% 0% 0% 2% 98%99% 012% 0 0% 428% 2 0 1367% 00.00 324%433 Pleasant Bay PB3 Arey's Pond 33 33100% 33100% 0% 0% 0% 99%99% 0 4% 0 0% 2370% 0 1 450% 00.00 01%134 Pleasant Bay PB4 Orleans town Well 66 66100% 66100% 0% 0% 0% 100%100% 0 7% 2 3% 4365% 2 2 4825%10.02 610%135 Pleasant Bay PB5 Higgins Pond 33 33100% 33100% 0% 0% 0% 100%100% 0 2% 0 0% 33100% 0 0 000% 20.06 413%136 Pleasant Bay PB6 Little Cliff Pond 44 44100% 44100% 0% 0% 0% 100%100% 0 8% 0 0% 44100% 0 0 000% 50.11 818%137 Pleasant Bay PB7 Namequoit River 118 118100% 118100% 0% 0% 0% 100%100% 0 9% 0 0% 8573% 2 3 71217% 70.06 43%138 Pleasant Bay PB8 Pleasant Bay Main Basin 863 74987% 860100% 0%20% 14% 66%100% 112% 5 1% 18421% 41 98 6220120% 1200.14 212%439 Pleasant Bay PB9 Orleans - Well 7 94 9398% 94100% 0% 0% 10% 89%99% 0 4% 0 0% 66% 1 5 17234% 50.05 22%240 Quivett Creek Q1 Quivett Creek 1165 165 14% 16414% 0% 0% 80% 20%100% 1 10% 25422% 29625% 36 364 1995996% 5230.45 25522%241 Stony Brook/Bass River SB/BR1 Pine Pond 15 15100% 1496% 0% 0% 23% 73%97% 0 6% 533% 425% 0 0 550% 10.07 532%442 Stony Brook/Bass River SB/BR2 Potential Bass River 122 122100% 12199% 0% 0% 0% 100%100% 0 7% 10 8% 8066% 6 28 124613% 310.25 1512%143 Stony Brook/Quivett SB/Q1 Canoe Pond 28 0 0% 00% 0% 0% 100% 0%100% 018% 1 4% 1243% 0 6 11170% 120.43 27%244 Stony Brook SB1 Cape Cod Bay 1 867 0 0% 00% 1% 4% 60% 34%100% 1 10% 20323% 16419% 49 200 15840712% 4100.47 15217%245 Stony Brook SB2 Smith Pond 33 0 0% 00% 0%48% 7% 45%100% 017% 4 11% 00% 0 3 140% 80.24 27%346 Stony Brook SB3 Griffiths Pond 126 0 0% 00% 0% 0% 97% 3%100% 014% 6 5% 22% 1 16 12293% 640.51 43%247 Stony Brook SB4 Lower Mill Pond 155 0 0% 00% 0% 0% 20% 80%100% 0 10% 13 9% 4831% 0 57 27840% 940.61 85%148 Stony Brook SB5 Upper Mill Pond 882 50557% 50257% 0% 0% 44% 56%100% 1 10% 69 8% 26330% 20 341 1314924% 3820.43 809%249 Stony Brook SB6 Walker Pond 379 379100% 379100% 0% 0% 2% 98%100% 0 5% 53 14% 25267% 22 49 4611719% 770.20 6116%150 Stony Brook SB7 Slough Pond 25 25100% 25100% 0% 0% 50% 50%100% 011% 729% 312% 8 8 42040% 100.39 1039%6Exceeds Needs Assessment Threshold
Section 3
Groundwater
3-7
MJ01109s3.doc
While the DCPC designation was active, the town crafted bylaws to afford more
protection to the DCPC lands. In October 2009, the Natural Resources Protection
Design Bylaw was passed at town Meeting that strengthened the protection to the
town’s water resources by shaping how growth can occur on undeveloped parcels in
the DCPC area. This bylaw defines a design principle of cluster development with
lower development density to minimize development foot print. It also includes
requirements for open space to maximize water resource protection, and provides
flexibility and incentives in the form of increased density if the developer voluntarily
provides additional protection for water resources.
The DCPC encompasses 6,538 acres in the southeast and southwest portions of town.
Watersheds within the DCPC include wellhead-protection lands for public wells in
Brewster and for public wells in Orleans,Harwich, and Dennis. The four Brewster
wells within the DCPC provide about 95 percent of the town's public water supply;
the remaining need is met mostly from private on-site wells.
The DCPC area closely matches the lands defined as Zone II areas; it wholly
encompasses the Zone II areas and the Pleasant Bay watershed area in Brewster and
includes additional lands in the northwest where Quivett Creek crosses the Brewster-
Dennis border and a slightly larger area in the southeast corner of Brewster. Figure 3-
3 depicts the DCPC area in Brewster.
The percentage of the 50 subwatershed that falls within the DCPC was calculated and
is presented in Table 3-1.
3.3.3 Zoning
Brewster’s zoning districts act as a guideline for the town to control the development
in a manner that allows the town to grow in a logical and beneficial manner.
The intent of zoning regulations is to allow property owners the reasonable use of
their property while encouraging appropriate development in the designated zoning
districts. The zoning is used to prevent new development from interfering with
existing development and to preserve the "character" of the community. It is also a
tool that enables the community to identify areas where higher density development
may be anticipated in the future.
The zoning GIS files were obtained from the Brewster Planning Department. Seven
zoning categories are defined: medium density residential, low density residential,
rural residential, industrial, village business, commercial, and municipal refuse.
PleasantBayCape CodBayQuivett CreekNamskaket CreekStony
B
r
o
o
kORLEANSORLEANS BREWSTERBREWSTERDENNISDENNISHARWICHHARWICHCHATHAMCHATHAM1371371371371246A6A396A2828PB15100 %PB14100 %PB10100 %PB12100 %PB11100 %PB13100 %PB5100 %PB6100 %PB3100 %PB7100 %PB2100 %PB1100 %PB8100 %HR3100 %HR1100 %HR2100 %HR6100 %NP30 %HR4100 %HR70 %HR80 %HR90 %PB/N2100 %PB/N1100 %NP40 %NP10 %SB10 %PB9100 %PB4100 %SB/BR2100 %SB/Q10 %N30 %N20 %N10 %Q10 %SB5100 %SB40 %SB6100 %SB20 %NP20 %SB30 %HR5100 %NP50 %SB/BR1100 %SB7100 %PB19100 %PB20100 %PB18100 %PB17100 %PB16100 %60 0.25 0.5 0.75 1MilesDistrict of Critical Planning Concern (DCPC) in BrewsterDistrict of Critical Planning ConcernBrewster Pond and MEP WatershedsMEP/CCC Defined SubwatershedsFigure 3-3
Section 3
Groundwater
3-9
MJ01109s3.doc
The zoning districts were used in the needs analysis as a means to determine the
possibility of a particular district to be developed in a certain manner. For instance, in
an industrial area, there is a possibility for heavy industrial development that could
lead to increased runoff due to large areas of impervious surfaces, possible chemical
spills due to industrial activity, and an increase of wastewater due to industrial
processes. In contrast, a rural or low residential area is expected to have the lowest
impact due to the lower density of development and general absence of industrial and
commercial establishments. It is important to note that the zoning analysis is an
analysis of the potential development and not the actual development in an area. It is
possible for an undeveloped and rural area to be zoned as an industrial area. The
zoning designation only signifies the type of development that is allowed or
encouraged by the town. The town has adopted more stringent bylaws governing
uses in the industrial zone and it is expected that many traditional industrial uses are
no longer permitted in the zone – but it is understood that a pre-existing, non-
conforming use could be re-established. Zoning areas are shown in Figure 3-4.
For this analysis, the different zoning categories were aggregated and then tabulated
for each of the 50 subwatershed study areas. The breakdown of the zoning for four
categories was listed by percentage and is presented in Table 3-1. These four
categories are defined as:
1. Refuse District (MRD) or Industrial (I)
2. Business (VB) or Commercial (C)
3. Medium Residential (RM) or Low Residential (RL)
4. Rural Residential (RR)
3.3.4 Impervious Areas
The impervious areas layer is a GIS defined parameter that attempts to define all of
the surfaces in Brewster that do not readily allow water to infiltrate into the ground.
An impervious coverage layer was obtained from Mass GIS and was modified slightly
to reflect known conditions in Brewster. In particular, existing gravel pits were
removed from the impervious areas since they were improperly classified as
impervious.
Impervious surfaces are defined as:
All constructed surfaces such as buildings, roads, parking lots, brick, asphalt, and
concrete.
Non-impervious surfaces can be defined as:
All vegetated areas, natural and man-made.
Water bodies and wetland areas.
Natural occurring barren areas (i.e. rocky shores, sand, bare soil).
PleasantBayCape CodBayQuivett CreekNamskaket CreekStony
B
r
o
o
kORLEANSORLEANS BREWSTERBREWSTERDENNISDENNISHARWICHHARWICHCHATHAMCHATHAM1371371371371246A6A396A2828PB15PB14PB10PB12PB11PB13PB5PB6PB3PB7PB2PB1PB8HR3HR1HR2HR6NP3HR4HR7HR8HR9PB/N2PB/N1NP4NP1SB1PB9PB4SB/BR2SB/Q1N3N2N1Q1SB5SB4SB6SB2NP2SB3HR5NP5SB/BR1SB7PB19PB20PB18PB17PB1660 0.25 0.5 0.75 1MilesZoning in BrewsterHistoric DistrictZoning DesignationMedium Density ResidentialLow Density ResidentialRural ResidentialIndustrialVillage BusinessCommercialMunicipal Refuse DisposalBrewster Pond and MEP WatershedsMEP/CCC Defined SubwatershedsFigure 3-4
Section 3
Groundwater
3-11
MJ01109s3.doc
The amount of impervious area is also a measure of the potential to adversely affect
ground water and local water bodies. The impervious area in a watershed indicates
the potential for additional stormwater and contaminated runoff in a particular area.
When this runoff is large enough, significant overland flow can pick up pollutants
and discharge them into local water bodies.
Various studies from around the country show that stream ecosystems and water
quality degrade as impervious surfaces increase. According to research performed by
Schueler (2003)Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems, a watershed with less
than 10 percent impervious area is considered to be fairly well protected in terms of
impervious areas and runoff. Impairment to streams often occurs when more than 10
percent of the land within a watershed is covered with impervious surfaces. When
these levels exceed 25 percent, most watersheds experience severe ecosystem and
water quality impairment. Ongoing research that looks at impervious cover indicates
that ecosystem impairment can be measured at different percentages of impervious
cover. Some research indicates that ecosystem health may be impacted when the
impervious cover is less than 10 percent (Tillberg and Alber,Impervious Surfaces:
Review of Recent Literature). For this needs study, however, 10 percent was used as the
indicator of how well the watershed is protected.
Overall, the Town of Brewster is covered by 9.9 percent impervious area. As the
impervious surfaces in an area increase, so does the potential for enhanced runoff and
pollutant loads. Instead of precipitation infiltrating directly into the groundwater, it
can collect unwanted contaminants from parking lots, roofs, industrial areas and
roadways where it can eventually migrate to groundwater or directly into ponds and
estuaries as surface runoff.The percent of impervious area for each of the 50
subwatersheds is presented in Table 3-1 and shown on Figure 3-5.
3.3.5 Soil Suitability (Wetlands Conservancy District)
When siting a septic system, soil suitability is an important criterion for on-site
treatment and disposal (recharge). If soils have low permeability, leaching fields for
on-site systems will become oversaturated and, in extreme cases, exhibit surface
breakouts or potential system backups, resulting in health and aesthetic issues.
Conversely, if soils have very high permeability, wastewater leaving the leaching field
can quickly infiltrate through the ground without added filtration from the soils. The
filtrate can then affect the quality of the groundwater or adjacent surface waters. This
is minimized when sufficient depth to groundwater is provided. In general, higher
permeability, better draining soils are desired.
Soil names, descriptions, and draining characteristics from the Soil Survey of Barnstable
County, Massachusetts (1983), Brewster’s Wetlands Conservancy District and the GIS
soils layer from the Town of Brewster were utilized in this assessment. Each soil type
was defined as poorly drained or well drained based on the descriptions in the Soil
Survey of Barnstable County, Massachusetts. Table 3-2 shows the specific soil names
and draining characteristics used in the needs analysis. Figure 3-6 highlights soils
with poor drainage characteristics in Brewster.
PleasantBayCape CodBayQuivett CreekNamskaket CreekStony
B
r
o
o
kORLEANSORLEANS BREWSTERBREWSTERDENNISDENNISHARWICHHARWICHCHATHAMCHATHAM1371371371371246A6A396A2828PB1511 %PB1411 %PB100 %PB127 %PB1114 %PB137 %PB52 %PB68 %PB34 %PB79 %PB25 %PB16 %PB812 %HR37 %HR14 %HR28 %HR65 %NP313 %HR42 %HR716 %HR811 %HR923 %PB/N29 %PB/N18 %NP415 %NP115 %SB110 %PB94 %PB47 %SB/BR27 %SB/Q118 %N33 %N213 %N19 %Q110 %SB510 %SB410 %SB65 %SB217 %NP213 %SB314 %HR51 %NP516 %SB/BR16 %SB711 %PB195 %PB2012 %PB189 %PB1710 %PB169 %60 0.25 0.5 0.75 1MilesImpervious Surfaces in BrewsterImpervious AreaBrewster Pond and MEP WatershedsMEP/CCC Defined SubwatershedsFigure 3-5
Section 3
Groundwater
3-13
MJ01109s3.doc
Table 3-2
Soil Names and Drainage Characteristics
Code town Name Drainage
AmA BARN Amostown sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes Well
BaB BARN Barnstable sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes Well
BaC BARN Barnstable sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Well
BfC BARN Barnstable-Plymouth-Nantucket complex, rolling Well
BgC BARN Barnstable-Plymouth-Nantucket complex, rolling, very bouldery Well
Bh BARN Beaches N/A
BlB BARN Belgrade silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes Poor
BmA BARN Berryland mucky loamy coarse sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes Poor
BoB BARN Boxford silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes Well
CdA BARN Carver coarse sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes Well
CdD BARN Carver coarse sand, 15 to 35 percent slopes Well
CdB BARN Carver coarse sand, 3 to 8 percent slopes Well
CdC BARN Carver coarse sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes Well
CcB BARN Carver loamy coarse sand, 3 to 8 percent slopes Well
CoD BARN Carver-Hinesburg loamy coarse sands, hilly Well
CoC BARN Carver-Hinesburg loamy coarse sands, rolling Well
CoB BARN Carver-Hinesburg loamy coarse sands, undulating Well
DeA BARN Deerfield loamy fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes Poor
Dm BARN Dumps, landfill N/A
EaA BARN Eastchop loamy fine sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes Well
EaB BARN Eastchop loamy fine sand, 3 to 8 percent slopes Well
EaC BARN Eastchop loamy fine sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes Well
EnB BARN Enfield silt loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes Well
FsA BARN Freetown and Swansea mucks, 0 to 1 percent slopes Poor
FtA BARN Freetown coarse sand, 0 to 1 percent slopes Poor
FmA BARN Freetown mucky peat, 0 to 1 percent slopes, ponded Poor
HnA BARN Hinesburg sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Well
HnB BARN Hinesburg sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes Well
HnC BARN Hinesburg sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes Well
HoC BARN Hooksan sand, rolling Well
HxC BARN Hooksan-Dune land complex, hilly Well
ImA BARN Ipswich, Pawcatuck, and Matunuck peats, 0 to 1 percent slopes Poor
MeB BARN Merrimac sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes Well
NaB BARN Nantucket sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes Well
PeA BARN Pipestone loamy coarse sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes Poor
Pg BARN Pits, sand and gravel N/A
PmA BARN Plymouth loamy coarse sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes Well
PmD BARN Plymouth loamy coarse sand, 15 to 35 percent slopes Well
PsD BARN
Plymouth loamy coarse sand, 15 to 35 percent slopes,
very stony Well
PmB BARN Plymouth loamy coarse sand, 3 to 8 percent slopes Well
PsB BARN Plymouth loamy coarse sand, 3 to 8 percent slopes, very stony Well
PmC BARN Plymouth loamy coarse sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes Well
PsC BARN Plymouth loamy coarse sand, 8 to 15 percent slopes, very stony Well
PxD BARN Plymouth-Barnstable complex, hilly, extremely bouldery Well
PvC BARN Plymouth-Barnstable complex, rolling, very bouldery Well
PyD BARN Plymouth-Barnstable-Nantucket complex, hilly, very bouldery Well
ScA BARN Scitico silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Poor
SdA BARN Sudbury fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes Well
Ud BARN Udipsamments, smoothed Well
WvA BARN Walpole sandy loam, loamy substratum, 0 to 3 percent slopes Well
W BARN Water N/A
WS BARN Water, saline N/A
PleasantBayCape CodBayQuivett CreekNamskaket CreekStony
B
r
o
o
kORLEANSORLEANS BREWSTERBREWSTERDENNISDENNISHARWICHHARWICHCHATHAMCHATHAM1371371371371246A6A396A2828PB150 %PB140 %PB100 %PB120 %PB110 %PB131 %PB50 %PB60 %PB30 %PB70 %PB24 %PB10 %PB81 %HR315 %HR15 %HR28 %HR637 %NP314 %HR46 %HR73 %HR85 %HR90 %PB/N21 %PB/N10 %NP47 %NP116 %SB123 %PB90 %PB43 %SB/BR28 %SB/Q14 %N31 %N210 %N125 %Q122 %SB58 %SB49 %SB614 %SB211 %NP29 %SB35 %HR51 %NP50 %SB/BR133 %SB729 %PB190 %PB200 %PB180 %PB170 %PB160 %60 0.25 0.5 0.75 1MilesWetlands Conservancy Districtin BrewsterWetlands Conservancy District (Poor Soils)Brewster Pond and MEP WatershedsMEP/CCC Defined SubwatershedsFigure 3-6
Section 3
Groundwater
3-15
MJ01109s3.doc
It is important to note that the public supply wells in town are generally located in
areas where there are well drained soils.Locating a drinking water supply in an area
of well drained soils is good practice, because the possibility of finding soils that yield
ample groundwater is enhanced. From a groundwater protection point of view,
however, this increases the risk that any contaminants on the surface can migrate
down into the groundwater supply and impact the water quality.
The percent of poorly drained soils within each subwatershed for the
50 subwatersheds was calculated and is presented in Table 3-1.
3.3.6 Protected Open Space
The protected open space in a town is a measure of the amount of primarily
undeveloped or open land that is considered to be restricted, so that it will not be
developed in the future. Therefore, as defined herein the town considers the following
land types to be open space:
Nickerson State Park;
Brewster Conservation Trust Land;
town Conservation Restriction Land; and
Brewster Conservation Commission Land.
The town understands that there may be other lands that may be considered open
space, such as private holdings by conservation trusts and organizations, but they are
not included in this analysis. Overall, more than 25 percent of Brewster is open space,
indicatingthehighdegreetowhichthetown has preserved its rural character, limited
overall development and protected its valuable resources.
From a groundwater protection standpoint,the open space provides some protection
to the water resources. Areas of open space usually have little impervious area, low
development density and take on a more rural character, such as parks and wildlife
conservation areas that are largely free of residential, commercial and industrial
activities that can impact the natural resources in town. Figure 3-7 shows the location
of open space throughout the town.
The percentage of open space was calculated for the 50 subwatersheds and is
presented in Table 3-1.
PleasantBayCape CodBayQuivett CreekNamskaket CreekStony
B
r
o
o
kORLEANSORLEANS BREWSTERBREWSTERDENNISDENNISHARWICHHARWICHCHATHAMCHATHAM1371371371371246A6A396A2828PB150 %PB140 %PB1024 %PB120 %PB112 %PB1348 %PB5100 %PB6100 %PB370 %PB773 %PB269 %PB141 %PB821 %HR324 %HR114 %HR217 %HR66 %NP31 %HR452 %HR72 %HR85 %HR916 %PB/N269 %PB/N177 %NP419 %NP16 %SB119 %PB96 %PB465 %SB/BR266 %SB/Q143 %N3100 %N221 %N137 %Q125 %SB530 %SB431 %SB667 %SB20 %NP28 %SB32 %HR573 %NP52 %SB/BR125 %SB712 %PB1942 %PB2028 %PB180 %PB1747 %PB160 %60 0.25 0.5 0.75 1MilesOpen Space in BrewsterOpen SpaceBrewster Pond and MEP WatershedsMEP/CCC Defined SubwatershedsFigure 3-7
Section 3
Groundwater
3-17
MJ01109s3.doc
3.3.7 Parcel Size
Parcel size in a particular watershed can indicate the potential of an area to be
developed. Small parcels indicate the potential for dense development. Other
communities with small lots and a high density of buildings have experienced
elevated levels of nitrogen from wastewater (septic systems and cesspools) that have
migrated to groundwater supply wells or estuaries. The preponderance of small
parcels in a watershed will help to identify those areas that may be at higher risk for
contributing pollutants to groundwater due to development density.
Title 5, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection regulation for on-
site disposal systems, has numerous horizontal setback requirements and reserve area
requirements, making it easier to locate an on-site system meeting all Title 5
requirements on large lots. As the size of the lot is reduced, the difficulty in meeting
all Title 5 requirements increases. Thus, lot size can have a substantial impact on the
effective installation and operation of an on-site treatment and disposal system.
In addition to lot size, the density of on-site systems is of equal importance in siting
on-site systems. An overabundance of on-site systems in a concentrated area can
minimize a soils ability to adequately cleanse wastewater prior to its infiltration to
groundwater and it minimizes the dilution of nitrogen, phosphorous and
contaminants being input into the groundwater and adjacent surface waters. An
analysis of the development density will help to identify those areas that may be at
higher risk for developing problems due to development density.
Parcel size is not a direct indicator of current impacts due to development, but can be
a good indicator of the development potential in a community. While it is possible to
have small divided parcels in large tracts of open land, this is usually not the case.
In Brewster, while there are many undeveloped properties, most of the smaller lots in
town are developed with either small homes or businesses. An approximate analysis
of development on small parcels shows that over 75 percent of parcels <15,000 square
feet either have a building wholly or partially contained on the parcel. As a result, the
areas of Brewster with smaller lots will indicate the areas that are a higher risk for
contamination through groundwater migration in septic systems, increased
stormwater and surface runoff from higher development density in impervious areas.
The parcels GIS layer updated in 2008 was obtained from the Brewster Planning
Department. Figure 3-8 shows the individual parcels from the assessor’s database and
categorizes the parcels into one of three size classes:
1. < 15,000 SF
2. 15,000 – 60,000 SF
3. > 60,000 SF
PleasantBayCape CodBayQuivett CreekNamskaket CreekStony
B
r
o
o
kORLEANSORLEANS BREWSTERBREWSTERDENNISDENNISHARWICHHARWICHCHATHAMCHATHAM1371371371371246A6A396A2828PB15PB14PB10PB12PB11PB13PB5PB6PB3PB7PB2PB1PB8HR3HR1HR2HR6NP3HR4HR7HR8HR9PB/N2PB/N1NP4NP1SB1PB9PB4SB/BR2SB/Q1N3N2N1Q1SB5SB4SB6SB2NP2SB3HR5NP5SB/BR1SB7PB19PB20PB18PB17PB1660 0.25 0.5 0.75 1MilesParcels in BrewsterParcels in Brewster< 15,000 sq. ft15,001 - 60,000 sq. ft> 60,000 sq. ftBrewster Pond and MEP WatershedsMEP/CCC Defined SubwatershedsFigure 3-8
Section 3
Groundwater
3-19
MJ01109s3.doc
Table 3-1 indicates the number of parcels in a subwatershed within one of the above
three size categories. When a parcel crosses subwatershed boundaries it was assigned
to a subwatershed based on the location of the centroid of the parcel.
3.3.8 Development (Building) Density
Unlike the parcel size layer which analyzes how the parcels are legally divided, the
development density criterion uses existing buildings per acre to indicate current
potential for impacts to groundwater from human activities, stormwater and
contaminated surface runoff.
To quantify the development density, the buildings GIS layer was obtained from the
Brewster Planning department. The building survey is from 2000. The development
density in buildings per acre was calculated for the 50 study areas as shown in
Table 3-1. The development density is very low in almost all subwatersheds. The four
subwatersheds with the largest development density are:
Sheep Pond (HR9) at 1.53 buildings per acre,
Cape Cod Bay 3 (NP4), which is the area just to the east of NP1, at 0.84 buildings
per acre,
Cape Cod Bay 2 (NP1), which is the area just to the east of Stony Brook, at 0.79
buildings per acre, and
Seymour Pond (HR7) at 0.75 buildings per acre.
Figure 3-9 shows the buildings in each subwatershed throughout the town.
3.3.9 Groundwater Problem Areas / Depth to Groundwater
The average depth to groundwater is a measure of the potential of a watershed to
develop septic system disposal problems. The presence of high groundwater
throughout a watershed is not a definitive measure of failing septic systems, but it can
indicate where problems could develop.
According to Title 5 regulations, the minimum vertical separation distance of the
bottom of the stone underlying the soil absorption system above the high
groundwater elevation shall be 4 feet. As a result, siting new septic system leach fields
in areas where the depth to groundwater is less than 5 feet (4 feet + 1 foot for system
design) is prohibited, and wastewater disposal requires a mounded or other system;
these requirements are also imposed when property is sold.
PleasantBayCape CodBayQuivett CreekNamskaket CreekStony
B
r
o
o
kORLEANSORLEANS BREWSTERBREWSTERDENNISDENNISHARWICHHARWICHCHATHAMCHATHAM1371371371371246A6A396A2828PB150.29 B/APB140.7 B/APB100 B/APB120.18 B/APB110.31 B/APB130.24 B/APB50.06B/APB60.11B/APB30 B/APB70.06B/APB20.08B/APB10.1B/APB80.14 B/AHR30.29B/AHR10.26B/AHR20.36 B/AHR60 B/ANP30.56 B/AHR40.06B/AHR70.75 B/AHR80.45B/AHR91.53 B/APB/N20.34 B/APB/N10.23 B/ANP40.84B/ANP10.79B/ASB10.47B/APB90.05 B/APB40.02B/ASB/BR20.25 B/ASB/Q10.43 B/AN30.15B/AN20.48B/AN10.38 B/AQ10.45B/ASB50.43B/ASB40.61B/ASB60.2 B/ASB20.24 B/ANP20.68B/ASB30.51B/AHR50 B/ANP50.69B/ASB/BR10.07 B/ASB70.39 B/APB190 B/APB200 B/APB180.23 B/APB170.4 B/APB160.08 B/A60 0.25 0.5 0.75 1MilesDevelopment Density in BrewsterBuildings > 200 sq. ft - Buildings per acre (B/A)Brewster Pond and MEP WatershedsMEP/CCC Defined SubwatershedsFigure 3-9
Section 3
Groundwater
3-21
MJ01109s3.doc
The presence of a significant number of failing septic systems can impact public
health since the failing systems often result in raw sewage reaching the land surface.
The intent of a septic system is to protect health by holding the waste long enough to
allow any pathogens to naturally die off. A properly functioning septic system
effectively does this. In addition, failing septic systems can contribute pollutants to
nearby water bodies via overland flow, and therefore, introduce unwanted nitrogen,
bacteria, and other contaminants. Phosphorous is normally absorbed in the
surrounding soils.
Depth to groundwater was calculated using (1) a digital elevation model (10 meter
contours) obtained from USGS and (2) 2-foot groundwater contours of 2003 average
pumping conditions from the USGS Monomoy Lens model obtained from the Cape
Cod Commission. GIS was used to combine the two contour maps and calculate the
resultant depth to groundwater.
For this analysis, the percentage of the subwatershed that has an estimated
groundwater depth of less than 5 feet was tabulated for each of the 50 study areas.
Figure 3-10 and Table 3-1 show the percent of each watershed where the groundwater
is estimated to be less than 5 feet from the ground surface.
3.3.10 Flood Zone
A 100-year flood is calculated to be the level of flood water expected to be equaled or
exceeded every 100 years, on average. The presence of a significant amount of flood
lands in a community indicates a low lying area that is often coincident with the high
groundwater areas.
The presence of flood zones in Brewster is, as expected, along the coastal areas and
extends up the salt water estuaries.
Similar to the groundwater problem areas, mentioned above, the presence of a
significant number of failing septic systems in the flood zones can impact public
health since the failing systems often result in sewage backups on lawns that are
percolating with raw sewage including overland flow to nearby water bodies.
For this analysis, the flood zone areas were not carried forward because the minimal
amount of flood areas in Brewster relate closely to the groundwater table issues and
are not considered critical at this time. Figure 3-11 shows the flood zone areas in
Brewster.
PleasantBayCape CodBayQuivett CreekNamskaket CreekStony
B
r
o
o
kORLEANSORLEANS BREWSTERBREWSTERDENNISDENNISHARWICHHARWICHCHATHAMCHATHAM1371371371371246A6A396A2828PB155 %PB142 %PB1013 %PB123 %PB112 %PB132 %PB513 %PB618 %PB31 %PB73 %PB23 %PB15 %PB82 %HR32 %HR11 %HR22 %HR66 %NP319 %HR41 %HR710 %HR813 %HR92 %PB/N27 %PB/N18 %NP44 %NP114 %SB117 %PB92 %PB410 %SB/BR212 %SB/Q17 %N321 %N215 %N129 %Q122 %SB59 %SB45 %SB616 %SB27 %NP213 %SB33 %HR51 %NP56 %SB/BR132 %SB739 %PB1912 %PB2024 %PB180 %PB171 %PB160 %60 0.25 0.5 0.75 1MilesDepth to Groundwaterin BrewsterBrewster Pond and MEP Watersheds< 5 feet Depth to GroundwaterMEP/CCC Defined SubwatershedsFigure 3-10
PleasantBayCape CodBayQuivett CreekNamskaket CreekStony
B
r
o
o
kORLEANSORLEANS BREWSTERBREWSTERDENNISDENNISHARWICHHARWICHCHATHAMCHATHAM1371371371371246A6A396A2828PB15PB14PB10PB12PB11PB13PB5PB6PB3PB7PB2PB1PB8HR3HR1HR2HR6NP3HR4HR7HR8HR9PB/N2PB/N1NP4NP1SB1PB9PB4SB/BR2SB/Q1N3N2N1Q1SB5SB4SB6SB2NP2SB3HR5NP5SB/BR1SB7PB19PB20PB18PB17PB1660 0.25 0.5 0.75 1MilesFlood Zones in BrewsterA (1% annual chance of flooding)AE (base floodplain where base flood elevations are provided)VE (coastal areas with a 1% or greater chance of flooding)Brewster Pond and MEP WatershedsMEP/CCC Defined SubwatershedsFigure 3-11
Section 3
Groundwater
3-24
MJ01109s3.doc
The town is aware that future infrastructure improvements will need to take flood
zones into account and the potential for expansion of the flood zones due to climate
change and rising sea levels. The Cape Cod Commission multi-hazard mitigation plan
discusses climate change and the associated rising sea levels. It provides guidance to
reduce identified risks and recommends new strategies where necessary. At this time
it is expected that the climate change effects for Brewster will focus on coastal areas
and include inundation of low-lying lands, inland migration of flood zones, and
higher groundwater levels near the ocean.
3.3.11 Identified Title 5 Areas of Concern
Title 5 areas of concern are typically identified through Board of Health records and
local knowledge that indicate particular areas where septic systems have failed or are
difficult to site. They are important because they can indicate areas of failing septic
systems that were not identified through the typical desktop screening needs
analyses.
In a needs analysis, this information is particularly helpful because the existing Board
of Health data can be a direct indicator of an existing problem rather than a potential
problem. The presence of a significant number of failing septic systems impact public
health and can result in sewage backups including overland flow to nearby water
bodies.
For this study, a detailed analysis of Title 5 areas of concern was not possible because
most of the Board of Health data in Brewster is not computerized. A more detailed
analysis of existing Board of Heath data would be needed to adequately characterize
Title 5 areas of concern and may be recommended as a future task for specific study
areas to confirm initial findings.
3.4 Groundwater Needs Assessment Results
Utilizing the above information, the 50 subwatersheds were evaluated using a two-
step process:
1. Presence or threshold values were established for each of the criteria to determine
if a watershed is at risk as defined below:
Zone II and DCPC ->40%
Zoning –A subwatershed with refuse disposal or industrial development
Impervious Areas ->10%
Poor Soils ->20%
Protected Open Space -<50%
Section 3
Groundwater
3-25
MJ01109s3.doc
Parcel Size –More than 25% of the parcels are <15,000 square feet, or more
than 100 parcels in a subwatershed are <15,000 square feet
Development Density –> 0.75 buildings per acre
Groundwater Problem Areas / Depth to Groundwater –At least 25% of the
subwatershed has depth to groundwater <5 feet
2. The number of risk factors for each subwatershed is summed. If the watershed
study area has three or more risk factors, it is considered to be at risk.
In this analysis, 16 of the 50 subwatersheds have three or more risk factors, as
depicted in Figure 3-12; these are judged to be potentially at risk from activities in
their watersheds. A description of these subwatersheds and their risk factors is
presented below.
Six Risk Factors - Subwatershed SB7, the area tributary to Slough Pond, has six
risk factors, including Zone II + DCPC, impervious cover, poor soils, open space,
small parcels, and shallow depth to groundwater.
Four Risk Factors - Ten watersheds have four risk factors. Five of these
subwatersheds are located in the Pleasant Bay watershed (PB 8,11,14,15 and 20)
and two are in the Herring River watershed (Sheep Pond (HR7) and Seymour
Pond (HR9)). Two additional subwatersheds are the large areas (NP1 and NP4)
that define the central area of town along Cape Cod Bay. The remaining
subwatershed is the potentially shared subwatershed between Stony Brook and
Bass River (SB/BR1).
Three Risk Factors - Five subwatersheds have three risk factors. These include the
western portion of the Namskaket watershed (N1); Smith Pond (SB2), which was
included because it has the refuse disposal area; and two small subwatersheds
that are tributaries to Pleasant Bay (PB12 and PB16). Lastly is the very small
subwatershed in Brewster that contributes to Hinckleys Pond (HR6).
PleasantBayCape CodBayStony
B
r
o
o
k
Quivett CreekNamskaket CreekORLEANSORLEANSBREWSTERBREWSTERDENNISDENNISHARWICHHARWICHCHATHAMCHATHAM1371371371371246A6A396A2828PB15PB14PB10PB12PB11PB13PB5PB6PB3PB7PB2PB1PB8HR3HR1HR2HR6NP3HR4HR7HR8HR9PB/N2PB/N1NP4NP1SB1PB9PB4SB/BR2SB/Q1N3N2N1Q1SB5SB4SB6SB2NP2SB3HR5NP5SB/BR1SB7PB19PB20PB18PB17PB1660 0.25 0.5 0.75 1MilesResults of Preliminary Groundwater Needs AssessmentBrewster Pond and MEP WatershedsAt Lower Risk for Impacts to GroundwaterPotentially at Risk for Impacts to GroundwaterMEP/CCC Defined SubwatershedsFigure 3-12
4-1
MJ01109s4.doc
Section 4
Estuaries
4.1 Background
Estuaries are special water bodies occurring when the sea extends inland and meets
the mouth of a fresh water river or stream. The estuaries of southeastern
Massachusetts - the harbors and bays of Cape Cod, Buzzards Bay and the Islands - are
ecosystems that provide home and habitat for shellfish and sea grasses and breeding
grounds for important commercial offshore marine fisheries.
Rapid population growth over several decades has created an abundance of nutrients,
such as phosphorus and nitrogen that have leached into the estuaries through ground
and surface waters. That same population growth may contribute to elevated levels of
bacteria that have historically been detected in the Quivett and Namskaket Creeks.
These two estuaries in Brewster have been issued a pathogen TMDL, but the exact
source of these pathogens are not certain at this time.
Nitrogen is the nutrient of significant concern for saltwater estuaries. Typical nitrogen
sources are atmospheric deposition (nitrate in precipitation), septic system effluent,
stormwater runoff, fertilizers, animal waste,and point sources such as effluent from
wastewater treatment systems. All but atmospheric deposition are considered
controllable sources. These nutrients act as a fertilizer to aquatic plants and lead to
changes in water quality and buildup of invasive weeds and algal growth that cause
fish kills, close beaches, destroy productive shellfish areas, and create aesthetically
displeasing waters.
The Massachusetts Estuaries Project (MEP) is a joint initiative of the Massachusetts
Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EOEEA) through MassDEP
and the University of Massachusetts (UMass) School of Marine Science and
Technology (SMAST). Its goal is to evaluate the nitrogen sensitivity of 89 estuaries
along the southeastern Massachusetts coast.Using comprehensive water quality
sampling and quantitative Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) modeling, the MEP is
determining where nutrient reductions are needed to preserve or restore long-term
water quality. Sources of nitrogen examined in MEP studies include: wastewater from
septic systems, wastewater from treatment facilities, fertilizers, and atmospheric
deposition. Funded by the communities and the state, the project also involves
collaboration with Coastal Zone Management, the Cape Cod Commission, and
numerous Massachusetts coastal communities.
Under the Federal Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) have the power
to require communities contributing nitrogen to the particular embayment to meet
regulatory limits set by calculating the TMDL of nitrogen.
The MEP is assessing the impact of nitrogen loading in two parallel efforts -
evaluation of the local estuarine environments and evaluation of the watersheds and
groundwater.
Section 4
Estuaries
4-2
MJ01109s4.doc
This section includes a discussion of each of the MEP regulated watersheds and their
evaluation ratings. The pathogen TMDLs are discussed in the coastal resources in
Section 6.5.
4.2 Major Watershed Study Areas
The MEP is studying four embayments in Brewster: Bass River, Herring River,
Namskaket Creek and Pleasant Bay.
To date, three of the four MEP evaluations have been published – the final Namskaket
Creek report was completed in December 2008 and the final Pleasant Bay report was
completed in May 2006. The Bass River report is under review and the Herring River
report is expected to be completed in early 2011.
Pleasant Bay
The Pleasant Bay watershed is shared with the Towns of Harwich, Orleans and
Chatham. Based on the Final Pleasant Bay Report, issued in 2006, the four towns
understand that they will likely need to remove nitrogen from the Pleasant Bay
watershed. Brewster has a significant amount of land area contributing to the Pleasant
Bay despite having minimal frontage on the bay. MassDEP has developed a TMDL
for the Pleasant Bay system, which was finalized in May 2007.
Namskaket Creek
The Namskaket Creek watershed is located in the northeast corner of the town and is
shared with the Town of Orleans. The Namskaket Creek watershed, located primarily
in Brewster, is considered to be a resource to the town since it is capable of accepting
additional, excess nitrogen without disrupting the health of the salt marsh. According
to the MEP report published for this watershed in 2008, this embayment is not
currently stressed in terms of nitrogen and may be utilized for effluent recharge in the
future. Currently the Town of Orleans has proposed using lands within the
Namskaket Creek watershed for additional effluent recharge near the existing septage
facility.
Herring River
The Herring River watershed is shared with the Town of Harwich. At this time, the
Herring River report has not been released and the results have not been published.
The town believes it may not have to reduce nitrogen in this estuary because there is
little development in this watershed within the town boundary. The town is in the
headwaters of the estuary and the amount of freshwater ponds downstream of this
area is extensive. The presence of freshwater ponds in a watershed can naturally
attenuate nitrogen in the system.
Bass River
The upper reaches of the Bass River watershed are shared with the Towns of Dennis
and Yarmouth. At this time, a not for public release of the Bass River report was sent
to the towns. This preliminary report shows that a very small portion of the Bass
River Watershed extends into Brewster. Areas SB/BR1 and SB/BR2 located in the
southwest corner of the town are areas in Brewster that are included (see Figure 1-3).
Section 4
Estuaries
4-3
MJ01109s4.doc
All of the four estuaries mentioned above are being studied by MEP to determine if
there is too much nitrogen present in the system. If these estuaries are above the
threshold limits set by MEP, they will eventually be regulated by a nitrogen TMDL (as
was developed for Pleasant Bay).
4.3 Watershed Study Area Categories
To further characterize Brewster’s 50 subwatersheds by their status in the MEP
process, all watersheds were tabulated and assigned to one of two distinct categories:
1. Studied by MEP
2. Not Studied by MEP
Studied by MEP
The areas studied by MEP will need to be evaluated to determine if excess nitrogen
has already been introduced into the estuary system. If the MEP determines that the
system has excessive nitrogen a TMDL will be issued by the MassDEP.
If too much nitrogen is present in the system, the town will need to begin addressing
the situation (to meet the requirements of the TMDL) by providing upgraded
wastewater treatment that removes more nitrogen than conventional septic systems
or utilizing nitrogen trading with communities that share the watershed. For example,
Brewster might want to consider utilizing a nitrogen trading scenario for the
Namskaket Creek watershed as a way to offset nitrogen reductions that may be
required in other watersheds.
Not Studied by MEP
It is also important to note that the Cape Cod Bay watershed is not considered to be
nitrogen impaired but the bay and its watersheds, however, are considered to be
significant town resources.
4.4 Summary of Findings
Table 4-1 shows the MEP category of each of Brewster’s 50 subwatersheds. The table
indicates if the subwatershed is included in an MEP study and if it requires additional
consideration as a nitrogen sensitive study area; 36 subwatersheds are in MEP study
areas. The remaining 14 subwatersheds are not in MEP study areas. The table also
indicates that 24 of the 36 subwatersheds studied by MEP are currently known to be
nitrogen sensitive, and are or eventually will be subject to a nitrogen TMDL. It is
currently unknown if the nine subwatersheds in the Herring River watershed are
nitrogen sensitive because the MEP study for this watershed is under development.
The Namskaket Creek system is an exception since it is studied by the MEP, but the
nitrogen loads are below the threshold for nitrogen. As a result a TMDL is not
expected for this system.
Section 4Estuaries4-4MJ01109s4.docTable 4-1MEP StatusMajor WatershedWatershed IDMinor WatershedAREA (Acres)Studied By MEPNot Studied By MEPNitrogen Sensitive andSubject to TMDLPleasant BayPleasant Bay PB1 Bakers Pond 110XYesPleasant Bay PB10 Rafe Pond 10XYesPleasant Bay PB11 Quanset Pond 20XYesPleasant Bay PB12 Twinings Pond 38XYesPleasant Bay PB13 Brewster - Silas Rd Well 218XYesPleasant Bay PB14 Shoal Pond 43XYesPleasant Bay PB15 Deep Pond 44XYesPleasant Bay PB16 Uncle Seths Pond 61XYesPleasant Bay PB17 Brewster - Freeman's Way 430XYesPleasant Bay PB18 Tar Kiln Stream 268XYesPleasant Bay PB19 Mud Pond 23XYesPleasant Bay PB2 Pilgrim Lake 51XYesPleasant Bay PB20 Grassy Pond 13XYesPleasant Bay PB3 Arey's Pond 33XYesPleasant Bay PB4 Orleans town Well 66XYesPleasant Bay PB5 Higgins Pond 33XYesPleasant Bay PB6 Little Cliff Pond 44XYesPleasant Bay PB7 Namequoit River 118XYesPleasant Bay PB8 Pleasant Bay Main Basin 863XYesPleasant Bay PB9 Orleans - Well 7 94XYesNamskaketNamskaket N1 Namskaket Creek 802XNoNamskaket N2 Namskaket Stream 342XNoNamskaket N3 Flax Pond 66XNoHering RiverHerring River HR1 Washburn Bog 70XUnknownHerring River HR2 Elbow Pond 62XUnknownHerring River HR3 Herring River Misc 197XUnknownHerring River HR4 Herring River Misc 200XUnknownHerring River HR5 Harwich town Well 88XUnknownHerring River HR6 Hinkley's Pond 13XUnknownHerring River HR7 Seymour Pond 199XUnknownHerring River HR8 Long Pond 715XUnknownHerring River HR9 Sheep Pond 67XUnknownSharedPleasant Bay/ Namskaket Creek PB/N1 Ruth Pond 52XYesPleasant Bay/Namskaket Creek PB/N2 Cliff Pond 571XYesStony Brook/Bass River SB/BR1 Pine Pond 15XYesStony Brook/Bass River SB/BR2 Potential Bass River 122XYesStony Brook/Quivett SB/Q1 Canoe Pond 28XNoQuivettCreekQuivett Creek Q1 Quivett Creek 1165XNoStony BrookStony Brook SB1 Cape Cod Bay 1 867XNoStony Brook SB2 Smith Pond 33XNoStony Brook SB3 Griffiths Pond 126XNoStony Brook SB4 Lower Mill Pond 155XNoStony Brook SB5 Upper Mill Pond 882XNoStony Brook SB6 Walker Pond 379XNoStony Brook SB7 Slough Pond 25XNoCape CodBayCape Cod Bay NP1 Cape Cod Bay 2 2210XNoCape Cod Bay NP2 Schoolhouse Pond 92XNoCape Cod Bay NP3 Cobbs Pond 255XNoCape Cod Bay NP4 Cape Cod Bay 3 1968XNoCape Cod Bay NP5 Blueberry Pond 154XNo
5-1
MJ01109s5.doc
Section 5
Freshwater Ponds
5.1 Introduction and Scope
5.1.1 Brewster’s Kettle Ponds
The Cape Cod Pond and Lake Atlas (Cape Cod Commission Water Resources Office,
2003) includes 81 freshwater ponds in Brewster, including those that are shared with
neighboring communities (Figure 5-1). For the most part, the ponds are kettle ponds,
and were formed as depressions left by ice blocks following the retreat of the glaciers.
The physical and water quality
characteristics of Brewster’s ponds
are quite diverse. The ponds range
in size from less than 0.1 acre to
more than 730 acres. Figure 5-2
shows the distribution of pond
area. Data on pond depth is only
available for 30 ponds; their depths
range from 8 feet (2.4 meters at
Walkers Pond) to nearly 85 feet (26
meters at Cliff Pond). All ponds
appear to be expressions of the
groundwater table (i.e.,they are not
perched above the water table).
Most ponds are flow-through (or
seepage) ponds, which means their inflows and outflows, aside from rainfall and
evaporation, occur solely through groundwater flow. Some ponds within Brewster
also release water through streams (e.g., Cobbs and Upper Mill), while only a few
ponds have both inlet and outlet streams (e.g., Lower Mill).
Most ponds appear not to have been physically altered. Exceptions include those in
the Stony Brook watershed, where dams have been constructed since 1661
(http://www.town.brewster.ma.us/index.php?option=com_content&view=category
&id=59&Itemid=67). The current dam is now the outlet of Lower Mill Pond. The
change in water level from the dam and possibly some other alterations have
enlarged Upper Mill Pond, based on a significant change in its current shape
compared to that shown on a 1858 Barnstable County map in the Boston Public
Library archives (http://maps.bpl.org/details_10693/). Further, a pipe is reported to
now connect Elbow Pond in the Herring River watershed to Walkers Pond; it seems
likely that the pipe was laid to extend the Stony Brook herring run to Elbow Pond,
though it also currently appears to serve to discharge water from a cranberry bog near
Elbow Pond to Walkers Pond. Another likely alternative is the herring run that
connects Seymour Pond to Hinckley’s Pond in Harwich, which was either created or
enhanced. Lastly, the overflow channels from Myricks and Cobb Pond in northern
Brewster have been connected to a ditch-drainage system known as the Consodine
Ditch (SEA, 1997). In addition to the ponds, Figure 5-1 depicts surface water features
in Brewster, and where information is available shows the connections and directions
of flow between the ponds.
Figure 5-2: Distribution of Area for Brewster’s
Ponds
PleasantBayCape CodBayStony
B
r
o
o
k
Quivett CreekNamskaket CreekConsodine DitchTriangle PondHiggins PondWidger HoleUpperMillPondSeymour PondLees PondKeeler PondVespers PondOwl PondSchoolhouse PondBakers PondMyricks PondCobbs PondBlueberry PondCliff PondLittle Cliff PondFreemansPondEel PondWalkers PondRuth PondGrassy Nook PondNo Bottom PondSmith PondRafe PondSheepPondEd Snow PondLower Mill PondGriffiths PondCalf Field PondCanoe PondBalogs BogLong PondTuckers PondRound Pond1858 BogCahoon PondMud PondGirl Scout PondGreenland PondMill PondSmalls PondBlack PondGrassy PondSlough PondPine PondElbow PondDark Bottom PondLittlefields PondWashburn Bog PondFlax PondSols PondBREWSTERBREWSTERDENNISDENNISHARWICHHARWICHCHATHAMCHATHAMORLEANSORLEANS1371371371371246A6A396A282860 0.25 0.5 0.75 1MilesSurface Water Resources in BrewsterFlow DirectionHydrologyPondsFigure 5-1
Section 5
Freshwater Ponds
5-3
MJ01109s5.doc
In their original state, the ponds on Cape Cod are naturally clear and acidic due to
few sources of nutrients and soils of granitic origin. The typical physical setting of the
ponds on Cape Cod aids both to protect and threaten their water quality. The
protection is offered by the relatively high permeability soils of the ponds’
watersheds. These soils soak up precipitation resulting in limited runoff in an
unaltered watershed. The soils also tend to bind phosphorus making it unavailable
for transport through groundwater into the ponds. This is important because an
increase in phosphorus will increase plant growth (typically as algae), which can lead
to degraded water quality through loss of water transparency, noxious algal blooms,
and impairment or death of aquatic life through loss of oxygen.
Kettle ponds are sensitive to anthropogenic phosphorus loadings and it only takes a
small increase in phosphorus to alter the pond’s water quality. The physical setting is
thus a threat to water quality because most ponds have long residence times (slow
flushing rates). This means that additional phosphorus that reaches the ponds will
remain in the ponds unless lost through an outlet stream (for those few ponds with
outlets) or by deep burial. Thus, many kettle ponds have their principal source of
phosphorus generated from within the pond, typically through regeneration of
phosphorus at the sediment-water interface under no oxygen (anoxic) conditions. In
flow-through kettle ponds, historic sources of phosphorus (such as fertilizer runoff
from agricultural activities or large waterfowl populations) can continue to affect
pond water quality after the source of phosphorus has stopped.
Brewster’s ponds are a valuable asset to the community and an important water
resource. They provide opportunities for active and passive recreation, define the
appearance of Brewster’s landscape, are important habitats for fish and other aquatic
life, and add to the economic vitality to the community. The uses of the ponds
include:
At least 14 ponds are regularly stocked with fish by Massachusetts Division of Fish
and Wildlife
At least 11 ponds support public swimming
Ten ponds are sufficiently deep to have the potential to support cold-water fish
such as trout and lake chub
Ponds in the Stony Brook and Herring River watersheds provide Atlantic States
Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC)-defined essential habitat for alewife and
blueback herring
Several ponds have poor water quality, and some of these ponds have been identified
as impaired on the MassDEP Integrated Waters List. The draft 2010 list is found at
http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/resources/10list3.pdf. When a waterbody is
included as impaired on the Integrated Waters List, the state must develop a total
maximum daily load (TMDL) allocation for each pollutant and an implementation
plan to meet that load and eliminate the impairment. The ponds on the 2010 draft list
Section 5
Freshwater Ponds
5-4
MJ01109s5.doc
and the reason(s) for inclusion are provided in Table 5-1. Note that the TMDL for
metals (mercury) was completed for Sheep Pond in 2007.
Table 5-1
Brewster Ponds on MassDEP Draft 2010 Integrated Waters List
Pond Impairments
Lower Mill Pond Nutrients
Noxious aquatic plants
Turbidity
Long Pond Organic enrichment/low dissolved oxygen
Sheep Pond Metals
Organic enrichment/low dissolved oxygen*
Upper Mill Pond Nutrients
Organic enrichment/low dissolved oxygen
Noxious aquatic plants
Turbidity
Walkers Pond Nutrients
Noxious aquatic plants
Turbidity
*Note: The town sent a request to MassDEP to have this impairment removed from the
Integrated Waters List due to the high water quality in Sheep Pond
The impairment of Sheep Pond by metals is due to mercury contamination in fish. In
1984, MassDEP started monitoring mercury levels in fish in selected rivers and
lakes/ponds. They found that high mercury levels in fish freshwater fish from lakes
and ponds that otherwise have high water quality were as likely to be found as in fish
from rivers known to contain other contaminants. Sheep Pond was one of the lakes
included in the long-term monitoring report. Currently Sheep Pond is the only pond
in Brewster specifically listed on the state’s Public Health Fish Advisory Consumption
website (http://db.state.ma.us/dph/fishadvisory/). The advisory is for all fish and
states that “Children younger than 12 years of age, pregnant women, women of
childbearing age who may become pregnant, and nursing mothers should not eat any
fish from this water body” and that “The general public should limit consumption of
all fish from this water body to two meals per month.” The USGS reports that the
primary source of mercury in New England aquatic systems is atmospheric
deposition (http://nh.water.usgs.gov/projects/nawqa/hg_dep.htm). When mercury
is released in the air (from natural or anthropogenic sources, such as combustion or
processing of wastes containing mercury) some of it is redeposited locally with
rainfall, while the remainder eventually becomes part of the globally atmospheric
pool of mercury. This mercury reaches land and water surfaces through wet and dry
deposition and is believed to be the primary source of mercury in the fish in Sheep
Pond.
5.1.2 Scope
The initial phase of the Integrated Water Resources Management Plan (IWRMP) aims
to use available information to conduct a needs analysis for Brewster’s ponds, where a
Section 5
Freshwater Ponds
5-5
MJ01109s5.doc
need to protect or restore a pond is established by its existing condition. Ponds that
either have degraded water quality or support a special use that requires protection to
maintain can then be prioritized to determine existing and future water management
needs. This analysis is accomplished by:
Defining contributing areas to the ponds, primarily for groundwater inflow.
Using available data to evaluate the health of the ponds.
Using available data to examine some threats to the ponds’ health.
Determining if patterns can be established between threats and the condition of
pond health so a preliminary evaluation can be made for ponds for which data is
not available.
Working with the Comprehensive Water Planning Committee (CWPC) to prioritize
ponds for protection or restoration.
5.2 Available Data
The primary source of data for assessing pond health is the water quality data
collected by Brewster’s Pond and Lakes Stewards (PALS) program for 29 ponds. The
PALS data collected between 2001 and 2007 was analyzed in the report Brewster
Freshwater Ponds: Water Quality Status and Recommendations for Future Activities
(Eichner et al., 2009), and the means and standard deviations for the parameters were
used in this analysis. Additional data through February 2010 were used to assess
trends for some of the water quality parameters.
Additional sources of data and information were obtained from:
MassGIS shapefiles – Zone II wellhead protection areas, impervious surfaces,
surficial soils, MassDEP wetlands, and hydrologic features.
Town of Brewster Planning Department – Sue Leven provided information
regarding the District of Critical Planning Concern (DCPC), open space parcel
designation, current zoning, and assessor’s data (parcels and buildings) from 2000.
Brewster Department of Public Works (DPW) – Bob Bersin provided the available
information on Brewster’s stormwater system.
Cape Cod Commission (CCC) – Tom Cambareri shared his knowledge of
Brewster’s ponds as well as several GIS layers developed by the Commission,
including the USGS model’s groundwater table elevations based on average 2003
pumping conditions, final Pleasant Bay MEP watersheds, preliminary Herring
River MEP watersheds, draft Cape Cod Bay pond groundwater contributing areas,
and the CCC water resources classification map.
Section 5
Freshwater Ponds
5-6
MJ01109s5.doc
MassDEP, Division of Watershed Management – Mark Matteson provided
additional water quality data, and shared his knowledge of the Stony Brook
watershed ponds and his thoughts about potential revisions to the state’s water
quality standards for ponds.
Massachusetts Department of Public Health (DPH), Bureau of Public Health - data
on pathogens at swimming beaches.
Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife (DFW)- information on current
and previous stocking practices and pond rehabilitations.
United States Geologic Survey (USGS) – 10 meter resolution digital elevation
model (DEM) raster, historic and present day topographic maps.
5.3 Pond Health Assessment
5.3.1 Water Quality Parameters
Typical parameters that are used to evaluate pond water quality include dissolved
oxygen (DO), nutrients (primarily phosphorus and nitrogen), chlorophyll a, Secchi
depth, and tropic status as described below.
Dissolved Oxygen –adequate concentrations of dissolved oxygen are necessary to
sustain fish and other aquatic organisms and the prevention of offensive odors.
Waters are termed anoxic when oxygen levels drop below 1 mg/l.
Phosphorus –a key nutrient influencing plant growth in ponds. Phosphorus is
usually the limiting nutrient to freshwater ponds, such that increasing its
concentration alone will result in greater plant productivity.
Nitrogen –an essential nutrient for plant growth, nitrogen is usually sufficiently
abundant and thus does not limit plant growth. In some highly eutrophic lakes
(which have excess phosphorus – more than plants need to grow), nitrogen can
become the controlling nutrient for plant productivity. In these cases, an ecological
advantage is afforded to certain blue-green algae that have the ability to obtain
nitrogen from the atmosphere (called fixing nitrogen) and use this nitrogen as
nutrient source to fuel algal growth. Thus nitrogen limitation in ponds with excess
phosphorus concentrations can be a factor in blue-green algal blooms in ponds.
Chlorophyll a –a direct measure of a green pigment that transforms light energy
into chemical energy in photosynthesis. Chlorophyll a indicates phytoplankton
(algae) biomass; the trophic status of ponds is often determined from the summer
mean chlorophyll concentrations.
Secchi Depth –a measure of water clarity. Secchi depth is the depth at which a
Secchi disc is visible below the surface of the water. This is one of the simplest and
most commonly used water quality parameters.
Section 5
Freshwater Ponds
5-7
MJ01109s5.doc
Trophic Status –an integrative measure of the health of a pond. There are a
number of methods for evaluating a pond’s trophic status. One of the most
commonly used in waters without non-algal turbidity is the Carlson Trophic Status
Index (TSI), which can be calculated for chlorophyll, phosphorus or Secchi depth
(Carlson, 1977). Typically, ponds are placed in one of three trophic categories,
though the Carlson TSI has several intermediate categories.
- Oligotrophic – typified by clear ponds that are nutrient poor;
- Mesotrophic – a status between oligotrophic and eutrophic; and
- Eutrophic – ponds that are naturally or culturally (anthropogenically) enriched
with nutrients and organic matter.
Culturally eutrophic lakes are considered impaired for many lake uses. They are
less clear because of algal productivity. they can be subject to algal blooms which
can create scum and odors and when they die off can result in low oxygen (as the
algae are eaten by bacteria), which can lead to fish kills. In deep lakes, low oxygen
conditions can occur during the summer in the deep layer (hypolimnion) of the
lake, which can lead to higher concentrations of phosphorus further fueling algal
growth when the lakes layering breaks down in the fall.
5.3.2 Criteria Used for the Pond Health Assessment
There are a number of metrics that can be used to assess the health of ponds,
including water quality data,trophic status, benthic macroinvertebrate data, presence
of invasive species, presence of all life stages of fish, etc. For Brewster’s ponds, the
assessment of pond health is constrained by the available data for the ponds,
primarily the water quality data collected under the PALS program supplemented by
a few other sources. Therefore, we created water quality-based criteria to assess pond
health. The criteria included comparisons to CCC pond guidelines, MassDEP water
quality standards and other general indicators of pond health. The criteria were
divided into two groups: (1) primary indicators of pond health and (2) additional
pond health factors.
Primary Indicators of Pond Health
The primary indicators of pond health are: CCC pond guidelines, dissolved oxygen
concentrations in comparison to state standards, chlorophyll a concentrations that
meet potential state standards, and trophic status.
CCC Pond Guidelines –In the Cape Cod Pond and Lake Atlas (Eichner et al., 2003), CCC
developed guidelines for phosphorus, nitrogen and chlorophyll concentrations in
ponds. The guidelines were based on statistical analysis of data from 195 ponds in the
first PALS snapshot; they establish threshold values to “identify ponds minimally
impacted by human activities.” Two threshold values were determined following an
USEPA methodology for established eco-region reference values: (1) the lower 25
th
percentile of all water quality data and (2) the upper 25
th percentile of unimpacted
Section 5
Freshwater Ponds
5-8
MJ01109s5.doc
ponds, where this latter metric was based on 2001 measured water quality data in
eight ponds across the Cape (including two in Brewster, Slough Pond and Pine Pond).
The two threshold values are shown below. The lower value results from the upper
25th percentile of unimpacted ponds, while the higher value was based on the lower
25th percentile of all pond data. In this analysis, we count the number of sampling
depths where the average pond water quality from 2001 to 2007 is below the larger
threshold value below.
Total phosphorus – 7.5 and 10 μg/l
Total nitrogen – 0.16 and 0.31 mg/l
Chlorophyll a – 1.0 and 1.7 μg/l
Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations – Massachusetts’ water quality standards (314
CMR 4.00) require minimum levels of dissolved oxygen depending on the type of
fishery being supported. For deep ponds where summertime temperatures are below
20°C, oxygen levels must be 6 mg/l or higher to support cold-water fish. The oxygen
levels in all other ponds must be 5 mg/l or higher to support warm-water fish.
In addition to the threshold at the water quality standard, ponds were also flagged
that have very little to no oxygen (are anoxic which is defined as DO < 1 mg/l).
Shallow Pond with Anoxia at One or More Depth Intervals – While a deep pond
typically mixes vertically twice per year, a shallow pond will either not stratify
(have a warmer surface layer than bottom layer) or mix regularly and thus only
have intermittent stratification. When a shallow pond has little to no oxygen at its
bottom, this suggests that the decomposition of organic matter at the pond bottom
is sufficient to use all available oxygen in between mixing.
Deep Pond with Anoxia at One or More Depth Intervals – The complete
depletion of oxygen in the cold waters of a deep pond eliminates habitat for
animals that require it. Relatively few ponds on the Cape have sufficient depth to
create a deep, cold water pond layer (10 out of 82 in Brewster do). Of these, many
ponds are impaired and lack sufficient oxygen in the deep layer to support cold-
water fish.
High Concentrations of Chlorophyll a – Mark Matteson of MassDEP indicated that
the Commonwealth’s water quality standards may be modified to include a new
standard for chlorophyll. The standard would allow chlorophyll levels to exceed
16 μg/l only once during a growing season.
Trophic Status Index – The Carlson TSI was taken from the Brewster Freshwater Ponds
report (Eichner, 2009) based on the average surface chlorophyll value from 2001-07.
These criteria were each evaluated from 1 to 3, where low values identify higher pond
water quality. The values were assigned shown in Table 5-2.
Section 5
Freshwater Ponds
5-9
MJ01109s5.doc
Additional Pond Health Factors
The additional pond health factors that were used to evaluate the impairment of uses
such as swimming, fish kills and toxic algae or to further reveal pond water quality
impairment. The factors that were evaluated are listed below:
Harmful Algal Bloom (with potential toxicity) Occurrence – When ponds have
excessive nutrients dense algal blooms can occur.
Fish Kill Recorded – Fish kills are generally the result of lack of oxygen in a pond.
A fish kill suggests the pond is significantly impaired.
Bacteria Exceeded the State Water Quality Standard for Swimming Beaches –
Several sources could be responsible for high levels of bacteria, including
swimmers, malfunctioning septic systems, stormwater runoff, animals, waterfowl
etc. The state standards are:
- For E. coli, the geometric mean of the five most recent samples shall not exceed
126 colonies per 100 ml and no single sample shall exceed 235 colonies per 100
ml; and
- For enterococci, the geometric mean of the five most recent samples shall not
exceed 33 colonies per 100 ml and no single sample shall exceed 61 colonies per
100 ml.
Average Secchi Depth was Less than 4 feet – This is the state standard for
swimming (105 CMR 435).
Increasing Phosphorus Concentration with Depth –Higher phosphorus
concentrations in deep waters are indicative of regeneration of phosphorus from
Table 5-2
Values used to Evaluate Primary Criteria for Pond Health
Value
Primary Criteria
DO Deep Ponds
DO Shallow
Ponds Chlorophyll a Trophic Status
1
Average DO
> 6 mg/l at all
depths
Average DO
> 5 mg/l at all
depths
All other ponds Olgiotrophic
2
Average DO
between 1 and 6
mg/l
Average DO
between 1 and 5
mg/l
Upper value
standard deviation
Chl a >16µg/l
Mesotrophic
3 Average DO <
1mg/l
Average DO <
1mg/l
Average Chl a >
16 µg/l
Eutrophic
Section 5
Freshwater Ponds
5-10
MJ01109s5.doc
pond sediments under anoxic conditions.This is a classic symptom of a eutrophic
pond.
Hydraulically-connected Cranberry Bogs – Since cranberry bogs can be a
significant source of nutrients to a pond, we have flagged ponds that are or appear
to be hydraulically-connected with nearby bogs that are included in the MassDEP
wetlands layer (it is unclear if all the bogs in this layer are active but any bog that is
currently or recently active has the potential to affect pond water quality;
phosphorus from fertilizers applied in much older unused bogs is unlikely to be a
significant source as the phosphorus would have been consumed by subsequent
vegetation or lost to deep burial). The operations at individual bogs will determine
the significance of the source.
5.3.3 Results of the Pond Health Assessment
The evaluation of the available water quality data
using the criteria discussed in Section 5.3.2 resulted in
Brewster’s ponds being placed in one of the following
categories. The number of ponds in each category is
summarized in Table 5-3.
Category 1 – High Quality Ponds:High quality
ponds are judged to be those where either (1) CCC
guidelines are met at all depths for at least two
parameters or (2) the ponds have oxygen levels
above 6 mg/l in at least 3 feet depth of cold water
(<20°C) in the hypolimnion (the cold deep water
zone in a lake during summer stratification).
Category 2 – Ponds that Generally Meet Uses:These are ponds whose available
water quality data suggest that the pond is generally in good health and should
meet uses.
Category 3 – Ponds with Some Water Quality Impairment:These are ponds with
whose water quality data suggest the pond is in good health (i.e., same as Category
2) but that an impairment of water quality has occurred as evaluated by the pond
having “exceeded” one additional pond factors; these factors are described in
Section 5.3.2. For instance, Smalls Pond has generally good water quality except
that it is a shallow pond that has very low oxygen in its bottom layer.
Category 4 – Ponds with Impaired Health:This category was assigned if the sum
of the values for the primary criteria as defined in Table 5-2 was 7 or higher.
Category 4A – Ponds with Impaired Health with other Factors:This category was
assigned if the sum of the values for primary criteria was less than 7, but had at
least two of the additional pond factors noting an impairment of water quality;
additional pond factors are described in Section 5.3.2.
Table 5-3
Results of Pond Health
Assessment
Category No. of Ponds
15
22
35
412
4A 5
552
Section 5
Freshwater Ponds
5-11
MJ01109s5.doc
Category 5 – Ponds with No Water Quality Data
Figures 5-3 through 5-7 show the locations of the ponds in each category. The results
of the analysis are discussed below.
Category 1 Ponds
The results of the comparison to the CCC pond guidelines are shown in Table 5-4; the
table only includes ponds for which the guidelines were met at least one time. Those
parameters where all depths meet the guidelines are shown in orange font.
Category 1 ponds are those that where all depths for at least two parameters meet the
CCC pond guidelines. These are Greenland, Higgins, Little Cliff, Sheep and Slough
Ponds.
Higgins Pond is the only pond where the CCC pond guidelines were met by 2001-07
average water quality data at all depths. This deep pond also meets the criteria for
supporting cold-water fisheries.
Four other ponds meet the CCC pond guidelines at all depths for two of the three
parameters: Greenland, Little Cliff, Sheep and Slough Ponds. Of these, Sheep Pond is
the only one with sufficient depth to have a hypolimnion, and it also meets the criteria
for supporting cold-water fisheries. It is notable that Sheep Pond experiences anoxia
(albeit only at its deepest point) and yet is a high quality pond. Review of the
bathymetry data for Sheep Pond shows that the anoxia is only experienced over a
small portion of the pond’s bottom and that phosphorus regeneration from this area
has only slightly elevated phosphorus water column concentrations at depth. Since
these concentrations remain below the CCC pond guidelines Sheep Pond is retained
as a high quality pond.
One additional pond – Flax Pond – meets the criteria for supporting cold-water
fisheries. This pond, however, has elevated phosphorus concentrations (average 2001-
07 is about 70 μg/l) at its deepest sample.The dissolved oxygen data also shows that
the lower bound standard deviation value has no oxygen in the lower 9 meters of the
pond. For these reasons, Flax Pond is not included in the high quality pond category.
PleasantBayCape CodBayStony
B
r
o
o
k
Quivett CreekNamskaket CreekConsodine DitchTriangle PondHiggins PondWidger HoleUpperMillPondSeymour PondLees PondKeeler PondVespers PondOwl PondSchoolhouse PondBakers PondMyricks PondCobbs PondBlueberry PondCliff PondLittle Cliff PondFreemansPondEel PondWalkers PondRuth PondGrassy Nook PondNo Bottom PondSmith PondRafe PondSheepPondEd Snow PondLower Mill PondGriffiths PondCalf Field PondCanoe PondBalogs BogLong PondTuckers PondRound Pond1858 BogCahoon PondMud PondGirl Scout PondGreenland PondMill PondSmalls PondBlack PondGrassy PondSlough PondPine PondElbow PondDark Bottom PondLittlefields PondWashburn Bog PondFlax PondSols PondBREWSTERBREWSTERDENNISDENNISHARWICHHARWICHCHATHAMCHATHAMORLEANSORLEANS1371371371371246A6A396A282860 0.25 0.5 0.75 1MilesCategory 1 - High Quality Ponds in BrewsterCategory 1 PondsGreenland, Higgins, Little Cliff, Sheep, SloughPondsHydrologyFigure 5-3
PleasantBayCape CodBayStony
B
r
o
o
k
Quivett CreekNamskaket CreekConsodine DitchTriangle PondHiggins PondWidger HoleUpperMillPondSeymour PondLees PondKeeler PondVespers PondOwl PondSchoolhouse PondBakers PondMyricks PondCobbs PondBlueberry PondCliff PondLittle Cliff PondFreemansPondEel PondWalkers PondRuth PondGrassy Nook PondNo Bottom PondSmith PondRafe PondSheepPondEd Snow PondLower Mill PondGriffiths PondCalf Field PondCanoe PondBalogs BogLong PondTuckers PondRound Pond1858 BogCahoon PondMud PondGirl Scout PondGreenland PondMill PondSmalls PondBlack PondGrassy PondSlough PondPine PondElbow PondDark Bottom PondLittlefields PondWashburn Bog PondFlax PondSols PondBREWSTERBREWSTERDENNISDENNISHARWICHHARWICHCHATHAMCHATHAMORLEANSORLEANS1371371371371246A6A396A282860 0.25 0.5 0.75 1MilesCategory 2 - Ponds that Generally Meet Uses in BrewsterCategory 2 PondsCobbs, EelPondsHydrologyFigure 5-4
PleasantBayCape CodBayStony
B
r
o
o
k
Quivett CreekNamskaket CreekConsodine DitchTriangle PondHiggins PondWidger HoleUpperMillPondSeymour PondLees PondKeeler PondVespers PondOwl PondSchoolhouse PondBakers PondMyricks PondCobbs PondBlueberry PondCliff PondLittle Cliff PondFreemansPondEel PondWalkers PondRuth PondGrassy Nook PondNo Bottom PondSmith PondRafe PondSheepPondEd Snow PondLower Mill PondGriffiths PondCalf Field PondCanoe PondBalogs BogLong PondTuckers PondRound Pond1858 BogCahoon PondMud PondGirl Scout PondGreenland PondMill PondSmalls PondBlack PondGrassy PondSlough PondPine PondElbow PondDark Bottom PondLittlefields PondWashburn Bog PondFlax PondSols PondBREWSTERBREWSTERDENNISDENNISHARWICHHARWICHCHATHAMCHATHAMORLEANSORLEANS1371371371371246A6A396A282860 0.25 0.5 0.75 1MilesCategory 3 - Ponds with Some WaterQuality Impairment in BrewsterCategory 3 PondsCahoon, Flax, Griffiths, Smalls, SmithPondsHydrologyFigure 5-5
PleasantBayCape CodBayStony
B
r
o
o
k
Quivett CreekNamskaket CreekConsodine DitchTriangle PondHiggins PondWidger HoleUpperMillPondSeymour PondLees PondKeeler PondVespers PondOwl PondSchoolhouse PondBakers PondMyricks PondCobbs PondBlueberry PondCliff PondLittle Cliff PondFreemansPondEel PondWalkers PondRuth PondGrassy Nook PondNo Bottom PondSmith PondRafe PondSheepPondEd Snow PondLower Mill PondGriffiths PondCalf Field PondCanoe PondBalogs BogLong PondTuckers PondRound Pond1858 BogCahoon PondMud PondGirl Scout PondGreenland PondMill PondSmalls PondBlack PondGrassy PondSlough PondPine PondElbow PondDark Bottom PondLittlefields PondWashburn Bog PondFlax PondSols PondBREWSTERBREWSTERDENNISDENNISHARWICHHARWICHCHATHAMCHATHAMORLEANSORLEANS1371371371371246A6A396A282860 0.25 0.5 0.75 1MilesCategory 4 - Ponds with Impaired HealthCategory 4A - Ponds with Impaired Health with Other Factors in BrewsterCategory 4 PondsBlack, Canoe, Girl Scout, Lower Mill, Mill, Myricks, Owl, Pine, Sols, Schoolhouse, Upper Mill, WalkersCategory 4A PondsBlueberry, Cliff, Elbow, Long, SeymourPondsHydrologyFigure 5-6
PleasantBayCape CodBayStony
B
r
o
o
k
Quivett CreekNamskaket CreekConsodine DitchVespers PondSlough PondGrassy PondBlack PondSmalls PondMill PondGreenland PondGirl Scout PondMud PondCahoon Pond1858 BogCanoe PondRound PondTuckers PondLong PondHiggins PondWidger HoleUpperMillPondSeymour PondWalkers PondLees PondKeeler PondBalogs BogOwl PondTriangle PondBakers PondMyricks PondCobbs PondBlueberry PondCliff PondLittle Cliff PondFreemansPondEel PondSchoolhouse PondRuth PondGrassy Nook PondNo Bottom PondSmith PondRafe PondSheepPondEd Snow PondLower Mill PondGriffiths PondCalf Field PondPine PondElbow PondDark Bottom PondLittlefields PondWashburn Bog PondFlax PondSols PondORLEANSORLEANSBREWSTERBREWSTERDENNISDENNISHARWICHHARWICHCHATHAMCHATHAM1371371371371246A6A28396A286BR-296BR-280BR-255BR-252BR-244BR-214BR-206BR-200BR-195BR-183BR-143BR-173BR-164BR-266BR-3200 0.25 0.5 0.75 1MilesCategory 5 - Ponds with NoWater Quality Data in BrewsterCategory 5 PondsPonds with No Water Quality DataPondsHydrologyFigure 5-7-1858 Bog-Bakers Pond-Balogs Bog-Calf Field Pond-Dark Bottom Pond-Ed Snow Pond-Freemans Pond-Grassy Nook Pond-Grassy Pond-Keeler Pond-Lees Pond-Littlefields Pond-Mud Pond-No Bottom Pond-Rafe Pond-Round Pond-Ruth Pond-Triangle Pond-Tuckers Pond-Vespers Pond-Washburn Bog Pond-Widger Hole-BR-143-BR-146-BR-148-BR-150-BR-155-BR-156-BR-157-BR-164-BR-172-BR-173-BR-183-BR-185-BR-186-BR-187-BR-188-BR-193-BR-195-BR-200-BR-206-BR-211-BR-214-BR-244-BR-250-BR-252-BR-255-BR-266-BR-273-BR-280-BR-296-BR-317-BR-320List of Ponds with No Water Quality Data
Section 5
Freshwater Ponds
5-17
MJ01109s5.doc
Table 5-4
Number of Sample Depths Meeting CCC Pond Guidelines
Pond Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen Chlorophyll a
Cliff 1 of 4 2 of 4 None
Elbow 1of 3 1 of 3 None
Flax 3of4 3of4 3of4
Greenland 2of2 2of2 None
Griffiths 1 of 2 1 of 2 None
Higgins 4of4 4of4 4of4
Little Cliff 2of2 2of2 1of2
Owl 1 of 2 1 of 2 None
Pine 1of2 1of2 None
Sheep 4of4 4of4 3of4
Slough 2of2 2of2 None
Category 2 Ponds
Only two ponds have available water quality suggesting that the pond is generally in
good health and should meet uses. These are Eel Pond and Cobbs Pond. Both ponds
are mesotrophic, have chlorophyll levels below the potential state water quality
standard of 16 μg/l, and have dissolved oxygen levels below the MassDEP standard
(but on average above the hypoxic 3 mg/l threshold that impairs aquatic life). Both
ponds were not noted for having any of the additional factors that suggest a concern
for pond health.
Of the two, Eel Pond has slightly lower water quality, including an upper bound
standard deviation value for chlorophyll that approaches the 16 μg/l threshold.
Category 3 Ponds
Five ponds were judged to have some impairment to their water quality: Cahoon,
Flax, Griffiths, Smalls and Smith Pond. The reason for including these ponds in this
category were shallow ponds with anoxia (Cahoon and Smalls), large increase in total
Section 5
Freshwater Ponds
5-18
MJ01109s5.doc
phosphorus concentration with depth (Flax), cranberry bog presence (Griffiths),
eutrophic pond (Smith).
Category 4 and 4a Ponds
Twelve of the 29 ponds with water quality data were evaluated as impaired (Category
4) based on primary pond health criteria. These ponds are listed in Table 5-5; the
order is alphabetical by total point category.
Table 5-5
Results of Pond Health Assessment: Category 4 Ponds
Pond
Average DO
Deep
Ratings
Average DO
Shallow
Rating
High
Chlorophyll
Rating
Trophic
Status
Rating
Total
Canoe
All Category
4 ponds are
shallow
3238
Girl Scout 3 3 2 8
Lower Mill 2 3 3 8
Mill 3 2 3 8
Myricks 3 3 2 8
Schoolhouse 2 3 3 8
Black 2 2 3 7
Owl 2 3 2 7
Pine 2 3 2 7
Sols 2 3 2 7
Upper Mill 2 3 2 7
Walkers 1 3 3 7
The results of the analysis of primary health factors only identified shallow ponds as
impaired. Three deep ponds (Long, Seymour, and Sheep Ponds) have anoxia in their
bottom waters, but did not have sufficiently high enough values for the other primary
health factors to rank them as impaired using the stated criteria.
The other metric for impaired ponds is having two or more other pond health factors
(Category 4A). Ponds that were not in Category 4 but meet this metric are Blueberry,
Cliff, Elbow, Long and Seymour.
Blueberry Pond – This pond is included as an impaired pond because it has both
anoxia as a shallow pond and higher phosphorus with depth (average TP is about 25
μg/l at depth compared to about 10 μg/l in the surface waters). The phosphorus
values at depth are quite variable and have ranged over 100 μg/l. The high
Section 5
Freshwater Ponds
5-19
MJ01109s5.doc
phosphorus levels in Blueberry Pond have manifested in chlorophyll a levels
averaging 28 μg/l at depth. The algal levels are quite variable as the upper bound
standard deviation of the chlorophyll values is above 55 μg/l.
Cliff Pond – This rating is a result of Cliff Pond having additional pond factors of
increasing phosphorus concentration with depth and having had a toxic algal bloom
in the 1990s (the ponds was also posted during a blue-green algal bloom in August
2009 even though the measured levels were below the state’s action threshold).
Cliff Pond is a mesotrophic pond whose dissolved oxygen levels in deep waters
average below 3 mg/l, and whose lower bound standard deviation concentration is
near zero. The low dissolved oxygen results in significant phosphorus concentrations
at the pond bottom (averages nearly 80 μg/l ± 50 μg/l as a standard deviation). In the
epilimnion (surface waters down to about 9 meters), phosphorus levels average about
10 μg/l but can be double that value. Thus, while the data suggest that elevated
phosphorus levels are generally limited to the hypolimnion during the growing
season; there appears to be a source of phosphorus that can trigger summer algal
blooms. Given that Cliff Pond is located in Nickerson State Park, where typical
anthropogenic sources of phosphorus are less prevalent, the origin of the phosphorus
that is now being recycled in the pond is not clear. Possibilities include an historic
source of phosphorus, heavy use of the pond by visitors resulting in shoreline erosion
and possible direct contribution of wastewater.
Elbow Pond -- This pond is included as an impaired pond because it has both (1) an
anoxic bottom up to 3 m above the deepest point of the pond and (2) elevated
phosphorus levels at depth (average about 75 μg/l compared to about 10 μg/l in the
surface waters). In addition, two cranberry bogs are adjacent to the pond’s edge. We
do not currently understand how the operations of these bogs might impact Elbow
Pond but given their proximity it seems prudent to flag them as potential sources of
nutrients either through direct discharge, drift of fertilizer applied by helicopter, or
sloughing of mounded dredge spoils from cleaning of the bogs’ channels. In addition,
there is a reported 6-inch diameter pipe that discharges from Elbow Pond to Walkers
Pond via the northern cranberry bog; such a discharge would result in nutrient load
being added to the hydraulically-connected ponds in the Stony Brook watershed.
The relatively good water quality in the pond’s surface water (where 2001-07 average
phosphorus and nitrogen concentrations are below the CCC thresholds for good pond
health) belies the poor water quality in the bottom waters. Because the extent of
anoxia is large compared to the pond area, the potential for worsening water quality
through the recycling of phosphorus exists. Review of bottom water phosphorus
concentrations shows that they have already reached levels (nearly 0.5 μg/l) only
matched by ponds with well-documented water quality impairments (i.e.,Long Pond
in 2006 and 2007, Walkers Pond in 2007 and 2008, and Seymour Pond in 2008; and
Schoolhouse Pond in 2006 for which an impairment was not documented). Further
study of the pond is needed.
Section 5
Freshwater Ponds
5-20
MJ01109s5.doc
Long Pond – Long Pond is included in this list because of impairments documented
prior to the pond being treated with alum in the fall of 2007. The limited available
water quality data since the alum treatment suggest that the water quality has not
returned to the highly impacted condition prior to the pond treatment, but it also
suggests that some elevated phosphorous levels are still present in the pond.
The Treatment Summary for Phosphorus Inactivation in Long Pond (AECOM, 2009)
provides water quality monitoring data for the year following the alum treatment.
The phosphorus data during this year are ambiguous. After the initial drop in
phosphorus levels in the month following the treatment, AECOM (2009) reports “the
pattern that arose after October 2007 was unexpected. In essence, TP [total
phosphorus] and DP [dissolved phosphorus] increased gradually between October
2007 and April 2008, with TP reaching levels similar to those of the upper layer from
September 2007 in April and May 2008. DP levels did not recover to pre-treatment
levels, but did increase to more than half the pre-treatment concentration.”
The only Long Pond data we have subsequent to the report was collected in April
2009 and April 2010. In the 2009 dataset, total phosphorus concentration in the
bottom waters was 72 μg/l (about 5 times the concentration in the overlying waters),
whilethe2010thebottomconcentrationwasonly19μg/laboutdoublethatatthe
other depths. The bottom line for Long Pond is that additional data is needed to
understand the effectiveness of the pond treatment.
Seymour Pond –This is a category 4A pond because it has increasing TP
concentrations with depth and there is a cranberry bog within its 300 ft buffer.
5.4 Threats to Pond Water Quality
In this initial pond assessment, data available for all ponds was used to assess the
potential for certain threats to impact pond water quality. For this first phase of
analysis, only data available as GIS layers was used so that a broad and efficient
evaluation for each of Brewster’s 81 ponds could be conducted.
5.4.1 Evaluated Threats
The available GIS data allows for examination of the following threats:
Increased overland runoff, and concomitant pollutant loads, due to impervious
cover
The presence of catch basins indicates organized collection of road runoff for
discharge
Disposal of wastewater through septic systems and its travel through groundwater
to ponds
The presence of cranberry bogs adjacent to ponds, which indicate a possible
current or historic source of nutrients to ponds. To evaluate the potential for
impact, information is needed about the operations of specific cranberry bogs
Section 5
Freshwater Ponds
5-21
MJ01109s5.doc
(amount of fertilizer used, discharge points of bog water, location of dredge
materials, etc.).
5.4.2 Area of Potential Impact
To assess the threat of potential impact on pond water quality, the analysis was
performed using a buffer or setback around the perimeter of each pond to define the
area where human activities are most likely to affect pond water quality. The selection
of a setback distance can be a variable in the analysis.
Traditionally studies of the Cape’s water resources use a 300-ft distance as the zone-
of-influence for phosphorus travel in groundwater to ponds and other waterbodies
(see, for example, the MEP studies). While Title 5 (310 CMR 15.00) defines the
minimum septic system setback distance as 50 feet for the conditions found in
Brewster, the Cape Cod Regional Policy Plan has a 300-ft setback for septic leach
fields and the Brewster Board of Health seeks to maximum the setback to be up to 300
feet for leach fields. Figure 5-8 shows the 300-ft buffer for all the ponds in Brewster.
For threats with the potential to travel via overland flow, we have selected to also use
a 300-ft distance for consistency of analysis. This selection is reasonable given the
short travel distance expected during overland flow of stormwater given the sandy
soils in Brewster. In addition, 300 feet is a distance that typically defines the depth of
one, and sometimes two, residential parcels back from the pond such that it would
include any impervious cover on the parcel directed for discharge toward the pond.
5.4.3 Data Used for Threat Analysis
The method used to evaluate the threat to water quality from each factor is described
below.
Impervious Cover
Impervious surfaces are those that have been altered to preclude or significantly
restrict the passage of water through the surface layers of the soil to the subsurface
(e.g., paving or compaction due to foot or vehicle traffic). Impervious surfaces are
defined by MassGIS as all constructed surfaces such as buildings, roads, parking lots,
brick, asphalt, and concrete. They also include areas of man-made compacted soils or
material such as mining (sand and gravel pits), unpaved parking lots, or dirt roads
where no vegetation is present. Non-impervious surfaces can be defined as all
vegetated areas, both natural and man-made, water bodies and wetland areas, and
any natural occurring barren areas (i.e.rocky shores, sand, and bare soil). The percent
of land within the 300-ft buffer of the shoreline that was classified as impervious was
calculated for each pond. Figure 5-9 shows the distribution of the percentage of
impervious surface within 300 feet of the ponds in Brewster.
PleasantBayCape CodBayStony
B
r
o
o
k
Quivett CreekNamskaket CreekConsodine DitchTriangle PondHiggins PondWidger HoleUpperMillPondSeymour PondLees PondKeeler PondVespers PondOwl PondSchoolhouse PondBakers PondMyricks PondCobbs PondBlueberry PondCliff PondLittle Cliff PondFreemansPondEel PondWalkers PondRuth PondGrassy Nook PondNo Bottom PondSmith PondRafe PondSheepPondEd Snow PondLower Mill PondGriffiths PondCalf Field PondCanoe PondBalogs BogLong PondTuckers PondRound Pond1858 BogCahoon PondMud PondGirl Scout PondGreenland PondMill PondSmalls PondBlack PondGrassy PondSlough PondPine PondElbow PondDark Bottom PondLittlefields PondWashburn Bog PondFlax PondSols PondBREWSTERBREWSTERDENNISDENNISHARWICHHARWICHCHATHAMCHATHAMORLEANSORLEANS1371371371371246A6A396A282860 0.25 0.5 0.75 1MilesPonds with 300-ft Buffer Areain Brewster300-ft Buffer Area around Perimeter of PondPondsHydrologyFigure 5-8
PleasantBayCape CodBayStony
B
r
o
o
k
Quivett CreekNamskaket CreekConsodine DitchTriangle PondHiggins PondWidger HoleUpperMillPondSeymour PondLees PondKeeler PondVespers PondOwl PondSchoolhouse PondBakers PondMyricks PondCobbs PondBlueberry PondCliff PondLittle Cliff PondFreemansPondEel PondWalkers PondRuth PondGrassy Nook PondNo Bottom PondSmith PondRafe PondSheepPondEd Snow PondLower Mill PondGriffiths PondCalf Field PondCanoe PondBalogs BogLong PondTuckers PondRound Pond1858 BogCahoon PondMud PondGirl Scout PondGreenland PondMill PondSmalls PondBlack PondGrassy PondSlough PondPine PondElbow PondDark Bottom PondLittlefields PondWashburn Bog PondFlax PondSols PondBREWSTERBREWSTERDENNISDENNISHARWICHHARWICHCHATHAMCHATHAMORLEANSORLEANS1371371371371246A6A396A282860 0.25 0.5 0.75 1MilesPercent Impervious within 300-ft Buffer Area in BrewsterPercent Impervious within 300-ft Buffer Area0% - 5%5% - 10%10% - 15%15% - 20%20% - 25%>25%PondsHydrologyFigure 5-9
Section 5
Freshwater Ponds
5-24
MJ01109s5.doc
Catch Basins
A data layer of the catch basins in Brewster was obtained from the DPW. Catch basins
imply locations of centralized stormwater road runoff, which often discharges to a
leaching pit and may lessen the potential for impact. However, there is a possibility
that there are catch basins that have a direct stormwater connection to a surface water
body. Data on catch basins was considered for both the number of catch basins in the
300-foot buffer for each pond and the number of catch basins in the buffer normalized
by the pond area in acres. Figure 5-10 shows the locations of catch basins within
Brewster.
Wastewater Disposal via Septic Systems
The assessment of potential threat from septic leach fields uses GIS to identify
buildings within the 300-foot upgradient buffer around each pond that were likely to
have septic systems; only buildings in the upgradient area are considered because the
groundwater under them will flow into the pond.
Comparison to Buildings and Septic Systems Identified in Brewster Ponds Report
The 2009 Brewster Ponds report included a detailed analysis of the location of septic
system leach fields around six ponds: Seymour, Canoe, Blueberry, Walkers, Upper Mill
and Lower Mill.
This analysis was conducted by town volunteers who reviewed Board of Health records
to determine (1) the number of parcels that were wholly or partially within the 300-foot
buffer upgradient of the ponds, (2) the type of dwelling (if any) on those parcels, and (3)
whether the leach field for those parcels was also within 300 feet of the pond shore.
Steps 1 and 2 of the Brewster Pond report analysis is similar to that done for this report
with the exception that this report used available GIS data layers to automate the
process so that it could be extended to all ponds. A comparison of the buildings
identified through both methods is provided below and indicates that the number of
buildings identified in each method is consistent except for Seymour Pond (where 8
houses are located in Harwich for which a GIS data layer was not available for the CDM
analysis) and Blueberry Pond. The GIS layer in the CDM analysis used the buildings in
2000. Some differences in number of buildings for Blueberry Pond could be because of
development since 2000.
Pond CDM Method Brewster Pond Report Method
#ofBuildings #ofBuildings # of Leach Fields
Seymour 24 36 26
Canoe 333
Blueberry 19 27 11
Upper Mill 67 67 38
LowerMill 121310
The difference between the number of buildings and leach fields within 300 feet of the
pond shore indicates the importance of considering leach fields in developing a
phosphorus loading estimate as was completed in the Brewster Ponds report.
PleasantBayCape CodBayStony
B
r
o
o
k
Quivett CreekNamskaket CreekConsodine DitchTriangle PondHiggins PondWidger HoleUpperMillPondSeymour PondLees PondKeeler PondVespers PondOwl PondSchoolhouse PondBakers PondMyricks PondCobbs PondBlueberry PondCliff PondLittle Cliff PondFreemansPondEel PondWalkers PondRuth PondGrassy Nook PondNo Bottom PondSmith PondRafe PondSheepPondEd Snow PondLower Mill PondGriffiths PondCalf Field PondCanoe PondBalogs BogLong PondTuckers PondRound Pond1858 BogCahoon PondMud PondGirl Scout PondGreenland PondMill PondSmalls PondBlack PondGrassy PondSlough PondPine PondElbow PondDark Bottom PondLittlefields PondWashburn Bog PondFlax PondSols PondBREWSTERBREWSTERDENNISDENNISHARWICHHARWICHCHATHAMCHATHAMORLEANSORLEANS1371371371371246A6A396A282860 0.25 0.5 0.75 1MilesCatch Basins in BrewsterCatch Basin300-ft Buffer Area around Perimeter of PondPondsHydrologyFigure 5-10
Section 5
Freshwater Ponds
5-26
MJ01109s5.doc
The number of potentially contributing septic systems was estimated by querying the
circa 2000 building shapefile for buildings with a footprint larger than 200 square feet
to exclude small buildings not likely to have separate septic leach fields (e.g.,barns,
detached garages or sheds). The portion of the buffer that is upgradient to a pond was
determined using available pond groundwatersheds from the MEP studies and CCC
shapefiles (Section 5.2). For those ponds without delineated groundwatersheds, the
groundwater table contours representing 2003 average conditions were used to
determine the direction of flow to each pond, and thus, the portion of the pond which
would receive flow from the groundwater. The number of appropriate buildings
within the buffer area was then determined. Figure 5-11 shows the buildings greater
than 200 square feet and the upgradient 300-ft buffer area.
Cranberry Bogs
Cranberry bog locations were obtained from the MassGIS DEP wetlands data layer,
which were photo-interpreted and then field checked by MassDEP Wetlands
Conservancy Program. The presence of cranberry bogs indicates the potential of
historic or current inputs of nutrients to receiving water bodies. Cranberry bogs were
considered a potential threat if any portion of the cranberry bog was within the 300-ft
pond buffer or if the bog appeared to be hydraulically-connected to the pond.
Figure 5-12 shows the locations of the cranberry bogs.
5.4.4 Ponds with Water Quality Data
The potential threats to water quality were evaluated first for ponds that had
available water quality from the Brewster Freshwater Ponds report (Eichner, 2009) to
determine if there is a correlation to the pond’s current health as assessed by trophic
status as defined in the report. The ponds with water quality data were plotted from
most oligotrophic to most eutrophic in Figure 5-13, along with the threat information
on impervious cover, number of buildings, number of catch basins and number of
cranberry bogs. See Section 5.3.1 for the discussion regarding the trophic status index.
Impervious Cover
Figure 5-14 provides the same information as Figure 5-13 but only for the impervious
cover threat. Inspection of Figure 5-14 indicates a positive relationship between the
percent impervious cover within the 300-foot buffer area and the health of the pond
(i.e.,on average ponds with higher impervious cover tend to be more eutrophic). This
is important because n pond buffer areas with greater impervious cover, there is
greater potential for runoff to contribute to nutrients to the pond.
There are, however, some notable exceptions to the generally positive relationship.
For example, in two cases an oligotrophic pond has more than 15 percent impervious
within the buffer: Sheep Pond and Blueberry Pond.
Section 5
Freshwater Ponds
5-27
MJ01109s5.doc
Figure 5-11
Buildings in Brewster
PleasantBayCape CodBayStony
B
r
o
o
k
Quivett CreekNamskaket CreekConsodine DitchTriangle PondHiggins PondWidger HoleUpperMillPondSeymour PondLees PondKeeler PondVespers PondOwl PondSchoolhouse PondBakers PondMyricks PondCobbs PondBlueberry PondCliff PondLittle Cliff PondFreemansPondEel PondWalkers PondRuth PondGrassy Nook PondNo Bottom PondSmith PondRafe PondSheepPondEd Snow PondLower Mill PondGriffiths PondCalf Field PondCanoe PondBalogs BogLong PondTuckers PondRound Pond1858 BogCahoon PondMud PondGirl Scout PondGreenland PondMill PondSmalls PondBlack PondGrassy PondSlough PondPine PondElbow PondDark Bottom PondLittlefields PondWashburn Bog PondFlax PondSols PondBREWSTERBREWSTERDENNISDENNISHARWICHHARWICHCHATHAMCHATHAMORLEANSORLEANS1371371371371246A6A396A282860 0.25 0.5 0.75 1MilesCranberry Bogs in BrewsterCranberry Bog300-ft Buffer Area around Perimeter of PondPondsHydrologyFigure 5-12
152025303540CountPotentialThreatstoWaterQuality:PondswithData#ofBuildings>200ft²within300ftUpgradientPondBuffer#ofCatchBasinswithin300ftPondBuffer#ofCranberryBogswithin300ftPondBuffer%Imperviouswithin300ftPondBufferFigure 13. Potential Threats to Water Quality: Ponds with Data0510SheepPondFlaxPondHigginsPondSloughPondGreenlandPondElbowPondCahoonPondBlueberryPondLittleCliffPondGirlScoutPondPinePondCobbsPondGriffithsPondLongPondSolsPondSeymourPondMyricksPondOwlPondSmallsPondCliffPondEelPondMillPondBlackPondCanoePondSmithPondUpperMillPondSchoolhousePondLowerMillPondWalkersPondOLIGOTROPHICMESOTROPHICEUTROPHIC
152025303540mperviousCoverwithin300ftBuffer(%)ImperviousCoverPotentialThreattoWaterQuality:PondswithDataFigure 14. Impervious Cover Potential Threats to Water Quality: Ponds with Data0510SheepPondFlaxPondHigginsPondSloughPondGreenlandPondElbowPondCahoonPondBlueberryPondLittleCliffPondGirlScoutPondPinePondCobbsPondGriffithsPondLongPondSolsPondSeymourPondMyricksPondOwlPondSmallsPondCliffPondEelPondMillPondBlackPondCanoePondSmithPondUpperMillPondSchoolhousePondLowerMillPondWalkersPondPercentofImOLIGOTROPHICMESOTROPHICEUTROPHIC
Section 5
Freshwater Ponds
5-31
MJ01109s5.doc
Sheep Pond has high water quality because it is deep, sits atop of the groundwater
mound, and because the contributing groundwater recharge area is small
compared to the size of the pond. A review of historical data for Sheep Pond shows
that reasonable consistent water quality for several decades suggesting that Sheep
Pond seems to assimilate any runoff-related nutrient load that reaches it. Therefore,
there is no apparent reason for disparity between the greater than 15% impervious
cover and the pond’s high water quality.Sheep Pond was rated Category 1 (high
quality) in the health assessment.
For Blueberry Pond, its classification as an oligotrophic pond was based only on
the surficial chlorophyll a concentrations. After review of the chlorophyll a and
total phosphorous concentrations, Blueberry Pond seems to be more of an
impacted pond than the TSI based on chlorophyll indicates. This is reflected in its
overall health assessment rating of Category 4A-impaired.
There are some instances where mesotrophic and eutrophic ponds do not have a high
percentage of impervious cover such as Cliff Pond or ponds in the Stony Brook
system (Walkers, Upper Mill, and Lower Mill Ponds). The nutrient loads to those
ponds appear to come from another source.
Catch Basins
The relationship between the number of catch basins to individual pond health is
inconclusive. To quantify if runoff reaching catch basins is indeed influencing
individual pond health, field surveys of the stormwater drains from the catch basins
to ponds would be needed. As previously mentioned, many catch basins in Brewster
discharge to a leaching pit ,which infiltrates the stormwater into the ground, and thus
serves to lessen the impact of phosphorus load. Figure 5-15 shows the normalized
number of catch basins within the 300-ft buffer area.
Similar to the catch basin analysis, the correlation between the number of buildings
(as a surrogate for wastewater loads from septic leach fields) and pond health is
inconclusive. Neither the count of buildings nor count normalized to pond area shows
a relationship with pond trophic status. For example, Figure 5-16 shows the
normalized number of buildings within the upstream 300-ft buffer area compared to
pond trophic status. Thus, it appears that phosphorus sources other than septic leach
fields are more important in determining the trophic status for many ponds. This does
not imply that wastewater would not be an important phosphorus source for some
ponds; each pond will have to be examined individually to assess the contribution of
wastewater to a pond’s phosphorus load.
0.50.751within300ftPondBufferperPondSurfaceAreaCatchBasinPotentialThreattoWaterQuality:PondswithDataFigure 15. Catch Basin Potential Threat to Water Quality: Ponds with Data00.25SheepPondFlaxPondHigginsPondSloughPondGreenlandPondElbowPondCahoonPondBlueberryPondLittleCliffPondGirlScoutPondPinePondCobbsPondGriffithsPondLongPondSolsPondSeymourPondMyricksPondOwlPondSmallsPondCliffPondEelPondMillPondBlackPondCanoePondSmithPondUpperMillPondSchoolhousePondLowerMillPondWalkersPond#ofCatchBasinswOLIGOTROPHICMESOTROPHICEUTROPHIC
040.60.811.2inUpgradient300ftPondBufferperPondSurfaceAreaBuilding(SepticSystems)PotentialThreattoWaterQuality:PondswithDataFigure 16. Buildings (Septic Systems) Potential Threat to Water Quality: Ponds with Data00.20.4SheepPondFlaxPondHigginsPondSloughPondGreenlandPondElbowPondCahoonPondBlueberryPondLittleCliffPondGirlScoutPondPinePondCobbsPondGriffithsPondLongPondSolsPondSeymourPondMyricksPondOwlPondSmallsPondCliffPondEelPondMillPondBlackPondCanoePondSmithPondUpperMillPondSchoolhousePondLowerMillPondWalkersPond#ofBuildings>200sq.ftwithOLIGOTROPHICMESOTROPHICEUTROPHIC
Section 5
Freshwater Ponds
5-34
MJ01109s5.doc
Cranberry Bogs
There appears to a positive relationship between the presence of a hydraulic
connection to cranberry bogs and water quality impacts in adjacent ponds, suggesting
that cranberry bogs could be a significant source of phosphorus to ponds (actual
potential for impact would require obtaining further information on the operations of
the specific bogs). Of the 29 ponds with water quality data from the Brewster
Freshwater Ponds report, six ponds have cranberry bogs within 300 feet of their
shoreline, while another four are hydraulically connected to a cranberry bog further
from the shoreline (Figure 5-17). Of the directly adjacent ponds, five are mesotrophic
ponds, while the remaining pond (Elbow Pond) is classified as oligotrophic. Elbow
Pond’s olgiotrophic status is due to low chlorophyll levels in its surface water. Further
review of water quality data for Elbow Pond shows the low oxygen and high
phosphorus concentrations in the deeper waters indicate pond quality is degrading.
The five mesotrophic ponds also have increasing phosphorous with depth and/or
at some or all depths.
Ponds that appear to be hydraulically connected to cranberry bogs are the
mesotrophic Myricks Pond and the eutrophic ponds in the Stony Brook watershed –
Walkers, Upper Mill and Lower Mill Ponds. In the case of Myricks Pond, the
MassDEP Wetlands data layer and the USGS topographic map shows a connection
between Myricks Pond and a cranberry bog on Point of Rocks Road through a series
of wooded swamps. Walkers Pond is the most eutrophic pond in the Brewster ponds
dataset and is reported to be hydraulically connected to a cranberry bog south of
Elbow Pond (CWPC Meeting, correspondence with Matteson, 2010). Walkers Pond is
in the headwaters of the complex of ponds in the Stony Brook system, which flows
from Walkers to Upper Mill to Lower Mill to Stony Brook and eventually to Cape Cod
Bay. Upper Mill and Lower Mill Ponds are also eutrophic.
5.4.5 Ponds with No Water Quality Data
A goal of this threat analysis is to determine if a relationship exists between potential
sources of phosphorus (threats) and the health of the ponds, and then to use this
relationship to identify ponds that do not have water quality data as having the
potential to be impacted. These ponds, which we designate in Category 3A as having
the potential to be impaired, could then be prioritized for confirmatory water quality
monitoring. Based on the analysis in Section 5.4.4, two of the four threat factors
analyzed show a relationship with pond health: percent impervious cover and
presence or connection to cranberry bogs.
For our analysis of impervious cover, we follow the conclusions of Schueler (2003)
who found a relationship between percent impervious cover and the hydrologic,
physical, water quality, and biological conditions of an aquatic system.
Sensitive -Schueler termed waterbodies as “sensitive” if the increase in
impervious cover percentage is less than 10%. Sensitive waterbodies have good to
excellent water quality and have stable habitats.
12NumberofCranberryBogsCranberryBogPotentialThreattoWaterQuality:PondswithData#ofCranberryBogswithin300ftPondBuffer#ofCranberryBogswithPotentialHydraulicConnectionFigure 17. Cranberry Bog Potential Threat to Water Quality: Ponds with Data0SheepPondFlaxPondHigginsPondSloughPondGreenlandPondElbowPondCahoonPondBlueberryPondLittleCliffPondGirlScoutPondPinePondCobbsPondGriffithsPondLongPondSolsPondSeymourPondMyricksPondOwlPondSmallsPondCliffPondEelPondMillPondBlackPondCanoePondSmithPondUpperMillPondSchoolhousePondLowerMillPondWalkersPondOLIGOTROPHICMESOTROPHICEUTROPHIC
Section 5
Freshwater Ponds
5-36
MJ01109s5.doc
Impacted -Waterbodies that are considered to be “impacted” have an impervious
cover percentage between 11 and 25%. Impacted waterbodies are degraded due to
urbanization or development. Biodiversity declines to fair levels and the most
sensitive fish and aquatic insects can disappear.
Non-supporting –Waterbodies that are greater than 25% impervious cover are
considered “non-supporting.” At this level of impervious cover, water quality is
often fair to poor and aquatic habitat is diminished.
Using the percent impervious cover in the 300-foot buffer to categorize the ponds, 30
ponds would be considered sensitive, 20 ponds would be considered impacted and 2
ponds would be considered non-supporting. Figure 5-18 summarizes the
classification based on the impervious thresholds.
The proximity to a cranberry bog is the other primary factor to indicate the potential
to be impacted. Of the 52 ponds in the no data subset, four ponds have cranberry bogs
within a 300-ft buffer: Vespers Pond, Lees Pond, BR-150, and BR-172.
Table 5-6 summarizes the ponds in each classification. Category 3A ponds are those
that would be impacted or non-supporting based on impervious cover or ponds with
a cranberry bog in the 300-ft buffer.
5.4.6 Summary of Threat Analysis and Health Status
A comparison of the results of the threat analysis to the pond health rating illustrates
the complexity of understanding the factors that affect a pond’s water quality and
health. For instance, all but one pond with Category 1 high quality status (Sheep
Pond discussed in Section 5.4 4) has low (<10%) impervious cover in its buffer; there
are, however, six ponds with degraded health that also have <10% impervious cover.
These ponds have other physical or source conditions that contribute to their poor
health. Examples include:
Cliff Pond -- with approximate 3 percent impervious cover -- is an impaired pond
due to low oxygen in the bottom waters and toxic algal blooms that have occurred;
these impacts result from nutrient input beyond runoff from impervious surfaces
and could include direct users of the pond.
Walkers Pond also has an impaired health status despite having little development
in its watershed (about 6 percent impervious cover). The additional source of
nutrients that results in the pond being eutrophic may be coming from upgradient
cranberry bogs.
In another example, Owl Pond’s impaired health (Category 4) could be attributed to a
number of factors related to development in its upgradient land. These include over
25 percent impervious cover, and a large number of buildings and catch basins within
the 300-ft pond buffer, particular as compared to the small size of Owl Pond.
Determining the factors that affect or contribute to impaired health of a pond usually
requires a detailed pond-specific study that examines both activities in the watershed
and activities in the lake itself to control algae.
101520253035ofImperviousCoverwithin300ftBuffer(%)PotentialThreatstoWaterQuality:PondswithNoData%Imperviouswithin300ftPondBufferSENSITIVEPONDSIMPACTEDPONDSNONSUPPORTINGPONDSFigure 18. Impervious Cover Potential Threat to Water Quality: Ponds with No Data0510BR320BR206BR296BR200BR275BalogsBogBR209RuthPondBR266BR232RafePondBR244BR280BR160KeelerPondBR173HA393WashburnBogPondBR267CalfFieldPondBR377DarkBottomPondBR2981858BogBR150BR164BR285TuckersPondBR255BR172BR196FreemansPondBR241EdSnowPondBR1029GrassyNookPondBR214BR143BR195BR252BR183BR163TrianglePondBR188BR185HA300MudPondBR186BR273HA387LittlefieldsPondBR213NoBottomPondBR317BR146BR156BR148BR197WidgerHoleBR287RoundPondBR161VespersPondBR193BR155BR158LeesPondBR319GrassyPondBR211BR157BR187BR250Percento
Section 5
Freshwater Ponds
5-38
MJ01109s5.doc
Table 5-6
Results of Pond Threat Assessment for Ponds with No Water Quality Data
Cape Cod
Commission
Pond ID
Pond
Area
(Acres)
Pond Name %
Impervious
# of
Cranberry
Bogs
Impervious
Cover Model
Classification
BR-320 0.397 0.0 Sensitive
BR-206 0.468 0.0 Sensitive
BR-296 0.846 0.0 Sensitive
BR-200 1.415 0.0 Sensitive
BR-275 0.913 Balogs Bog 0.0 Sensitive
BR-209 7.52 Ruth Pond 0.0 Sensitive
BR-266 0.084 0.3 Sensitive
BR-232 9.144 Rafe Pond 0.6 Sensitive
BR-244 1.125 0.8 Sensitive
BR-280 0.329 1.1 Sensitive
BR-160 3.135 Keeler Pond 1.2 Sensitive
BR-173 0.59 1.5 Sensitive
HA-393 0.608 Washburn Bog Pond 1.6 Sensitive
BR-267 3.012 Calf Field Pond 1.7 Sensitive
BR-377 4.743 Dark Bottom Pond 2.1 Sensitive
BR-298 1.324 1858 Bog 2.6 Sensitive
BR-150 0.095 3.6 1 Sensitive
BR-164 0.228 4.2 Sensitive
BR-285 2.685 Tuckers Pond 4.6 Sensitive
BR-255 0.314 5.0 Sensitive
BR-172 0.479 5.4 1 Sensitive
BR-196 5.241 Freemans Pond 6.1 Sensitive
BR-241 2.951 Ed Snow Pond 6.2 Sensitive
BR-1029 6.693 Grassy Nook Pond 6.5 Sensitive
BR-214 1.306 6.9 Sensitive
BR-143 3.21 6.9 Sensitive
BR-195 0.551 8.7 Sensitive
BR-252 3.473 8.7 Sensitive
BR-183 0.437 9.0 Sensitive
BR-163 1.567 Triangle Pond 9.9 Sensitive
BR-188 0.066 10.5 Impacted
BR-185 1.459 10.8 Impacted
HA-300 9.786 Mud Pond 11.1 Impacted
BR-186 0.06 11.9 Impacted
BR-273 0.822 12.3 Impacted
HA-387 5.405 Littlefields Pond 12.4 Impacted
BR-213 2.866 No Bottom Pond 12.5 Impacted
BR-317 0.992 13.2 Impacted
OR-167 29.337 Bakers Pond 0.5 Impacted
Section 5
Freshwater Ponds
5-39
MJ01109s5.doc
Cape Cod
Commission
Pond ID
Pond
Area
(Acres)
Pond Name %
Impervious
# of
Cranberry
Bogs
Impacted
BR-146 1.28 14.4 Impacted
BR-156 0.585 14.6 Impacted
BR-148 1.116 16.7 Impacted
BR-197 2.842 Widger Hole 17.1 Impacted
BR-287 3.481 Round Pond 17.4 Impacted
BR-161 2.116 Vespers Pond 17.8 1 Impacted
BR-193 0.273 18.8 Impacted
BR-155 0.183 18.8 Impacted
BR-158 2.745 Lees Pond 19.4 1 Impacted
BR-319 13.077 Grassy Pond 20.5 Impacted
BR-211 0.478 22.0 Impacted
BR-157 0.272 25.2 Impacted
BR-187 0.198 26.0 Non-Supporting
BR-250 1.248 30.6 Non-Supporting
5.5 Combined Pond Assessment
The categories of ponds from the pond health assessment and the pond threat
assessment were combined to establish a priority list to address future management
needs. Most future management needs for ponds focus on further evaluations or
changing activities to protect ponds with high quality habitat or restoring ponds that
have been degraded.
Table 5-7 shows the number of ponds in each category
for the combined pond assessment. Figure 5-19
depicts all the categories of the ponds on a map. The
categories are:
Category 1 – High Quality Ponds: High quality
ponds are judged to be those where either (1) the
CCC guidelines are met at all depths for at least
two parameters or (2) the ponds have oxygen levels
above 6 mg/l in at least 3 feet depth of cold water
(<20°C) in the hypolimnion (the cold deep water
zone in a lake during summer stratification).
Category 2 – Ponds that Generally Meet Uses:
These are ponds whose available water quality
suggest that the pond is generally in good health and should meet uses.
Table 5-7
Results of Combined
Pond Assessment
Category No. of Ponds
1 5
2 2
3 5
3A 24
4 12
4A 5
5 28
PleasantBayCape CodBayStony
B
r
o
o
k
Quivett CreekNamskaket CreekConsodine DitchHiggins PondSols PondFlax PondWashburn Bog PondLittlefields PondDark Bottom PondElbow PondPine PondSlough PondGrassy PondBlack PondSmalls PondMill PondNo Bottom PondGreenland PondGirl Scout PondMud PondCahoon Pond1858 BogRound PondTuckers PondLong PondBalogs BogCanoe PondCalf Field PondGriffiths PondLower Mill PondEd Snow PondSheepPondRafe PondSmith PondLees PondKeeler PondVespers PondOwl PondTriangle PondBakers PondMyricks PondCobbs PondBlueberry PondCliff PondLittle Cliff PondFreemansPondEel PondSchoolhouse PondRuth PondGrassy Nook PondWidger HoleUpperMillPondSeymour PondWalkers PondORLEANSORLEANSBREWSTERBREWSTERDENNISDENNISHARWICHHARWICHCHATHAMCHATHAM1371371371371246A6A39286A28BR-188BR-186BR-185BR-183BR-173BR-172BR-164BR-157BR-155BR-150BR-148BR-146BR-200BR-320BR-317BR-296BR-280BR-143BR-250BR-244BR-187BR-214BR-211BR-206BR-273BR-266BR-255BR-156BR-195BR-193BR-25260 0.25 0.5 0.75 1MilesPonds by Category in BrewsterCategory 1 - High Quality PondsCategory 2 - Ponds that Generally Meet UsesCategory 3 - Ponds with Some Water Quality ImpairmentCategory 3A - Ponds with Potential Threat to Water QualityCategory 4 - Ponds with Impaired HealthCategory 4A - Ponds with Impaired Health with Other FactorsCategory 5 - Ponds with No Water Quality DataPondsHydrologyFigure 5-19
Section 5
Freshwater Ponds
5-41
MJ01109s5.doc
Category 3 – Ponds with Some Water Quality Impairment:These are ponds with
whose water quality data suggest the pond is in good health (i.e., same as Category
2) but that an impairment of water quality has occurred as established by the pond
having “exceeded” one additional pond factor. These factors are described in
Section 5.3.2.
Category 3A – Ponds with No Data but Potential Threats to Water Quality:These
are ponds not currently monitored by the PALS program but have elevated
impervious cover or nearby cranberry bogs that suggest their water quality could
be impaired.
Category 4 – Ponds with Impaired Health:This category was assigned if the sum
of the values for the primary criteria as defined in Table 5-2 was 7 or higher.
Category 4A – Ponds with Impaired Health with other Factors:This category was
assigned if the sum of the values for primary criteria was less than 7, but had at
least two of the additional pond factors noting an impairment of water quality;
additional pond factors are described in Section 5.3.2.
Category 5 – Ponds with No Water Quality Data
5.6 Next Steps
Brewster’s ponds provide important habitat for aquatic life and are important natural
resources for the community. Many of the ponds have degraded water quality from
both historic and current activities. The growing number of pond restoration actions
on the Cape suggest that many ponds are reaching their tipping points, where further
alterations to the environment result in sometimes dramatic changes in water quality.
These have included noxious and potentially harmful algal blooms in Cliff Pond and
Seymour Pond and fish kills in Long Pond. The latter was among the reasons for
treating Long Pond with alum in 2007.
In this section we have analyzed the available data for Brewster’s ponds and used the
data to identify ponds that are impaired, the degree of impairment and ponds that
have high water quality. Below are actions that should be taken to protect or restore
Brewster’s ponds. These recommendations are included in the Section 7 which
provides recommended next steps for the Integrated Water Resources Management
Plan project.
1. Continue the citizen monitoring data collection program for Brewster’s pond
implemented by PALS, including collecting grab samples for water quality
analyses in April and August/September.
2. Prioritize the ponds in the Category 4 and 4A list and collect information that
would allow a detailed assessment for each pond to be completed. This would
include: data on septic systems, storm drains, areas of overland flow, sediment
regeneration, quantity and water quality of inflowing and outflowing streams etc.
Section 5
Freshwater Ponds
5-42
MJ01109s5.doc
3. Carefully monitor MassDEP progress toward completing TMDL for the Stony
Brook watershed ponds. Be an active participant in the process, specifically
addressing what uses and water quality the town desires for these pond.
4. Complete an inventory of all stormwater pipes draining to ponds. The inventory
can be done incrementally focusing on the higher priority ponds from the
combined pond assessment. Divert or disconnect stormwater systems that directly
discharge to ponds.
5. Expand the number of monitoring points in some of the deep ponds to allow for
more a accurate understanding of phosphorus regeneration. Monitoring points at
an intermediate depth in the hypolimnion should be added for Flax Pond, Cliff
Pond and Long Pond. Currently grab samples at these ponds are taken at depths
of 0.5, 3, 9 meters and near the pond bottom (typically around 20 m). Review of
phosphorus data shows there is often an order of magnitude difference in
concentration between the samples collected at 9 meters and near the pond
bottom. Collecting another grab sample between these depths would allow a more
accurate estimate of the phosphorus mass in the pond to be calculated.
6. Undertake a detailed assessment of the ponds in the Stony Brook watershed
including further assessment of the potential for birds to contribute significant
phosphorus load (birds were considered to be the top source of phosphorus in the
high estimate of loads in the assessment in the Brewster Ponds Report). The
phosphorus load regenerated in the bottom sediments should also be quantified.
7. Conduct a review of water quality data in Long Pond since the alum treatment in
2007 to evaluate the efficacy of the treatment and any lessons learned for future
alum applications. Use this updated understanding as part of an assessment of the
Herring River watershed ponds (Long, Seymour, Hinckleys) to assess the drivers
of recent deterioration of water quality in Seymour and Hinckleys Ponds.
8. Expand the PALS program to collect at least one sample annually from the
Category 3A ponds. This expansion can be done gradually and adaptively.
Adding a handful of ponds each year would increase the knowledge of the ponds
and if after two years the pond appears to be high quality, monitoring of that
pond can stop and another added to the roster.
9. Consider a synoptic (all at one time) round of water quality sampling to establish
a baseline for water quality in all ponds. If possible, this sampling round should
be taken in conjunction with the PALS program’s sampling round in
August/September.
10. Continue to foster stakeholder participation to determine what uses Brewster
residentswanttheirpondstosupport.Shouldsomeorallpondsstrivetomeetthe
high quality (clear ponds, less productive fisheries) that would result from having
the ponds meet the CCC pond thresholds?
Section 5
Freshwater Ponds
5-43
MJ01109s5.doc
11. For ponds with impaired water quality,consider more rigorous enforcement of
the 300-ft setback requirement for septic systems from pond shorelines.
12. Contact cranberry bog association and request that they inventory practices
among cranberry owners in town.
13. Consider further public outreach and education or developing guidelines or
bylaws to curtail/restrict use of inorganic phosphorus laden fertilizer in lands
near the ponds or tributaries to ponds and to encourage maintaining or restoring
vegetated buffer strips along pond shorelines.
14. Support the purchase of undeveloped lands or placing conservation restrictions in
the 300-ft buffer zone, upgradient parcels or other contributing areas, particularly
those identified by the Compact for Cape Cod Conservation Trusts and Brewster
Conservation Trust.
6-1
MJ01109s6.doc
Section 6
Needs Evaluation
6.1 Introduction
Sections 3, 4 and 5 defined the existing and potential health and water quality threats
to Brewster’s groundwater, estuaries and ponds. This section uses these assessments
to help define the Integrated Water Resources Management Plan needs. These
assessments focus on:
Defining nitrogen reduction based on wastewater and stormwater needs for the
groundwater and estuarine resources.
Maintaining high quality ponds and restoring ponds that are impaired by
controllable pollutant sources based on their value as public resources.
Reducing bacteria along the coastal resources.
In the groundwater section (Section 3), the town was divided into 50 subwatershed
study areas that were ranked based on criteria that evaluated physical characteristics
of the subwatersheds, human’s activities in the subwatersheds, and regulatory tools
that can be used to protect the watersheds from human’s activities. The groundwater
analysis showed that 16 of the 50 subwatersheds are potentially at risk. It is important
to note that the conclusions regarding wastewater needs were made in the absence of
an analysis of Board of Health records and water use records by parcel and
watershed. Incorporation of this data at a later date into the analysis may alter these
initial conclusions.
In the estuaries section (Section 4), the same 50 subwatersheds were ranked based on
whether an MEP study had been completed for the estuary to which they drain, and
whether the results of that study indicate the need to control nitrogen. The estuaries
analysis showed 24 of those 50 watershed study areas are considered to be nitrogen
sensitive and will be subject to the requirements of the TMDL issued for Pleasant Bay
and Bass River. An additional 9 subwatersheds are currently being studied by MEP.
Thus, the 33 subwatersheds are potentially impacted by MEP.
In this section the 16 and 33 subwatersheds identified in the groundwater and
estuaries analysis, respectively, are further examined and recommendations on their
wastewater and stormwater needs are made. Each subwatershed was assigned one of
the following five categories:
1. Areas that can remain with on-site septic systems.
1A. Areas that can remain with on-site septic systems because they are currently
waiting for the MEP results. These results will dictate the category to which
the watershed will need to be moved.
Section 6
Needs Evaluation
6-2
MJ01109s6.doc
2. Areas where needs for on-site innovative / alternative (I/A) solutions or off-site
wastewater solutions can be tentatively identified but may need further study or
other analysis to make a final determination.
3. Areas that show a clear need for offsite or decentralized solutions to solve
wastewater needs.
4. Areas that show a need for improved threat management through increased
stormwater protection. Areas that were placed in this category are the coastal
areas that generally have a higher density near the coast.
In the ponds section (Section 5), the ponds in Brewster were placed in categories
based on an assessment of the current health for the 29 ponds with historic water
quality data. The ponds were also evaluated for threats to water quality for all ponds
based on factors that appear to relate to poor water quality in the 29 ponds with data.
The pond’s needs are analyzed in this section and an evaluation is completed to
prioritize ponds for further actions (diagnostic studies or watershed evaluations). The
prioritization criteria draw the focus onto ponds with public access and place higher
value for action on ponds with high water quality, used as recreational resources, and
have impairments that degrade water quality or diminish recreational use.
6.2 Groundwater Results
The groundwater risk analysis (Section 3) identified that 16 of the 50 subwatersheds
have more than three significant risk factors indicating potential threats to
groundwater, as depicted in Figure 3-12. Those 16 watersheds are shown in Table 6-1.
6.2.1 Groundwater Protection
Brewster’s groundwater is generally of very high quality especially surrounding the
town’s municipal water supply wells. The town has done an excellent job being
proactive in protecting these groundwater resources. As shown in Figure 1-2, the
public supply wells in Brewster have been tested for nitrogen and consistently show
excellent water quality with levels that are well below the federal and state drinking
water standards of 10 mg/l of nitrate/nitrite. Not all areas of town, however, have
such high quality, and some private wells have recent tests with nitrate levels
between 5 and 10 mg/l (again below the standard of 10 mg/l). These private wells are
scattered throughout town, and more sampling and analysis will be needed to
evaluate whether the elevated concentrations continue to occur, the spatial extent of
elevated concentrations and their possible sources of nitrogen.
Table 6-1Groundwater Analysis Recommendations Brewster, MANo. Watershed # Main WatershedSubwatershed IDSubwatershedArea(acres)Recommendation16 Herring River HR6 Hinkley's Pond 13 Can Remain With Onsite Systems / Pending MEP Results27 Herring River HR7 Seymour Pond 199 Can Remain With Onsite Systems / Pending MEP Results39 Herring River HR9 Sheep Pond 67 Can Remain With Onsite Systems / Pending MEP Results410 Namskaket Creek N1 Namskaket Creek 802Can Remain with Onsite Systems & Improve Threat and Stormwater Management513 Cape Cod Bay NP1 Cape Cod Bay 2 2210Can Remain with Onsite Systems & Improve Threat and Stormwater Management616 Cape Cod Bay NP4 Cape Cod Bay 3 1968Can Remain with Onsite Systems & Improve Threat and Stormwater Management722 Pleasant Bay PB11 Quanset Pond 20 Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified823 Pleasant Bay PB12 Twinings Pond 38 Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified925 Pleasant Bay PB14 Shoal Pond 43 Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified1026 Pleasant Bay PB15 Deep Pond 44 Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified1127 Pleasant Bay PB16 Uncle Seths Pond 61 Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified1232 Pleasant Bay PB20 Grassy Pond 13 Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified1338 Pleasant Bay PB8 Pleasant Bay Main Basin 863 Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified1441 Stony Brook/Bass River SB/BR1 Pine Pond 15 Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified1545 Stony Brook SB2 Smith Pond 33 Can Remain With Onsite Systems1650 Stony Brook SB7 Slough Pond 25 Can Remain With Onsite Systems
Section 6
Needs Evaluation
6-4
MJ01109s6.doc
In general terms, all activities in the lands over a sole source aquifer need to be
carefully managed to protect this irreplaceable resource. The significant threats to
groundwater could include depletion of aquifers through unsustainable withdrawals,
onsite disposal of wastewater, release of pollutants into the ground (e.g.,a leaking
underground storage tank), and infiltration of contaminated surface water from, for
instance, over-fertilization of or pesticide application to lawns or crops, improper
storage of manure, or runoff from impervious surfaces. Protection from these threats
is fostered by sound regulations paired with adequate enforcement; well crafted land
use zoning plans and practices; appropriate wastewater management to protect
ecology of receiving waters and the health of people using them; and an active public
education program on best practices for residents and businesses to protect
groundwater. Brewster already has implemented many important controls on such
activities to protect groundwater quality,including creating Zone IIs and Districts of
Critical Planning Concern, having regulations that restrict development on lands
without suitable wastewater disposal options, ongoing Water Quality Review
Committee (WQRC) efforts to investigate and bring into compliance potential sources
at two sand and gravel pits and old stump dumps, etc.
As no area in Brewster has currently been identified with impaired groundwater
(subject to review of more detailed records of private wells from the Barnstable
County Department of Health and the Environment), but only the potential for
impaired groundwater, we recommend that Brewster continue with its current
practices for groundwater protection, and supplement these with improved
stormwater management and targeted actions if further analyses show that elevated
concentrations of nitrogen in groundwater are of concern. In Section 3, 16 of 50
subwatersheds were identified as having a greater potential than other areas in
Brewster to have impaired groundwater quality due to the physical setting of the
subwatershed or the human activities occurring there.
The need to upgrade the level of wastewater treatment in some subwatersheds is
mandated by TMDL requirements to reduce nitrogen loads to impaired estuaries. In
Brewster, only Pleasant Bay is currently subject to TMDL nitrogen reduction
requirements. Thus, the seven subwatersheds to Pleasant Bay identified in Section 3
as potentially at risk for impacts to groundwater are also wastewater needs areas
where some of the current onsite septic systems will need to be upgraded with I/A
onsite systems or replaced by offsite or decentralized solutions. A pre-release version
of the Bass River MEP report indicates that a 70 to 80 percent reduction in nitrogen
load from wastewater would be needed to protect the estuary; this affects only about
three dozen houses in Brewster, which is a small portion of the Bass River watershed.
The MEP study for the Herring River estuary has not been completed. Until the
results are available, the need for control of nitrogen from wastewater in the four
subwatersheds identified in Section 3 as potentially at risk for impacts to groundwater
is unknown. Therefore, these subwatersheds are flagged as areas that can remain
with onsite systems for now. When the MEP studies are completed, the
subwatersheds will be moved to another wastewater needs category.
Section 6
Needs Evaluation
6-5
MJ01109s6.doc
The remaining five subwatersheds identified in Section 3 are still considered to be
potentially at risk for impacts to groundwater in a sole source aquifer. One of these –
Namskaket Creek – was the subject of an MEP study that found that existing nitrogen
loads do not impair Namskaket Marsh. However, since that time a state grant has
been funded for further investigation of the existing plume and the position that
Namskaket is a nitrogen sink. The remaining four subwatersheds are not going to be
studied by the MEP program because they discharge to Cape Cod Bay, which is not
considered to be nitrogen impaired. The bay and its watersheds, however, are
considered significant town resources.
6.2.2 Prioritizing the Watersheds
To prioritize the watershed study areas for groundwater, the 16 study areas were
placed in categories according to their wastewater and stormwater needs using the
the five categories presented in Section 6.1. A stormwater recommendation was
added to the groundwater recommendation in the three watersheds that should
receive additional stormwater management due to their dense population near the
water and proximity to the Cape Cod Bay. Those additional recommendations can be
seen on Table 6-5.
6.2.3 Recommendations
The recommendations for each of the 16 subwatersheds identified in Section 3 as
having potential impacts to groundwater are presented in Table 6-1 and described
below. Addressing the nitrogen removal requirements of the Pleasant Bay TMDL will
require implementation of onsite I/A systems or offsite or decentralized systems for
the Pleasant Bay subwatersheds. I/A systems can remove a significant percentage of
the nitrogen from domestic wastewater (around 50% nitrogen removal) and should be
considered as a possible alternative to offsite or decentralized wastewater solutions
which remove 80 to 90% of the nitrogen from septic systems/wastewater.
Subwatersheds: Herring River (HR6, HR7 and HR9)
Recommendation: Can Remain With Onsite Systems Pending MEP Results
Three of the Herring River’s subwatersheds are considered to be potentially at risk for
impacts to groundwater in the analysis performed in Section 3. The need for removal
of wastewater nitrogen in these subwatersheds will be determined by the MEP study
which is currently underway. If the MEP results indicate that wastewater nitrogen
removal is necessary, these areas will still need some level of management due to the
elevated levels of impervious areas and high density in HR7 and HR9. The town
should also look at the poor soils and proximity to a Zone II in HR6 to determine if
additional groundwater protection is required. The proximity of these areas to Sheep
and Seymour Ponds will also determine additional management controls as the town
decides the level of management needed to restore and or maintain its ponds.
Section 6
Needs Evaluation
6-6
MJ01109s6.doc
Subwatershed: Namskaket Creek (N1)
Recommendation: Can Remain With Onsite Systems and Improved
Stormwater Management
Groundwater in the Namskaket Creek subwatershed was evaluated as being
potentially at risk due to activities on the land in Section 3. This watershed, however,
discharges to a saltwater marsh that is considered to be a nitrogen sink according to
the MEP report for Namskaket Creek, which means that the existing development
does not deliver nitrogen loads in excess of the level that can be assimilated in the
marsh. Since nitrogen in current stormwater and wastewater discharges do not result
in impairment of the marsh, there is no current need for significant wastewater
infrastructure upgrades to reduce nitrogen, and thus, Namskaket Creek can remain
with onsite septic systems.
Portions of this subwatershed, however, have dense development, which could
threaten groundwater quality from pollutants due to man’s activities on the land. The
threat to the groundwater itself should be managed with other controls such as
limiting growth, increased monitoring of existing septic systems for frequent
pumpouts or system failure,reducing impervious cover, improving control of
stormwater and other non-point pollution sources, regulating the form of
development, or encouraging changes in local homeowner practices. If individual or
small clusters of failing or poorly functioning septic systems are identified, these can
be addressed at a house or neighborhood level. Otherwise, the control measures
should focus on reducing the quantity or improving the quality of stormwater runoff.
These types of control measures to protect groundwater should be focused on the area
north of Route 6A because of the higher density of development there.
Subwatersheds: Cape Cod Bay (NP1 and NP4)
Recommendation: Can Remain With Onsite Systems and Improved
Stormwater Management
The Cape Cod Bay watersheds are not considered to be nitrogen sensitive since they
do not discharge to nitrogen sensitive areas and are not being studied by the MEP.
Accordingly, the Cape Cod Bay watersheds can remain with onsite septic systems.
As with the Namskaket Creek subwatershed, the town should continue to manage the
more densely populated northern areas of these subwatersheds to ensure that the
ground water quality and the quality of the coastline does not degrade as a result of
growth.
Subwatersheds: Pleasant Bay (PB8, PB11, PB12, PB14, PB15, PB16, and PB20)
Recommendation: Onsite I/A or Offsite Solutions Tentatively Identified
Pleasant Bay is considered to be nitrogen sensitive and there is an existing TMDL
indicating that, overall, 52 percent of the existing septic nitrogen must be removed.
Brewster’s portion of required septic nitrogen would need to be further analyzed
under a specific task that analyzes the MEP reports and nitrogen loading models.
At this time, an offsite solution is recommended for Brewster ; however, the nitrogen
in the Pleasant Bay watershed could effectively be managed by a combination of
Section 6
Needs Evaluation
6-7
MJ01109s6.doc
innovative and alternative systems coupled with a decentralized solution. For
instance, a decentralized solution in the denser areas with I/A systems in the less
dense areas may be sufficient to meet the TMDL. Regional solutions with Orleans and
Harwich may also be considered. Additional analysis would be required to determine
the possibility of this type of scenario utilizing buildout conditions typically with a 20-
year horizon.
Subwatershed: Stony Brook/ Bass River (SB/BR1)
Recommendation: Onsite I/A Solution or Offsite Tentatively Identified
The Stony Brook/Bass River subwatershed is waiting for a completed MEP report
and will need further study to determine if any nitrogen removal is necessary. The
poor soils, high depth to groundwater and the fact that this watershed is in the Zone
II is why SB/BR1 is listed as an at risk watershed. At this time the Bass River MEP
report has not been officially released, but preliminary results indicate that a
substantial percentage of the nitrogen from wastewater disposal will need to be
removed. Because of the small number of houses in this area, one approach could be
to reduce nitrogen through the use of onsite I/A systems. This, however, would
appear to require more nitrogen reduction from other (non-Brewster) areas of the Bass
River watershed. Thus, in developing its solutions to reducing nitrogen loading in the
SB/BR1 subwatershed, Brewster should keep abreast of the actions of the Towns of
Dennis and Yarmouth who will be addressing the majority of the nitrogen reduction
needed in the Bass River.
Subwatersheds: Stony Brook (SB2 and SB7)
Recommendation: Can Remain With Onsite Systems
The Stony Brook subwatersheds have no existing or pending nitrogen TMDL and can
remain with onsite septic systems. These areas are considered to be at risk as a result
of a high degree of impervious area and little open space. Similar to SB/BR1
mentioned above, the small size and small number of lots in SB2 and SB7 indicate that
groundwater protection could be simply managed through best management
practices and education since the MEP does not indicate the need to remove nitrogen.
6.3 Estuaries
In Section 4, the estuaries results identified that 24 of the 50 subwatersheds (Pleasant
Bay and Bass River) have (or will soon have) a completed MEP report that shows a
need to remove nitrogen from wastewater disposal. The Pleasant Bay TMDL requires
that nitrogen sources in the watershed from wastewater be reduced but does not
include an implementation plan that specifies how this should be accomplished; the
reduction will need to come from sources in Brewster, Harwich, Orleans and
Chatham.
The Namskaket MEP report is complete, but this report shows that the town does not
need to reduce nitrogen in this watershed, provided its water resources and future
development are appropriately managed. Therefore, it is important that the town
defines and manages the potential nitrogen load additions from future development
in this subwatershed. Similarly, the town should consider the unused nitrogen
Section 6
Needs Evaluation
6-8
MJ01109s6.doc
carrying capacity of this subwatershed as an asset that can be used during discussions
of the shared use of the capacity with Orleans or as a possible discharge location for
nitrogen that needs to be removed from areas such as Pleasant Bay.
Two additional estuaries (Namskaket and Quivett Creek) are subject to the
requirements of a pathogen TMDL because of elevated bacteria levels on nearby
beaches. Actions needed to address these TMDLs are discussed in Section 6.5 on
coastal water resources.
6.3.1 Wastewater Flow Estimates in Pleasant Bay for Brewster,
Orleans and Harwich
The MEP study calculates nitrogen loads on a subwatershed basis by utilizing
available data such as water use, natural nitrogen attenuation, groundwater
withdrawals and land use information. To get an idea of the approximate share of the
nitrogen load that Brewster could need to remove to meet the TMDL, the wastewater
flow from each of the shared watersheds should be calculated for each town. At this
time a detailed wastewater flow analysis is not possible since Brewster’s water use
database has not yet been directly tied to the town’s GIS parcel database. Wastewater
flows, however, can be estimated and generally used to provide a best estimate of the
expected nitrogen load that each community is required to remove. To calculate the
load, the buildings greater than 200 square feet in each shared watershed are summed
from each community; buildings greater than 200 square feet were used to
differentiate buildings assumed to be unoccupied such as free-standing garages,
sheds and barns from those that could be occupied and have an associated
wastewater disposal system. As an estimate, an assumed wastewater flow rate of 55
gallons per capita per day (gpcd) and 2.4 (year round) people per building is used.
This estimate of occupancy and water use was used in the Pleasant Bay MEP report
for calculating nitrogen loads. For this simple evaluation, it is assumed that each
building is a single-family home with 2.4 people in each building. Since the flow is
directly proportional to the nitrogen load, the percentage of flow will also give the
relative percentage of the pounds of nitrogen that need to be removed. In this
analysis, Brewster’s estimated average daily wastewater flow in the shared
watersheds is 43,000 gpd (gallons per day) while the flow in Orleans is 131,000 gpd.
This difference in flow indicates Brewster can assume it is contributing roughly 25
percent of the nitrogen load from the shared subwatersheds of Pleasant Bay. A
detailed analysis of the water use is required to confirm this analysis, but it gives a
good planning level estimate of the expected result.
From the analysis above, it appears that the Pleasant Bay watersheds in Brewster are
significantly less developed than they are in the neighboring Town of Orleans. In
future phases of the IWRMP, additional analysis will be needed to determine
Brewster’s portion of the septic load generated in the subwatersheds that cross town
boundaries. This analysis should include existing treatment facilities and other
nitrogen removal technologies already in place.
Section 6
Needs Evaluation
6-9
MJ01109s6.doc
Table 6-2 shows preliminary wastewater flow estimates for Brewster and Orleans
based on the above methodology. A similar analysis was not done for Harwich since a
buildings GIS layer was not immediately available. In the table, the results are
summed for the shared watersheds of Pleasant Bay between Brewster and Orleans.
6.3.2 Nitrogen Removal in the Pleasant Bay Watershed
Pleasant Bay has 22 subwatersheds that are wholly or partially located in Brewster
and require nitrogen removal (Table 6-2). Twenty of the subwatersheds flow only to
Pleasant Bay, while two subwatersheds (PB/N1 and PB/N2) contribute flow to both
Pleasant Bay and Namskaket Marsh. According to Table VIII-3 on page 212 of the
Pleasant Bay MEP report, the required attenuated current septic load removal for the
total Pleasant Bay system is 52 percent. The reduction in nitrogen from septic load
varies for the individual subwatersheds based on target concentrations in the estuary
and the current septic load. Twenty of the 22 subwatersheds require a 50 percent
reduction in nitrogen from current septic load; the remaining two subwatersheds –
PB19 and PB20 require 40 percent removal of nitrogen.The required septic load
reductions in the Pleasant Bay subwatersheds range from 40 to 50 percent in
Brewster. These reductions are similar to the 52 percent reduction required for
the entire watershed.
It is important to note that the MEP report has a 52 percent (overall) reduction in
nitrogen from current septic loads. This number is not for build out conditions and
only applies to existing – present day –development in the subwatersheds. If
additional development was to occur, the percent removal would actually increase. In
effect, the MEP nitrogen reduction targets assume a “no net increase” in nitrogen for
the watershed as development continues.For Brewster to understand how future
growth affects the alternatives for managing wastewater, previous buildout
projections for each watershed must be reviewed and factored into the overall
management strategy to account for the potential increase in nitrogen load.
6.3.3 Prioritizing the Subwatersheds
Prioritizing the subwatersheds for estuaries is straightforward since the results of the
MEP studies specify whether and where nitrogen removal is needed to restore the
health of the estuary. After MEP studies are finalized, MassDEP develops TMDLs for
those watersheds that have nitrogen removal requirements. Currently, subwatersheds
in Pleasant Bay have priority wastewater improvement needs to protect estuarine
resources; the MEP study for the Herring River watershed is pending.
6.3.4 Recommendations
The recommendations for each of the watersheds are discussed below. Table 6-2
provides the analysis of approximate wastewater flows from lands in Brewster and
Orleans for shared subwatersheds to Pleasant Bay, and summarizes the estuary
recommendations for all subwatersheds as they are stated below. The subwatersheds
not specifically mentioned below do not have wastewater needs to protect estuarine
water resources and can remain with onsite systems.
Table 6-2Estuary Analysis Recommendations Brewster, MANo. Watershed # Main Watershed Subwatershed ID SubwatershedArea(acres)MEP Required NitrogenReduction % (Present Load)Buildings> 200SF in BrewsterWW Flow inBrewster(gpd)Buildings> 200SF inOrleansWW Flow inOrleans(gpd)Brewster's% of flowEstuary Recommendation118 Pleasant Bay/Namskaket CreekPB/N1 Ruth Pond 52 50 Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified219 Pleasant Bay/Namskaket CreekPB/N2 Cliff Pond 571 50 Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified320 Pleasant BayPB1 Bakers Pond 110 5011 1,452 10 1,320 52% Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified421 Pleasant BayPB10 Rafe Pond 10 50 Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified522 Pleasant BayPB11 Quanset Pond 20 50 Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified623 Pleasant BayPB12 Twinings Pond 38 508 1,056 62 8,184 11% Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified724 Pleasant BayPB13 Brewster - Silas Rd Well 218 5053 6,996 0 100% Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified825 Pleasant BayPB14 Shoal Pond 43 5030 3,960 34 4,488 47% Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified926 Pleasant BayPB15 Deep Pond 44 5013 1,716 26 3,432 33% Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified1027 Pleasant BayPB16 Uncle Seths Pond 61 504 528 22 2,904 15% Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified1128 Pleasant BayPB17Brewster - Freeman's Way430 50 Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified1229 Pleasant BayPB18 Tar Kiln Stream 268 5063 8,316 29 3,828 68% Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified1330 Pleasant BayPB19 Mud Pond 23 40 Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified1431 Pleasant BayPB2 Pilgrim Lake 51 504 528 44 5,808 8% Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified1532 Pleasant BayPB20 Grassy Pond 13 40 Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified1633 Pleasant BayPB3 Arey's Pond 33 500 * 0 94 12,408 0% Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified1734 Pleasant BayPB4 Orleans Town Well 66 501 132 1 132 50% Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified1835 Pleasant BayPB5 Higgins Pond 33 502 264 0 0 100% Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified1936 Pleasant BayPB6 Little Cliff Pond 44 505 660 0 0 100% Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified2037 Pleasant BayPB7 Namequoit River 118 507 924 155 20,460 4% Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified2138 Pleasant BayPB8 Pleasant Bay Main Basin 863 50119 15,708 458 60,456 21% Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified2239 Pleasant BayPB9 Orleans - Well 7 94 505 660 61 8,052 8% Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified325 42,900 996 131,472 25%LEGENDSub-watershed does not cross town boundaries.* Subwatersheds with 0 structures may have structures in adjacent town. Total of PB Watersheds Shared With Orleans
Section 6
Needs Evaluation
6-11
MJ01109s6.doc
Subwatersheds: Pleasant Bay (PB1 to PB20)
Recommendation: Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified
As stated earlier, Pleasant Bay is considered to be nitrogen sensitive and the existing
TMDL indicates that, overall, 52 percent of the septic nitrogen must be removed from
its watershed. All of the 20 subwatersheds wholly tributary to Pleasant Bay need
between 40 and 50 percent of the present septic load of nitrogen removed and are
recommended for onsite I/A, or offsite,or decentralized solutions to solve
wastewater needs.
Shared Subwatersheds: Pleasant Bay (PB/N1 and PB/N2)
Recommendation: Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified
As stated earlier, Pleasant Bay is considered to be nitrogen sensitive and there is an
existing TMDL indicating that, overall, 52 percent of the septic nitrogen must be
removed from its watershed. In the case of the two subwatersheds that are also
contribute to Namskaket Marsh (PB/N1 and PB/N2), discussion with staff at the
MassDEP indicates that the overall reduction in nitrogen load will be reduced because
only a portion of the nitrogen load in these subwatersheds reaches Pleasant Bay (with
the remainder reaching Namskaket Creek).Meeting these reductions will require I/A
systems, offsite or decentralized solutions to solve wastewater needs.
Shared Subwatersheds: Stony Brook/Bass River (SB/BR1 and SB/BR2)
Recommendation: Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified
Preliminary results from the Bass River MEP report indicate that a significant amount
of septic nitrogen must be removed. Since the Bass River subwatersheds in Brewster
are on a very small portion of the overall Bass River watershed, it may be possible to
manage these areas with individual I/A systems if required. Once the report is
released, this assumption can be verified.
Subwatersheds: Herring River (HR1 to HR9)
Recommendation: Can Remain With Onsite Systems/Pending MEP Results
The Herring River MEP report is not complete. At this time the nine Herring River
subwatersheds can remain with onsite systems until the results of the MEP are
known.
6.4 Ponds
6.4.1 Pond Condition Assessment
In Section 5, the freshwater ponds analysis placed ponds in one of five categories. Five
ponds had high water quality, and warrant special attention to ensure their water
quality is not degraded. These are Category 1 ponds.
Ponds that generally met most uses were assigned to Category 2. Ponds that were
rated in Category 3 or 3A were evaluated as ponds with some water quality
impairment (Category 3) or ponds with no data, but other land use factors that
suggest there may be a potential threat to water quality (Category 3A).
Section 6
Needs Evaluation
6-12
MJ01109s6.doc
Ponds that were included in Category 4 or 4A were ponds with impaired health.
Category 5 ponds have no data.
6.4.2 Prioritizing Pond Needs
Every one of Brewster’s ponds is unique, and each faces different circumstances that
can threaten the health of the pond and make it undesirable for use by people. Most of
the ponds throughout the town are impaired, and will require some attention to
understand and mitigate the factors that negatively affect the water quality. A smaller
number of ponds have high water quality and excellent ecological value, and are
treasured by residents and visitors as aesthetic and recreational resources. The high-
quality ponds in Brewster should not be ignored as additional development in their
watersheds could quickly lead to their degradation.
This section uses data from Section 5 along with prioritization criteria suggested by
the CWPC to develop a prioritized list of ponds to be addressed, either through
diagnostic studies and remedial actions for impaired ponds or assessments of
watershed protection measures for high-quality ponds. The prioritization only
addresses the ponds with existing water quality data or those judged to be at risk for
water quality impairments (Categories 1 through 4A). The remaining ponds
(Category 5) require monitoring data to assess their status; recommendations on
monitoring are included in Section 7.
The prioritization criteria are discussed below and the values used to evaluate each
criterion are shown in Table 6-3.
Table 6-3
Values for Ponds Prioritization Criteria
Size >100acres=3
>10acres=2
<10acres=1
Public Access Yes=1
Other/Unknown = 0
Recreation Three types = 3
Two types = 2
One type = 1
Essential Herring Habitat Yes=1
No = 0
Pond Condition High quality = 4
Impaired = 3
Some impairment = 2
Meets most uses = 1
Zone II Yes=1
Known Problem Two problems = 2
One problem = 1
Ownership State =-10
Private =-5
Recent Treatment Treated =-10
Section 6
Needs Evaluation
6-13
MJ01109s6.doc
Size:Large ponds are judged to be more important than small ponds because they
are more visible in the community and offer more opportunities for public
engagement.
Public Access:Ponds with public access are judged more important because they
are used by residents and visitors. Public access occurs when the general public has
a mechanism (parking lot, beach, boat launch, access way, publically owned land,
etc.) to reach the pond’s waters.
Public Recreational Opportunities:Three recreational uses for ponds were
considered – fishing, swimming and boating. Each of these uses was counted when
there was documentation (e.g., stocked fish reports) or knowledge of the public
having the ability to conduct the use. The more recreational opportunities for
public use, the more important the pond.
Essential Herring Habitat:Ponds in the Stony Brook and Herring River
watersheds provide Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC)-
defined essential habitat for alewife and blueback herring
Pond Condition:This criterion was taken from the evaluation of ponds in Section
5. High-quality ponds (Category 1) were judged to be most important as they are
well known and treasured. Ponds with impaired water quality (Categories 4 and
4A) were the next most important because restoring these ponds would return the
pond to a healthier stage.
Zone II:Ponds in a Zone II area were judged more important because their quality
reflects the quality of the groundwater so maintaining ponds with high quality or
restoring ponds with poor quality would improve groundwater quality throughout
town.
Known Problems that Undermine Public Confidence:When a pond has a posted
toxic algal bloom, fish kills, exceeds a bacteria standard, or is not sufficiently clear
to be attractive to swimmers, the problem with the pond’s health is sufficient to
mandate or deter people from using the pond. These ponds are judged more
important because eliminating these problems would address pond problems that
haveapublicface.
Pond Ownership:Brewster has limited resources and needs to focus them on
ponds for which the town is responsible.This criterion removes importance from
ponds located in Nickerson State Park as they are the responsibility of the state and
from ponds that are private. The state-owned and private ponds should continue
to be monitored and protected as priority ponds and resources (e.g., via PALS
program monitoring), and the town should work with the state to ensure any
issues are addressed and with pond homeowner associations to provide
information useful in managing these ponds.
Note that the ownership status of some ponds was not known at the time of this
assessment and they are assumed to be public.
Section 6
Needs Evaluation
6-14
MJ01109s6.doc
Previous Treatment:Ponds that have been treated recently were judged to be less
important as the town has already invested resources to improve pond water
quality.
Table 6-4 provides the results of the prioritization analysis. The top ranked ponds are:
1. Seymour Pond
Seymour Pond is the top-ranked pond primarily because it is a large, public pond
located in a Zone II with multiple recreational opportunities and has essential
herring habitat. Seymour Pond also has impaired water quality, including recent
occurrence of algae that could be toxic.
2. Walkers and Sheep Ponds
Sheep Pond was tied as a second top-ranked pond primarily because it is a large
public pond of very high water quality with multiple recreational opportunities
and an exceedance of coliform bacteria.
Walkers Pond was tied for second top-ranked pond primarily because it is a large
public pond located in a Zone II with only boating as a recreational opportunity
and with impaired water quality, including elevated concentrations of algae that
has the potential to be toxic if concentrations are sufficiently high and inadequate
clarity for swimming.
3. Slough, Upper Mill and Elbow Ponds
Slough Pond was tied for third top-ranked pond primarily because it is a mid-size
public pond located in a Zone II with high water quality and a couple of
recreational opportunities.
Upper Mill Pond was tied for third top-ranked pond primarily because it is a large
public pond located in a Zone II with a couple of recreational opportunities and
impaired water quality.
CCC ID Pond Name Access RecreationPondCategoryArea SizePublicAccessRecreationHerringHabitatPondConditionIn Zone IIKnownProblemsPondOwnershipTreated? TotalHA-306 Seymour Pond Public access Boating, swimming, stocked fishing 4A 181.93131311 13BR-240 Sheep Pond Public access Boating, swimming, stocked fishing 1 147.7 3 1 3 4 1 12BR-313 Walkers Pond Public access Boating 4 103.23111312 12BR-321 Slough Pond Public access Boating, swimming 1 31.6 2 1 2 4 1 1 11BR-272 Upper Mill Pond Public access Boating, stocked fishing 4 257.4312131 11BR-357 Elbow Pond Public access Boating, swimming, stocked fishing 4A 36.3213131 11BR-245 Lower Mill Pond Public access Fishing, boating 4 50.421213 9BR-205 Schoolhouse Pond Public access Boating, fishing 4 6.2 1 1 2 3 7BR-248 Griffiths Pond Public Fishing 3 32.3 2 1 1 2 6BR-335 Pine Pond4 23.3 2 3 1 6BR-319 Grassy Pond3A 13.1 2 2 1 5BR-303 Girl Scout Pond Likely4 3.9 1 3 1 5BR-197 Widger Hole Public access Fishing 3A 2.8 1 1 1 2 5BR-314 Smalls Pond3 17.7 2 2 4HA-300 Mud Pond3A 9.8 1 2 1 4BR-213 No Bottom Pond3A 2.9 1 2 1 4BR-1028 Cliff Pond Public access (Nickerson) Boating, water skiing, swimming, stocked fishing4A 201.9 3 1 3 3 1 2 -10 3HA-387 Littlefields Pond3A 5.4 1 2 3BR-287 Round Pond3A 3.5 1 2 3BR-158 Lees Pond3A 2.7 1 2 3BR-161 Vespers Pond3A 2.1 1 2 3BR-185 3A 1.5 1 2 3BR-146 3A 1.3 1 2 3BR-250 3A 1.2 1 2 3BR-148 3A 1.1 1 2 3BR-317 3A 1.0 1 2 3BR-273 3A 0.8 1 2 3BR-156 3A 0.6 1 2 3BR-172 3A 0.5 1 2 3BR-211 3A 0.5 1 2 3BR-193 3A 0.3 1 2 3BR-157 3A 0.3 1 2 3BR-187 3A 0.2 1 2 3BR-155 3A 0.2 1 2 3BR-150 3A 0.095 1 2 3BR-188 3A 0.066 1 2 3BR-186 3A 0.06 1 2 3BR-279 Long Pond Public access Swimming, boating, skiing, stocked fishing 4A 734.73131311 -103BR-180 Blueberry Pond Private (Ocean's Edge) Swimming, fishing 4A 21.3 2 2 3 -5 2BR-305 Greenland Pond No public access N/A 1 36.6 2 4 -5 1BR-192 Little Cliff Pond Public access (Nickerson) Canoeing, fishing, stocked fishing 1 34.5 2 1 2 4 1 -10 0BR-299 Cahoon Pond No public access N/A 3 32.8 2 2 1 -5 0BR-269 Canoe Pond No public access N/A 4 13.6 2 3 -5 0BR-316 Black Pond No formal access N/A 4 10.6 2 3 -5 0BR-162 Owl Pond No public access N/A 4 3.6 1 3 1 -5 0BR-194 Higgins Pond Public access Fishing 1 28.5 2 1 1 4 1 -10 -1BR-225 Smith Pond No public access N/A 3 11.0 2 2 -5 -1BR-189 Sols Pond No public access N/A 4 6.7 1 3 -5 -1BR-177 Myricks Pond No public access N/A 4 4.6 1 3 -5 -1BR-168 Flax Pond Public access (Nickerson) Boating, swimming, stocked fishing 3 51.2 2 1 3 2 -10 -2BR-179 Cobbs Pond No public access N/A 2 23.0 2 1 -5 -2BR-202 Eel Pond Public access (Nickerson) N/A 2 3.0 1 1 1 1 -10 -6Pond Information Criterion EvaluationTable 6-4Prioritization of Pond Needs
Section 6
Needs Evaluation
6-16
MJ01109s6.doc
Elbow Pond was tied for third top-ranked pond because it a mid-size public pond
located in a Zone II with multiple recreational opportunities, albeit with limited
public access, and impaired water quality.
6.5 Coastal Water Resources
Brewster’s coastal water resources are located on the north side of town between the
Namskaket Creek and the Quivett Creek. Brewster has eight designated public
beaches on Cape Cod Bay, and shellfishing is permitted at designated areas at certain
times of the year.
In general, the Cape Cod Bay waters have high quality. However, there are occasional
exceedances of water quality standards for fecal coliform bacteria and Enterococcus at
the public beaches. These exceedances have resulted in a few beach closures. Because
of these occasional high bacteria levels, the MassDEP issued pathogen TMDLs for
Quivett Creek and Namskaket Creek. The source of the bacteria was not specifically
identified in the TMDL report, but could be related to birds and other animals or the
increased stormwater from the significant growth that Brewster has had over the
years.
The Cape Cod Bay is not considered to be nitrogen sensitive and/or impaired. As a
result, the Cape Cod Bay and its watersheds are not studied by the MEP for nitrogen
sensitivity. The Cape Cod Bay watersheds,however, are considered significant town
resources since the watersheds are developed along the coast with homes and
accompanying storm water drainage infrastructure. The coastline itself is considered
to be both an environmental, economic (tourism) and aesthetic resource. Lastly, the
Cape Cod Bay waters have occasional exceedances of water quality standards for fecal
coliform bacteria and Enterococcus at the public beaches. These exceedances have
resulted in beach closures. The Town of Brewster is committed to protecting these
resources into the future.
In Table 6-5, the Quivett and Namskaket subwatersheds that discharge directly to the
coastal waterbodies (N1, N2 and Q1) were recommended for additional bacteria
monitoring to determine the source of the bacteria that triggered the TMDLs in these
watersheds; once the sources of bacteria are identified stormwater BMPs will likely be
needed to address them.
6.6 Stormwater
The draft of the renewal of Brewster’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) Phase II Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit was
issued by MassDEP in November 2010. The MS4 program advocates best
management practices to reduce pollution from stormwater runoff. When the new
permit is finalized the town will continue its efforts to bring all of its stormwater
facilities into compliance with the regulations. This will reduce the amount of
sediment and other pollution entering from Brewster’s water resources and will
compliment Brewster’s goal of protecting its most sensitive or potentially at risk
watersheds. To date, the town has worked to address the water quality in the Stony
Brook watershed (including Paines Creek) by assessing municipal stormwater
Section 6
Needs Evaluation
6-17
MJ01109s6.doc
drainage and pollutants and improving flushing via culvert improvements all while
prioritizing future stormwater remediation in this important and sensitive watershed.
As shown in Figure 1-5, only some portions of Brewster are subject to MS4 permit
requirements. These are based on the 2000 U.S. Census “urbanized areas.”
Subwatersheds that have any area covered by the MS4 permit are noted in Table 6-5.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is also undertaking a review of the MS4
regulations and proposing to update them in 2012. One revision under consideration
would be to expand the land area subject to MS4 regulations to be the entire town.
Until this change is made, the priority areas for enhanced stormwater management
are the areas covered by the permit and areas identified through this study (which are
discussed below) as stormwater management needs areas.
As part of the IWRMP, the town will first want to target stormwater management
needs in the Namskaket and Quivett watersheds (due to the pathogen TMDL) and the
16 subwatersheds highlighted in the groundwater needs analysis in Section 6.2.
Discussions with the town indicate that of these 16 subwatersheds, N1, NP1 and NP4
are currently areas of interest for enhanced stormwater management because they
tend to have a high population density, and they discharge directly to the Cape Cod
Bay. Actions taken by the town should also account for recommendations in the
Paines Creek and Stony Brook Watershed Stormwater Mitigation Assessment report (Stearns
and Wheeler, 2007).
Effective stormwater management is required in the developed areas throughout the
town (as shown on Figure 1-5) and all MS4 permit requirements must be met. In
addition, priority should be given to the 16 subwatersheds identified having potential
impacts to groundwater. The results of this study have given priority to the
subwatersheds most at risk and therefore,give the town a guide of where to begin its
enhanced stormwater management efforts. By utilizing stormwater management
techniques that reduce runoff, minimize pollution, eliminate illicit discharges and
maintain good housekeeping in the most critical areas, the town will minimize
impacts to surface water and groundwater from storm water sources.
6.7 Summary
Table 6-5 brings the results of the groundwater, estuaries, ponds and coastal resources
together for a tabulated view of recommendations. This view shows, at a glance,
whether, based on available information, a watershed study area can remain with an
onsite wastewater disposal system, or if improved wastewater management via an
innovative/alternative onsite or offsite or decentralized system was tentatively
identified. The table also highlights subwatersheds where improved management of
threats to groundwater are needed. For the ponds, the table shows if a particular
pond was recommended for a diagnostic study or a watershed assessment. It also
shows if a subwatershed was recommended for additional bacteria monitoring and
stormwater BMPs due to a pathogen TMDL for coastal resources or has a need for
enhanced stormwater management to protect Brewster’s valuable water resources.
Table 6-5IWRMP Recommendations Brewster, MANo. Main WatershedSubwatershedIDSubwatershedArea(acres)Groundwater Recommmendation Estuaries RecommmendationCombined GW and Estuaries RecommendationPond Names Ponds Recommendation * Coastal Resources Recommendation Storm Water Recommendation1Herring River HR1 Washburn Bog 70Can Remain With Onsite Systems Can Remain With Onsite Systems / Pending MEP Results Can Remain With Onsite Systems / Pending MEP Results2Herring River HR2 Elbow Pond 62Can Remain With Onsite Systems Can Remain With Onsite Systems / Pending MEP Results Can Remain With Onsite Systems / Pending MEP ResultsElbow (4A)Diagnostic Study Needed 3Herring River HR3 Herring River Misc 197Can Remain With Onsite Systems Can Remain With Onsite Systems / Pending MEP Results Can Remain With Onsite Systems / Pending MEP ResultsLittlefields (3A)MS4 Area4Herring River HR4 Herring River Misc 200Can Remain With Onsite Systems Can Remain With Onsite Systems / Pending MEP Results Can Remain With Onsite Systems / Pending MEP ResultsMS4 Area5Herring River HR5 Harwich Town Well 88Can Remain With Onsite Systems Can Remain With Onsite Systems / Pending MEP Results Can Remain With Onsite Systems / Pending MEP ResultsMS4 Area6Herring River HR6 Hinkley's Pond 13Can Remain With Onsite Systems / Pending MEP Results Can Remain With Onsite Systems / Pending MEP Results Can Remain With Onsite Systems / Pending MEP ResultsPriority Stormwater Management 7Herring River HR7 Seymour Pond 199Can Remain With Onsite Systems / Pending MEP Results Can Remain With Onsite Systems / Pending MEP Results Can Remain With Onsite Systems / Pending MEP ResultsSeymour (4A)Diagnostic Study Needed MS4 Area; Priority Stormwater Management 8Herring River HR8 Long Pond 715Can Remain With Onsite Systems Can Remain With Onsite Systems / Pending MEP Results Can Remain With Onsite Systems / Pending MEP ResultsGreenland(1), Smalls(3), Black (3), Girl Scout(4), Mill (4), Long (4A), BR-317(3A)MS4 Area9Herring River HR9 Sheep Pond 67Can Remain With Onsite Systems / Pending MEP Results Can Remain With Onsite Systems / Pending MEP Results Can Remain With Onsite Systems / Pending MEP ResultsSheep Pond (1)Watershed Assessment Needed MS4 Area; Priority Stormwater Management 10Namskaket Creek N1 Namskaket Creek 802Can Remain with Onsite Systems & Improve Threat and Stormwater ManagementCan Remain With Onsite SystemsCan Remain with Onsite Systems & Improve Threat and Stormwater ManagementBR-150(3A), BR-155(3A), BR-156(3A),Additional Bacteria Monitoring for Pathogen TMDLs /Stormwater BMPsMS4 Area; Priority Stormwater Management 11Namskaket Creek N2 Namskaket Stream 342Can Remain With Onsite Systems Can Remain With Onsite Systems Can Remain With Onsite SystemsOwl Pond (4), BR-148(3A), Lees Pond (3A), Vespers Pond(3A),Additional Bacteria Monitoring for Pathogen TMDLs /Stormwater BMPsMS4 Area; Priority Stormwater Management 12Namskaket Creek N3 Flax Pond 66Can Remain With Onsite Systems Can Remain With Onsite Systems Can Remain With Onsite SystemsFlax (3), BR-185(3A)13Cape Cod Bay NP1 Cape Cod Bay 2 2210Can Remain with Onsite Systems & Improve Threat and Stormwater ManagementCan Remain With Onsite SystemsCan Remain with Onsite Systems & Improve Threat and Stormwater ManagementBR-172(3A), BR-186(3A), BR-187(3A), BR-188(3A), BR-211(3A), No Bottom Pond (3A)MS4 Area; Priority Stormwater Management 14Cape Cod Bay NP2 Schoolhouse Pond 92Can Remain With Onsite Systems Can Remain With Onsite Systems Can Remain With Onsite SystemsMyricks (4) Schoolhouse (4)MS4 Area15Cape Cod Bay NP3 Cobbs Pond 255Can Remain With Onsite Systems Can Remain With Onsite Systems Can Remain With Onsite SystemsCobbs (2)MS4 Area16Cape Cod Bay NP4 Cape Cod Bay 3 1968Can Remain with Onsite Systems & Improve Threat and Stormwater ManagementCan Remain With Onsite SystemsCan Remain with Onsite Systems & Improve Threat and Stormwater ManagementBR-146(3A), BR-157(3A), BR-193(3a), Widger Hole (3A)MS4 Area; Priority Stormwater Management 17Cape Cod Bay NP5 Blueberry Pond 154Can Remain With Onsite Systems Can Remain With Onsite Systems Can Remain With Onsite SystemsSols (4), Blueberry(4A)MS4 Area18Pleasant Bay/Namskaket Creek PB/N1 Ruth Pond 52Can Remain With Onsite Systems Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively IdentifiedMS4 Area19Pleasant Bay/Namskaket Creek PB/N2 Cliff Pond 571Can Remain With Onsite Systems Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively IdentifiedCliff (4A)MS4 Area20Pleasant Bay PB1 Bakers Pond 110Can Remain With Onsite Systems Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively IdentifiedMS4 Area21Pleasant Bay PB10 Rafe Pond 10Can Remain With Onsite Systems Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified22Pleasant Bay PB11 Quanset Pond 20 Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively IdentifiedPriority Stormwater Management 23Pleasant Bay PB12 Twinings Pond 38 Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively IdentifiedPriority Stormwater Management 24Pleasant Bay PB13 Brewster - Silas Rd Well 218Can Remain With Onsite Systems Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively IdentifiedMS4 Area25Pleasant Bay PB14 Shoal Pond 43 Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively IdentifiedPriority Stormwater Management 26Pleasant Bay PB15 Deep Pond 44 Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively IdentifiedPriority Stormwater Management 27Pleasant Bay PB16 Uncle Seths Pond 61 Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively IdentifiedPriority Stormwater Management 28Pleasant Bay PB17 Brewster - Freeman's Way 430Can Remain With Onsite Systems Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively IdentifiedMS4 Area29Pleasant Bay PB18 Tar Kiln Stream 268Can Remain With Onsite Systems Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively IdentifiedMS4 Area30Pleasant Bay PB19 Mud Pond 23Can Remain With Onsite Systems Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively IdentifiedMud Pond (3A)31Pleasant Bay PB2 Pilgrim Lake 51Can Remain With Onsite Systems Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified32Pleasant Bay PB20 Grassy Pond 13 Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively IdentifiedGrassy Pond (3A)Priority Stormwater Management 33Pleasant Bay PB3 Arey's Pond 33Can Remain With Onsite Systems Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified34Pleasant Bay PB4 Orleans Town Well 66Can Remain With Onsite Systems Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively IdentifiedEel (2)35Pleasant Bay PB5 Higgins Pond 33Can Remain With Onsite Systems Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively IdentifiedHiggins (1)36Pleasant Bay PB6 Little Cliff Pond 44Can Remain With Onsite Systems Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively IdentifiedLittle Cliff Pond (1)37Pleasant Bay PB7 Namequoit River 118Can Remain With Onsite Systems Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified38Pleasant Bay PB8 Pleasant Bay Main Basin 863 Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively IdentifiedCahoon Pond (3)MS4 Area; Priority Stormwater Management 39Pleasant Bay PB9 Orleans - Well 7 94Can Remain With Onsite Systems Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified40Quivett Creek Q1 Quivett Creek 1165Can Remain With Onsite Systems Can Remain With Onsite Systems Can Remain With Onsite SystemsBR-273(3A), Round Pond (3A)Additional Bacteria Monitoring for Pathogen TMDLs /Stormwater BMPsMS4 Area; Priority Stormwater Management 41Stony Brook/Bass River SB/BR1 Pine Pond 15 Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively IdentifiedPine (4)Priority Stormwater Management 42Stony Brook/Bass River SB/BR2 Potential Bass River 122Can Remain With Onsite Systems Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified Onsite I/A or Offsite Solution Tentatively Identified43Stony Brook/Quivett SB/Q1 Canoe Pond 28Can Remain With Onsite Systems Can Remain With Onsite Systems Can Remain With Onsite SystemsCanoe (4)44Stony Brook SB1 Cape Cod Bay 1 867Can Remain With Onsite Systems Can Remain With Onsite Systems Can Remain With Onsite SystemsBR-250(3A)MS4 Area45Stony Brook SB2 Smith Pond 33Can Remain With Onsite Systems Can Remain With Onsite Systems Can Remain With Onsite SystemsSmith (3)MS4 Area; Priority Stormwater Management 46Stony Brook SB3 Griffiths Pond 126Can Remain With Onsite Systems Can Remain With Onsite Systems Can Remain With Onsite SystemsGriffiths (3)MS4 Area47Stony Brook SB4 Lower Mill Pond 155Can Remain With Onsite Systems Can Remain With Onsite Systems Can Remain With Onsite SystemsLower Mill (4)MS4 Area48Stony Brook SB5 Upper Mill Pond 882Can Remain With Onsite Systems Can Remain With Onsite Systems Can Remain With Onsite SystemsUpper Mill (4)Diagnostic Study NeededMS4 Area49Stony Brook SB6 Walker Pond 379Can Remain With Onsite Systems Can Remain With Onsite Systems Can Remain With Onsite SystemsWalkers (4)Diagnostic Study NeededMS4 Area50Stony Brook SB7 Slough Pond 25Can Remain With Onsite Systems Can Remain With Onsite Systems Can Remain With Onsite SystemsSlough (1)Watershed Assessment NeededPriority Stormwater Management * All pond recommendations are for a five year timeframe only. Additional pond specific analyses/actions will likely be needed.
7-1
MJ01109s7.doc
Section 7
IWRMP Phase 1 Recommendations
The combined recommendations from Phase 1 of the Integrated Water Resources
Management Plan are presented below. They are categorized by location/resource
and in one of the following timeframes:
1. Issue to be addressed immediately or on an ongoing basis.
2. Issue to be addressed in the next 2 to 4 years.
3. Issue to be addressed within the next 5 years.
4. Issue to be addressed beyond 5 years.
5. Regional recommendation.
The recommendations for each timeframe are presented by watersheds, ponds,
coastal resources, or town-wide tasks and are not necessarily presented by their
priority.
7.1 Recommendations to be Addressed Immediately or
on an Ongoing Basis
Town-wide
1. Reach out to adjacent communities (Chatham, Dennis, Harwich, and Orleans –
possibly Eastham) to discuss potential regional solutions to protection of
Monomoy groundwater lens, estuaries and ponds. Potential solutions may
include regional water supplies and protection, regional wastewater solutions or a
nitrogen trading program.
2. Implement a town-wide stormwater improvement program that implements the
following on town land and encourages citizens to take actions at their residences
and businesses:
Disconnecting directly connected impervious areas that reach the stormwater
network or otherwise discharge directly into waterbodies.
Encouraging maintenance or restoration of vegetated buffer strips along pond
and river shorelines.
Reducing existing and minimizing new impervious surfaces.
Discouraging use of deicing products with high phosphorus content.
3. Connect the town’s water use data with the town’s existing GIS data base so that
water use and wastewater flows can be estimated with more certainty.
Section 7
IWRMP Phase 1 Recommendations
7-2
MJ01109s7.doc
4. Map all stormwater facilities and outfalls and integrate the data into the town’s
GIS. Also map man-made (pipes, culverts, channels, etc) connections between the
ponds.
5. Update/revisit the town bylaws to prohibit illicit connections to storm drains and
ensure proper stormwater management during and after construction activities.
6. Engage homeowners and work with the Barnstable County Department of Health
and the Environment to resample privately owned wells identified with nitrate
levels greater than 5 mg/l. Determine if there are nearby private wells and sample
them to determine nitrate levels. Determine extent of elevated nitrate levels and
initiate investigation of source(s) if needed.
7. Develop an electronic database for the Brewster’s Board of Health Title 5 septic
system information that would include basic system information (Barnstable
County Public Health program or other). Augment Brewster’s Board of Health
Title 5 septic system information maintained in the Business Management System
Information Computerized (BMSI) permitting system with for example location
(GPS coordinates) of tank and leaching facility, variances granted, and distance to
ponds, along with permit and repair history. In addition, include similar
information for private wells and public water supplies, and include drinking
water test results from the Barnstable County Laboratory and from private labs.
8. Analyze existing non-conforming uses in the various zoning districts and evaluate
potential impacts from those findings.
9. Develop an inventory of allowed uses and non-conforming uses in the industrial
zone off of Freeman’s Way, which is in the Zone II area, and evaluate the impacts
of those uses. Note: There are few remaining allowable uses left in the industrial
zone, but the pre-existing, non-conforming uses could have a serious impact.
10. Develop a citizen’s education program focused on actions that individuals can
take to reduce/conserve water, minimize the release of contaminants to the
environment (reduced fertilizer or detergent use, proper disposal of medication),
or reduce runoff and encourage infiltration on their properties.
11. Prepare a town-wide build out analysis.
12. Continue protecting lands within and adjacent to Zone IIs with priority given to
land parcels that are in close proximity to municipal wells.
Pleasant Bay
13. Review build-out analysis conducted for Pleasant Bay watershed (prior to 2006)
and rest of town to make sure it is consistent with current town goals. Review this
update and evaluate potential impacts to watersheds.
Section 7
IWRMP Phase 1 Recommendations
7-3
MJ01109s7.doc
14. Determine the nitrogen load for Pleasant Bay watershed that originates in
Brewster as estimated in the Pleasant Bay TMDL for Brewster parcels.
15. Refine identification of areas that will require nitrogen reduction from
wastewater, and develop a master planning document that maps the steps
required to meet the estuary TMDL. This will require input from the MEP staff
and potentially collaboration with adjacent communities.
16. Identify and investigate alternatives for nitrogen removal.
17. Identify and investigate land parcels that can be purchased to remove potential
future nitrogen sources.
Herring River/Bass River
18. Monitor the progress of the Herring River and Bass River watershed MEP reports.
Ponds
19. Continue the citizen monitoring data collection program for Brewster’s ponds
implemented by Brewster Pond and Lake Stewards (PALS), including collection
of grab samples for water quality analyses in April and August/September.
20. Define and initiate a data collection program needed to complete diagnostic
studies for ponds with high-priority needs: Seymour, Walkers, Upper Mill and
Elbow (consider adding Lower Mill so that all ponds in the Stony Brook
watershed can be evaluated together). The data collection programs will differ for
each pond based on available data but could include: data on septic systems,
storm drain outfalls, areas of overland flow, sediment regeneration, loads from
birds and other animals through animal surveys, quantity and water quality of
inflowing and outflowing streams, etc.
21. Define and initiate a program to evaluate specific threats in the watersheds for
high-quality ponds judged as having high-priority needs: Sheep and Slough.
22. For the high-quality ponds (Sheep and Slough) evaluate undeveloped lands to
determine those in the 300-foot buffer zone, upgradient parcels or other
contributing areas that could be targeted for purchase or conservation restrictions.
Those identified by the Compact for Cape Cod Conservation Trusts and Brewster
Conservation Trust are a good starting point.
23. Carefully monitor MassDEP progress toward completing a TMDL for the Stony
Brook watershed ponds. Be an active participant in the process, specifically
addressing what uses and water quality the town desires for these ponds.
24. Expand the number of monitoring points in some of the deep ponds to allow for
more accurate understanding of phosphorus regeneration. See Section 5.6 for
more information about this recommendation.
Section 7
IWRMP Phase 1 Recommendations
7-4
MJ01109s7.doc
25. Review water quality data in Long Pond since the alum treatment in 2007 to
evaluate the efficacy of the treatment and any lessons learned for future alum
applications. Use this updated understanding as part of an assessment of the
Herring River watershed ponds (Long, Seymour, Hinckleys) to determine the
drivers of recent deterioration of water quality in Seymour and Hinckleys ponds.
26. Continue to foster stakeholder participation to determine what uses Brewster
residents want their ponds to support. Decide whether some or all ponds should
strive to meet the high quality (clear ponds, less productive fisheries) that would
result from having the ponds meet the CCC pond thresholds?
27. For ponds with impaired water quality or high water quality, discourage issuance
of variances of the 300-foot setback requirement for septic systems from pond
shorelines by the Board of Health. Prepare a document with options that a
homeowner can consider (moving septic tank leach field, using only a holding
tank, converting to an innovative on-site system) to minimize potential for
pollutants delivered to ponds when the current septic system configuration does
not allow for the 300-foot setback.
28. Contact the cranberry bog association and request that they take inventory of
practices among owners of bogs with hydraulic connection to all ponds or other
waterbodies.
29. Develop guidance for owners of private ponds on available resources for
evaluation and remediation of their ponds.
7.2 Recommendations to be Addressed in the Next 2 to
4 Years
Town-wide
1. Finalize development of a stormwater system illicit discharge detection and
elimination (IDDE) program and develop a prioritized plan to address issues
identified.
2. Use Board of Health database on Title 5 septic systems to identify areas of town
with septic system problems (e.g., waivers, frequent pumping, failures)
Pleasant Bay
3. Finalize a recommended program for Brewster to address nitrogen removal to
meet the established TMDL in the estuary. Program is likely to include the
implementation of on-site I/A systems, some form of offsite solutions for
wastewater treatment and disposal, and may include a regional option with an
adjacent community.
Section 7
IWRMP Phase 1 Recommendations
7-5
MJ01109s7.doc
Herring River/Bass River
4. Based on findings of the Herring River and Bass River watershed MEP reports, be
prepared to initiate studies and/or discussions of regional solutions for these
watersheds that result in a recommended program for Brewster to meet any
nitrogen removal requirements it may have.
Ponds
5. Complete the data collection needed to complete diagnostic studies for ponds
with high-priority needs: Seymour, Walkers, Upper Mill and Elbow. Undertake
diagnostic studies. Develop an action plan to restore ponds.
6. Complete a program to evaluate specific threats in the watershed for high-quality
ponds judged as having high-priority needs: Sheep and Slough. Develop action
plan to reduce/mitigate threats.
7. Target funding mechanisms (e.g. grants or potential future stormwater fees) to
complete purchase or add conservation restrictionsforparcelsidentifiedaround
Sheep and Slough ponds.
8. Complete an evaluation of undeveloped lands in the 300-foot buffer zone,
upgradient parcels or other contributing areas around Greenland Pond (the other
high-quality pond not on state land) to identify those that could be targeted for
purchase or adding conservation restrictions. A good starting point is the lands
identified by the Compact for Cape Cod Conservation Trusts and Brewster
Conservation Trust.
9. Divert or disconnect stormwater systems that directly discharge to ponds in
accordance with best management practices (BMPs).
10. Expand the PALS program to collect at least one sample annually from the
Category 3A ponds. This expansion can be done gradually and adaptively.
Adding a handful of ponds each year would increase the knowledge of the ponds
and if after two years the pond appears to be of high quality, the monitoring
frequency of that pond could be reduced and another added to the roster. Work
with pond abutters/associations to obtain samples from private ponds.
11. Conduct a comprehensive round of water quality sampling to establish a baseline
for water quality in all ponds. If possible,this sampling round should be taken in
conjunction with the PALS program’s sampling round in August/September.
12. Seek continuing assistance of the cranberry bog association to take inventory of
practices among the remaining bog owners and seek their participation with
implementing best management practices. Based on the findings of this effort,
consider the need for a town bylaw (or other appropriate means) that would
require nutrient management plans (addressing fertilizer application techniques,
management of dredged materials, and discharge of water, in addition to the
Section 7
IWRMP Phase 1 Recommendations
7-6
MJ01109s7.doc
plant’s nutrition needs) for cranberry bogs that exceed a fertilizer use load
threshold or are judged to have the potential to affect water quality of nearby
water resources.
13. Conduct and take inventory of private ponds to determine which could be
affected by town-owned roads or other town activities. Consider developing an
outreach program to private pond owners particularly those whose ponds are
affected by public actions.
Coastal Resources
14. If the IDDE program does not identify bacteria sources in the Quivett and
Namskaket Watersheds, conduct a monitoring program to identify the sources of
bacteria or seek removal of those water bodies from the Cape Cod Bay pathogen
TMDL.
7.3 Recommendations to be Addressed within the Next
5 Years
Town-wide
1. Correct identified illicit discharges.
Pleasant Bay
2. Begin to implement wastewater nitrogen removal program.
Ponds
3. Perform comprehensive review of water quality data collected under the PALS
program to establish whether additional ponds should be targeted for diagnostic
studies based on trends in their water quality data.
4. Begin to implement action plans to restore Seymour, Walkers, Upper Mill and
Elbow Ponds.
5. Continue to identify funding mechanisms to purchase or add conservation
restrictions for parcels identified around high-quality ponds: Sheep, Slough, and
Greenland.
Coastal Resources
6. Develop and implement a plan to eliminate controllable bacteria sources
identified in the IDDE program.
7. Review subsequent pathogen sampling data to determine if Quivett Creek and
Namskaket Marsh can be removed from the state’s Integrated List of Impaired
Waters, and thus not be subject to the Cape Cod Bay Pathogen TMDL.
Section 7
IWRMP Phase 1 Recommendations
7-7
MJ01109s7.doc
7.4 Recommendations to be Addressed Beyond 5 years
Town-wide
1. Monitor groundwater quality in town at both the public wells and results of
samples collected at private wells to identify any early signs of degradation of
groundwater quality.
Pleasant Bay
2. Complete wastewater nitrogen removal implementation program to meet estuary
TMDL.
Ponds
3. Complete action plans to restore Seymour,Walkers, Upper Mill and Elbow ponds.
4. Continue to identify funding mechanisms to purchase land or add conservation
restrictions for parcels identified around high-quality ponds: Sheep, Slough, and
Greenland.
5. Evaluate undeveloped lands around other sensitive public ponds and review
those that could be targeted for purchase or conservation restrictions in the 300-
foot buffer zone, upgradient parcels or other contributing areas, particularly those
identified by the Compact for Cape Cod Conservation Trusts and Brewster
Conservation Trust.
6. Divert or disconnect stormwater systems that directly discharge all remaining
public or private ponds that receive drainage from public roads.
7. Conduct diagnostic studies as needed based on review of PALS data. Develop and
implement action plans based on those studies.
7.5 Regional Recommendation
Town-wide
1. Contact the Towns of Dennis, Orleans and Harwich to discuss long-term
wastewater planning in the Pleasant Bay, Namskaket Creek and the Herring
River. Depending on results of the Herring River and Bass River MEP reports, add
discussions with additional towns as needed.
2. Investigate sharing wastewater treatment systems with adjacent towns (including
cost and facilities sharing).
3. Investigate the possibility of nitrogen trading for the Namskaket Creek watershed.
4. Confirm alternative solutions that will meet the TMDL requirements by running
MEP model scenarios.
Section 7
IWRMP Phase 1 Recommendations
7-8
MJ01109s7.doc
5. Reach out to other organizations (e.g., the Pleasant Bay Alliance or the Orleans
Pond Coalition) who have completed some of the elements of these Integrated
Water Resources Management Plan recommendations to share information and
materials and collaborate on development of new outreach material.
6. Work with neighboring communities that share ponds with Brewster to encourage
uniform regulations, codes of practice etc for lands in their watersheds.
Community Meeting #1
March 25, 2010
Town of Brewster,MassachusettsIntegrated Water Resource Management Plan(IWRMP)Community Meeting No. 16:00 pm March 25, 2010
Welcome by:Comprehensive Water Planning Committee (CWPC)Members:Patricia Hughes, ChairDavid Michniewicz, Vice ChairDavid Bennett, SecretaryJoanne Hughes, Board of Health Rep.Jane JohnsonJohn LipmanElizabeth Taylor, Planning Board Rep.Amy Usowski, Conservation Comm. Rep.
CWPC SupportTown Staff Advisors–Sue Leven, Town Planner, CWPC Coordinator–Chris Miller, Natural Resources Director–Jim Gallagher Conservation AgentJim Gallagher,Conservation Agent–Nancy Ellis Ice, Health AgentSelectmen’s Liaison–Ed LewisTown’s Consultant–CDM
Meeting Purpose and Presentation OverviewReview why Brewster is undertaking this importantprogramProvide an overview of IWRMP development processand scheduleNotify local residents and business owners of theimportance for them to participate and how theycan do so
Goal of the IWRMPTo develop a long-term program for the protectionand/or restoration of our groundwater and surfacewater resources.
Why we are doing a IWRMP?Preserve valuable water resources–Estuaries–Freshwaster Ponds–Drinking Water SuppliesDrinking Water SuppliesDevelop a dynamic and formal program for water,wastewater and stormwater management to meetfuture needs of the communityAddress the Massachusetts Estuaries Project (MEP)nitrogen reduction goals
Growth in Brewster in 1951 and 1999
Phase 1 IWRMP Includes:Define existing conditionsDevelop and implement a water protectionneeds analysisDefine existing and future water management needsPrioritize water management needsContinuous public participation
Future IWRMP PhasesDevelop and screen potential preliminary alternatives toaddress water needsBegin initial environmental permitting agency reviewand inputConduct detailed evaluations of feasible solutions forprioritized water needsFinalize overall recommended IWRMPComplete environmental impact reports and approvals
Conceptual Water Cycle
Water Quality Parameters of ConcernNitrogen for drinking water and saltwater estuariesPhosphorus for fresh water pondsBacteria for fresh and saltwater bodies
Massachusetts Estuaries Project (MEP)A partnership between–Massachusetts DEP–UMASS/Dartmouth Schoolfor Marine Science andTechnology (SMAST)–Local communities–Also CCC and USGSMonitoring and evaluating environmental health of coastalembaymentsBrewster MEPs–Pleasant Bay (2006)–Namskaket Creek (2008)
Sources of NitrogenControllable:Effluent from on-site septic systemsStormwater run-off from impervious surfacesFertilizersFertilizersAnimal wastesUncontrollable:Atmospheric deposition
NO3NO3NONO3NO3NONO3N2N2N2Nitrogen Attenuation:Ground Water Flow-Through PondNO3NO3NO3NO3NO3NO3NO3NO3NO3NO3NO3NO3NO3NO3
Controllable Sources of PhosphorusEffluent from on-site septic systemsFertilizersStormwater run-off from impervious surfacesDishwater detergentsDishwater detergentsAnimal wastesRegeneration from pond sediments
Controllable Sources of BacteriaFailed on-site septic systemsStormwater run-off from impervious surfacesAnimals, dogs, birds, etc.Human activitiesHuman activitiesWastes from boats
Opportunities for Public ParticipationLocal organization announcementsCommunity meeting participationWebsite—www.town.brewster.ma.usCable TV
TownWebSite
CWPCWeb Site
Next Community MeetingSave the date:June 3, 2010 (to be confirmed)Topic:Summary of Initial Water NeedsContacts:CWPC CoordinatorSue LevenCWPC Coordinator–Sue Leven–Email:sleven@town.brewster.ma.us
QuestionsandComments
Community Meeting #2
June 3, 2010
Town of Brewster,MassachusettsIntegrated Water Resource Management Plan(IWRMP)Community Meeting No. 26:00 pm June 3, 2010
Welcome by:Comprehensive Water Planning Committee (CWPC)Members:Patricia Hughes, ChairDavid Michniewicz, Vice ChairDavid Bennett, SecretaryJane JohnsonJohn LipmanLemuel Skidmore, Board of Health Rep.Elizabeth Taylor, Planning Board Rep.Amy Usowski, Conservation Comm. Rep.
CWPC SupportTown Staff Advisors–Sue Leven, Town Planner, CWPC Coordinator–Chris Miller, Natural Resources Director–Jim Gallagher, Conservation Agent–Nancy Ellis Ice, Health AgentSelectmen’s Liaison–Ed LewisTown’s Consultant–CDM
Meeting Purpose and Presentation OverviewReview why Brewster is undertaking this importantprogramProvide an overview on water resource parametersPresent somepreliminaryfindings to datepygRemind local residents and business owners of theimportance for them to participate and how theycan do so
Goal of the IWRMPTo develop a long-term program for the protectionand/or restoration of our groundwater and surfacewater resources.
Why we are doing an IWRMP?Preserve valuable water resources–Estuaries–Drinking Water Supplies–Freshwaster PondsDevelop a dynamic and formal program for water,wastewater and stormwater management to meetfuture needs of the communityAddress the Massachusetts Estuaries Project (MEP)nitrogen reduction goals
Phase 1 IWRMP Includes:Define existing conditionsDevelop and implement a water protectionneeds analysisDefine existing and future water management needsDefine existing and future water management needsPrioritize water management needsContinuous public participation
Water Quality Parameters of ConcernNitrogen for drinking water and saltwater estuariesPhosphorus for fresh water pondsBacteria for fresh and saltwater bodies
Sources of NitrogenControllable:Effluent from on-site septic systemsStormwater run-off from impervious surfacesFertilizersFertilizersAnimal wastesUncontrollable:Atmospheric deposition
Controllable Sources of PhosphorusEffluent from on-site septic systemsFertilizersStormwater run-off from impervious surfacesDishwater detergentsDishwater detergentsAnimal wastesRegeneration from pond sediments
Controllable Sources of BacteriaFailed on-site septic systemsStormwater run-off from impervious surfacesAnimals, dogs, birds, etc.Human activitiesHuman activitiesWastes from boats
Protection of Groundwater and EstuariesWhy Protect the Groundwater?–Public health–Source of drinking water–Source water for ponds and estuariesWhy Protect the Estuaries?–Some impaired; MEP defines actions to restore–Environmental–Economic impacts to Cape Cod
What is Groundwater?
Septic Systems and GroundwaterOn-site septic systemspermit nitrogen to travelwith groundwater to thecoast.
Your Home’s Septic SystemtoEstuarySource: Nick Evans, Virginia Division of Mineral Resources Animation by Molly Kitchel and Pat Harcourt
Brewster Pond and MEP Watersheds
Massachusetts Estuaries Project (MEP)A partnership between–Massachusetts DEP–UMASS/Dartmouth School forMarine Science and Technology(SMAST)–Local communities–Also CCC and USGSMonitoring and evaluating environmental health of estuariesBrewster MEPs–Pleasant Bay (2006)–Namskaket Creek (2008)–Herring River (Summer 2010)
MEP Watersheds
Brewster’s Ponds and Evaluating their HealthGeneral Information on PondsEvaluating Pond Health
Brewster Ponds(82 total incl. ponds withneighboring communities)
Brewster Pond FactsNatural ponds29 ponds monitored byPond and LakeStewards (PALS)15202530Pond AreaPonds>14 stocked with fish>11 for publicswimming0510<1 1-5 5-10 10-50 >50Acres#of
Features of PondsPhysical Setting–Flow through (seepage pond)–Outlet only (groundwater recharge pond)–Inlet and outlet (drainage pond)Inlet and outlet (drainage pond)DepthPond health via trophic status
1. Flow-through PondWater sources–Primarily groundwater–Precipitation–RunoffNo stream outlet/inletIn Brewster:–Many large ponds–Nearly all small ponds
2. Groundwater Recharge PondWater sources–Primarilygroundwater–PrecipitationPrecipitation–Limited runoffHas stream outlet
Examples of Brewster’s GroundwaterRecharge Ponds
3. Drainage PondWater sources–Streams–Groundwater–Precipitation–RunoffStream drainedOnly a few inBrewster
Outlet to StonyBrookDrainage Pond ExampleInflow fromUpper Mill Pond
Pond Depth – Physical characteristicsDeep ponds–Summer temperaturegradient–When stratified, bottomtiltdwaters areisolated–> 9 meters deepShallow ponds–Mixed top to bottom
Deep Ponds in Brewsterwith WQ Data
Deep PondsDeep cold waters potential habitat for coldwater fish(e.g., trout, lake chub)When a deep pond is eutrophic,–Organic material (leaves, dead algae/plants) decay inbtt t d ibottom waters reducing oxygen–When oxygen absent, much greater release ofphosphorus from sediment–Internally generated phosphorus can be dominatesource, fueling more algal growth
Shallow PondsTypically exist as–Clear water lakes with lots of plants and little algaeExample, Grassy Nook Pond–Turbid, green water lakes with few plants and lots of algaeTurbid, green water lakes with few plants and lots of algaeExample, Walkers Pond
Protecting Pond Designated UsesFishing -- Habitat for fish, other aquatic life, and wildlife,including for their reproduction, migration, growth andother critical functions–Ponds in Herring River and Stony Brook subwatershedsprovide ASMFC defined essential habitat for alewife andblueback herringblueback herring–Some deep ponds provide coldwater fishery habitatSwimming -- primary (and secondary) contact recreation.Aesthetics -- consistently good aesthetic value
Trophic StatusOligotrophic – low nutrient concentrations, lowproductivityMesotrophicEutrophic–high nutrient concentrations,highasing pond healthpg,gproductivityIndicators of a eutrophic lake–Increasing nutrient load–Increasing algal abundance–Decreasing oxygen in bottom layerDecrea
Phase 1 Evaluation ProcessDivide the Town Into Individual Watersheds–Pond watersheds–MEP watershedsEvaluate indicator parameters for each watershedWork with CWPC to rank and prioritize watersheds andother areas for protection of water resources
Pond and MEP Watersheds
Parameters to Evaluate Protection ofGroundwater and EstuariesZone II / District of Critical Planning ConcernTown zoningSoils / drainageDepth to groundwaterDepth to groundwaterImpervious coverDevelopment densityOthers
Zone II / District of Critical Planning Concern(DCPC)Zone II–Protected area of recharge in vicinity of municipal wellsDCPC–Protected area (by Brewster)–Protected area (by Brewster)Drinking water supplyBrewster’s portion of Pleasant Bay
Zone II
District of Critical Planning Concern
Zoning
Soil Drainage
Depth to Groundwater
Impervious Cover
Development Density
Pond Classification ProcessIdentify impaired ponds (Category 1/1A)Identify ponds with some water quality impairment(Category 2)Identifydeepponds that have high waterqualityypp g qy(Category 3)Remainder: ponds that meet uses (Category 4) or pondswith no water quality data (Category 5)
Pond Water Quality Data (2001-2007)Samples collected by Pond and Lake Stewards (PALS)program for 29 different ponds in BrewsterLaboratory analyses performed by School of MarineScience and Technology (SMAST) or the North AtlanticClLb CCdilShCoastalLaboratory atCapeCodNationalSeashore(CCNS)
Other Data SourcesMA Division of Fisheries & WildlifeCape Cod Commission & MassGIS dataMA Department of Public Health Bureau ofEnvironmental HealthDiscussion with DEP Division of Watershed Management
Primary Indicators of Impaired Pond HealthLow DO –MA DEP 314 CMR 4.00–< 6 mg/l in deep ponds to support cold-water fish–< 5 mg/l in shallow ponds to support warm-water fishHigh chlorophylla–discussion with MA DEPHigh chlorophylla–discussion with MA DEP–> 16 μg/l more than 1 time per growing seasonTrophic Status Index
Other Pond Health FactorsShallow pond and no oxygenDeep pond and no oxygen in bottom watersHarmful algal bloom present (toxic)Fish kill recordedIncreasing phosphorus with depthBacteria > state standardSecchi depth (transparency) < swimming standardAdjacent cranberry bog (external nutrient source)
Category 1 – Impaired Ponds
Category 1A – Impaired Pondswith Special Factors
Category 2 – Ponds with someWater Quality Impairment
Category 3 – High Quality DeepPonds
Category 4 – Ponds that MeetUses
Category 5 – No Data
Opportunities for Public ParticipationLocal organization announcementsCommunity meeting participationWebsite—www.town.brewster.ma.usCable TV
Next Community MeetingSave the date:August 2010 (to be confirmed)Topic:Summary of Preliminary Water Needs AssessmentContacts:CWPC CoordinatorSue LevenCWPC Coordinator–Sue Leven–Email:sleven@town.brewster.ma.us
SummaryTremendous amount of data has been collected onexisting water resources in BrewsterWorking closely with Committee to evaluate data andutilize key parameters to help prioritize water resourcedneedsNext meeting will present preliminary recommendationsof water resource needs
QuestionsandComments
Future IWRMP PhasesDevelop and screen potential preliminary alternatives toaddress water needsBegin initial environmental permitting agency reviewand inputConduct detailed evaluations of feasible solutions forprioritized water needsFinalize overall recommended IWRMPComplete environmental impact reports and approvals
Community Meeting #3
September 11, 2010
Town of Brewster,MassachusettsIntegrated Water Resource Management Plan(IWRMP)Community Meeting No. 310:00 AM - Saturday September 11, 2010
Welcome by:Comprehensive Water Planning Committee (CWPC)Members:Patricia Hughes, ChairLemuel Skidmore, Vice ChairDavid Bennett, SecretaryJoanne HughesJane JohnsonJohn LipmanElizabeth Taylor, Planning Board Rep.Amy Usowski, Conservation Comm. Rep.
CWPC SupportTown Staff Advisors–Sue Leven, Town Planner, CWPC Coordinator–Chris Miller, Natural Resources Director–Jim Gallagher, Conservation Agent–Nancy Ellis Ice, Health AgentRobert Bersin DPW–Robert Bersin,DPW–Paul Anderson, Water DepartmentSelectmen’s Liaison–Ed LewisTown’s Consultant–CDM
Why we are doing an IWRMP?Preserve valuable water resources – town assets–Groundwater–Estuaries–Freshwater ponds–Coastal resourcesDevelop a dynamic and formal program for water,wastewater and stormwater management to meetfuture needs of the communityAddress the Massachusetts Estuaries Project (MEP)nitrogen reduction goalsMaintain quality of life in town
Goal of the IWRMPTo develop a long-term program for the protectionand/or restoration of our critically importantgroundwater and surface water resources
Meeting Purpose and Presentation OverviewProvide a project overviewPresent some preliminary findings to dateDiscuss some draft recommendationsRemind local residents and business owners of theRemind local residents and business owners of theimportance for them to participate and how theycan do so
Phase 1 IWRMP Includes:Define existing water resource conditionsDevelop and implement a water protectionneeds analysisDefine existing and future water management needsDefine existing and future water management needsPrioritize needs and recommendations to addressthemContinuous public participation
Growth in Brewster in 1951 and 1999
Brewster IWRMP SummaryAbout 50% of the subwatersheds need nitrogen removalAbout 30% of subwatersheds have groundwaterpotentiallyat riskpyOnly 10% of ponds are considered healthy and meetintended uses
Brewster’s Water ResourcesGroundwater–Monomoy LensDrinking water supplySource water toEstuaries–Quivett Creek–Namskaket Creek–Pleasant Bayestuaries and pondsCape Cod Bay Coast–>5 miles of shoreline–325 acres of beach andmarshlandPleasant Bay–Herring River–Bass RiverFreshwater Ponds–81 ponds
Why Protect Our Water Resources?Groundwater Estuaries Coasts PondsDrinking watersourcePublic healthRtiRecreationEcological healthEconomic vitalityAddress DEPregulatoryrequirements
Water Quality Parameters of ConcernNitrogen for drinking water and saltwater estuariesPhosphorus for fresh water pondsBacteria for fresh and saltwater bodies
Water Resources Needs EvaluationAssessment focuses on:Defining nitrogen reduction based on wastewater needsassessment to protect groundwater and estuariesIdentifying impaired ponds for restoration and highIdentifying impaired ponds for restoration and highquality ponds for protectionReducing bacteria at coastal resources (beaches)
Criteria to Prioritize Study AreasAssessment focuses on:1. Areas that can remain with onsite systems1A. Areas that can remain with onsite systems, pendingMEP resultsMEP results2. Areas that may need on-site innovative/alternative (I/A)systems or off-site solutions3. Areas that may need off-site or de-centralized (regional)wastewater solutions
Water Quality Parameters of ConcernNitrogen (N) for drinking water and saltwater estuariesPhosphorus (P) for fresh water pondsBacteria (B) for fresh and saltwater bodies
SourcesNitrogenPhosphorousBacteriaControllable:Effluent from on-site septic systemsStormwaterrun-off from impervious areasFertilizersAnimal wastesRegeneration from pond sedimentsDishwashing detergentsWastes from boatsUncontrollable:Atmospheric Deposition
Groundwater AssessmentEvaluated each subwatershed for potential risks thatcould degrade groundwater quality–Characteristics of the watershed–Regulations to protect groundwater resources–Human activities
Groundwater Needs Assessment CriteriaZone II and DCPC areasZoningImpervious areasSoils suitability (poorly drained)Protected open spaceParcel sizeParcel sizeDevelopment densityGroundwater problem areas (shallow depth togroundwater)
XXX
Draft Groundwater Needs AssessmentCriteriaCriteria ThresholdZone II and DCPC areas >40%Zoning Refuse disposal orindustrial activitiesImpervious area >10%Poor soilsuitability>20%Poor soilsuitability>20%Protected open space <25%15,000 ft2parcel size >25% or >100parcelsDevelopment density >0.75 buildings peracreDepth to groundwater <5 feet (GW problem area) >25%
XXXDRAFT
Massachusetts Estuaries Project–Determines if N reduction neededPleasant Bay (2006)Namskaket Creek (2008)Herring River (expected Fall 2010)Bass River (expected Fall 2010)Massachusetts Estuaries Project (MEP)TMDL–Developed by DEP if nitrogen reduction neededPleasant Bay (2007)
Estuary ResultsEstuary ResultPleasant Bay • 40 to 52% N removalNamskaket Creek • No N Removal• Pathogen TMDLHerring River • In process with HarwichBass RiverIn process with Dennis and YarmouthBass River•In process with Dennis and YarmouthQuivett Creek • Pathogen TMDL
Summary of Findings – Groundwater andEstuariesGroundwater Analysis:- 16 of 50 subwatersheds - potentially at riskEstuaries Analysis:-22 of 50 subwatersheds – nitrogen sensitive and subject to TMDL-9 of 50 subwatersheds – waiting for results of MEP studies
IWRMP Groundwater and Estuary NeedsAssessment Findings -DraftPleasant Bay requires up to 52% removal of septicsystem nitrogen and thus requires an alternativesevaluation for wastewater treatmentHerring River watershed will depend on MEP resultsBass River watershed will depend on MEP resultsOther watersheds don’t require nitrogen removal andcan remain with on-site or I/A systems
Brewster Ponds Overview(81 total incl. ponds withneighboring communities)
Water Quality Parameters for Assessing PondHealthDissolved oxygen (DO)Phosphorous (P)Nitrogen (N)ChlorophyllaShidhSecchi depthIndicators of a eutrophic lake–Increasing nutrientload–Increasing algal abundance–Decreasing oxygen in bottom layerBrewster Pond and Lake Stewards (PALS) volunteerscollect samples in 29 lakes twice per year
Integrated Waters ListSeveral ponds are listed as having poor water quality onMassachusetts DEP integrated waters list.Pond ImpairmentsLower Mill PondNutrientsNoxious aquatic plantsTurbidityLong Pond Organic enrichment/low dissolved oxygenSheep PondMetals - MercuryOrganic enrichment/low dissolved oxygenUpper Mill PondNutrientsOrganic enrichment/low dissolved oxygenNoxious aquatic plantsTurbidityWalkers PondNutrientsNoxious aquatic plantsTurbidity
Pond Health/Threat AssessmentHealth assessment updated per comments fromCommittee–Takes account of Cape Cod Commission “healthy” pondcriteriaCompleted threat assessment by extending healthassessment of ponds with data to ponds with no data–Impervious cover–Cranberry bog presence
Primary Indicators of Impaired Pond HealthLow DO –MA DEP 314 CMR 4.00–< 6 mg/l in deep ponds to support cold-water fish–< 5 mg/l in shallow ponds to support warm-water fishHigh chlorophylla–discussion with MA DEPHigh chlorophylla–discussion with MA DEP–> 16 μg/l more than 1 time per growing seasonTrophic Status IndexMeets CCC guidelines at all depths for at least two ofthree criteria: TP, TN, and chlorophyll
Other Factors Indicating Impaired Pond QualityHarmful algal bloom occurrencesFish kill recordedBacteria exceeded State Water Quality Standards forswimmingSecchi depth < 4 Feet (discourages swimming)Increasing phosphorus with depthHydraulically connected to cranberry bog
Pond Health/Threat Assessment ResultsCategory Description No. of Ponds1 High quality 52 Met most uses 23 Some WQ impairment 5Ndtbt ibl3ANodatabutpossibleimpairment244 Impaired (WQ data) 124A Impaired (other factors) 55 No data 28
Pond Health Assessment Results
Pond Health Assessment Results
Pond Health Assessment Results
Pond Health Assessment Results
Pond Health Assessment Results
Criteria for Ponds Needs AssessmentIncreases PrioritySizePublic AccessRiDecreases PriorityPrivate/StateOwnershipRecent PondRecreationPond Condition–Health/Threat AssessmentZone IIKnown problemRecent PondTreatment
Prioritizing Ponds for Future ActionsTwo types of ponds to be prioritized1.Impaired ponds–Collect missing data–Conduct diagnostic study–Conduct diagnostic study–Recommend actions for restoration2.Existing high quality ponds–Conduct watershed assessment for threats–Recommend actions for protection
Coastal Water ResourcesBrewster – 8 public beaches–Located - north side of town–Shellfishing–Swimming–Recreation–TourismOnly Namskaket Estuary studied by MEPGenerally high quality, but occasional exceedances for bacteria thattemporarily close beaches–Existing TMDLs for pathogensQuivett CreekNamskaket Creek
Summary of Coastal FindingsOccasional high bacteria need to be addressed at beachesalong the bayDEP issued bacteria TMDL for Quivett and NamskaketCreekBacteria sources are unknown, but likely related to :-- birds or other animals-- increased stormwater runoff from impervious areas related todevelopment-- potentially,septic systems in high density development areas
DraftRecommendations Presented to CWPCImmediateFutureRegional
DraftImmediate RecommendationsComputerize water resource databases such as:-- Water use by parcels in GIS-- Title 5 septic system failure and waivers data-- Stormwater system and discharges, including outfallsReview and update buildout analysis by watershedsAnalyze and document non-conforminguses in variousygzoning districts and evaluate potential impactsDevelop citizen education programs on:-- Fertilizer use-- Alternative landscaping-- How to monitor your pond(s)
DraftImmediate Recommendations (cont’d)Evaluate Barnstable County Health Departmentrecords on private drinking water wells in townContinue pond monitoring by PALS volunteers and addkey ponds as resources allowInitiate diagnostic studies for impaired ponds andthd lti t tthih lit dwatershedevaluationstoprotecthighqualitypondsBegin to evaluate alternatives to address nitrogenremoval requirements to estuariesContact cranberry bog growersassociation and discussinventory of active Brewster bogs and their practices
DraftFuture RecommendationsIdentify funding mechanisms to implement waterresources programsFinalize development of astormwater managementprogram and implement BMPsFinalize a recommended program for Brewster toaddress nitrogen removal to meet established TMDLsComplete the data collection needed to completediagnostic studies for ponds with high-priority needs
DraftFuture Recommendations (cont’d)Conduct a monitoring program to identify and remedythe sources of bacteriaImplement restoration action plans for impaired pondsand watershed protection actions for high quality pondsand watershed protection actions for high quality pondsDivert or disconnect stormwater systems that directlydischarge to pondsContinue to foster stakeholder participation inBrewster’s IWRMP
DraftRegional RecommendationsContact neighboring towns immediately to discuss long-term wastewater planning in the Pleasant Bay,Namskaket Creek and possibly the Bass River andHerring RiverInvestigate sharingwastewater treatment systems withgg yadjacent townsConfirm alternative solutions that will meet the TMDLrequirements by running MEP model scenarios
Brewster IWRMP SummaryAbout 50% of the subwatersheds need nitrogen removalAbout 30% of subwatersheds have groundwaterpotentiallyat riskpyOnly 10% of ponds are considered healthy and meetintended uses
Community Meeting Follow-upOpportunities for public participationLocal organization announcementsCommunity meeting participationWebsitewww town brewster ma usWebsitewww.town.brewster.ma.usCable TVContact:CWPC Coordinator – Sue Leven–Email:sleven@town.brewster.ma.us
QuestionsandComments
General Education Slides
What is Groundwater?
Your Home’s Septic SystemtoEstuarySource: Nick Evans, Virginia Division of Mineral Resources Animation by Molly Kitchel and Pat Harcourt
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)“A Total Maximum Daily Load, or TMDL, is a calculationof the maximum amount of a pollutant that awaterbody can receive and still safely meet waterquality standards”Source: United States Environmental Protection AgencyConsiders both point and non-point sourcesImplementation being addressed on Cape Cod via theIWRMP process
1. Flow-through PondWater sources–Primarily groundwater–Precipitation–RunoffNo stream outlet/inletIn Brewster:–Many large ponds–Nearly all small ponds
2. Groundwater Recharge PondWater sources–Primarilygroundwater–PrecipitationPrecipitation–Limited runoffHas stream outlet
3. Drainage PondWater sources–Streams–Groundwater–Precipitation–RunoffStream drainedOnly a few inBrewster
Pond Depth – Physical characteristicsDeep ponds–Summer temperaturegradient–When stratified, bottomtiltdwaters areisolated–> 9 meters deepShallow ponds–Mixed top to bottom
Brewster Specific Slides
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX