massachusetts bays national estuary program · massachusetts bays national estuary program estuary...

Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program

Estuary Delineation and Assessment 2.0

Final Report

August 2017

Prepared for and Edited by: Prepared by:





Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. . 1

1. PROJECT BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................... 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4.1 Summary of Analysis ........................................................................................................... 17

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

FIGURES

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

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

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

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

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Methodology for Estimating Annual Stormwater Runoff Volume

Appendix B: Watershed Delineation Maps

Appendix C: Results of Estuarine and Inter-Estuarine Watershed Characterization



1

Executive Summary

In 2012, The Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program (MassBays) was in the process of updating

its Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) with new, expanded focus on near-

shore estuaries and embayments. To facilitate analysis, MassBays undertook an Estuarine

Assessment and Delineation (EDA1.0) to accomplish the following:

1. Delineate estuarine watershed boundaries, encompassing all tributary areas that are tidally

influenced, as well as open water regions of the estuary that contain important ecological

resources;

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

estuarine watershed; and

EDA 1.0 resulted in the delineation of 47 estuarine embayments. In response to comments, and

recognizing the importance of the role that inter-estuarine habitats (rocky shore areas, dunes, bluffs, and

beaches, e.g.) play in the health of estuarine ecosystems, MassBays initiated EDA 2.0. The scope and

implementation of EDA 2.0 was as follows:

1. Delineate any inter-estuarine coastal watersheds such that the entire Massachusetts Bays

coastline can be assessed, updating existing estuarine watershed boundaries as needed.

EDA 2.0 produced a set of 69 estuarine and inter-estuarine assessment areas. The delineations

were prepared using topography, attributes of tidal influence, existing USGS and MassGIS

watershed boundary lines, and comments and input from MassBays Regional Coordinators.

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

assessment area.

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

New attributes include:

Beach closure days

Mooring fields

Marinas

Dredging projects

Seawalls and related structures

Coastal dunes, coastal beaches, and rocky intertidal shores

Public and semi-public beach length

Boating access

Coastal beach water quality



2

1. Project Background

The Massachusetts Bays National Estuary Program

(MassBays) is one of 28 designated Estuaries of

National Significance in in the National Estuary

Program which is authorized by Section 302 of the

Clean Water Act and administered by t he U.S.

E n v i r o nmental P rotection A g ency (EPA). The

MassBays Planning area covers more than 1000

miles of coastline a l ong I p s w i c h , Massachusetts

and Cape Cod Bays and serves 50 coastal

communities from Salisbury, on the New Hampshire

border, to Provincetown at the tip of Cape Cod (Figure

2.1). The planning area is divided into five

management regions: Upper North Shore, Lower

North Shore, Metro Boston, South Shore, and Cape

Cod.

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

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

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

The goals of EDA 2.0 were to:

1. Delineate any inter-estuarine coastal watersheds such that the entire Massachusetts Bays

coastline can be assessed, updating existing estuarine watershed boundaries as needed.

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

assessment area.

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

Figure 2.1: Massachusetts Bays National

Estuary Program Planning Area



3

2. Delineation of Assessment Units

The basis for the delineation in EDA 2.0 was the set of 47 estuarine assessment units produced in

2012 in EDA1.0. The original process of estuarine watershed delineation generally consisted of the

following three steps:

1. Determine a seaward boundary that encompassed the assessment area and any nearby major

estuarine ecological resources;

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

and

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

Given the variety of embayment characteristics across the estuaries, the process described above was

sometimes varied on a case-by-case basis. For instance, some assessment areas may not have a

major freshwater tributary on which to establish a landward boundary. Instead, these watersheds were

delineated simply by determining the proximal area contributing to the embayment using topography.

Also, several of the areas are located on Cape Cod and are influenced by a groundwater contributing

area rather than a typical watershed defined by surficial topography. Where special circumstances

dictated a deviation from the general delineation process, best professional judgment was used to

determine what the most informative and useful “estuarine watershed” would be.

For EDA 2.0, areas of the coast that were not previously characterized during EDA1.0 were delineated and

assessed. These areas were generally near-shore stretches of beach or headland that existed between

estuaries. The process for identifying and delineating these assessment units was as follows:

Step 1: The MassGIS “Drainage Sub-basins” was intersected with the existing estuarine assessment

units from EDA1.0. The resulting subbasins and subbasin segments that did not overlap

EDA1.0 assessment units and that were also coastal, were selected as the draft basis for

the inter-estuarine assessment units.

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

Step 3: Some stretches of coastline were divided into multiple sub-basins by the MassGIS “Drainage

Sub-basins” layer. When multiple sub-basins were contiguous between existing EDA1.0

assessment units, these sub-basins were merged into a single assessment unit.

After completing this process, the draft delineations were reviewed with MassBays Regional Coordinators

and revised based on their comments. Some existing estuarine assessment units from EDA1.0 were also

updated based on MassBays review (e.g., the Merrimack River assessment unit was split into Black

Rock Creek and Merrimack River).

2.1 Determination of Seaward Boundary

The basis for the determination of the ED1.0 seaward boundaries began by using the Massachusetts

Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) 2010 Integrated List of Waters, also known as

the 305(b) list. These data are made available as a spatial data set by the Massachusetts Office of

Geographic Information (MassGIS). The data provide a spatial representation of the entire river, lake,

and estuary segments assessed as part of the Integrated List of Waters.



4

This starting point was, in some cases, insufficient to describe the seaward extent of the assessment unit

for the purposes of this project. Because the goal of the project is to assess the ecological resources

present in each estuary and its contributing watershed, a simplistic downstream boundary, such as that

provided by the 305(b) listing, would sometimes be insufficient to encompass important natural resources

that may exist just outside the boundary. When appropriate, the seaward boundary was expanded to

include important adjacent resources such as tidal flats, eelgrass beds, and shellfish suitability zones.

As the original 47 estuarine assessment units were expanded to include all estuarine and inter-estuarine

regions along the Massachusetts Bay coastline, a new determination of the seaward boundary was

needed. Unlike estuarine areas which often had a specific waterbody to use as the basis for the seaward

boundary, newly assessed regions along beaches, linear coastlines, and other inter-estuarine areas directly

bordered the ocean with no apparent seaward boundary that could be dictated by geography or e features.

It was determined through discussion with MassBays staff that the 10-meter bathymetric contour would be

a suitable basis for the new seaward boundaries. This depth was chosen because it encompasses the

photic zone, which likely includes many of the near-shore marine ecological resources of interest. As in the

original EDA1.0, where necessary, seaward boundaries were expanded outward from the 10-meter

bathymetric contour in order to include any marine ecological resources that existed at greater depths

within the vicinity of the assessment unit.

2.2 Determination of Landward Boundary

The intent of EDA 2.0 is to define not only the boundary of the assessment unit itself, but the relevant

areas that contribute to or exist within a coastal watershed. Watershed extent was determined for both

estuarine and non-estuarine assessment units as follows.

Estuarine Assessment Units

In some cases, estuarine units are fed by large rivers whose contributing areas reach far inland and could

be comprised of several hundred square miles (e.g. Merrimack or Charles River). In these cases, large

portions of the watershed are tributary to a major body of fresh water. While these freshwater portions of

the watershed are important when considering hydrologic budgets or complete nutrient or bacterial

budgets, their effects on the estuary are beyond the scope of this project. To this end, a practical landward

extent of the estuarine environment was used to limit the upstream extent of the watershed and remove

portions of the watershed that were not directly coastal in nature.

For estuaries with one or more significant freshwater tributary rivers, the furthest extent of tidal influence

was used to determine the location of the landward boundary. Two data sources were primarily used to

interpret this location:

• Maps of salt marsh locations; and

• Massachusetts General Law Chapter 91 Tidelands Jurisdiction maps.

Salt marshes were mapped using the MassDEP Wetlands data layer. The dataset was produced using

interpretation of color-infrared photography and field checked by the MassDEP Wetlands Conservancy

Program. The data represent wetlands as of 2000.

The Chapter 91 Tidelands Jurisdiction dataset was prepared by The BSC Group, Inc. and the

Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) to aid state regulatory agencies with

determination of Chapter 91 tidelands jurisdiction. The set of linework contains several classifications,

including contemporary and inferred high water marks, landward marsh boundaries, and other historically

non-landlocked tidelands that fall under Chapter 91 jurisdiction. The extent of this data was taken as an

indication of the farthest upstream extent of tidal influence. Of these two datasets, the one that extended farther inland was used to determine the landward boundary

along any major freshwater tributaries of the estuary. In some cases, an estuarine assessment unit did not



5

have any major freshwater tributaries. In these cases, the watershed was directly proximal to an estuary or

coastline. Some smaller freshwater, non-tidal tributaries were clearly present within this proximal area and,

according to the process described above, would be excluded as non-tidal. However, because they drained

directly to a salt marsh or to the ocean, rather than into a fresh water body, they were included within the

assessment unit watershed.

Figure 2.2 shows the north coast of the Salem Sound watershed and demonstrates the difference between

exclusion/inclusion of these smaller tributaries. In this case, the dashed line shows the watershed as it

would be delineated by strictly excluding all tributary area beyond the extent of tidal influence. The solid

line shows the watershed boundary if smaller freshwater streams are included. The solid line is in

approximate agreement with the watershed boundary shown in the report “Planning for Effective Pond

Management in the Salem Sound Watershed, 2010,” produced by Tufts University and Salem Sound

Coastwatch.

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

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

Where such questions arose, pre-delineated sub-basin watersheds prepared by MassGIS and vetted by

the United States Geologic Survey (USGS), Massachusetts Water Resource Commission and the

Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (EEA), were used to determine whether a given

tributary warranted inclusion within the estuarine assessment unit. If a questionable body of water did not

have its own sub-basin delineated by MassGIS, and was tributary to the estuary or embayment, it would

be included within Geosyntec’s estuarine assessment unit boundary.



6

2.3 Delineation of Non-Estuarine Assessment Unit Boundaries

For non-estuarine assessment units not located on Cape Cod, the landward watershed boundary was

delineated using topography. The primary source of topographic information was the National Elevation

Dataset (NED) 1/3-arc-second topographic data produced by USGS. Topographic data were

supplemented by 3-m interval elevation contours produced from the MassGIS Massachusetts Digital

Elevation Model (DEM).

In certain cases, the elevation data described above were not detailed enough to determine the

location of a watershed boundary, for example around low-lying salt marshes. In these cases,

aerial photography was used to interpret the watershed divide using apparent ditches and

channels.

The draft watershed boundaries were then compared to pre-delineated sub-basins prepared by MassGIS

as described in Section 2.2. Where discrepancies occurred, Geosyntec’s watershed boundary was

adjusted to follow the MassGIS sub-basin boundary if the MassGIS boundary was determined to be a

more accurate or practical representation of the watershed.

2.4 Delineation of Cape Cod Groundwater Contributing Areas (GWCA)

Hydrologic basins on Cape Cod are dominated by groundwater flow and cannot be delineated using

surface topography. The primary source of groundwater contributing areas (GWCAs) on Cape Cod is a

data layer created by USGS in cooperation with EPA using regional MODFLOW groundwater models of

the Cape Cod aquifer system. In some cases, the seaward boundary was further modified to better tie

into these existing basin boundaries.



7

3. Selection of Environmental Attributes

In collaboration with MassBays staff and Regional Coordinators, Geosyntec developed a list of attributes

that can be used to describe and characterize estuaries/embayments and inter-estuarine areas. These

attributes will be used subsequently as the basis for assessing ecosystem health under the CCMP. The

attributes include estuarine species and habitats, water quality parameters, and human uses.

In addition to the attributes used in EDA 1.0 nine new attributes were characterized in EDA 2.0 and

are listed below.

Attribute Raw Statistic Normalized Statistic

Sandy Beaches/Dunes

Area

acres per mile of coastline

Rocky Intertidal Shores

Area

acres per mile of coastline

Mooring Fields

Area

Area per estuary water area

Marinas

Count (marina boat slips)

Count per estuary water area

Dredge Projects

Area

Area per estuary water area

Seawalls and related structures

Length

miles per mile of coastline

Public Coastal Beaches

access points to public

and semi-public beaches

# of access points per mile of beach

Marine Beach Quality

beach "action days" # of closures and advisories per beach

Coastal Boat Access

boat access points # of parking spaces per boat access point

Table 3.1 List of new attributes

Salt Marsh: Salt marshes are coastal wetlands that provide important water quality benefits via filtering

of upstream waters, as well as habitat for shorebirds, crustaceans, and other biota. Salt marshes have

been impacted by pollution, encroachment, filling, and restriction of normal tidal flushing. The extent of

salt marsh was quantified using the MassDEP wetlands data layer. The attribute metric is calculated as the

area of salt marsh per area of the assessment unit (land and water).

Source: http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-and-support/application-serv/office-of-

geographic-information-massgis/datalayers/depwetlands112000.html

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

Source: http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-and-support/application-serv/office-of


Rocky Intertidal Shores: Rocky intertidal shores are dynamic, high-stress areas that provide an

important link between marine and terrestrial systems. These areas provide habitat for marine life and act

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



http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-and-support/application-serv/office-of%20geographic-information-massgis/datalayers/depwetlands112000.html





8

as a nursery for various forms of crustaceans and fish. They also provide food sources for marine birds

and fish, and act as stabilization for shoreline sediment. The extent of rocky intertidal shores was

quantified using the MassDEP wetlands data layer. The attribute metric is quantified as the area of rocky

intertidal shore divided by the area of the assessment unit (land and water).



Sandy Beaches/Dunes: Beaches and dunes provide habitat to marine life (birds, invertebrates, etc.) as

well as protecting against erosion and buffering against extreme weather events. The extent of sandy

beaches and dunes was quantified using the MassDEP wetlands data layer, using the categories “coastal

beach,” “coastal dune,” and “coastal bank, bluff, or sea cliff”. The sandy beach and dune attribute was

quantified as the area of sandy beaches and dunes divided by the area of the assessment unit (land and

water).



Eelgrass: Eelgrass (Zostera marina) form habitat areas comprised of flowering marine plants that typically

grow in wide continuous expanses, or meadows, in shallow, protected estuarine waters. Eelgrass provides

habitat for fish and other species, providing cover, food, and spawning habitat in Massachusetts waters.

Eelgrass beds have historically been degraded due to disease as well as the light-limiting effect of

increased turbidity and eutrophication. MassDEP has mapped eelgrass extent in 1995, 2001, 2006, and

2012 using aerial imagery analysis and field confirmation.

Five attribute metrics are calculated. The first four metrics are the area of eelgrass for a given year of

observation divided by the open water area within the assessment unit. The fifth metric was calculated

using the average eelgrass area over the observed record.


geographic-information-massgis/datalayers/massdep-eelgrass-project.html

Shellfish Habitat: Shellfish beds – assemblages of bivalves in areas otherwise dominated by soft

sediments – provide many habitat services including refuge for smaller organisms such as polychaete

worms, juvenile crabs, snails, and sea stars. Shellfish habitat within each estuary was determined using

shellfish suitability areas delineated in the Massachusetts Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI). These

habitat areas are distinct from the Designated Shellfish Growing Areas described below, in that they

represent the best estimate of potential habitat of shellfish species present on the Massachusetts coast.

Species listed in the dataset include American Oyster, Bay Scallop, Blue Mussel, European Oyster, Ocean

Quahog, Quahog, Razor Clam, Sea Scallop, Soft-shelled Clam, and Surf Clam. The dataset was derived

by the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) with input from local shellfish constables,

fishermen, and historic maps and studies of shellfish. Shellfish habitat was measured in species-acres for

this study, meaning multiple species could be counted for the same area if their potential habitats

overlapped, and allowing for species diversity to be accounted for in the analysis. Attribute statistics are

calculated as the habitat area of a given species divided by the open water area of the assessment unit.


geographic-information-massgis/datalayers/shlfshsuit.html

Shorebird Habitat and Nesting Sites: Shorebird habitat is closely related to other estuarine habitats like

salt marsh and tidal flats, which provide food, cover, and nesting sites for shorebirds. Shorebird habitat was

determined using habitat areas delineated in the Massachusetts ESI. A complete listing of all species and

categories of species included in the ESI is provided in Appendix E, which includes shorebirds, wading

birds, waterfowl, gulls, terns, cormorants, etc. ESI geospatial data was downloaded from the CZM MORIS

viewer (http://maps.massgis.state.ma.us/map_ol/moris.php). Shorebird habitat was measured in species-

acres for this study, meaning multiple species could be counted for the same area if their potential habitats







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



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



http://maps.massgis.state.ma.us/map_ol/moris.php



9

overlapped, and allowing for species diversity to be accounted for in the analysis. Nesting sites were also

identified in the ESI and counted for their presence in each estuarine watershed. Shorebird habitat

attribute statistics are calculated as the habitat area of a given species divided by the total area of the

assessment unit. Shorebird nesting site attribute statistics are calculated as the number of nesting sites per

total area of the assessment unit.

The complete list of ESI source publications and related metadata can be found at:

http://www.researchplanning.com/_esi/metadata/MAmdata.pdf


geographic-information-massgis/datalayers/morislayers.html

Anadromous Fish Runs: Connections between saltwater and freshwater spawning areas are critica l to

maintaining populations of anadromous fish. Massachusetts DMF has developed a database listing the

beginning and end points of various known anadromous fish runs on the Massachusetts coast. In order to

quantify the length of these runs, the hydraulic length between each start and end point was traced using a

linear representation of hydraulic features (Networked Hydro Centerlines for non-Cape Cod areas, and the

National Hydrography Dataset for Cape Cod). Runs were traced on a per-species basis, and accounted for

the following species: Alewife, American Shad, Atlantic Sturgeon, Blueback Herring, and Rainbow Smelt.

The length of the fish run was considered to be the total length both outside and inside the estuarine

watershed, unlike other attributes in this study which were calculated based only on the attribute’s

presence within the estuarine watershed boundary. The rationale for this difference was that fish runs

could extend miles upstream, and a very large and ecologically important fish run could start in a relatively

small estuarine watershed, meaning the full size and importance of the run would not be captured by only

quantifying the portion lying within the watershed boundary. Anadromous fish runs were measured in

species-miles for this study, meaning multiple species could be counted for the same length of stream if

their runs overlapped, and allowing for species diversity to be accounted for in the analysis.

The attribute metric is calculated as the total fish run length per species of any run intersecting the

assessment unit (including in waterways that extend beyond the landward boundary of the assessment

unit).


geographic-information-massgis/datalayers/anadromous-fish-.html High Intensity Land Use. High intensity land use is characterized by anthropogenic influence and often

lead to high rates of stormwater runoff, bacterial and nutrient contamination, and other types of non-point-

source pollution. These land uses include all residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, and

transportation areas as delineated in the 2005 Massachusetts Land Use dataset (MassGIS), and thus this

attribute is related to others in the EDA analysis, such as road crossings and restrictions (due to the

increased presence of roads in these land use areas), encroachment upon wetlands, and increased

presence of wastewater discharges. The attribute is quantified as the area of high intensity land use

divided by the land area of the assessment unit.


geographic-information-massgis/datalayers/lus2005.html

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

http://www.researchplanning.com/_esi/metadata/MAmdata.pdf

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



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



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





10

Source: See methodology in Appendix A. Impervious Area: Impervious area is closely associated with increased stormwater runoff and higher

concentrations of pollutants in the runoff. By preventing infiltration, impervious areas also increase the

volume, and often the erosive velocities, of stormwater. Impervious area is also closely associated with

other attributes in the EDA analysis, such as high intensity land use and population density.

The attribute metric is calculated as the impervious area divided by the assessment unit land area

(i.e., percent impervious cover).


geographic-information-massgis/datalayers/impervioussurface.html

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

The attribute metric is calculated as the population density, or, the total population divided by the

assessment unit land area.


geographic-information-massgis/datalayers/census2010.html

Wastewater: Wastewater is a direct source of nutrient and bacterial pollution to an estuarine receiving

body. Sources of wastewater can include wastewater treatment plant direct discharges to surface water,

discharges to groundwater, and septic systems. Some wastewater treatment plant systems may receive

wastewater from areas outside of the estuarine watershed in which they are located. As a result, the

impact from these wastewater sources may be greater than the population within the watershed would

indicate.

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

assessment unit.

o Wastewater discharges to surface water: These sources of wastewater take the form of

wastewater treatment plants that directly discharge to a surface water body. Permitted treatment

plants associated with sewerage systems were identified using the EPA’s Envirofacts Warehouse

database. Permitted flow rates for each system were also obtained from the database and

considered to be an attribute of the magnitude of the discharge, although typical flows from a

given treatment plant may be less than the permitted flow rate. Locations of outfall pipes were

determined using coordinates provided in the pipe schedule portion of the EPA database or from

descriptions of the receiving waters, and these locations were used to determine whether the

plant discharges to the estuary in question.

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

o Wastewater discharges to groundwater: These sources of wastewater result from community

septic systems, institutional septic systems, or wastewater treatment plants that discharge to the

groundwater rather than surface water. They are distinct from residential septic systems in that

they are large enough to require an individual permit and are thus more readily quantifiable.

These systems were identified using MassDEP Groundwater Discharge Permits database and

represent systems with discharges in excess of 10,000 gallons per day.

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

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

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



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



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

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





11

nitrogen, a limiting nutrient in saline environments, from septic systems into the groundwater. A

specific estimate of the presence of septic systems within a given estuarine watershed would

require significant documentation of installation and pumping records available at various town

board of health offices, an effort which is beyond the scope of this project. Instead, towns were

surveyed by MassBays regarding whether there was no, some, or total use of septic systems for

onsite wastewater treatment. These results were combined with estimates of population density

to estimate the number of residents within a given area that may be using a septic system. An

average per-capita water use of 69.3 gal/day, provided in the EPA “Onsite Wastewater Treatment

System Manual,” was used to estimate a daily flow rate of wastewater into the groundwater.

Source: MassBays data based on community surveys.

303(d) Impairments: The Federal Clean Water Act, Section 303(d), requires states to identify rivers,

streams, lakes, and estuaries that are impaired or threatened by pollutants, compromising the ecological

capabilities of the water body. MassDEP provides spatial representation of its 2012 303(d) list of

impairments in two ways: linear representation for rivers and streams, and areal representation for lakes

and estuaries. Water bodies can be listed for a wide range of impairments, of which a subset was selected

to represent the specific management priorities (bacterial and nutrient contamination) of this project. A

water body listed as impaired for “Ammonia,” “Phosphorus,” “Chlorophyll-a,” “Excess Algal Growth,” or

“Nutrient/Eutrophication Biological Attributes” was considered to be impaired with respect to nutrients, while

a water body listed as impaired for “Fecal Coliform” was considered to be impaired with respect to bacteria.

Attribute metrics are calculated for both estuarine areas and tributaries, and for both nutrient and

bacteria-related impairments. Metrics for estuaries are calculated as the area of impaired water

divided by the total area of classified waters within the assessment unit. Metrics for streams and

tributaries are calculated as the length of the impaired waters divided by the length of classified waters

within the assessment unit.


geographic-information-massgis/datalayers/wbs2012.html

Designated Shellfish Growing Area Classification: Like the 303(d) impairment attribute, shellfish

growing area classification is an indication of water quality impairment. DMF classifies coastal waters of

Massachusetts relative to their suitability for shellfish harvest for human consumption in six categories

ranging from “Approved” to “Prohibited.” The extent of prohibited or restricted Designated Shellfish

Growing Area (DSGA) within an estuary is considered to be an indication of an existing stressor on the

system. The most recent available data reflect conditions in 2015.

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

the assessment unit.


geographic-information-massgis/datalayers/dsga.html

Number of Impoundments Causing Fish Passage Barriers: Impoundments along streams and

waterways can restrict or prevent the passage of anadromous fish. Impoundments can also cause

increased stream temperatures and a disruption of natural sediment transport.

The number and location of each impoundment within each estuarine watershed was determined using an

inventory provided by the Massachusetts Office of Dam Safety, with several updates based on review by

MassBays staff. An estuarine watershed boundary often ends just downstream of an impoundment due to

the impoundment’s restriction of tidal flow, which was used as an attribute of the furthest upstream extent

of the estuarine watershed. In these cases, a dam or impoundment was counted in the estuarine

watershed due to its direct impact, even though it technically was located just outside of the watershed

boundary.

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



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





12

Some fish passage impacts of impoundments may have already been addressed by the implementation of

fish ladders or other fish passage structures. In such cases, the impoundment was removed from the count

of impoundments within the estuarine watershed. Dams with fish passage structures were identified using

a fish passage structure inventory prepared by the Department of Fish and Game.

The attribute metric is calculated as the number of impoundments causing fish passage barriers

divided by the assessment unit land area.

Sources:

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

Anadromous Fishways - http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-and-support/application-

serv/office-of-geographic-information-massgis/datalayers/anadromous-fish-.html

Number of Stream Crossings: Road crossings over streams and rivers can cause impediments to

anadromous fish passage. Elevated culverts, blocked culverts, strong velocities, and other factors can

prevent the upstream migration of fish. Significant field work is necessary to document and verify all road

crossings within an estuarine watershed, and is beyond the scope of this project (however, it has been

performed by watershed groups in select watersheds, such as the North and South River). Instead of field

documentation of all road crossings, the Massachusetts Department of Transportation statewide roads

shapefile was intersected with a linear representation of hydraulic features (Networked Hydro Centerlines

for non-Cape Cod areas, and the National Hydrography Dataset for Cape Cod). Identified potential road

crossings were checked against USGS topographic maps and aerial imagery to determine if a potential

road crossing was likely to exist or was an artifact of the intersection method (such as a road and stream

running parallel which may intersect in their spatial data due to mapping inaccuracies, but not

representing an actual stream crossing).

If a road crossing intersected an area of salt marsh, it was also given the additional classification of a road

crossing within a tidal area. Beyond the aforementioned effects of road crossings on fish passage, these

road crossings within tidal areas may cause additional stress due to their restriction on the natural

exchange of tidal flows upstream of the crossing. The attribute metric is calculated as the number of

stream crossing per assessment unit land area.

Sources:

MassDOT Roads - http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-and-support/application-

serv/office-of-geographic-information-massgis/datalayers/eotroads.html

Hydrography (Networked Hydro Centerlines) - http://www.mass.gov/anf/research-and-tech/it-serv-

and-support/application-serv/office-of-geographic-information-massgis/datalayers/watrshed.html

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

Public Coastal Beaches: Public coastal beaches represent both highly valued societal benefits and the

potential for ecological stresses associated with human use and management of beaches (e.g., habitat

disruption caused by beach raking). Geosyntec quantified the length of public and semi-public beaches

along the Massachusetts Bays coastline. These polyline features were combined with EPA Beach

Advisory and Closing records for the number of ‘action days’ taken at each beach from 2012-2015. Action

days consist of closures, rain advisories, and contamination advisories. Two attribute statistics were

calculated for beaches. The first is the total number of action days or beach closure days at public

beaches within the assessment unit, which is representative of marine beach water quality. The second is

the number of public access points divided by the length of public beaches within the assessment unit.

Sources:

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

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






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



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



https://nhd.usgs.gov/data.html

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



13

support/application-serv/office-of-geographic-information-massgis/datalayers/marinebeaches.html

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

Marinas: Marinas represent an environmental and societal impact on aquatic health via fuel and heavy

metal pollution, boat- related turbulence, trash and debris, and other impacts. Data regarding marinas

provide not only insight into the frequency and extent of boat traffic and storage in the area, but also the

beneficial use of coastal areas for recreation.

Marina boat slip data were compiled by CZM staff from public lists, databases, and visual inspection of

orthoimagery. While not fully comprehensive, these data constitute a majority of the marina-type resources

available to recreational yachtspersons. Marinas are generally defined by CZM for these data as facilities

that cater to recreational yachtspersons and provide berths, moorings, maintenance and repair, hauling,

storage, fuel, and/or other supplies.

The attribute metric for marinas is quantified as the number of marina boat slips divided by the area of open

water within the estuarine assessment unit.

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

Mooring Fields: Mooring fields represent potential impacts on the aquatic environment that are similar

to marinas. Mooring field areas were created by CZM staff by digitizing visible mooring areas (ten or

more moorings) using 2001 and 2005 aerial photography.

The mooring fields attribute is quantified as the area of the mooring field divided by the area of open water

within the estuarine assessment unit.

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

Dredge Projects: Dredge projects are indicative of areas that are impacted by equipment and access

concerns and have potential impacts on estuarine benthic habitat. CZM provided a polygon coverage of

federal (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) dredge projects along the Massachusetts coastline. These

projects consist of historical dredge projects up to December 1998.

The dredge projects attribute is quantified as the area of the dredge project divided by the area of open

water within the estuarine assessment unit.

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

Seawalls and Related Structures: Shoreline stabilization projects represent anthropogenic influence on

shoreline geomorphology. The presence of public or private stabilization projects is indicative of human

habitation and related infrastructure and/ or access issues present within the assessment area. CZM

provides a range of sources for public and private shoreline stabilization projects in 2007, 2009, and 2013

along the Massachusetts Coast through the MORIS data viewer. This attribute is quantified as the length of

various stabilization projects divided by the area of the estuarine assessment unit.

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

Boating Access Sites: This attribute indicates the extent of potential recreational use in assessment units.

The Massachusetts Department of Fish and Game Office of Fishing and Boating Access (OFBA) provides

a point dataset listing 268 sites of public access to waterways and waterbodies. The point file includes the

total number of boat ramps at the site, as well as the total number of parking spaces located nearby. The

attribute metric is calculated as the total number of access point parking spaces within an assessment unit

divided by the total number of boat ramps in that assessment unit.

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

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

https://watersgeo.epa.gov/beacon2/reports.html

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

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

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

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




TABLE 3.2 List of attributes and associated statistics applied

Attribute

Raw

Statistic

Normalized

Statistic

Status

Source

Details

Salt Marsh Area Percentage of total watershed

area

Not updated

MassGIS MassGIS Land Use (2005) layer used to determine the extent of salt marsh.

Tidal Flat Area Percentage of total watershed

area

Not updated

CZM MORIS Tidal flat areas obtained from Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI) Shoreline

Classification Layer, available from CZM MORIS

Eelgrass Area Percentage of estuary open-

water area

Updated with

2012 data.

MassDEP/ MassGIS

Eelgrass bed locations from 1995, 200, 2006, and 2012 as mapped by

MADEP and available via MassGIS

Shellfish Habitat Area per

species

Percentage of estuary open-

water area per species

Not updated

DMF Shellfish Suitability Areas, available via MassGIS

Shorebird Habitat Area per

species

Percentage of total watershed

area per species

Not updated

CZM MORIS Shorebird habitat is obtained from Environmental Sensitivity Index (ESI), available from CZM

MORIS

Shorebird Nesting Sites Count Count per total watershed

area

Not updated

CZM MORIS Shorebird nesting sites are obtained from Environmental Sensitivity Index

(ESI), available from CZM MORIS

Anadromous

Fish Runs

Length per

species NA

Not updated

MassGIS/

Mass Fish

and Game/

Geosyntec

Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries has developed a collection of points describing various

features of anadromous fish habitat. A subset of these points is classified as beginnings or ends of

anadromous fish runs. Geosyntec used these start/end points, as well as the MA state hydrography

network and the National Hydrography Dataset, to trace the anadromous fish runs that intersect the

study area. Length of a fish run will include any segments of run that extend beyond the estuarine

watershed boundary.

Rocky Intertidal Shore Area Acres per mile of coastline New data set for EDA 2.0

MassDEP Rocky intertidal shore is delineated in the MassDEP wetlands inventory.

Sandy Beaches/Dunes Area Acres per mile of coastline

New data set for EDA 2.0

MassDEP Coastal Beaches and Coastal Dunes are delineated in the MassDEP wetlands inventory.

Attribute

Raw Statistic

Normalized Statistic

Status

Source

Details

High Intensity Land Use

(Residential, Commercial,

Agricultural, etc) Area % of watershed land area Not updated MassGIS All residential, commercial, industrial, agricultural, and transportation polygons from the Land Use (2005) data

set will be classified as high intensity

Approximate Annual

Stormwater Discharge Annual Volume Volume per watershed land area Not updated MassGIS/ USDA

Annual stormwater discharge was estimated using the Curve Number method. Curve numbers were be chosen

based on soil hydrologic group and land use type for each watershed. The MassGIS Land Use (2005) layer was

intersected with the USDA soils map to create polygons with land use and hydrologic group attributes. These

polygons were assigned appropriate curve numbers and an annual storm water discharge for each polygon was

calculated. Finally, all storm water discharges from individual polygons in each watershed were summed to

estimate the total watershed annual runoff.

Impervious Area Area % of watershed land area Not updated MassGIS Data is a composite of MassGIS Impervious Surface rasters: imp_cape1, imp_cape2, imp_cape3, imp_se1,

imp_se2, imp_se4, imp_ne1, imp_ne2, imp_ne3, imp_ne4, imp_ne5

Population Count Density (Population per area) Not updated U.S. Census

Bureau Census2010 blocks were used to create a population density raster. The average population density value will

be multiplied by the land area to estimate a watershed population.

Wastewater Treatment

Plants Count and

Permitted Flowrate NA Updated USEPA

Dataset was created by searching EPA's Envirofacts Warehouse. The data was obtained by doing a search of

the Permit Compliance System (PCS) database. Facility information was selected for the state of

Massachusetts. All facilities with the SIC code "4952: SEWERAGE SYSTEM" were selected. Latitudes and

Longitudes supplied by the PCS database were used to create a shapefile of these facilities. The PCS data also

contains permitted discharge rate for each plant.

Septic System Use

Approximate

population served

by on-site

treatment systems

NA

Not updated

MassBays,

U.S. Census

Bureau

Town Sewering information has been provided by MassBays. Shapefile classifies Towns based on their amount

of sewering as "all", "some", or "none." This will be used to determine a percentage of the estuarine watershed

that is serviced by on-site treatment systems. Population data will then be used to determine the approximate

population served by septic systems and other on-site treatment systems.

303(d) Impairment for

Nutrients (Estuary) Area of impaired

waters Area of impaired waters per

area of classified waters

Updated MADEP

2012

305(b)


Bacteria (Estuary) Area of impaired

waters Area of impaired waters per

area of classified waters

Updated MADEP

2012

305(b)


Nutrients (Tributaries) Length of impaired

waters Length of impaired waters per

length of classified waters

Updated MADEP

2012

305(b)


Bacteria (Tributaries) Length of impaired

waters Length of impaired waters per

length of classified waters

Updated MADEP

2012

305(b)

Designated Shellfish

Growing Area Classification

Area of each

DSGA class

% open water covered by each

DSGA class Not updated DMF The status for the estuary was determined using the DMF’s "Designated Shellfish Growing

Area (DSGA)" classification polygons. DSGAs fall into six categories ranging from Approved to Restricted.

Number of Impoundments

causing fish passage

barriers Count Count per watershed land area Not updated

MA Office of

Dam Safety /

MA Fish and

Game

The Massachusetts Office of Dam Safety dam inventory was used to locate impoundments. In many cases, the

dam location may be just outside of the estuarine subwatershed boundary. A small buffer was applied to the

watershed polygons to ensure that these dams are counted. Then, fish passageway information from DFG was

used to determine which of the dams do not pose a fish passage barrier.

Indicator

Raw Statistic

Normalized Statistic

Status

Source

Details

Number of Stream

Crossings

Count

Count per watershed land area

Updated

MassGIS/

USGS/

Geosyntec

Massachusetts DOT road centerlines were intersected with the National Hydrography Dataset Flowlines to

produce a stream crossings layer. Quality control and verification of this data will commence after finalization of

the watersheds.

Beach Action Days (also a

Social Indicator)

Count

Average from 2012-2015

New EDA 2.0

dataset MassGIS/ USEPA

Public and semi-public beach locations and IDs from MassGIS database. USEPA BEACON system reports

number of action days for each monitored beach.

Beach Access (also a

Social Indicator)

Count

Count per mile of beach

New data set

for EDA

2.0

MassGIS

Public and semi-public beach locations and IDs from MassGIS database. Access points are contained in a point

data file along with sampling locations, pollution sources, posting locations, and other point data.

Mooring Fields

Area

% of open water New EDA 2.0

dataset

MassGIS

Mooring fields were digitized by CZM staff using 2001 and 2005 aerial imagery.

Dredge Projects Area

% of open water

New EDA 2.0

dataset

CZM MORIS/ USACE

CZM and USACE provide polygon coverage of dredging project locations through 1998.

Seawalls and related

structures

Length

Miles per miles of coastline New EDA 2.0

dataset

CZM

MORIS

CZM provides polyline shapes of known shoreline stabilization projects in 2007 and 2009.

Boating Access Count Number of parking spaces per

boat ramp

New EDA 2.0

dataset

MA Fish and Game

Office of Fishing and Boating Access (OFBA) in the MA Dept. of Fish and Game provides point coverage of

boating access sites with numbers of parking spaces and boat ramps at each.

Marinas

Count

Marina boat slip count per open

water area

New EDA 2.0

dataset

CZM

Data provided by MassBays, including marina location and number of boat slips available.

Beach Access

Count

Count per mile of beach

New EDA 2.0

dataset MassGIS Public and semi-public beach locations and IDs from MassGIS database. Access points are contained in a point

data file along with sampling locations, pollution sources, posting locations, and other point data.

Beach Action Days

Count

Average from 2012-2015

New EDA 2.0 dataset

MassGIS/

USEPA Public and semi-public beach locations and IDs from MassGIS database. USEPA BEACON system reports

number of action days for each monitored beach.

Boating Access

Count

Number of parking spaces per boat ramp

New EDA 2.0 dataset MA Fish and

Game Office of Fishing and Boating Access (OFBA) in the MA Fish and Game provides point coverage of boating

access sites with numbers of parking spaces and boat ramps at each.


Estuarine Assessment and Delineation 2.0

17

4. Analysis of Attributes

Attributes were analyzed using spatial analysis (GIS) to determine the extent of their presence within

each watershed. First, the raw quantity of a given attribute was measured (for instance, acres, miles,

count, etc.). Then, the quantity was normalized to some aspect of the estuarine watershed size in order

to compare values between the watersheds and not favor larger estuarine watersheds:

• Attributes that were solely dependent on water (such as shellfish habitat, eelgrass extent) were

normalized to the area of open water within the estuarine watershed boundary;

• Attributes that were solely dependent on land (land use, impervious area, population density,

etc.) were normalized to the area of land within the estuarine watershed boundary;

• Attributes that existed in both open water and on land, or in transitional areas, were normalized to

the entire area within the estuarine watershed boundary (such as salt marsh, tidal flat, shorebird

habitat);

• The three types of wastewater sources were quantified in millions of gallons per day (MGD) to

allow for comparison between them, but were not normalized for any aspect of estuarine

watershed size; and

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

4.1 Summary of Analysis

The following section summarizes the major findings for each assessment area. For more detail, please

refer to the assessment results in Appendix E. The areas described below are listed in geographic order,

starting at the Massachusetts/New Hampshire border and progressing to the south and east to the tip of

Cape Cod at Provincetown.

1. BLACK ROCK CREEK: Black Rock Creek assessment unit is located at the northern end of the

Massachusetts Bay Coastline. Assessed streams and waterbodies in the region are not impaired

for bacteria or nutrients. Most impervious cover in this assessment area is located along

Salisbury Beach, a public beach, and there appears to be little to no boating access in the region.

Salt marsh is a predominant ecological resource in the region (33% of land area).

2. MERRIMACK RIVER: Merrimack River assessment unit contains several attributes of note. The

estuary has been dredged to aid boating access and contains mooring fields and multiple

marinas. Additionally, the Amesbury Wastewater Treatment Facility (WWTF), Salisbury WWTF,

and Newburyport WWTF discharge into this estuary. Impervious cover is moderately

high in this assessment area (10%). The assessment unit contains a high coverage of salt marsh

(22%) and tidal flats and is used by alewife, Atlantic sturgeon, and rainbow smelt. Salisbury

Beach is located on the northern side of the estuary, and Plum Island Beach is located on the

southern side. The Merrimack River estuary is impaired for bacteria.

3. PARKER RIVER: The Parker River assessment unit contains a high proportion of salt marsh

(29%), and the river is used by alewife and rainbow smelt. The river is listed as impaired for

bacteria. Impervious cover is low (4.5%).

4. ROWLEY RIVER: The Rowley River assessment unit contains a highest proportion of salt marsh

(42%) of all areas assessed in this study, and impervious cover is low (4.5%). The river is used

by alewife and rainbow smelt. The river is listed as impaired for bacteria.


Estuarine Assessment and Delineation 2.0

18

5. IPSWICH RIVER: The majority of impervious cover/development in the Ipswich River

assessment unit is located in the upstream reaches of the region. The estuary and several of its

tributaries are impaired for both bacteria and nutrients. The Ipswich WWTF discharges into this

estuary. The seaward portions of the assessment area contain high amounts of salt marsh and

tidal flats

6. PLUM ISLAND SOUND: The Plum Island Sound estuary is inclusive of Parker, Rowley, and

Ipswich River assessment areas. Bacterial impairments are common for the estuary and its

tributaries. Impervious cover is low (1%). The region provides a high amount of shorebird habitat

and anadromous fish habitat. Salt marsh and tidal flats are common, as well as a significant

region of coastal dunes/beaches along Plum Island. Some eelgrass restoration initiatives are

ongoing in this area.

7. ESSEX RIVER / ESSEX BAY: Essex River/Essex Bay is listed as impaired for bacteria. It

contains some mooring fields as well as a dredged channel in the Essex River. Salt marsh, tidal

flats, and coastal dunes are highly prevalent in and around the bay. Eelgrass restoration is

ongoing in this area. The Essex River is used by alewife and rainbow smelt.

8. ANNISQUAM RIVER: Annisquam River is listed as impaired for bacteria. It contains several

mooring fields as well as a dredged channel in the river. Tidal flats predominate in the estuary

system, and some sea grass beds are present along the northern coast. The river is used by

alewife and rainbow smelt. Impervious cover and population density are moderately high at 12%

and 2 persons/ac, respectively. The region also contains a high number of stream crossings.

Septic system use appears to be a major source of wastewater treatment in this region.

9. LANESVILLE COAST/HALIBUT POINT: The predominant coastal feature in this region is rocky

intertidal shore, which is present along the majority of the coastline. Eelgrass is present along

the southwest portions of the coast. The presence of salt marsh and shorebird habitat/shorebird

nesting sites is relatively low within this region.

10. ROCKPORT HARBOR (SANDY BAY): The predominant coastal feature in this region is rocky

intertidal shore, which is present along the majority of the coastline. Seawalls and other

stabilization structures are common along this coastline, and development and impervious cover

in the region is high (12%). Rockport WWTF discharges into this embayment. Shorebird and

shellfish habitat are present in the majority of open-water areas in the bay.

11. LONG BEACH: This region is characterized by the high presence of rocky intertidal shores. The

presence of salt marsh is low, predominantly located in the southern portions of the region.

Waterbodies in the area do not appear to be impaired for bacteria or nutrients. Shorebird and

shellfish habitat are present in the majority of open-water areas in the coastline.

12. GOOD HARBOR: Much of the coastline around Good Harbor is characterized by rocky intertidal

shores. Some salt marsh and coastal dunes exist in the vicinity of Good Harbor itself.

Impervious cover in the region is high, at 14%.

13. GLOUCESTER HARBOR: Impervious area is high, at 15%. A large portion of the harbor has

been dredged, and mooring fields and marinas are common. Much of the coast is characterized

by seawalls and other retaining structures. The harbor itself is impaired for both nutrients and

bacteria, and is the receiving water for the Gloucester WWTF (. Some eelgrass beds are

present. The presence of salt marsh, shorebird habitat, and shellfish habitat is relatively low

within this region.

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


Estuary Assessment and Delineation 2.0

19

15. KETTLE COVE: The Kettle Cove area is moderately developed, with a high prevalence of high

intensity land use and moderately high impervious cover (10%).. Rocky intertidal shores and

salt marshes exist along the relatively short stretch of coastline at the cove itself.

16. MANCHESTER COAST: This region is a sparsely developed stretch of shoreline with some

seawalls and stabilization structures. The coastline is characterized by rocky intertidal shore and

some beaches. Shellfish habitat is prevalent within the open water areas of the assessment

area.

17. MANCHESTER HARBOR: Manchester Harbor and its tributaries are impaired for bacteria.

Mooring fields cover a large portion of the open water within the harbor. The area is highly

developed and impervious cover is moderately high (10%). Much of the open water zone

includes eelgrass beds, and rainbow smelt appear to utilize tributaries to the harbor.

18. BEVERLY HARBOR: Beverly Harbor is a heavily developed assessment unit with very high

impervious cover (29%). Several tributaries and estuarine waterbodies are listed as impaired for

both bacteria and nutrients. Multiple impoundments exist within the region. Some tidal flats are

present in the open water zones, and some eelgrass beds exist at the seaward end of the

harbor.

19. DANVERS RIVER: The Danvers River assessment unit is similar in most respects to the Beverly

Harbor assessment unit, of which it is a component part (its seaward boundary ends slightly

further upstream than Beverly Harbor). This heavily developed area has very high impervious

cover (33%).

20. FOREST RIVER / SOUTH RIVER/ SALEM HARBOR: This heavily developed area has very high

impervious cover (30%). A portion of Salem Harbor is dredged, and a large portion of the open

water zone is used for mooring fields. The harbor itself is impaired for bacteria. Much of the

coastline is heavily developed and salt marshes, tidal flats, and beaches are rare. Eelgrass beds

are present within the harbor.

21. MARBLEHEAD HARBOR: Marblehead Harbor is highly developed, with very high impervious

cover (27%). The harbor is listed for bacterial impairment, and a majority of the open water zone

is devoted to mooring fields. Some eelgrass beds are present but the extent of ecological

resources within the region is relatively low.

22. SALEM SOUND: The Salem Sound assessment unit is comprised of Manchester Harbor,

Beverly Harbor, Danvers River, Forest River/South River/Salem Harbor, and Marblehead Harbor

assessment units, as well as other areas directly tributary to Salem Sound. Most estuarine water

bodies in the region are impaired for bacteria. Mooring fields and marinas are common. Eelgrass

is present but the extent of other ecological habitats is relatively low.

23. MARBLEHEAD NECK/SWAMPSCOTT COAST: This region is heavily developed and contains

20% impervious cover,. The coastline itself is characterized by the high presence of seawalls

and stabilization structures. Most of the open water zone contains shellfish habitat.

24. NAHANT BAY: Much of the land area around Nahant Bay is heavily developed. The bay itself is

impaired for bacteria. Shellfish habitat is a major feature of the open water zones, and the

majority of the coast consists of beaches and some rocky intertidal shore.

25. SAUGUS RIVER / PINES RIVER / LYNN HARBOR: This region is heavily developed and has

very high impervious cover (28%). A portion of Lynn Harbor is dredged, and the harbor and other



20

tributary estuaries are impaired for bacteria. The Lynn Regional WWTF discharges into Lynn

Harbor. Seawalls are common along the coastline. Eelgrass beds are present in the eastern

portion of the harbor. Revere Beach is a major feature of the coastline. Extensive salt marsh

and tidal flats exist along Pines River.

26. BELLE ISLE CREEK / WINTHROP BAY: This region is a segment of the greater Boston Harbor

assessment unit. It is highly developed and contains portions of Logan International Airport. The

estuary is impaired for bacteria. Tidal flats are a predominant feature in the open water zone, and

some eelgrass beds exist at the mouth of the embayment.

27. CHELSEA CREEK / MYSTIC RIVER / CHARLES RIVER: This region is a segment of the greater

Boston Harbor assessment unit. It is highly developed, with impervious cover of 19%. The

estuarine portion of the Charles River is dredged, and is also impaired for both bacteria and

nutrients. Marinas are common along the coastline. The Mystic River is home to alewife, and

rainbow smelt and shad use estuarine portions of the Charles River.

28. NEPONSET RIVER / DORCHESTER BAY: This region is a segment of the greater Boston

Harbor assessment unit. Like other regions within the Boston Harbor area, it is highly developed.

A dredged channel is located within the embayment. Dorchester Bay is impaired for bacteria, and

the Neponset River is impaired for both bacteria and nutrients. Shad is the predominant

anadromous fish species found in this area. Some tidal flats and salt marsh exist along the

Neponset, but otherwise the presence of ecological resources is relatively low.

29. BLACKS CREEK / QUINCY BAY: This region is a segment of the greater Boston Harbor

assessment unit. Compared to other Boston Harbor regions, it is relatively lightly developed

(impervious cover is 10%). Quincy Bay itself is listed for bacterial impairment, and some portions

of Blacks Creek are impaired for nutrients. Much of the coastline is characterized by seawalls and

beaches (including Wollaston Beach), and shellfish habitat is prevalent in the near-shore areas.

30. BACK RIVER / FORE RIVER / HINGHAM BAY: This region is a segment of the greater Boston

Harbor assessment unit. The embayment is impaired for bacteria and is characterized by a large

dredged navigation area and several mooring fields. Many of the tributaries are utilized by

alewife and rainbow smelt, and some eelgrass is present.

31. WEIR RIVER / STRAITS POND: This region is a segment of the greater Boston Harbor

assessment unit. The Weir River is listed for bacterial impairment. Development in the region is

lower than most other parts of the Boston Harbor area, with an impervious cover of 11%. The

seaside coastline is characterized by beaches and some rocky intertidal shores.

32. BOSTON HARBOR: The Boston Harbor assessment unit contains several other previously

discussed segments, from Belle Isle Creek/Winthrop Bay in the north to Weir River/Straits Pond

in the south. Impervious cover is very high (27%) within this heavily urbanized area. Several

portions of the harbor are dredged, and marinas and mooring fields are common. Bird habitat

and nesting sites are common, especially in open water regions further from the coast.

33. LITTLE HARBOR: The Little Harbor region is relatively sparsely developed. Its northern

coastline is comprised predominantly of rocky intertidal shore, and the harbor itself contains

extensive tidal flats and a large area of shorebird habitat. Salt marshes fringe the harbor.

34. COHASSET HARBOR: Cohasset Harbor is the discharge point for Cohasset WWTF, and the

harbor is impaired for bacteria. A small dredged channel is present in the harbor. The harbor

is characterized by extensive tidal flats and a large eelgrass bed.

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



21

36. SCITUATE HARBOR: Scituate Harbor is characterized by a large dredged region and a high

extent of the open water zone is occupied by mooring fields. The seaside coastline is

predominantly rocky intertidal shore, and within the harbor includes an extensive tidal flat and

several eelgrass beds. Salt marshes are present in the southern portion of the assessment area.

37. NORTH RIVER / SOUTH RIVER: This assessment area is characterized by moderate levels of

development (impervious cover = 9%). The estuarine waterbodies are impaired for bacteria.

Septic system use appears to be common throughout this region. Several impoundments exist

along tributaries to the two rivers. Salt marsh coverage is extensive, and the majority of the

seaside coastline consists of coastal beach. Alewife and rainbow smelt use the rivers for

spawning.

38. GREEN HARBOR: The Green Harbor River is impaired for nutrients. Due to tidal restriction, the

extent of salt marsh in the region is relatively low. Much of the coastline is characterized by

seawalls and coastal beaches. Bird habitat is extensive in the freshwater wetlands along Green

Harbor River. Septic system use appears to be common throughout this region.

39. BLUEFISH RIVER / BACK RIVER / DUXBURY BAY: Shorebird habitat, shellfish habitat, and

eelgrass beds are all predominant ecological resource features present in Duxbury Bay. An

extensive salt marsh system exists in the northern portion of the assessment area. The seaside

coastline is dominated by Duxbury Beach. Septic system use appears to be common throughout

this region.

40. JONES RIVER / KINGSTON BAY: Shorebird habitat, shellfish habitat, and eelgrass beds are all

predominant ecological resource features in Kingston Bay. Tributaries in this area are used by

alewife, shad, and rainbow smelt. Wastewater discharge to groundwater from the Kingston

WWTF is a significant stressor, as well as septic system use which is common throughout the

region. The region is moderately urbanized, with impervious cover of 13%.

41. EEL RIVER / PLYMOUTH HARBOR: Shorebird habitat, shellfish habitat, and eelgrass beds are

all predominant ecological resource features present in Plymouth Harbor. Tributaries in this

region are used by alewife, rainbow smelt, and herring. The seaside coastline is dominated by

Plymouth beach. A small portion of the harbor is dredged, and some mooring fields exist. The

Plymouth WWTP discharges into Plymouth Harbor. The region is moderately urbanized, with

impervious cover of 17% and a population density of 2.8 persons/ac..

42. ROCKY POINT: This assessment unit is a lightly developed stretch of coastline characterized by

beaches and rocky intertidal shores. The presence of ecological resources is relatively low,

although much of this stretch of coastline is suitable for shellfish habitat. The Pilgrim Power

Station, which is scheduled to close down in 2019, discharges wastewater to the groundwater in

this region.

43. BEAVER DAM BROOK/BARTLETT POND: This assessment unit contains relatively low

amounts of marine ecological resources. Alewife are present, and the coastline is predominantly

beach (White Horse Beach). Development in the area is moderately high, with impervious cover

of 11%.

44. MANOMET / INDIAN BROOK: The predominant ecological stressors in this region consist of

wastewater discharges to groundwater, with several permitted facilities located in the area. Much

of the coastline has seawalls and other structures. Marine ecological resources appear to be

sparse, except for shellfish habitat away from the shoreline.



22

45. ELLISVILLE HARBOR: Ellisville Harbor is a lightly developed stretch of coastline. The harbor

itself is impaired for bacteria. Salt marsh exists directly around the harbor, and some eelgrass

beds lie off the shore. The predominant coastal feature consists of coastal dunes.

46. NAMELOC HEIGHTS: This stretch of coastline is fairly densely populated (2.9 persons/ac),

although the extent of development with respect to intensity of land use and impervious cover is

fairly low.. The coastline consists primarily of beaches, and a large eelgrass bed is present in

the northern portion of the offshore area.

47. SCUSSET BEACH: Scusset Beach assessment area is moderately developed with an

impervious cover of 11%. Septic system use appears to be the predominant stressor in the

region. The coastline is characterized by the presence of beaches, although the extent of other

ecological resources is relatively low.

48. GREAT HERRING POND / BOURNEDALE: The predominant ecological resources within this

region are the herring and alewife runs present from the Cape Cod Canal to Great Herring Pond

via the Herring River. Few other resources appear within the assessment area. Some

impoundments exist, although they are associated with fish passage structures. The region is

relatively lightly developed.

49. WEST SANDWICH: The West Sandwich assessment area contains some urbanized areas along

the Cape Cod Canal but is otherwise lightly developed. There are few ecological resources in the

area.

50. SANDWICH HARBOR: Sandwich Harbor is impaired for bacteria and septic system use is

common in the region. Several impoundments are present on tributaries to the harbor. Much of

the region around the harbor consists of salt marsh and associated bird habitat. The coastline

consists of coastal beaches and dunes.

51. SCORTON CREEK: Salt marsh is the predominant ecological resource in this area, located

directly around Scorton Creek itself. The coastline consists of coastal beaches and dunes.

Wastewater discharge to groundwater is a predominant stressor, with several permitted facilities

located in the assessment area. Septic system use is also common in the region.

52. BARNSTABLE HARBOR: Sandy Neck Beach is a predominant feature along the seaside coast of

the Barnstable Harbor assessment area. Coastal dunes are prevalent along the coastline, and

salt marsh, tidal flats, shorebird habitat, and shellfish habitat are extensive within the harbor itself.

The harbor is impaired for bacteria. Development in the region is relatively low, although septic

system use is common.

53. CHASE GARDEN CREEK: The assessment area is characterized by a high prevalence of salt

marsh and shorebird habitat. The coastline contains a large coastal dune system and extensive

tidal flats. The area is moderately developed, and wastewater discharges to groundwater, both

from septic systems and permitted facilities, are the major stressors in the region.

54. NOBSCUSSET HARBOR: The Nobscusset Harbor coastline is characterized by extensive tidal

flats and coastal dunes. Eelgrass is also present in the offshore areas. Several seawalls are

found along the coast, and the area is moderately developed,

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



23

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

56. QUIVETT CREEK: The Quivett Creek assessment area contains an extensive tidal flat in the

offshore area. The coastline is comprised primarily of beaches and coastal dunes, and salt

marsh stretches along the length of Quivett Creek. The creek is impaired for bacteria.

Development in the region is moderately low

57. PAINE'S CREEK / STONY BROOK: This area contains extensive tidal flats and some eelgrass

beds in the offshore area. Additional resources of note include alewife and herring runs along

Stony Brook. Although multiple impoundments exist along Stony Brook, they appear to allow for

anadromous fish passage. The region is lightly developed, but does contain moderate

wastewater discharge to groundwater via permitted facilities and septic systems.

58. BREWSTER COAST: The shoreline of the Brewster Coast is characterized by extensive tidal

flats, eelgrass beds, and shellfish habitat. Beaches and dunes predominate along the coastline.

The area is moderately developed and contains several sources of permitted wastewater

discharge to groundwater.

59. NAMSKAKET CREEK / LITTLE NAMSKAKET CREEK: The shoreline of the Namskaket

Creek/Little Namskaket Creek assessment area is characterized by extensive tidal flats, eelgrass

beds, and shorebird/shellfish habitat. Salt marsh surrounds the streams and estuarine

waterbodies near the shore. Wastewater discharge to groundwater is a predominant stressor in

the region, with several permitted facilities located in the assessment area. The area is sparsely

developed except for the vicinity of the Rt. 6/Rt. 6A intersection.

60. BOAT MEADOW CREEK / ROCK HARBOR: This assessment area contains a high prevalence

of many coastal resources and habitat, especially salt marsh and tidal flats. Alewife are present

in Rock Harbor Creek. The region is sparsely developed except for areas around Rt. 6 in the

southern portion of the watershed. The estuarine waterbodies are impaired for bacteria.

61. HERRING RIVER / HERRING POND: The offshore area of this assessment unit contains a high

prevalence of tidal flat and eelgrass beds. Salt marsh is extensive in the inland portions of the

assessment area. The region is lightly developed.

62. FIRST ENCOUNTER BEACH: The offshore area of this assessment unit contains a high

prevalence of tidal flats and eelgrass beds. The coastline is exclusively classified as beach.

The region is lightly developed.

63. HERRING BROOK / GREAT POND: The Herring Brook/Great Pond assessment area contains

moderate levels of development, with 11% impervious cover. Great Pond itself is listed as

impaired for nutrients. Few ecological resources exist in the assessment area except for the

presence of alewife.

64. KINGSBURY BEACH TO COOKS BROOK BEACH: The predominant ecological resources in

this area are offshore tidal flats and shellfish habitat. Much of the coastline is characterized by

beaches accessible to the public, and the coastline includes several seawalls and other

stabilization structures. Development within the area is relatively high and impervious cover is

13%.

65. WELLFLEET HARBOR: The Wellfleet Harbor assessment area contains extensive eelgrass

beds outside the mouth of the harbor. Salt marshes surround the harbor and provide habitat

for shorebirds. The overall assessment area is lightly developed, with a 3% impervious cover.



24

Septic system use and other wastewater discharges to groundwater are the predominant

stressors in the area.

66. PAMET RIVER / LITTLE PAMET RIVER: The coastline of this area is characterized by extensive

coastal dunes. A moderate amount of salt marsh exists inland along the Pamet River. The

offshore area contains both eelgrass beds and shellfish habitat and the watershed is

characterized by low levels of development (6.2% impervious).

67. TRURO COAST: This rural assessment unit contains coastline on both sides of Cape Cod. The

northern coastline features Head of the Meadow National Seashore and extensive dune systems.

The southern coastline includes multiple publically accessible beaches with eelgrass beds in the

nearshore area.

68. PROVINCETOWN HARBOR. Provincetown Harbor is moderately developed in and around

Provincetown, but lightly developed elsewhere. The coastline is characterized by seawalls and

other structures including multiple piers and a large jetty in the eastern portion of the harbor, as

well as many publically accessible beaches. Wastewater discharge to groundwater is a

predominant stressor due to the Provincetown WWTF. Eelgrass beds are prevalent within the

harbor.

69. PROVINCETOWN COAST: The major ecological resource along the Provincetown Coast is the

extensive coastal dune systems along Race Point Beach/National Seashore. The majority of the

offshore area is occupied by shellfish habitat. The region is sparsely developed.



25

4.2 Limitations, Data Gaps, and Next Steps

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

a. Limited New Data for Trend Analysis

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

1. Many of the data sources used as attribute metrics have not been updated in the time

between this EDA 2.0 effort and the original EDA1.0 in 2012. For example, census

data is collected every 10 years, so population metrics could not be updated at this

time and related trends could not be observed.

2. Due to updates in the delineation methods (particularly the use of the 10-meter

bathymetric contour as the seaward boundary), assessment units that were part of the

original 47 EDA1.0 estuarine watershed delineations were changed during the course

of EDA 2.0. As a result, any comparison of temporal changes that occurred between

the EDA1.0 and EDA 2.0 reports would include artificial differences due to the change

in assessment unit shape, size, and extent of ocean included.

b. Data Availability for New Attribute Metrics

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

1. Kelp beds were intended to be included as a new resource metric. However, the kelp bed

data available from MassGIS consists only of point locations. Without information about

the areal extent of the kelp beds, the existing point data leads to equal weighting of very

small and very large kelp beds. As such, it is not currently possible to provide a

meaningful evaluation of the relative value and importance of this ecological resource

between assessment areas.

2. Recreational boating use is primarily reflected in the attribute metrics for marinas (boat

slips per area of estuarine water) and mooring fields (mooring field area as percentage of

estuarine water). The metrics are based on dated and incomplete data that is currently

being updated for the MassBays region by the Urban Harbors Institute.

3. Beach access data needs improvement. “Access points” are provided as point locations

for each beach. However, this metric provides a very incomplete reflection of the true

nature of public beach accessibility. Some beaches have multiple pedestrian access

points, such as paths through coastal dunes, but may have very little public parking or

other accommodations. Other beaches, such as Revere Beach, may be accessible to

the public along their entire length, and access point data would not reflect this broad

accessibility. At minimum, beach access data should be on par with the boating access

data, which includes both parking spaces (i.e. accommodations for non-locals) and

ramps (i.e. direct access once one is at the site).

4. As recommended by the MassBays Science and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC),

the analyses of changing conditions in embayments would benefit from information on

mean water depth, water volume (at mean tide), and flushing/residence time. STAC

recognizes that these parameters (1) involve multiple variables and are difficult to



26

estimate, and (2) may never have been estimated for many of the embayments in the

MassBays region. Development of a coast-wide data set and methodology for calculating

embayment flushing is recommended as a key next step to refine the usefulness and

robustness of EDA analyses.

Tidal exchange and river inputs are the two primary processes on which a flushing

estimate can be based. Tidal exchange can be estimated is a simple manner by the tidal

prism method, where total embayment volume at mean sea level is divided by the volume

of water in a layer as deep as embayment’s tidal range. For river inputs, the total volume

of the embayment could be divided by the total estimated annual river discharge volume.

This simplified approach could provide a reasonable starting point for characterizing

embayment flushing/residence time and allowing for comparison among embayments.

Such simplified estimates could certainly be refined over time with more intensive and

costly modeling efforts, or replaced where such modeling estimates already exist for a

limited subset of embayments. Important considerations for such an effort will include the

availability of detailed bathymetry for embayments. Coastwide NOAA data currently

available via MORIS are limited to 5-meter contours. Although usable as a starting point,

more detailed bathymetric data would greatly help in refining the flushing/residence time

estimates.

5. Septic system use data, provided by MassBays, should be improved over time with more

detailed and location-specific data.

c. Social/Economic Attributes:

Over the course of the EDA 2.0 project, there was considerable discussion regarding

incorporation of new metrics to reflect the social and economic values of estuarine and inter-

estuarine areas. For EDA 2.0, Geosyntec and MassBays ultimately focused on several metrics

that reflect social values derived from accessibility and use of coastal resources. These metrics

(public coastal beach access, coastal boat access, and marine beach quality) were incorporated

into EDA 2.0 because they represent social attributes that had readily available data sets for the

entire MassBays region.

A wide variety of other metrics were discussed as potentially useful, but ultimately abandoned

due to lack of a coast-wide data set, and/or because the metric introduced complex social and

economic factors that went beyond the physical boundaries of the MassBays region. For

example, commercial fishing wharfs located within an embayment have clear economic value.

More complicated is determining how much of that value is derived from the embayment itself,

and how much is derived from fishing activities beyond the embayment in deeper ocean waters.

For other aspects of societal value, such as the non-extractive values derived from wildlife viewing

or watching a sunset at the beach, there are simply no region-wide and region-specific data sets

that exist. Determining such values typically involves intensive region-specific studies that were

beyond the scope of the EDA 2.0 project. Such efforts may provide useful information for planning

and properly recognizing societal valuation of coastal resources within the MassBays region, or

within any of the five MassBays sub-regions. An example of this kind of investigation would be a

hedonic valuation study that looks at housing prices. Hedonic valuation is based on the theory

that, all else being equal, there is a consistent relationship between the value of homes and their

proximity to an environmental good such as an ocean view or close walking distance to

a beach. Although such studies may reveal useful information at the region or sub-regional level,

it is worth noting that this approach may not provide data that would allow for relative comparison

among the 69 estuarine and inter-estuarine assessment areas defined in EDA 2.0.



Appendix A

Method for Estimating Annual Stormwater Runoff Volume

289 Great Road, Suite 105

Acton, Massachusetts 01720 PH 978.263.9588

FAX 978.263.9594

www.geosyntec.com

M e mo r a n d u m

Date: 04 September 2012

To: Prassede Vella, Massachusetts Bays Program (MBP)

From: Chad Yaindl, Geosyntec Consultants

Robert Hartzel, Geosyntec Consultants

Subject: Estuary Assessment and Delineation

Method for Estimating Annual Stormwater Runoff

Massachusetts Bays Program (MBP) has selected Geosyntec Consultants, Inc. (Geosyntec) to

prepare an Estuary Assessment and Delineation that will lay the groundwork for MBP to

periodically assess the health of estuarine systems within its planning area. This project is part

of MBP’s overall process of reviewing and updating its Comprehensive Conservation and

Management Plan (CCMP). The focus of the CCMP is 47 estuaries and embayments along the

eastern coast of Massachusetts.

As part of the project, Geosyntec collected geospatial data representative of a number of

indicators of estuarine ecologic health. In most cases, the data is readily available through public

agencies such as MassDEP, USGS, USDA, etc. However, in the case of one important indicator,

volume of stormwater runoff, no such data source exists. This memo outlines the method by

which Geosyntec estimated stormwater runoff volume using other available data sources.

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

1. Create polygons that contain the intersected attributes of land use and hydrologic soil

group (HSG);

2. Assign a Curve Number to each unique land use/HSG pairing;

3. Using a historic record of rainfall events over the past 50 years for the Boston area,

determine the depth of annual runoff in inches for each Curve Number;

4. Assign annual runoff depth to each land use/HSG polygon; and

5. Calculate total annual runoff volume for each estuarine watershed using spatial analysis.

Land use types and polygons were obtained from the MassGIS Land Use 2005 data layer.

Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) was determined using soil survey polygons and a soil properties

database available from the USDA NRCS Soil Data Mart. The two polygon layers were

2

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

two datasets.

Curve Numbers are empirically-derived quantities used in the Soil Conservation Service

Rainfall-Runoff model to represent the land use and soil type of a given area. Curve Numbers

generally range from the mid 30’s (for a highly pervious, good condition forested area) to 98 (for

a fully impervious, paved surface). Table 1 lists the various combinations of land use and HSG

obtained from the intersection of the two data layers, and the Curve Numbers that were assigned

to each. Curve Numbers were chosen from a listing of published values presented in Hydrologic

Analysis and Design (Richard H. McCuen, 2005).

The SCS Rainfall-Runoff method is used to predict the amount of runoff generated by a given

storm event. Geosyntec obtained records of individual precipitation events from the National

Climatic Data Center precipitation monitoring station at Logan International Airport in Boston.

The data lists the precipitation depth for all rainfall events from 1957-2008 (no data for year

1990), for a total of 51 years. Figure 1 shows the precipitation depth associated with the

collection of events. The sum of all event depths divided by the number of years on record (51)

resulted in an average annual precipitation of 46 inches.

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

3

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

Land Use Description

Hydrologic Soil Group

A A/D B B/D C C/D D

Brushland/Successional 35 56 56 67 70 74 77

Cemetery 49

69 77 79 82 84

Commercial 89 92 92 94 94 95 95

Cranberry Bog 35 56 56 67 70

77

Cropland 64 75 75 80 82 84 85

Forest 30 54 55 66 70 74 77

Forested Wetland 35 56 56 67 70 74 77

Golf Course 39 60 61 71 74 77 80

High Density Residential 77 85 85 87 90 91 92

Industrial 81 87 88 91 91 92 93

Junkyard 81 87 88

91 92 93

Low Density Residential 46 64 65 74 77 80 82

Marina 89 92 92

94 95 95

Medium Density Residential 51 68 68 76 79 82 84

Mining 81 87 88

91 91 92

Multi-Family Residential 77 85 85 87 90 91 92

Non-Forested Wetland 35 56 56 67 70 74 77

Nursery 89 92 92

94 95 95

Open Land 49 67 69 77 79 82 84

Orchard 72

81 86 88 89 91

Participation Recreation 89 92 92 94 94 95 95

Pasture 49 67 69 77 79 82 84

Powerline/Utility 49 67 69 77 79 82 84

Saltwater Wetland 35 56 56 67 70 74 77

Spectator Recreation 89 92 92

94 95 95

Transitional 49 67 69 77 79 82 84

Transportation 98 98 98 98 98 98 98

Urban Public/Institutional 89 92 92 94 94 95 95

Very Low Density Residential 46 64 65 74 77 80 82

Waste Disposal 49 67 69 77 79 82 84

Water-Based Recreation 89 92 92 94 94 95 95

4

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

rainfall-runoff formula:

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

depth in inches for event i, and

where CNj is the curve number.

Annual runoff depth for a given curve number was calculated by adding together all the

individual event runoff depths for that curve number and dividing by the number of years on

record. Each annual runoff depth was then compared to the annual precipitation depth as shown

in Figure 2, resulting in a ratio of annual runoff to annual precipitation, Q/P.

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

Values of the ratio Q/P were then assigned to each land use/HSG polygon according to the Curve

Number associated with each polygon. These polygons were converted to a raster whose value

was the Q/P ratio. Annual Precipitation for Massachusetts was determined using a dataset from

USDA, shown below in Figure 3. This dataset was also rasterized. The multiplication of the

Q/P raster and the Annual Precipitation raster created a resulting raster whose value was annual

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Rat

io o

f A

nn

ual

Ru

no

ff t

o

An

nu

al P

reci

pit

atio

n

Curve No.

5

runoff depth in inches (Figure 4). Spatial analysis was used to calculate the zonal mean value of

the annual runoff depth raster for each watershed. Multiplying the average runoff depth of a

watershed by its area resulted in an estimate of the total annual stormwater runoff volume for the

watershed.

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

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

http://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/

6

Annual runoff depths for the 47 estuarine watersheds ranged from 0.8 inches per year (Pamet

River/Little Pamet River) to 14.5 inches per year (Chelsea Creek/Mystic River/Charles River).

As a comparison, USGS provides maps of mean annual runoff for the northeastern United States

(Randall, 1996). The ‘runoff’ estimates displayed on these maps include both stormwater runoff

and groundwater infiltration (i.e., any water that is not lost through evapotranspiration). The

general value for eastern Massachusetts is 22-26 inches. In other words, in the Chelsea

Creek/Mystic River/Charles river estuarine watershed, approximately 45 inches of precipitation

occurs per year. Approximately half of that is lost to evapotranspiration, and of the remaining 22

inches, 14.5 inches is direct stormwater runoff and 7.5 inches infiltrates and enters the

groundwater. Comparison of the annual stormwater runoff estimates to the USGS mean annual

runoff estimates provides a good qualitative check on the results, in that none of the estimates of

stormwater runoff exceed the USGS estimate of mean annual runoff.

Massachusetts Bays Program Estuarine Assessment and Delineation 2.0

Appendix B: Watershed Delineation Maps


Estuarine Delineation and Assessment 2.0

Appendix C

Results of Estuarine and Inter-Estuarine

Watershed Characterization

of 11 6/1/2017

APPENDIX E Results of Estuarine Watershed Characterization Geosyntec Consultants, Inc.

Id Estuarine Watershed Name

Area of

Total Area of Open Watershed Coastal Land Water

Area Length (m) (acres) (acres)

High Intensity Land Use

High

Intensity High Intensity Land Use Land Use (% of

(acres) Land Area)

Stormwater Runoff

Estimated

Estimated Stormwater Stormwater Volume

Volume (ac-ft/yr) (in/yr)

Imperviousness

Impervious

Impervious Area (acres) Area (%)

Population

Estimated

Population Estimated Density

Population (persons/ac)

Wastewater Discharge to Surface Water

Number of Wastewater Wastewater

Treatment Plants Treatment Plant discharging to surface Permitted Flow Rate

water (MGD) 1 BLACK ROCK CREEK

2 MERRIMACK RIVER

3 PARKER RIVER

4 ROWLEY RIVER

5 IPSWICH RIVER

6 PLUM ISLAND SOUND

7 ESSEX RIVER / ESSEX BAY

8 ANNISQUAM RIVER

9 LANESVILLE COAST/HALIBUT POINT

10 ROCKPORT HARBOR (SANDY BAY)

11 LONG BEACH

12 GOOD HARBOR

13 GLOUCESTER HARBOR

14 MAGNOLIA COAST

15 KETTLE COVE

16 MANCHESTER COAST

17 MANCHESTER HARBOR

18 BEVERLY HARBOR

19 DANVERS RIVER

20 FOREST RIVER/ SOUTH RIVER/ SALEM HARBOR

21 MARBLEHEAD HARBOR

22 SALEM SOUND

23 MARBLEHEAD NECK/SWAMPSCOTT COAST

24 NAHANT BAY

25 SAUGUS RIVER / PINES RIVER / LYNN HARBOR

26 BELLE ISLE CREEK / WINTHROP BAY

27 CHELSEA CREEK / MYSTIC RIVER / CHARLES RIVER

28 NEPONSET RIVER / DORCHESTER BAY

29 BLACKS CREEK / QUINCY BAY

30 BACK RIVER / FORE RIVER / HINGHAM BAY

31 WEIR RIVER / STRAITS POND

32 BOSTON HARBOR

33 LITTLE HARBOR

34 COHASSET HARBOR

35 SCITUATE/COHASSET COAST

36 SCITUATE HARBOR

37 NORTH RIVER / SOUTH RIVER

38 GREEN HARBOR

39 BLUEFISH RIVER / BACK RIVER / DUXBURY BAY

40 JONES RIVER / KINGSTON BAY

41 EEL RIVER / PLYMOUTH HARBOR

42 ROCKY POINT

43 BEAVER DAM BROOK/BARTLETT POND

44 MANOMET / INDIAN BROOK

45 ELLISVILLE HARBOR

46 NAMELOC HEIGHTS

47 SCUSSET BEACH

48 GREAT HERRING POND / BOURNEDALE

49 WEST SANDWICH

50 SANDWICH HARBOR

51 SCORTON CREEK

52 BARNSTABLE HARBOR

53 CHASE GARDEN CREEK

54 NOBSCUSSET HARBOR

55 SESUIT CREEK / SESUIT HARBOR

56 QUIVETT CREEK

57 PAINE'S CREEK / STONY BROOK

58 BREWSTER COAST

59 NAMSKAKET CREEK / LITTLE NAMSKAKET CREEK

60 BOAT MEADOW CREEK / ROCK HARBOR

61 HERRING RIVER / HERRING POND

62 FIRST ENCOUNTER BEACH

63 HERRING BROOK / GREAT POND

64 KINGSBURY BEACH TO COOKS BROOK BEACH

65 WELLFLEET HARBOR

66 PAMET RIVER / LITTLE PAMET RIVER

67 TRURO COAST

68 PROVINCETOWN HARBOR

69 PROVINCETOWN COAST

3276 5504 2768 508 11902 34369 9065 2837

7660 12868 7198 463

3185 10700 2935 250

6024 21599 5638 387

28834 128453 23847 4987

12633 63531 11239 1394

5650 51281 4884 766

2380 10221 1907 473

2477 8401 1554 923

2503 12586 1552 951

2639 9178 2015 624

3142 18631 1604 1538

1022 6718 381 641

1512 1862 1437 75

603 6100 269 334

4296 6840 3966 329 21690 64340 20366 1324

19457 28038 18734 724

4798 15877 3659 1139

1740 10550 1194 546

41241 172546 32992 8248

2911 10956 1712 1199

4769 13346 1625 3144

17132 51526 10864 6269

4469 28504 3427 1042 16522 71007 13865 2657

11823 36760 9666 2157

5331 14417 1825 3506

19155 89076 10434 8721

4321 22771 2990 1331

77331 561526 43285 34046

1704 13827 1048 656

6005 24664 4369 1636

1168 3141 583 586 2554 9971 1724 830

14946 51701 12999 1946

5011 8915 2865 2146

12928 56170 5202 7727

7861 14323 4923 2938

5343 14600 3666 1677

1903 6478 1105 798

4165 2615 3490 675

7915 8848 5643 2273

3579 3805 2329 1251

2236 3846 556 1680

3413 6584 2519 894

3498 0 2884 614

3448 3881 3421 27

8723 12165 7781 942

7671 3126 6871 800

22298 64868 19735 2563 5484 7338 5083 402

1486 6239 1371 116

1695 2178 1587 108

2247 4318 2154 93

4704 2444 4076 628

6078 5101 4519 1559

4051 4039 3318 733

1781 4765 1583 198

1212 3785 907 304

331 1081 237 94

884 53 677 207

2043 4692 1947 96

31968 53808 13788 18179

5108 8402 3674 1434

5557 8694 3463 2094

7821 18615 3634 4187

8031 27323 4410 3621

609 18.6% 2637 22.2%

1548 20.2%

414 13.0%

1995 33.1%

4651 16.1%

1885 14.9%

1529 27.1%

611 25.7%

739 29.8%

527 21.1%

862 32.6%

911 29.0%

227 22.2%

387 25.6%

139 23.1%

1112 25.9% 13506 62.3%

12400 63.7%

2250 46.9%

934 53.7%

18961 46.0%

1369 47.0%

1213 25.4%

7167 41.8%

2468 55.2% 12629 76.4%

7917 67.0%

1091 20.5%

5870 30.6%

1139 26.4%

31303 40.5%

496 29.1%

2005 33.4%

381 32.6% 968 37.9%

4274 28.6%

1119 22.3%

1587 12.3%

2461 31.3%

2004 37.5% 290 15.2%

1366 32.8%

1193 15.1%

464 13.0%

283 12.7%

885 25.9%

799 22.8%

627 18.2%

1523 17.5%

1780 23.2%

3846 17.2%

1788 32.6%

648 43.6%

760 44.8%

423 18.8%

843 17.9%

1591 26.2%

744 18.4%

451 25.3% 291 24.1%

47 14.1%

138 15.6%

883 43.2%

1963 6.1%

525 10.3%

808 14.5%

664 8.5% 85 1.1%

1298 4.75 6303 6.36

3177 4.98

1174 4.42

2854 5.68

12093 5.03

4270 4.06

2979 6.33

588 2.97

1311 6.35

970 4.65

1380 6.27

2584 9.87

450 5.28

540 4.28

174 3.47

1603 4.48 25728 14.23

16872 10.41

4502 11.26

1891 13.04

17673 5.14

3077 12.68

6253 15.73

18750 13.13

6670 17.91 26156 19.00

15881 16.12

4442 10.00

14698 9.21

1939 5.39

58453 9.07

827 5.82

2876 5.75

886 9.10 1503 7.06 5702 4.58

2975 7.12

3869 3.59

3911 5.97

2482 5.57 578 3.64

788 2.27

990 1.50

492 1.65

349 1.88

931 3.27

575 1.97

752 2.62

2046 2.81

1369 2.14

6152 3.31

1377 3.01

269 2.17

301 2.13

323 1.72

694 1.77

1125 2.22

1038 3.07

634 4.27 263 2.61

44 1.61

108 1.47

201 1.18

4174 1.57

443 1.04

613 1.32

3406 5.23 1371 2.05

269 8.2% 1182 9.9%

341 4.5%

142 4.5%

488 8.1%

193 0.7%

470 3.7%

669 11.8%

166 7.0%

302 12.2%

156 6.3%

367 13.9%

466 14.8%

84 8.2%

147 9.7%

27 4.5%

430 10.0% 1 0.0%

6341 32.6%

1453 30.3%

474 27.3%

996 2.4%

579 19.9%

708 14.9%

4705 27.5%

1456 32.6% 9764 59.1%

5346 45.2%

553 10.4%

3038 15.9%

484 11.2%

101 0.1%

114 6.7%

589 9.8%

142 12.2% 312 12.2%

1376 9.2%

450 9.0%

499 3.9%

980 12.5%

909 17.0% 137 7.2%

473 11.4%

509 6.4%

229 6.4%

95 4.2%

392 11.5%

329 9.4%

362 10.5%

736 8.4%

648 8.4%

1509 6.8%

656 12.0%

199 13.4%

287 16.9%

171 7.6%

344 7.3%

531 8.7%

337 8.3%

173 9.7% 46 3.8%

13 4.0%

96 10.9%

270 13.2%

975 3.1%

319 6.2%

426 7.7%

460 5.9% 112 1.4%

3158 0.96 25041 2.10

2588 0.34

887 0.28

7557 1.25

5710 0.20

4580 0.36

11328 2.00

2483 1.04

7187 2.90

2232 0.89

4491 1.70

18557 5.91

1803 1.76

1503 0.99

415 0.69

4494 1.05 6405 0.30

99817 5.13

35473 7.39

13446 7.73

138769 3.36

17244 5.92

72962 15.30

222479 12.99

43353 9.70 315879 19.12

230260 19.48

60491 11.35

127180 6.64

8655 2.00

96267 1.24

2832 1.66

10174 1.69

4903 4.20 6468 2.53

15722 1.05

11189 2.23

12349 0.96

16070 2.04

15070 2.82 1382 0.73

6235 1.50

7488 0.95

2208 0.62

6500 2.91

4580 1.34

2911 0.83

1645 0.48

4927 0.56

6694 0.87

10713 0.48

6586 1.20

979 0.66

1667 0.98

1348 0.60

3077 0.65

5705 0.94

2306 0.57

1733 0.97 541 0.45

180 0.54

543 0.61

1710 0.84

8576 0.27

1002 0.20

1838 0.33

6243 0.80 17 0.00

0 0.0 3 28.7

0 0.0

0 0.0

1 1.8

0 0.0

0 0.0

0 0.0

0 0.0

1 0.8

0 0.0

0 0.0

1 7.2

0 0.0

0 0.0

0 0.0

0 0.0 0 0.0

0 0.0

0 0.0

0 0.0

2 30.9

0 0.0

0 0.0

1 25.8

0 0.0 0 0.0

0 0.0

0 0.0

1 3.1

0 0.0

0 0.0

0 0.0

1 0.1

0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.6

0 0.0

0 0.0

0 0.0

1 1.8 0 0.0

0 0.0

0 0.0

0 0.0

0 0.0

0 0.0

0 0.0

0 0.0

0 0.0

0 0.0

0 0.0

0 0.0

0 0.0

0 0.0

0 0.0

0 0.0

0 0.0

0 0.0

0 0.0 0 0.0

0 0.0

0 0.0

0 0.0

0 0.0

0 0.0

0 0.0

0 0.0 0 0.0

of 11 6/1/2017



Wastewater Discharge to Groundwater

Facilities discharging Flowrate from

wastewater to facilities discharging

groundwater wastewater to

(>10,000 gal/day) groundwater (MGD)

Septic System Use

Estimated

Estimated Percentage of flowrate

Population population from septic

using septic using septic systems

systems systems (MGD)

Designated Shellfish Growing Area Status

Percentage

Conditionally Conditionally Conditionally

Approved Prohibited Approved Restricted Management Restricted Approved or

(acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) Close (acres) (acres) TOTAL (acres) Approved 1 BLACK ROCK CREEK

2 MERRIMACK RIVER

3 PARKER RIVER

4 ROWLEY RIVER

5 IPSWICH RIVER

6 PLUM ISLAND SOUND


8 ANNISQUAM RIVER



11 LONG BEACH

12 GOOD HARBOR


14 MAGNOLIA COAST

15 KETTLE COVE

16 MANCHESTER COAST


18 BEVERLY HARBOR

19 DANVERS RIVER



22 SALEM SOUND


24 NAHANT BAY








32 BOSTON HARBOR

33 LITTLE HARBOR

34 COHASSET HARBOR


36 SCITUATE HARBOR


38 GREEN HARBOR




42 ROCKY POINT




46 NAMELOC HEIGHTS

47 SCUSSET BEACH


49 WEST SANDWICH

50 SANDWICH HARBOR

51 SCORTON CREEK





56 QUIVETT CREEK


58 BREWSTER COAST







65 WELLFLEET HARBOR


67 TRURO COAST



0 0.000 1 0.036

1 0.015

0 0.000

0 0.000

1 0.015

0 0.000

0 0.000

0 0.000

0 0.000

0 0.000

0 0.000

0 0.000

0 0.000

0 0.000

0 0.000

0 0.000 0 0.000

0 0.000

0 0.000

0 0.000

0 0.000

0 0.000

0 0.000

0 0.000

0 0.000 0 0.000

0 0.000

0 0.000

0 0.000

0 0.000

0 0.000

0 0.000

1 0.019

0 0.000 0 0.000 1 0.013

0 0.000

1 0.031

1 0.500

1 0.014 1 0.038

1 0.02

4 0.736

0 0.000

0 0.000

1 0.022

1 0.080

1 0.026

0 0.000

3 0.066

0 0.000

1 0.165

0 0.000

0 0.000

0 0.000

1 0.032

2 0.048258

4 0.135

1 0.012 0 0.000

0 0.000

1 0.029

0 0.000

2 0.056

0 0.000

0 0.000

1 0.650 0 0.000

1322 42% 0.092 2136 9% 0.148

1389 54% 0.096

701 79% 0.049

3522 47% 0.244

783 14% 0.054

1885 41% 0.131

4383 39% 0.304

991 40% 0.069

2307 32% 0.160

702 31% 0.049

1783 40% 0.124

4744 26% 0.329

535 30% 0.037

450 30% 0.031

0 0% 0.000

68 2% 0.005 0 0% 0.000

0 0% 0.000

0 0% 0.000

0 0% 0.000

0 0% 0.000

0 0% 0.000

0 0% 0.000

0 0% 0.000

0 0% 0.000 0 0% 0.000

0 0% 0.000

0 0% 0.000

0 0% 0.000

536 6% 0.037

0 0% 0.000

808 29% 0.056

3523 35% 0.244

1322 27% 0.092 2166 33% 0.150 7549 48% 0.523

3331 30% 0.231

3969 32% 0.275

6145 38% 0.426

5208 35% 0.361 364 26% 0.025

2754 44% 0.191

2773 37% 0.192

747 34% 0.052

956 15% 0.066

3388 74% 0.235

1662 57% 0.115

1631 99% 0.113

4402 89% 0.305

6129 92% 0.425

5381 50% 0.373

5706 87% 0.395

768 78% 0.053

1625 97% 0.113

1052 78% 0.073

2470 80% 0.171

3274 57% 0.227

1356 59% 0.094

853 49% 0.059 289 53% 0.020

42 24% 0.003

547 101% 0.038

1205 70% 0.084

3180 37% 0.220

707 71% 0.049

1133 62% 0.079

1483 24% 0.103 4 25% 0.000

0.0 525.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 525 0% 0.0 1856.8 686.9 1222.3 0.0 0.0 3766 18%

155.2 300.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 456 34%

243.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 244 100%

284.0 92.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 377 75%

3665.5 485.3 920.9 51.4 0.0 0.0 5123 90%

1877.9 107.1 82.6 0.0 0.0 29.7 2097 93%

816.2 169.9 141.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1128 85%

0.0 85.8 378.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 464 82%

0.0 765.5 149.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 915 16%

0.0 281.5 692.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 974 71%

0.0 480.2 113.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 594 19%

0.0 1557.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1557 0%

0.0 408.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 408 0%

0.0 66.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 66 0%

0.0 348.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 348 0%

0.0 329.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 329 0% 0.0 1361.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1362 0%

0.0 712.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 713 0%

0.0 1133.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1133 0%

0.0 562.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 562 0%

0.0 8322.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 8323 0%

123.7 1094.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1218 10%

0.0 3187.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3187 0%

0.0 6600.0 0.0 432.1 0.0 0.0 7032 0%

0.0 1188.6 0.0 405.6 0.0 0.0 1594 0% 0.0 2740.9 0.0 127.7 0.0 0.0 2869 0%

0.0 2405.6 0.0 185.3 0.0 0.0 2591 0%

0.0 3354.2 0.0 486.7 0.0 0.0 3841 0%

0.0 8455.5 0.0 1158.1 0.0 0.0 9614 0%

0.0 1002.1 0.0 307.1 0.0 0.0 1309 0%

0.0 33720.9 0.0 2912.9 0.0 0.0 36634 0%

0.0 477.2 244.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 721 34%

0.0 292.4 1585.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1878 84%

0.0 0.0 594.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 594 100% 0.0 193.3 712.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 905 79%

606.3 366.1 1264.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 2237 84%

0.0 265.9 1788.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2054 87%

106.1 19.8 7945.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 8071 100%

715.0 521.1 1675.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 2912 82%

0.0 1488.4 179.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1668 11% 0.0 296.4 523.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 819 64%

0.0 455.1 27.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 482 6%

0.0 84.5 1968.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 2053 96%

0.0 7.9 1153.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1162 99%

0.0 0.0 1679.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 1680 100%

0.0 9.9 879.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 889 99%

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 0%

0.0 17.3 8.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 25 32%

43.8 54.2 821.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 919 94%

0.0 74.6 549.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 624 88%

659.2 92.6 3135.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 3888 98%

63.9 54.9 667.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 786 93%

0.0 0.0 289.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 290 100%

41.1 0.0 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 45 100%

0.0 16.2 422.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 439 96%

0.0 7.9 902.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 911 99%

0.0 0.0 2567.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 2568 100%

108.1 15.7 820.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 945 98%

10.9 32.4 418.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 462 93% 0.0 29.1 502.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 532 95%

0.0 0.0 247.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 248 100%

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 100%

0.0 0.0 596.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 597 100%

193.5 86.1 19351.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 19631 100%

35.7 16.7 1383.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 1436 99%

0.0 0.0 2081.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 2082 100%

136.5 595.4 3625.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 4357 86% 55.7 27.6 3596.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 3680 99%

of 11 6/1/2017



303(d) listed impairments (waterbodies)

Nutrient Bacteria Total

Listing Listing Assessed Nutrient Bacteria

(acres) (acres) Area (ac) Listing (%) Listing (%)

303(d) listed impairments (streams)

Total

Nutrient Bacteria Assessed

Listing Listing Length Nutrient Bacteria

(miles) (miles) (miles) Listing (%) Listing (%)

Crossings/Impoundments

Number of Number of Road

Impoundments Number of Road Number of Road Crossings in Tidal

without fish Number of Road Crossings per Crossings in Tidal Areas per square

passage structure Crossings square mile Areas mile 1 BLACK ROCK CREEK

2 MERRIMACK RIVER

3 PARKER RIVER

4 ROWLEY RIVER

5 IPSWICH RIVER

6 PLUM ISLAND SOUND


8 ANNISQUAM RIVER



11 LONG BEACH

12 GOOD HARBOR


14 MAGNOLIA COAST

15 KETTLE COVE

16 MANCHESTER COAST


18 BEVERLY HARBOR

19 DANVERS RIVER



22 SALEM SOUND


24 NAHANT BAY








32 BOSTON HARBOR

33 LITTLE HARBOR

34 COHASSET HARBOR


36 SCITUATE HARBOR


38 GREEN HARBOR




42 ROCKY POINT




46 NAMELOC HEIGHTS

47 SCUSSET BEACH


49 WEST SANDWICH

50 SANDWICH HARBOR

51 SCORTON CREEK





56 QUIVETT CREEK


58 BREWSTER COAST







65 WELLFLEET HARBOR


67 TRURO COAST



0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 0.0 2669.7 2669.7 0.0% 100.0%

0.0 485.0 487.3 0.0% 99.5%

0.0 181.4 181.4 0.0% 100.0%

0.0 301.5 301.5 0.0% 100.0%

0.0 4315.8 4318.1 0.0% 99.9%

0.0 947.3 947.3 0.0% 100.0%

3.3 587.4 618.9 0.5% 94.9%

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA

0.0 221.4 228.8 0.0% 96.7%

0.0 0.0 9.6 0.0% 0.0%

0.0 0.0 77.4 0.0% 0.0%

0.0 1486.6 1491.0 0.0% 99.7%

7.1 0.6 7.7 92.5% 7.5%

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA

0.0 309.4 309.4 0.0% 100.0% 0.0 1349.4 1490.7 0.0% 90.5%

0.0 701.2 842.5 0.0% 83.2%

0.0 1100.3 1116.8 0.0% 98.5%

0.0 560.9 560.9 0.0% 100.0%

0.0 8254.1 8411.8 0.0% 98.1%

0.0 4.6 4.6 0.0% 100.0%

0.0 3271.5 3271.5 0.0% 100.0%

0.0 5870.7 5870.7 0.0% 100.0%

0.0 1619.1 1620.2 0.0% 99.9% 0.0 2651.0 2654.7 0.0% 99.9%

0.0 2658.2 2658.2 0.0% 100.0%

0.0 3802.9 3802.9 0.0% 100.0%

0.0 8953.1 8953.1 0.0% 100.0%

0.0 532.3 532.3 0.0% 100.0%

0.0 30650.1 30654.9 0.0% 100.0%

0.0 153.9 153.9 0.0% 100.0%

69.8 651.0 651.0 10.7% 100.0%

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 0.0 206.2 206.2 0.0% 100.0% 0.2 921.0 921.2 0.0% 100.0%

0.0 50.2 56.7 0.0% 88.6%

0.0 5298.0 5904.4 0.0% 89.7%

0.0 2912.6 2919.9 0.0% 99.8%

0.0 1634.7 1638.6 0.0% 99.8% 0.0 0.0 424.5 0.0% 0.0%

0.0 0.0 155.4 0.0% 0.0%

0.0 0.0 155.4 0.0% 0.0%

0.0 7.5 72.1 0.0% 10.4%

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA

0.0 19.4 19.4 0.0% 100.0%

0.0 0.0 582.9 0.0% 0.0%

0.0 27.9 27.9 0.0% 100.0%

0.0 86.0 131.5 0.0% 65.4%

0.0 21.7 186.5 0.0% 11.6%

0.0 2082.3 2093.3 0.0% 99.5%

0.0 85.0 91.5 0.0% 92.9%

0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0% 0.0%

0.0 8.0 62.3 0.0% 12.8%

0.0 24.5 24.5 0.0% 100.0%

45.1 0.0 295.5 15.3% 0.0%

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA

0.0 22.5 213.3 0.0% 10.5%

16.6 50.0 66.6 24.9% 75.1% 0.0 0.0 42.4 0.0% 0.0%

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA

109.2 0.0 135.2 80.8% 0.0%

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA

0.2 347.1 5904.1 0.0% 5.9%

0.0 89.2 89.2 0.0% 100.0%

0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0% 0.0%

0.0 3090.2 3129.8 0.0% 98.7% 0.0 1.3 1.3 0.0% 100.0%

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0% 0.0%

0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0% 0.0%

0.0 3.7 6.2 0.0% 59.5%

0.0 3.7 7.1 0.0% 52.0%

0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0% 100.0%

0.0 0.0 0.4 0.0% 0.0%

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA

0.0 2.8 2.8 0.0% 100.0% 6.2 9.1 14.2 43.9% 63.9%

6.2 9.1 14.2 43.9% 63.9%

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA

6.2 11.8 17.0 36.8% 69.8%

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA

0.0 0.3 0.3 0.0% 100.0%

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 5.0 5.0 5.0 100.0% 100.0%

1.5 1.8 1.8 81.4% 100.0%

0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0% 0.0%

0.0 1.1 1.1 0.0% 100.0%

0.0 0.4 0.4 0.0% 100.0%

6.5 8.4 8.6 75.3% 97.2%

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA

0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0% 0.0%

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0% 0.0%

4.6 0.0 4.6 100.0% 0.0%

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA

1.0 0.0 1.0 100.0% 0.0%

0.0 0.0 2.2 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA

0.0 0.0 3.6 0.0% 0.0%

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA

0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA NA

1 8 1.8 7 1.62 0 67 4.7 42 2.97

1 53 4.7 4 0.36

0 7 1.5 7 1.53

3 33 3.7 28 3.18

4 107 2.9 52 1.40

1 51 2.9 42 2.39

6 48 6.3 41 5.37

0 14 4.7 7 2.35

2 4 1.6 4 1.65

0 8 3.3 7 2.89

1 16 5.1 16 5.08

3 9 3.6 5 1.99

1 5 8.4 4 6.73

0 14 6.2 11 4.90

0 53 126.0 0 0.00

4 53 8.6 18 2.90 19 218 6.9 62 1.95

18 180 6.1 43 1.47

0 41 7.2 28 4.90

0 7 3.8 7 3.75

23 364 7.1 128 2.48

0 5 1.9 3 1.12

0 5 2.0 5 1.97

2 70 4.1 69 4.06

0 15 2.8 15 2.80 4 138 6.4 129 5.95

1 42 2.8 38 2.52

0 19 6.7 19 6.66

0 50 3.1 50 3.07

3 21 4.5 17 3.64

8 289 4.3 271 4.01

1 12 7.3 12 7.33

1 25 3.7 23 3.37

0 1 1.1 1 1.10 0 11 4.1 11 4.08 8 47 2.3 25 1.23

1 12 2.7 11 2.46

2 19 2.3 15 1.85

10 50 6.5 24 3.12

3 29 5.1 28 4.89 0 0 0.0 0 0.00

3 16 2.9 3 0.55

4 40 4.5 14 1.59

0 7 1.9 4 1.10

0 0 0.0 0 0.00

0 10 2.5 6 1.52

2 28 6.2 0 0.00

0 6 1.1 2 0.37

6 23 1.9 18 1.48

2 14 1.3 9 0.84

1 0 0.0 27 0.88

1 16 2.0 11 1.39

0 13 6.1 8 3.74

0 10 4.0 8 3.23

0 8 2.4 8 2.38

1 16 2.5 14 2.20

1 17 2.4 0 0.00

1 5 1.0 5 0.96

0 12 4.9 11 4.45 0 1 0.7 1 0.71

0 0 0.0 0 0.00

1 4 3.8 3 2.83

0 0 0.0 0 0.00

0 46 2.1 25 1.16

0 9 1.6 8 1.39

0 1 0.2 1 0.18

1 5 0.9 1 0.18 0 2 0.3 0 0.00

of 11 6/1/2017



Tidal Restriction

CAPS Area of Tidal

CAPS Area of Tidal Restriction per

Restriction (acres) watershed area

Beach Action Days

2012-2015

Action Days - Action Days - Action Days - Action Days - Average

2012 2013 2014 2015 Action Days/yr

Mooring Fields

Mooring Field Area % Mooring Field per

(acres) Water Area

Marinas

Count of Boat

Number of Boat Slips per Estuary

Slips Water Area 1 BLACK ROCK CREEK

2 MERRIMACK RIVER

3 PARKER RIVER

4 ROWLEY RIVER

5 IPSWICH RIVER

6 PLUM ISLAND SOUND


8 ANNISQUAM RIVER



11 LONG BEACH

12 GOOD HARBOR


14 MAGNOLIA COAST

15 KETTLE COVE

16 MANCHESTER COAST


18 BEVERLY HARBOR

19 DANVERS RIVER



22 SALEM SOUND


24 NAHANT BAY








32 BOSTON HARBOR

33 LITTLE HARBOR

34 COHASSET HARBOR


36 SCITUATE HARBOR


38 GREEN HARBOR




42 ROCKY POINT




46 NAMELOC HEIGHTS

47 SCUSSET BEACH


49 WEST SANDWICH

50 SANDWICH HARBOR

51 SCORTON CREEK





56 QUIVETT CREEK


58 BREWSTER COAST







65 WELLFLEET HARBOR


67 TRURO COAST



1.1 0.0% 2292.1 19.3%

3381.5 44.1%

812.8 25.5%

658.5 10.9%

5362.0 18.6%

392.5 3.1%

748.8 13.3%

12.0 0.5%

2.2 0.1%

3.3 0.1%

20.2 0.8%

6.2 0.2%

1.0 0.1%

64.6 4.3%

0.0 0.0%

129.0 3.0% 585.1 2.7%

585.1 3.0%

325.2 6.8%

1.3 0.1%

1200.3 2.9%

0.0 0.0%

0.2 0.0%

3609.4 21.1%

648.9 14.5% 1266.7 7.7%

743.1 6.3%

146.6 2.8%

1383.9 7.2%

237.5 5.5%

4426.6 5.7%

270.0 15.8%

793.1 13.2%

0.0 0.0% 155.2 6.1%

2395.3 16.0%

13.7 0.3%

182.4 1.4%

145.4 1.9%

107.9 2.0% 0.0 0.0%

284.0 6.8%

1.1 0.0%

0.7 0.0%

0.0 0.0%

484.4 14.2%

0.0 0.0%

0.0 0.0%

126.7 1.5%

689.1 9.0%

352.0 1.6%

160.2 2.9%

73.7 5.0%

167.6 9.9%

2.4 0.1%

201.1 4.3%

0.6 0.0%

0.7 0.0%

13.7 0.8% 64.1 5.3%

0.2 0.0%

46.6 5.3%

0.2 0.0%

97.3 0.3%

159.7 3.1%

0.0 0.0%

0.0 0.0% 0.7 0.0%

0 0 2 0 0.5 0 0 2 0 0.5

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 0.5

5 0 0 0 1.25

1 0 0 0 0.25

2 0 0 0 0.5

0 2 0 0 0.5

0 6 0 0 1.5

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 1 0 0 0.25

0 0 0 0 0

1 12 0 0 3.25

12 0 0 0 3

8 18 7 2 8.75 7 16 19 17 14.75

1 1 0 0 0.5

7 34 1 18 15

1 17 0 0 4.5

26 95 37 37 48.75

1 0 0 0 0.25

12 16 7 0 8.75

32 14 7 14 16.75

55 42 26 71 48.5 0 0 0 0 0

26 69 28 65 47

16 11 4 0 7.75

33 18 12 14 19.25

0 2 0 0 0.5

130 142 70 150 123

0 3 0 0 0.75

1 52 7 2 15.5

12 2 3 2 4.75 6 4 20 20 12.5 0 1 4 0 1.25

9 2 0 0 2.75

5 0 3 0 2

0 0 5 14 4.75

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 1 0 0 0.25

0 1 0 0 0.25

2 3 0 0 1.25

0 2 0 1 0.75

0 2 0 1 0.75

6 0 0 0 1.5

8 0 0 0 2

2 0 0 1 0.75

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0

2 1 0 0 0.75

0 1 0 0 0.25

0 2 0 0 0.5

2 0 0 0 0.5

32 7 17 3 14.75 0 0 0 0 0

0.0 0.00% 94.4 3.33%

34.2 7.40%

6.1 2.45%

16.0 4.14%

252.5 5.06%

39.0 2.80%

66.1 8.64%

11.4 2.41%

13.8 1.50%

0.0 0.00%

0.0 0.00%

119.1 7.74%

10.4 1.63%

0.0 0.00%

0.0 0.00%

77.2 23.44% 126.6 9.56%

46.4 6.42%

346.3 30.40%

283.7 51.93%

866.4 10.50%

0.0 0.00%

52.8 1.68%

51.9 0.83%

86.9 8.34% 41.4 1.56%

66.8 3.10%

0.0 0.00%

256.7 2.94%

40.5 3.04%

492.4 1.45%

0.0 0.00%

19.2 1.17%

0.0 0.00% 59.8 7.21% 65.9 3.39%

9.2 0.43%

28.3 0.37%

4.2 0.14%

78.6 4.69% 0.0 0.00%

0.0 0.00%

0.0 0.00%

0.0 0.00%

0.0 0.00%

0.0 0.00%

0.0 0.00%

0.0 0.00%

0.0 0.00%

0.0 0.00%

28.3 1.10%

1.2 0.29%

0.0 0.00%

3.7 3.41%

0.0 0.00%

0.0 0.00%

16.2 1.04%

0.0 0.00%

0.0 0.00% 0.0 0.00%

0.0 0.00%

0.0 0.00%

0.0 0.00%

66.7 0.37%

0.0 0.00%

0.0 0.00%

110.7 2.64% 0.0 0.00%

0 0.00 635 0.22

0 0.00

0 0.00

0 0.00

0 0.00

80 0.06

275 0.36

0 0.00

0 0.00

0 0.00

0 0.00

55 0.04

0 0.00

0 0.00

0 0.00

46 0.14 193 0.15

0 0.00

228 0.20

6 0.01

473 0.06

0 0.00

0 0.00

200 0.03

375 0.36 881 0.33

685 0.32

0 0.00

684 0.08

0 0.00

2625 0.08

0 0.00

75 0.05

0 0.00 289 0.35 85 0.04

321 0.15

0 0.00

54 0.02

110 0.07 0 0.00

0 0.00

0 0.00

0 0.00

0 0.00

0 0.00

0 0.00

200 7.37

0 0.00

0 0.00

35 0.01

0 0.00

0 0.00

370 3.44

0 0.00

0 0.00

0 0.00

0 0.00

39 0.20 0 0.00

0 0.00

0 0.00

0 0.00

250 0.01

0 0.00

0 0.00

44 0.01 0 0.00

of 11 6/1/2017



Dredging

Dredging Area (acres) % Dredging Area

Seawalls and Related Structures

Length of Public Shoreline Length of Public Shoreline Length of Public Shore Sum of Length of Public Miles of PSSP per mile of

Stabilization, 2007 (miles) Stabilization 2009 (miles) Stabilization 2013 (miles) Shore Stabilization Projects coast 1 BLACK ROCK CREEK

2 MERRIMACK RIVER

3 PARKER RIVER

4 ROWLEY RIVER

5 IPSWICH RIVER

6 PLUM ISLAND SOUND


8 ANNISQUAM RIVER



11 LONG BEACH

12 GOOD HARBOR


14 MAGNOLIA COAST

15 KETTLE COVE

16 MANCHESTER COAST


18 BEVERLY HARBOR

19 DANVERS RIVER



22 SALEM SOUND


24 NAHANT BAY








32 BOSTON HARBOR

33 LITTLE HARBOR

34 COHASSET HARBOR


36 SCITUATE HARBOR


38 GREEN HARBOR




42 ROCKY POINT




46 NAMELOC HEIGHTS

47 SCUSSET BEACH


49 WEST SANDWICH

50 SANDWICH HARBOR

51 SCORTON CREEK





56 QUIVETT CREEK


58 BREWSTER COAST







65 WELLFLEET HARBOR


67 TRURO COAST



0.0 0.00% 263.5 9.29%

0.0 0.00%

0.0 0.00%

3.8 0.99%

3.8 0.08%

23.3 1.67%

69.4 9.06%

0.2 0.05%

12.3 1.33%

0.0 0.00%

0.0 0.00%

87.6 5.70%

0.0 0.00%

0.0 0.00%

0.0 0.00%

0.0 0.00% 31.1 2.35%

0.0 0.00%

56.6 4.97%

0.0 0.00%

116.5 1.41%

0.0 0.00%

0.0 0.00%

109.7 1.75%

5.9 0.57% 921.7 34.69%

76.5 3.55%

0.0 0.00%

462.3 5.30%

0.0 0.00%

2896.0 8.51%

0.0 0.00%

35.4 2.16%

0.0 0.00% 58.2 7.01% 0.0 0.00%

11.1 0.52%

41.8 0.54%

26.3 0.89%

118.5 7.07% 0.0 0.00%

0.0 0.00%

0.0 0.00%

0.0 0.00%

0.0 0.00%

0.1 0.01%

0.0 0.00%

0.0 0.00%

0.9 0.10%

0.0 0.00%

0.0 0.00%

0.0 0.00%

0.0 0.00%

4.6 4.32%

0.0 0.00%

0.0 0.00%

0.0 0.00%

0.0 0.00%

0.0 0.00% 0.0 0.00%

0.0 0.00%

0.0 0.00%

0.0 0.00%

23.7 0.13%

0.0 0.00%

0.0 0.00%

0.0 0.00% 0.0 0.00%

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.04 0.01 0.0 2.8 0.7 3.53 0.17

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00

0.0 0.0 0.5 0.51 0.04

0.0 0.0 1.2 1.25 0.02

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.04 0.00

0.0 0.0 0.8 0.76 0.02

0.0 1.0 1.6 2.61 0.41

0.0 1.9 3.5 5.40 1.04

0.0 0.6 1.5 2.15 0.27

0.0 0.0 2.1 2.09 0.37

0.0 2.2 3.9 6.17 0.53

0.0 0.0 1.6 1.64 0.39

0.0 0.2 0.7 0.91 0.78

0.0 0.6 1.0 1.53 0.40

0.0 0.6 1.1 1.64 0.39 0.0 2.4 3.0 5.43 0.14

0.0 0.3 0.0 0.31 0.02

0.0 1.5 6.4 7.94 0.80

0.0 1.1 4.1 5.24 0.80

0.0 5.6 18.3 23.88 0.22

0.0 0.6 4.3 4.93 0.72

0.0 3.1 2.9 6.00 0.72

0.0 8.3 5.1 13.42 0.42

0.0 4.3 3.8 8.09 0.46 0.0 7.3 0.0 7.30 0.17

0.0 8.5 1.5 10.06 0.44

0.0 7.3 2.3 9.59 1.07

9.9 5.9 8.7 24.41 0.44

3.4 0.0 2.2 5.55 0.39

13.2 41.8 19.7 74.69 0.21

0.4 0.0 1.2 1.52 0.18

2.5 0.0 1.3 3.79 0.25

1.2 0.0 0.2 1.40 0.72 3.1 0.0 0.9 3.96 0.64 1.4 0.0 2.7 4.15 0.13

4.0 0.0 0.6 4.56 0.82

0.8 0.0 3.7 4.48 0.13

0.6 0.0 3.2 3.83 0.43

3.5 0.0 2.5 6.00 0.66 0.6 0.0 1.6 2.23 0.55

1.0 0.0 0.4 1.35 0.83

2.5 0.0 3.7 6.23 1.13

0.7 0.0 0.2 0.82 0.35

0.4 0.0 0.5 0.92 0.38

0.0 1.0 0.2 1.19 0.29

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 -

0.0 0.2 0.0 0.18 0.08

0.0 1.6 0.4 2.00 0.26

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.27 0.14

0.0 0.3 0.7 1.06 0.03

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.29 0.06

0.0 0.4 1.8 2.26 0.58

0.0 0.7 0.3 0.99 0.73

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.01

0.0 0.3 0.3 0.54 0.36

0.0 0.0 1.0 0.95 0.30

0.0 0.1 0.0 0.08 0.03

0.0 0.3 0.0 0.25 0.09 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00

0.0 0.0 0.2 0.25 0.37

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00

0.0 0.2 1.3 1.50 0.51

0.0 1.9 3.7 5.66 0.17

0.0 0.3 0.2 0.52 0.10

0.0 0.1 0.4 0.51 0.09

0.0 5.1 2.4 7.49 0.65 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00

of 11 6/1/2017



Salt Marsh Extent

Salt

Marsh Salt Extent (%

Marsh of

Extent Watershe

(acres) d Area)

Tidal Flat Extent

Tidal Flat Tidal Flat

Extent (ac/mi of

(acres) coast)

Seagrass Extent

Seagrass Seagrass Seagrass Seagrass Average area per area per area per area per Seagrass

Seagrass open Seagrass open Seagrass open Seagrass open Acreage

Extent water Extent water Extent water Extent water Average per open

(1995) area (2001) area (2006) area (2012) area Seagrass water

(acres) (1995) (acres) (2001) (acres) (2006) (acres) (2012) Acreage area 1 BLACK ROCK CREEK

2 MERRIMACK RIVER

3 PARKER RIVER

4 ROWLEY RIVER

5 IPSWICH RIVER

6 PLUM ISLAND SOUND


8 ANNISQUAM RIVER



11 LONG BEACH

12 GOOD HARBOR


14 MAGNOLIA COAST

15 KETTLE COVE

16 MANCHESTER COAST


18 BEVERLY HARBOR

19 DANVERS RIVER



22 SALEM SOUND


24 NAHANT BAY








32 BOSTON HARBOR

33 LITTLE HARBOR

34 COHASSET HARBOR


36 SCITUATE HARBOR


38 GREEN HARBOR




42 ROCKY POINT




46 NAMELOC HEIGHTS

47 SCUSSET BEACH


49 WEST SANDWICH

50 SANDWICH HARBOR

51 SCORTON CREEK





56 QUIVETT CREEK


58 BREWSTER COAST







65 WELLFLEET HARBOR


67 TRURO COAST



1078 33% 2587 22%

2219 29%

1345 42%

1302 22%

9598 33%

3072 24%

639 11%

2 0%

0 0%

40 2%

80 3%

18 1%

0 0%

30 2%

0 0%

13 0% 98 0%

96 0%

36 1%

7 0%

198 0%

0 0%

1 0%

1012 6%

367 8% 48 0%

379 3%

163 3%

522 3%

143 3%

1629 2%

58 3%

563 9%

5 0% 103 4%

2359 16%

134 3%

1353 10%

234 3%

31 1% 0 0%

0 0%

0 0%

67 2%

0 0%

1 0%

0 0%

3 0%

576 7%

405 5%

3895 17%

907 17%

0 0%

61 4%

227 10%

76 2%

4 0%

274 7%

288 16% 289 24%

2 0%

0 0%

1 0%

1243 4%

248 5%

0 0%

254 3% 122 2%

22.3 6.5 888.8 41.6

3.6 0.5

11.3 1.7

72.8 5.4

303.6 3.8

726.0 18.4

381.2 12.0

1.6 0.3

0.0 0.0

1.7 0.2

3.3 0.6

1.1 0.1

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

7.2 1.7 297.8 7.4

240.5 13.8

20.9 2.1

10.6 1.6

352.1 3.3

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

544.0 17.0

347.4 19.6 207.2 4.7

338.0 14.8

104.1 11.6

0.0 0.0

3.0 0.2

1917.3 5.5

48.0 5.6

235.3 15.4

0.0 0.0 49.8 8.0

351.8 10.9

0.0 0.0

390.7 11.2

30.5 3.4

3.9 0.4 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 -

0.0 0.0

25.6 3.4

6.4 3.3

1525.9 37.9

473.3 103.8

175.2 45.2

6.2 4.6

382.7 142.6

682.6 449.4

1073.7 338.7

518.9 206.8

280.2 94.6 274.0 116.5

153.9 229.2

0.0 1.4

501.0 171.9

1670.1 50.0

18.0 3.5

4.0 0.7

255.0 22.0 63.7 3.8

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

17.0 0.0 11.4 0.0 14.3 0.0 11.6 0.0 13.5 0.0

12.2 0.0 10.8 0.0 13.9 0.0 13.7 0.0 12.7 0.0

2.5 0.0 2.2 0.0 2.2 0.0 2.3 0.0 2.3 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

45.8 0.0 37.1 0.0 59.8 0.0 53.4 0.0 49.0 0.0

8.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.3 0.0 4.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

147.6 0.4 116.5 0.4 0.0 0.0 119.9 0.4 96.0 0.3 72.3 0.1 72.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 73.1 0.1 54.3 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

103.6 0.1 19.1 0.0 31.0 0.0 18.7 0.0 43.1 0.0

36.6 0.1 18.6 0.0 4.8 0.0 29.4 0.1 22.4 0.0

691.1 0.1 528.2 0.1 35.9 0.0 566.2 0.1 455.3 0.1

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

11.6 0.0 8.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.8 0.0 10.9 0.0

751.1 0.1 667.2 0.1 693.9 0.1 761.4 0.1 718.4 0.1

20.6 0.0 27.7 0.0 47.7 0.0 42.8 0.0 34.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 34.8 0.0 9.8 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

180.7 0.0 38.9 0.0 64.1 0.0 2.9 0.0 71.6 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

201.3 0.0 66.6 0.0 116.3 0.0 89.3 0.0 118.4 0.0

0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

112.8 0.1 117.7 0.1 112.0 0.1 103.4 0.1 111.5 0.1

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.0 0.0 10.3 0.0 10.3 0.0 8.4 0.0 10.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1558.6 0.2 1369.8 0.2 1035.4 0.1 1135.9 0.1 1274.9 0.2

348.0 0.1 313.1 0.1 547.5 0.2 397.0 0.1 401.4 0.1

320.2 0.2 251.6 0.2 326.5 0.2 324.2 0.2 305.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

33.8 0.0 25.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 30.8 0.0 22.6 0.0

95.6 0.1 74.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 47.0 0.0 54.4 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

5.2 0.0 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.4 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

45.8 0.1 61.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 67.7 0.2 43.8 0.1

22.2 0.2 20.3 0.2 0.0 0.0 27.9 0.2 17.6 0.2

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

54.1 0.1 81.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 30.5 0.0 41.6 0.1

1034.3 0.7 950.1 0.6 0.0 0.0 648.7 0.4 658.3 0.4

150.5 0.2 102.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 14.4 0.0 66.8 0.1

58.4 0.3 18.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 19.2 0.1 126.8 0.4 112.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 17.5 0.1 64.3 0.2

41.0 0.4 60.4 0.6 0.0 0.0 28.1 0.3 32.4 0.3

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4674.2 0.3 1314.6 0.1 0.0 0.0 1440.3 0.1 1857.3 0.1

441.1 0.3 533.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 553.8 0.4 382.0 0.3

219.0 0.1 228.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 225.9 0.1 168.2 0.1

902.9 0.2 881.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 982.0 0.2 691.6 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

of 11 6/1/2017



Shellfish Habitat (values in acres)

Total Total Shellfish

Shellfish Shellfish Habitat

Habitat Habitat per Open

American Bay Blue European Ocean Razor Sea Soft-shell Area (species- Water

Oyster Scallop Mussel Oyster Quahog Quahog Clam Scallop clam Surf Clam (acres) acres) Area 1 BLACK ROCK CREEK

2 MERRIMACK RIVER

3 PARKER RIVER

4 ROWLEY RIVER

5 IPSWICH RIVER

6 PLUM ISLAND SOUND


8 ANNISQUAM RIVER



11 LONG BEACH

12 GOOD HARBOR


14 MAGNOLIA COAST

15 KETTLE COVE

16 MANCHESTER COAST


18 BEVERLY HARBOR

19 DANVERS RIVER



22 SALEM SOUND


24 NAHANT BAY








32 BOSTON HARBOR

33 LITTLE HARBOR

34 COHASSET HARBOR


36 SCITUATE HARBOR


38 GREEN HARBOR




42 ROCKY POINT




46 NAMELOC HEIGHTS

47 SCUSSET BEACH


49 WEST SANDWICH

50 SANDWICH HARBOR

51 SCORTON CREEK





56 QUIVETT CREEK


58 BREWSTER COAST







65 WELLFLEET HARBOR


67 TRURO COAST



0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 75.1 67.5 373.5 144.6 0.28 0.0 0.0 1333.7 0.0 8.1 0.0 681.5 81.1 1183.7 503.8 902.2 3288.2 1.16

199.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 48.8 0.0 219.7 0.0 828.9 468.4 1.01

1.1 0.0 3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 195.9 0.0 209.1 0.0 294.4 409.6 1.64

0.7 0.0 31.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 26.9 0.0 308.6 0.0 98.6 367.3 0.95

310.8 0.0 346.8 23.6 0.0 10.2 1382.5 0.0 2589.9 702.2 3.9 4663.9 0.94

151.0 0.0 243.6 0.0 47.0 8.1 109.8 0.0 1418.2 209.8 387.0 1977.7 1.42

9.6 0.0 403.5 79.1 132.2 38.2 134.3 0.0 654.6 174.7 638.4 1451.5 1.90

0.7 0.0 117.1 0.0 144.4 0.0 3.9 61.8 14.4 7.8 342.2 0.72

0.0 0.0 195.2 585.1 0.0 0.0 578.8 4.8 597.9 261.1 1363.8 1.48

3.6 0.0 105.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 70.0 3.6 212.3 182.8 0.19

0.0 0.0 103.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.1 53.6 107.9 0.17

0.0 0.0 135.2 138.3 0.0 5.4 12.0 0.0 56.2 19.6 44.4 347.0 0.23

0.0 0.0 47.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.6 6.1 57.5 0.09

0.0 0.0 19.4 8.1 8.1 0.0 5.5 8.1 22.3 5.5 71.5 0.96

0.0 0.0 49.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 12.5 130.0 62.1 0.19

4.0 0.0 68.0 5.6 0.0 15.5 0.0 0.0 30.6 0.0 2053.8 123.7 0.38 0.0 0.0 208.7 85.3 0.0 98.1 0.0 0.0 481.7 55.8 44.7 873.9 0.66

0.0 0.0 74.6 2.6 0.0 28.8 0.0 0.0 339.8 0.0 1351.0 445.7 0.62

0.0 0.0 109.1 131.4 60.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 180.1 0.0 538.9 482.2 0.42

24.8 0.0 42.3 0.0 0.0 23.8 0.0 0.0 59.7 0.0 212.5 150.6 0.28

28.8 0.0 546.1 223.9 0.0 199.3 1.0 739.8 806.3 111.3 20.5 2545.2 0.31

0.0 0.0 78.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 544.9 78.9 0.07

0.0 0.0 1820.7 19.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 314.6 31.0 318.8 2185.8 0.70

0.0 0.0 770.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 57.5 0.0 634.9 25.3 620.1 1463.1 0.23

0.0 0.0 139.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 539.7 0.0 660.2 679.0 0.65 0.0 0.0 84.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 212.5 0.0 2340.1 307.6 0.12

0.0 0.0 370.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 146.9 0.0 604.2 0.0 383.7 1121.9 0.52

0.0 0.0 527.1 473.3 0.0 63.8 309.5 0.0 642.6 0.0 5438.9 2016.3 0.58

0.0 0.0 1381.2 302.9 26.6 0.0 252.1 0.0 1985.0 694.2 50.6 3947.8 0.45

0.0 0.0 426.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 348.9 180.8 201.4 775.4 0.58

0.0 0.0 3205.6 783.9 26.6 63.8 755.5 236.3 4765.9 875.9 9837.5 0.29

0.0 0.0 31.2 0.0 0.0 6.7 0.0 0.0 16.2 0.0 294.1 54.1 0.08

0.0 0.0 147.4 0.0 0.0 0.7 6.0 0.0 69.8 36.4 1438.2 224.0 0.14

0.0 0.0 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.9 33.3 0.06 0.0 0.0 36.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 210.2 36.2 0.04

12.4 0.0 377.4 0.0 0.0 69.3 116.4 0.0 201.2 616.2 308.6 776.7 0.40

0.0 0.0 74.9 0.0 0.0 1.1 4.5 0.0 30.8 246.3 39.5 111.3 0.05

72.8 128.9 2159.0 0.0 0.0 2400.1 815.6 142.3 1231.0 1075.9 29.4 6949.7 0.90

0.0 0.0 1646.0 15.2 0.0 1274.9 105.3 0.0 591.1 450.4 462.4 3632.4 1.24

0.0 103.9 611.5 0.0 0.0 191.6 232.2 0.0 295.4 8.7 2202.9 1434.7 0.86 0.0 0.0 148.9 0.0 125.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 44.0 0.0 318.5 0.40

0.0 0.0 64.8 0.0 10.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 10.4 75.2 0.11

0.0 0.0 25.9 0.0 1274.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.1 1274.8 1325.9 0.58

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 422.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.9 468.7 719.6 429.0 0.34

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 669.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 836.7 669.5 0.40

0.0 0.0 96.7 0.0 313.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 378.1 410.1 0.46

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00

0.0 0.0 25.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.8 0.95

0.0 0.0 420.0 0.0 0.0 34.9 0.0 0.0 59.0 180.1 3194.4 513.9 0.55

0.0 0.0 392.1 0.0 4.5 22.5 0.0 5.0 22.5 356.7 1461.6 446.5 0.56

6.8 118.6 252.8 0.0 0.0 752.5 180.6 0.0 1826.8 850.2 46.5 3138.0 1.22

0.0 0.0 5.3 0.0 0.0 6.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 648.5 11.7 0.03

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 77.3 0.0 0.00

6.5 0.0 14.1 0.0 0.0 14.8 0.0 0.0 3.9 0.0 73.1 39.3 0.37

15.5 0.0 15.5 0.0 0.0 15.5 0.0 0.0 461.5 259.5 45.8 508.1 5.47

4.6 0.0 4.6 0.0 0.0 74.0 0.0 0.0 863.5 773.2 15.4 946.7 1.51

17.6 474.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 864.8 0.0 0.0 1128.0 2292.7 2966.5 2484.4 1.59

0.0 45.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 49.0 148.4 0.0 332.8 593.2 2890.9 575.3 0.78

44.8 39.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 84.2 106.2 0.0 77.5 97.9 169.9 352.1 1.78 37.5 2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.5 132.2 0.0 74.4 91.7 5397.0 287.5 0.94

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 104.2 0.0 0.0 0.3 104.2 1.11

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 49.0 0.0 0.00

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 452.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 452.3 4.72

1699.4 8397.3 26.5 0.0 0.0 9845.0 50.5 0.0 427.0 11112.7 1973.3 20445.7 1.12

6.5 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 49.6 0.0 18.1 22.2 1212.6 35.6 97.0 0.07

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 63.2 0.0 28.1 0.0 1715.7 91.3 0.04

16.8 22.0 17.0 0.0 0.0 677.5 0.0 0.0 126.2 2216.7 31.1 859.5 0.21 0.0 0.0 5.2 0.0 99.3 24.6 0.0 83.8 26.2 3350.0 239.1 0.07

of 11 6/1/2017



Black- Double- Great

Black- crowned crested black-

American American bellied night- Canada Common Common Diving cormoran backed Great bittern black duck Arctic tern Bald eagle plover heron Brant goose moorhen tern ducks t Dunlin Eiders gull egret

1 BLACK ROCK CREEK

2 MERRIMACK RIVER

3 PARKER RIVER

4 ROWLEY RIVER

5 IPSWICH RIVER

6 PLUM ISLAND SOUND


8 ANNISQUAM RIVER



11 LONG BEACH

12 GOOD HARBOR


14 MAGNOLIA COAST

15 KETTLE COVE

16 MANCHESTER COAST


18 BEVERLY HARBOR

19 DANVERS RIVER



22 SALEM SOUND


24 NAHANT BAY








32 BOSTON HARBOR

33 LITTLE HARBOR

34 COHASSET HARBOR


36 SCITUATE HARBOR


38 GREEN HARBOR




42 ROCKY POINT




46 NAMELOC HEIGHTS

47 SCUSSET BEACH


49 WEST SANDWICH

50 SANDWICH HARBOR

51 SCORTON CREEK





56 QUIVETT CREEK


58 BREWSTER COAST







65 WELLFLEET HARBOR


67 TRURO COAST



0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1108 0 0 0 0 0 0 876 1766 0 1632 890 0 0 876 876 1832 0 0 890 0 0 0

317 317 0 0 0 0 0 317 317 317 0 0 0 0 0 0

891 891 0 0 0 0 0 891 891 891 0 0 0 0 0 0

397 1346 0 0 0 0 0 397 397 1346 0 0 0 0 0 0

6706 7655 0 0 0 0 0 6706 6706 7655 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 3108 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3108 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 112 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 620 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 920 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 545 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1010 0 0 0 0 0 1010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 927 0 0 0 0 0 927 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 848 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 1010 0 0 0 0 0 1010 0 0 848 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 540 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 127 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 142 0 0 0 1528 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 140 0 0 0 0 140 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 113 0 0 0 0 113 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 13 0 4 0 357 4 4

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 252 0 0 0 4 252 0 0 37 0 4 0 7630 4 4

0 165 0 0 0 0 0 165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 986 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 156 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 605 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 548 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1197 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 5444 0 0 0 0 5444 0 0 0 0 0 0 5444 0 0

0 2863 0 0 0 0 2863 0 0 0 0 0 0 2863 0 0

0 1633 11 0 0 0 1633 0 0 11 0 0 0 1633 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 406 0 0 0 154 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 7840 0 0 0 0 0 7840 0 77 0 0 0 7840 0 0

0 1775 0 0 0 0 0 1775 0 69 0 0 0 1775 0 0

0 63 0 0 0 0 0 63 0 0 0 0 0 63 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 129 129 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 628 628 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 350 350 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 385 385 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 196 196 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 34 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 2488 0 0 0 0 2022 0 0 0 0 0 0 2022 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

of 11 6/1/2017



Shorebird Habitat (values in acres)

Shorebird

Total Habitat

Shorebird per

Semipalm Short- Habitat Watershe

Harlequin Herring Hudsonia Least Lesser Little blue Pied-billed Piping Roseate ated billed Snowy Wading (species- d Area duck gull n godwit King rail bittern Least tern yellowlegs heron Mallard grebe plover Red knot tern Scoters sandpiper Shorebirds dowitcher egret birds Waterfowl acres) (species-

1 BLACK ROCK CREEK

2 MERRIMACK RIVER

3 PARKER RIVER

4 ROWLEY RIVER

5 IPSWICH RIVER

6 PLUM ISLAND SOUND


8 ANNISQUAM RIVER



11 LONG BEACH

12 GOOD HARBOR


14 MAGNOLIA COAST

15 KETTLE COVE

16 MANCHESTER COAST


18 BEVERLY HARBOR

19 DANVERS RIVER



22 SALEM SOUND


24 NAHANT BAY








32 BOSTON HARBOR

33 LITTLE HARBOR

34 COHASSET HARBOR


36 SCITUATE HARBOR


38 GREEN HARBOR




42 ROCKY POINT




46 NAMELOC HEIGHTS

47 SCUSSET BEACH


49 WEST SANDWICH

50 SANDWICH HARBOR

51 SCORTON CREEK





56 QUIVETT CREEK


58 BREWSTER COAST







65 WELLFLEET HARBOR


67 TRURO COAST



0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1108 0 0 0 55 1832 876 19 890 0 0 876 19 890 0 0 890 895 890 0 0 1632 19403 2

0 0 0 317 317 0 0 0 0 317 0 0 0 0 0 43 0 0 0 0 2575 0

0 0 0 891 891 0 0 0 0 891 0 0 0 0 0 41 0 0 0 0 7170 2

0 0 0 397 397 30 0 0 0 397 30 0 0 0 0 212 0 0 0 0 5343 1

0 0 0 6706 6706 391 0 0 0 6706 391 0 0 0 0 1615 0 0 0 0 57946 2

0 0 0 0 0 88 0 0 0 0 88 0 0 0 0 911 0 0 0 208 7513 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 115 0

2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 622 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 920 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 545 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 84 0

13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3030 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 927 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2782 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 848 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1010 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3878 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 553 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1798 0

0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 74 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 279 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 225 0

0 4 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 529 0 925 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 261 0 261 0

0 4 0 0 0 107 0 4 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 790 0 9120 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 165 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 495 0

132 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 986 0 0 0 0 0 0 2104 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 156 0 0 0 0 0 0 311 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 164 0 0 605 0 164 112 0 0 0 112 0 0 0 0 2311 0

0 0 0 0 1197 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2394 0

0 0 0 0 0 330 0 0 0 0 330 0 0 5444 0 3631 0 0 0 0 26067 2

0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2863 0 1996 0 0 0 0 13452 2

0 0 0 0 0 81 0 0 0 0 81 162 11 1633 0 643 0 0 0 0 7530 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 51 0 0 0 0 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 662 0

0 0 0 0 0 51 0 0 0 0 51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 102 0

0 0 0 0 0 4973 0 0 0 0 237 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28805 1

0 0 0 0 0 60 0 0 0 0 60 0 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5541 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 188 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 129 0 0 0 0 386 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 628 0 0 0 0 1885 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 350 0 0 0 0 1049 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 385 0 0 0 0 1156 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 196 0 0 0 0 589 2

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 103 0

0 0 0 0 0 115 0 0 0 0 115 0 0 0 0 2488 0 0 0 0 9251 0

0 0 0 0 0 63 0 0 0 0 63 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 126 0

0 0 0 0 0 102 0 0 0 0 102 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 205 0

0 0 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 399 0 0 0 0 0 0 767 0 0 0 0 767 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 1568 0

of 11 6/1/2017



Shorebird Nesting Sites

Black- Great Yellow-

American crowned Double- black- crowned Total

American Oystercatc night- Canada Colonial Common Common crested backed Great Herring Laughing Little Blue Snowy night- Nesting Nesting Sites black duck her heron goose waterbirds eider tern cormorant Glossy Ibis gull Egret gull gull Least tern Heron Mallard Egret heron Sites per Acre

1 BLACK ROCK CREEK

2 MERRIMACK RIVER

3 PARKER RIVER

4 ROWLEY RIVER

5 IPSWICH RIVER

6 PLUM ISLAND SOUND


8 ANNISQUAM RIVER



11 LONG BEACH

12 GOOD HARBOR


14 MAGNOLIA COAST

15 KETTLE COVE

16 MANCHESTER COAST


18 BEVERLY HARBOR

19 DANVERS RIVER



22 SALEM SOUND


24 NAHANT BAY








32 BOSTON HARBOR

33 LITTLE HARBOR

34 COHASSET HARBOR


36 SCITUATE HARBOR


38 GREEN HARBOR




42 ROCKY POINT




46 NAMELOC HEIGHTS

47 SCUSSET BEACH


49 WEST SANDWICH

50 SANDWICH HARBOR

51 SCORTON CREEK





56 QUIVETT CREEK


58 BREWSTER COAST







65 WELLFLEET HARBOR


67 TRURO COAST



0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 8.40226E-05

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0.003596037

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.000636534

0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 10 0.009786947

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 0.008290819

0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.000465591 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 1 1 2 0 0 3 0 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0.000339468

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.000343545

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.000629087

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 5.83688E-05

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0.000242105

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0.000338334

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.000375158

1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 0.000522052

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.000694269

2 1 6 0 1 1 1 6 3 15 1 16 0 0 0 0 2 1 56 0.000724162

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.001760836

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.00033306

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0.000232046

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 4 0.000748683 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.001050904

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 8.96927E-05

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.000127859 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0.000498069

of 11 6/1/2017



Anadromous Fish Run Length

American Atlantic Blueback Rainbow

Alewife Shad Sturgeon Herring Smelt Total Miles

Beach

Length

Beach

Length

(mi)

Sandy Beaches/Dunes

Extent

Sandy Sandy Beach/

Beaches/Du Dune Extent

nes Area (ac/mile of

(acres) coast)

Rocky Intertidal Extent

Rocky Rocky

Intertidal Intertidal

Shores Shore

Area (ac/mile of

(acres) coast)

Beach Access

Number Number of

Access Beach of Beach Points per Length Access Mile of

(mi) Points Beach

Boating Access

Number Parking

Number of Parking Spaces of Ramps Spaces per Ramp

1 BLACK ROCK CREEK

2 MERRIMACK RIVER

3 PARKER RIVER

4 ROWLEY RIVER

5 IPSWICH RIVER

6 PLUM ISLAND SOUND


8 ANNISQUAM RIVER



11 LONG BEACH

12 GOOD HARBOR


14 MAGNOLIA COAST

15 KETTLE COVE

16 MANCHESTER COAST


18 BEVERLY HARBOR

19 DANVERS RIVER



22 SALEM SOUND


24 NAHANT BAY








32 BOSTON HARBOR

33 LITTLE HARBOR

34 COHASSET HARBOR


36 SCITUATE HARBOR


38 GREEN HARBOR




42 ROCKY POINT




46 NAMELOC HEIGHTS

47 SCUSSET BEACH


49 WEST SANDWICH

50 SANDWICH HARBOR

51 SCORTON CREEK





56 QUIVETT CREEK


58 BREWSTER COAST







65 WELLFLEET HARBOR


67 TRURO COAST



0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.4 0.0 7.4 0.0 7.4 22.2

9.5 0.0 0.0 9.5 3.8 22.7

5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.2 11.7

0.0 0.0 0.0 6.2 0.0 6.2

15.2 0.0 0.0 15.6 10.4 41.2

3.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.4 7.2

1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 5.1

3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 5.1

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

3.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 6.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.2 4.2

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 5.6

0.0 4.4 0.0 0.0 1.0 5.3

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.2

4.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.3 15.6

2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.7 3.8

11.0 4.9 0.0 0.0 15.8 31.7

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 1.1

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

17.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 9.3 26.7

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.3

5.0 3.1 0.0 0.0 1.4 9.4

3.9 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.9 6.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2

4.1 0.0 0.0 3.7 0.0 7.7

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2.4 1.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.8

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.9

2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5

3.3 0.0 0.0 1.6 0.0 4.8

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

5.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.7

5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.5

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2.0 3.8

0.0

0.0

0.1

2.2

2.2

0.3

0.1

0.4

1.2

0.5

0.3

0.4

0.3

0.6

0.1 1.0

0.1

0.4

0.1

1.9

1.2

3.7

3.2

1.6 0.1

1.9

2.9

5.4

1.4

13.9

0.3

1.2

0.4 0.2 3.7

2.2

4.0

0.1

3.6 0.0

1.0

0.0

0.0

0.3

1.0

0.0

0.0

0.7

1.6

6.4

1.2

0.6

0.0

1.2

0.8

1.7

0.9

0.8 0.5

0.2

0.0

0.9

1.5

0.3

2.4

4.8 12.7

116.5 34.1 420.7 19.7

10.5 1.3

7.0 1.0

57.0 4.2

1130.8 14.2

776.0 19.7

138.3 4.3

48.5 7.6

37.0 7.1

72.7 9.3

92.9 16.3

38.2 3.3

35.6 8.5

8.1 7.0

49.6 13.1

10.8 2.5 36.5 0.9

17.9 1.0

16.1 1.6

23.2 3.5

142.5 1.3

59.9 8.8

206.9 25.0

443.1 13.8

81.7 4.6 65.6 1.5

171.4 7.5

284.1 31.7

446.5 8.1

66.3 4.7

1468.7 4.2

39.0 4.5

94.1 6.1

26.2 13.4 59.1 9.5

243.9 7.6

38.8 7.0

360.0 10.3

27.2 3.1

130.8 14.4 62.9 15.6

29.4 18.1

99.3 18.1

43.7 18.5

63.1 26.4

103.3 25.2

0.0 -

6.8 2.8

140.6 18.6

123.0 63.3

1031.0 25.6

110.8 24.3

97.6 25.2

10.0 7.4

61.0 22.7

33.9 22.3

54.0 17.0

56.3 22.4

19.0 6.4 32.5 13.8

8.2 12.3

2.7 81.6

37.3 12.8

548.2 16.4

135.1 25.9

190.6 35.3

730.5 63.2 1881.7 110.8

0.0 0.0 8.9 0.4

0.2 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

1.9 0.0

2.5 0.1

18.4 0.6

32.3 5.1

22.5 4.3

44.2 5.7

58.4 10.2

26.4 2.3

20.9 5.0

5.0 4.3

14.9 3.9

9.9 2.3 4.8 0.1

0.0 0.0

6.1 0.6

9.1 1.4

56.3 0.5

25.6 3.8

44.9 5.4

47.5 1.5

4.8 0.3 10.5 0.2

7.0 0.3

2.9 0.3

15.6 0.3

10.1 0.7

113.1 0.3

21.3 2.5

25.6 1.7

12.9 6.6 27.0 4.4 4.6 0.1

2.8 0.5

14.5 0.4

1.0 0.1

0.1 0.0 21.3 5.3

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.3 0.1

0.0 -

0.0 0.0

5.6 0.7

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

7.9 2.0

10.1 7.4

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0

5.4 0.5 0.0 0.0

2.0 16 7.9 3.8 62 16.1

0.0 0 0.0

0.0 0 0.0

0.1 3 32.6

2.2 8 3.7

2.2 10 4.6

0.3 5 16.6

0.1 3 36.2

0.4 8 19.2

1.2 20 16.1

0.5 8 14.6

0.3 16 47.9

0.4 3 7.2

0.3 2 6.5

0.6 5 8.5

0.1 2 21.7 1.0 27 26.6

0.1 4 29.1

0.4 16 42.0

0.1 6 85.4

1.9 64 34.5

1.2 7 6.1

3.7 96 26.0

3.2 62 19.5

1.6 47 29.9 0.1 6 90.7

1.9 26 13.4

2.9 41 14.2

5.4 135 24.8

1.4 28 20.5

13.9 295 21.2

0.3 6 20.2

1.2 9 7.5

0.4 5 13.4 0.2 3 15.6 3.7 38 10.2

2.2 26 12.0

4.0 19 4.8

0.1 5 35.8

3.6 11 3.1 0.0 0 0.0

1.0 10 9.9

0.0 1 25.3

0.0 0 0.0

0.3 4 11.7

1.0 2 1.9

0.0 0 0.0

0.0 0 0.0

0.7 4 5.5

1.6 3 1.8

6.4 8 1.2

1.2 4 3.3

0.6 10 15.8

0.0 0 0.0

1.2 4 3.2

0.8 5 6.7

1.7 25 14.8

0.9 0 0.0

0.8 7 8.4 0.5 5 10.1

0.2 1 6.5

0.0 1 21.5

0.9 14 15.3

1.5 20 13.0

0.3 6 17.5

2.4 15 6.2

4.8 50 10.4 12.7 0 0.0

0 0 0 4 200 50

1 4 4

0 0 0

1 48 48

1 52 52

0 0 0

3 64 21.33333

1 6 6

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0 2 106 53

2 106 53

1 45 45

1 25 25

4 176 44

0 0 0

0 0 0

1 37 37

1 80 80 0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

3 131 43.66667

0 0 0

4 211 52.75

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0 1 55 55 0 0 0

1 74 74

0 0 0

0 0 0

1 117 117 0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

1 6 6

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

1 34 34

0 0 0

0 0 0

1 74 74

0 0 0

1 18 18

0 0 0

2 20 10

1 55 55 0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

0 0 0

1 60 60

1 30 30

0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0

massachusetts bays national estuary program · massachusetts bays national estuary program estuary...

Documents