NCW 5-Year Action Plan: Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................. 5

Political Boundaries / Transportation Map.......................................................................................................... Insert 1

North Coastal Wetlands Map.............................................................................................................................. Insert 2

North Coastal Open Space Map.......................................................................................................................... Insert 3

North Coastal Land Use Map.............................................................................................................................. Insert 4

1. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... 6

1A. NORTH COASTAL WATERSHEDS: Physical and social setting.................................................................... 6

Ecoregions....................................................................................................................................................................... 6

Physical Features............................................................................................................................................................ 7

Social Setting................................................................................................................................................................... 8

1B. HISTORICAL CONTEXT......................................................................................................................................... 9

1C. THE MASSACHUSETTS WATERSHED INITIATIVE..................................................................................... 10

2. ISSUES AND STRATEGIES.................................................................................... 11

2A. Open Space: Sustainable Development...................................................................................................................... 11

2B. Habitat Conservation.................................................................................................................................................. 11

2C. Water Quality Improvement...................................................................................................................................... 12

2D. Water Quantity Management..................................................................................................................................... 13

2E. Recreation as Economic Resource............................................................................................................................... 14

2F. Capacity Building & Outreach.................................................................................................................................... 14

Public Input Process......................................................................................................................................................... 15

3. PUBLIC INPUT............................................................................................................ 16

Waterways........................................................................................................................................................................ 17

Non-point sources............................................................................................................................................................. 17

Non-point sources (continued)......................................................................................................................................... 18

Development..................................................................................................................................................................... 18

Marine............................................................................................................................................................................... 18

Marine (continued)............................................................................................................................................................ 19

Wastewater........................................................................................................................................................................ 19

Water supply.................................................................................................................................................................... 19

Water Supply (continued)................................................................................................................................................. 20

Land Use........................................................................................................................................................................... 20

Invasive Species................................................................................................................................................................ 20

Ecology.............................................................................................................................................................................. 21

Outreach............................................................................................................................................................................ 22

4. RECOMMENDATIONS............................................................................................. 23

4A. Study and rehabilitate closed coastal shellfish beds................................................................................................... 23

4B. Initiate and develop salt marsh recreational and ecological survey............................................................................. 23

4C. Reinstitute beach maintenance & develop area beach management plans.................................................................. 23

4D. Expand river and lake cleanups.................................................................................................................................. 24

4E. Publicize and reduce contaminated stormwater runoff............................................................................................... 24

4F. Restore and Protect Water Quality/ Reduce Pathogens.............................................................................................. 25

4G. Protect, evaluate, and restore sensitive habitat.......................................................................................................... 25

4H. Maintain natural water flow regime........................................................................................................................... 26

4I. Restore anadromous fish habitat.................................................................................................................................. 26

4J. Watershed-wide flood planning................................................................................................................................... 25

4K. Watershed-wide open space planning........................................................................................................................ 26

4L. Preserve and protect farmland.................................................................................................................................... 27

4M. Implement the Grow Smart North Shore Open Space Plan...................................................................................... 27

4N. Direct outreach to communities / build sense of stewardship.................................................................................... 27

4O. Liaison for grant opportunities.................................................................................................................................. 28

4P. Meet watershed goals via other projects.................................................................................................................... 28

A VISION FOR THE WATERSHED............................................................................. 29

Appendix A: Organizational Background................................................. 30

A1. The Massachusetts Watershed Initiative................................................................................................................... 30

A2. Watershed Teams and Community Action................................................................................................................ 31

A3. Watershed Team Structure and Process..................................................................................................................... 31

A4. North Coastal Watersheds Team History.................................................................................................................. 32

A5. Seven Years in Review............................................................................................................................................... 33

Appendix B: NCW Team Members...................................................................... 35

Community Groups................................................................................................. 37

Appendix C: Issues Background.................................................................... 39

NCW subwatershed list.................................................................................................................................................... 39

C1. Saugus River subwatershed ....................................................................................................................................... 39

C2. Nahant Bay subwatershed ......................................................................................................................................... 40

C3. Salem Sound subwatershed ........................................................................................................................................ 40

C4. Cape Anne subwatershed .......................................................................................................................................... 40

C5. Salisbury/Amesbury subwatershed ........................................................................................................................... 41

C6. Lake Quannapowitt.................................................................................................................................................... 41

C7. Chebacco Lake............................................................................................................................................................ 41

C8. Town Line Brook....................................................................................................................................................... 42

C9. Lynn Woods............................................................................................................................................................... 42

C10. Saugus Iron Works.................................................................................................................................................... 42

C11. Water Supply Boards............................................................................................................................................... 43

C12. Contaminated stormwater issues.............................................................................................................................. 43

C13. Impervious Surface runoff........................................................................................................................................ 44

C14. Wastewater issues.................................................................................................................................................... 44

C15. Blue Line Extension.................................................................................................................................................. 45

C16. Agricultural Impacts................................................................................................................................................. 45

Appendix D: Previous Goals............................................................................. 47

Goal 1: Restore and Protect Water Quality...................................................................................................................... 47

Objective 1.1 Minimize point sources of pollution throughout the watershed............................................................ 47

Objective 1.2 Identify and minimize nonpoint sources of pollution throughout the watershed.................................. 47

Objective 1.3 Remediate and prevent the spread of invasive species........................................................................... 48

Goal 2: Build a Sense of Stewardship............................................................................................................................... 48

Objective 2.1 Expand the membership of the North Coastal Watersheds Team.......................................................... 48

Objective 2.2 Strengthen regional and local watershed advocacy groups and activities............................................... 48

Objective 2.3 Promote environmental education and awareness.................................................................................. 48

Goal 3 Improve Physical Functions.................................................................................................................................. 49

Objective 3.1 Reduce flooding events........................................................................................................................... 49

Objective 3.2 Improve and enhance ecosystem functions............................................................................................ 49

Goal 4 Support Sustainable Growth................................................................................................................................. 49

Objective 4.1 Continue regional land use planning....................................................................................................... 49

Objective 4.2 Plan for adequate water supply to meet growth in demand................................................................... 50

Objective 4.3 Redevelop abandoned and under utilized properties.............................................................................. 50

Goal 5 Implement the Grow Smart North Shore Open Space Plan.................................................................................. 50

Objective 5.1 Preserve open space and BIO Map core areas....................................................................................... 50

Objective 5.2 Provide for regional recreation opportunities......................................................................................... 50

Appendix E. Accomplishments of previous years.............................. 51

E1. Open Space............................................................................................................................................................... 51

E2. Habitat....................................................................................................................................................................... 53

E3. Water Quality........................................................................................................................................................... 54

E4. Water Quantity......................................................................................................................................................... 59

E5. Recreation................................................................................................................................................................. 60

E6. Local Capacity Building.......................................................................................................................................... 60

E7. Outreach and education.......................................................................................................................................... 62

Appendix F. Impaired Waters............................................................................ 67

Massachusetts Category 2, 3, 4, and 5 Waters - 2002...................................................................................................... 67

North Coastal 303d list 1998............................................................................................................................................ 67

North Coastal 303d list 1996............................................................................................................................................ 72

Appendix G: Funding Sources.......................................................................... 76

Previously Funded Roundtable Projects (FY99-02)......................................................................................................... 91

Appendix H. Subwatersheds and Municipalities................................... 93

Appendix I. Surface Water Quality Standards..................................... 96

Appendix J. Designated Uses........................................................................... 98

J1. AQUATIC LIFE USE................................................................................................................................................. 99

J2. FISH CONSUMPTION USE................................................................................................................................... 100

J3. DRINKING WATER USE....................................................................................................................................... 100

J4. SHELLFISHING USE............................................................................................................................................... 101

J5. PRIMARY CONTACT RECREATIONAL USE................................................................................................... 101

J6. SECONDARY CONTACT RECREATIONAL USE.............................................................................................. 102

J7. AESTHETICS USE................................................................................................................................................... 103

Appendix K. Permits and Registrations................................................... 104

K1. North Coastal NPDES permits................................................................................................................................ 104

K2. Water Management Registrations and permits........................................................................................................ 108

Appendix L: Relevant Government Agencies....................................... 110

Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF)................................................................................................................. 110

Watershed Management plans........................................................................................................................................ 110

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).......................................................................................... 110

Section 303d: impaired waterbodies................................................................................................................................ 110

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency........................................................................................................... 111

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act......................................................................................................................... 111

MEPA Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act......................................................................................................... 111

WMA Massachusetts Water Management Act.............................................................................................................. 111

State Sanitary Code......................................................................................................................................................... 111

Title V, Department of Environmental Protection.......................................................................................................... 111

Oil and Hazardous Material Release Prevention Act (MGL 21E)................................................................................. 112

Executive Office of Environmental Affairs..................................................................................................................... 112

Department of Environmental Protection....................................................................................................................... 112

Department of Environmental Management................................................................................................................... 113

Massachusetts Department of Agricultural Resources (MDAR).................................................................................. 113

Department of Fish and Game (DFG)............................................................................................................................ 113

Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR)...................................................................................................... 113

Independent Programs.................................................................................... 114

The Massachusetts Watershed Initiative........................................................................................................................ 114

MEPA Unit..................................................................................................................................................................... 114

Coastal Zone Management.............................................................................................................................................. 114

Division of Conservation Services.................................................................................................................................. 114

Office of Technical Assistance........................................................................................................................................ 115

Water Resources Commission......................................................................................................................................... 115

Wetlands Restoration Program........................................................................................................................................ 115

Appendix M: Potential buildout statistics............................................ 116

Appendix N: MAPC Survey................................................................................. 117

Appendix O: Bibliography................................................................................. 121

Appendix P: Glossary......................................................................................... 125

Acknowledgements........................................................................................... 132


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This 5-Year Watershed Action Plan will serve as the strategic environmental planning document for the North Coastal Watersheds (NCW) Team for calendar years 2004-2008. It is intended to provide a long-term vision for the watershed and to describe a set of overall goals and objectives. The goals of the NCW team and the Action Plan are:

1. Open Space: Foster Sustainable Development (people-oriented).

2. Habitat: Conserve habitat and wildlife (nature-oriented).

3. Water Quality: Improve water quality and water-related human health.

4. Water Quantity: Better water management / flood control.

5. Recreation: Foster recreational use of natural resources and economic growth related to recreation.

6. Outreach: Local capacity building, outreach, and education.

The Action Plan was developed in conjunction with representatives of a wide array of public watershed interests, via input at public meetings, on a website (www.NorthCoastal.net), through newspaper articles, and through videotaping at public events. The Action Plan identifies existing conditions and unresolved issues, and then develops priorities for action.

The Action Plan recommends concrete actions for the next five years to work towards those goals. Formerly, EOEA’s Massachusetts Watershed Initiative would have overseen the implementation of the Action Plan. With the dissolution of that Initiative, implementation will be accomplished in a more decentralized manner – primarily via local watershed groups, with some oversight and input from EOEA and other Watershed Team representatives. For the NCW, the Watershed Team still meets, as an information-sharing source for its constituent watershed groups, and EOEA continues to embrace the Watershed Initiative’s goals and methods via the NCW Watershed Team. The Action Plan in that context becomes a reference source for use in grant applications by the local watershed groups. The recommendations of this Action Plan are:

·         A. Study and rehabilitate closed coastal shellfish beds

·         B. Initiate and develop a salt marsh recreational and ecological survey

·         C. Reinstitute beach maintenance & develop area beach management plans

·         D. Expand river and lake cleanups

·         E. Publicize and reduce contaminated stormwater runoff

·         F. Restore and Protect Water Quality/ Reduce Pathogens

·         G. Protect, evaluate, and restore sensitive habitat

·         H. Maintain natural water flow regime

·         I. Restore anadromous fish habitat

·         J. Watershed-wide flood planning

·         K. Watershed-wide open space planning

·         L. Preserve and protect farmland

·         M. Implement the Grow Smart North Shore Open Space Plan

·         N. Direct outreach to communities / build sense of stewardship

·         O. Liaison for grant opportunities

·         P. Meet watershed goals via other projects

The protection and restoration of the North Coastal Watersheds’ resources will take the combined efforts of many communities: citizens, local governments, environmental groups, state and federal agencies, and business. The success the Watershed Team has in bringing these communities together will in large part determine the success of the North Coastal Watersheds Action Plan. The 5-year Watershed Action Plan should thus be considered “a living document” that will change as new issues and needs are identified, and new partners join the Watershed Team.

The results of the Action Plan include a 30-minute video intended for distribution to high schools, libraries, and local cable TV stations. For those interested in reading more than the brief video can provide, this Action Plan will be distributed to the same locations.. In addition, the website www.NorthCoastal.net contains a record of numerous public input as well as a reference library of numerous relevant documents. That website will be maintained indefinitely.

 

1. INTRODUCTION

1A. NORTH COASTAL WATERSHEDS: Physical and social setting

The North Coastal Watersheds (NCW) encompasses a growing coastal region north of Boston. The NCW spans 27 cities and towns, an area defined by its primarily coastal influence, with several small rivers that drain directly into the ocean, rather than the more common watershed definition surrounding one large river.

Ecoregions

Many people only envision the land divided by its political boundaries, such as the states of New England or Massachusetts’ 351 cities and towns. However, the land can also be divided by its geology, hydrology, climate, and the distribution of its flora and fauna into physiographic divisions and biological ecoregions.

The North Coastal area is contained within two ecoregions; the Southern New England Coastal Plains and Hills (from Salem Sound northward) and the Boston Basin (including the Saugus River and southward, extending beyond the North Coastal Watersheds). The Southern New England Coastal Plains and Hills consist of low rolling hills with a range of generally acidic soil types. Various estimates by experts place the number of natural communities and rare species and habitats at roughly 150.

The Boston Basin is almost entirely urban and suburban in character with relatively few natural communities. Three major rivers drain into the Boston Basin (south of the North Coastal Watersheds) and the Saugus River drains the ecoregion along its northern boundaries. Experts place the number of natural communities, rare species and habitats within the Boston Basin at 38.[1] 

The NCW has been described as a study in contrasts, marked by extensive areas of open space, rural towns and highly urbanized communities with all or portions of 27 communities dispersed over its 168 square miles. The glacial history of the area combined with the low relief has resulted in the formation of numerous wetlands, lakes and ponds and swamps along the main river valleys through out the watershed. The topography of the watershed is characterized by small hills, which reach altitudes of about 350 feet above sea level, and low stream gradients. The rivers within the watershed are comparatively small, tidal and historically have been heavily exploited. Some of the major rivers are the Essex, Annisquam, Danvers, Saugus, Pines, and the North River. The Watershed is “naturally” divided into subregions: The Saugus/Pines River Estuary, Nahant Bay, Salem Sound, Cape Ann, and portions of Salisbury and Amesbury.

Physical Features

Barrier islands and salt marshes: Starting in the northern reach of the watershed, portions of the extensive Hampton and Seabrook Marshes of southern New Hampshire extend southward into Amesbury and Salisbury. Barrier island beaches make up a significant portion of the North Coastal Watersheds coastline and include Salisbury Beach, Cranes Beach, Wingaersheek, and to the south, Revere Beach. The salt marshlands located behind these barrier islands are extensive. Of particular value is the 15,000-acre Great Marsh that extends over portions of four watersheds including the Merrimack, Parker, Ipswich, and North Coastal (the Cape Anne portion of NCW). The Great Marsh is the largest contiguous salt marsh north of Long Island, New York.

Saugus River: Notable features within the southern reaches of the watershed include Reedy Meadow, a distinctive 540-acre freshwater marshland, which along with Lake Quannapowitt (in Wakefield) form the headwaters of the Saugus River. At the mouth of the Saugus is the equally important 900-acre Pines River/Saugus River Marsh locally known as Rumney Marsh.

Rocky peninsulas: The predominant shoreform of the North Shore coastline consists of rocky peninsulas interspersed with embayments, pockets of salt marsh, and estuaries (drowned river valleys) fronted offshore by rock islands. Cape Ann provides Massachusetts with some of its most distinctive rocky coastline.

Lakes and ponds: Within the NCW boundaries there are a total of 85 lakes and ponds, 39 of which are greater than 10 acres. Lake Quannapowitt in Wakefield is the largest at 254 acres followed by Chebacco Lake in Essex at 209 acres. Twenty of the lakes and ponds have been designated either as Outstanding Resource Waters per (314 CMR 4.00) or as Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (ACECs) per MGL Ch. 21A § 2(7). Lake Wenham (on the Beverly-Wenham line) is hydrologically outside the watershed, but is included in this study because it is a major source of drinking water for the watershed.

Water quality: The DEP DWM has conducted water quality surveys in the NCW since 1975, most recently in 1997-1998. The previous surveys were conducted in 1987-1988 for Salem and Beverly Harbors and their tributaries, Salem Sound and Marblehead Harbor, Manchester Harbor, Gloucester Inner and Outer Harbors and a segment of the Annisquam River. Data from the 1987 survey indicated that high coliform bacteria densities and/or low dissolved oxygen impaired the North River, Goldthwait Brook, South River Channel, Crane River, Bass River, Salem Sound (at the WWTP outfall) and several coves of Inner Gloucester Harbor. Results of the 1988 survey indicated that the waters of the NCW generally did not support their designated uses.[2] Twenty-five waterbodies within the North Coastal Watersheds, both fresh and marine are listed on the Federal 303d list of impaired waters (see Appendix F). The comprehensive 1997/1998 survey[3] focused on water quality and fishery resources. It included:

·         Water chemistry measurements and  detailed nutrient analyses at river and marine stations on 18 dates

·         Survey of soft-shell clam habitat

·         Summarized available catch data for recreational and commercial fisheries

·         Limited comparisons were made of the study results to the 1965 DMF estuarine study of Salem Sound.

 

                Resource industries: The abundance of open beaches, coastal wetlands and harbors are used by residents and non-residents in support of a host of outdoor recreational activities including swimming, fishing, boating, hiking, and hunting. The dominant resource industries include commercial fishing for finfish, lobsters and shellfish particularly within upper North Shore communities of Essex, Ipswich and Gloucester.

Social Setting

One of the NCW’s foremost assets is its “quality of life.” This asset is derived from the unique juxtaposition of historic towns, intact open spaces and neighborhoods with densely populated urban areas. However, in a recent survey,[4] NCW residents responded that:

·         The most important problem facing their community today is development and “sprawl” (42%);

·         “Too much development” is the primary concern (44%), especially around traffic issues (30%);

·         The quality of life has gotten worse in the last 3 years (46% “worse” versus 21% “better”).

After nearly 400 years of intensive human influence, the NCW’s resources, while not always pristine, provide home to nearly 500,000 people, support vibrant communities with clean drinking water and a diversity of natural, historic and recreational opportunities. Today the character and resources of this watershed are under increasing threat from “low density sprawl.” Habitat fragmentation is considered by many to be one of the most serious threats to maintaining biological diversity. The watershed’s natural resources are increasingly being required to serve a multitude of conflicting uses.

Subregions of the NCW face unique sets of issues. Addressing the numerous, diverse and often competing problems across the watershed requires a range of solutions. In the non-sewered areas primarily to the north in Gloucester and Essex, the main issues are:

·         controlling and managing growth;

·         concerns with enforcement of regulations controlling subsurface waste disposal (Title V);

·         excessive demands on local water supplies; and

·         closed shellfish beds.

In the Salem Sound area concerns are primarily:

·         nonpoint source pollution on Salem Sound’s streams and coastal waters

·         degraded recreational and commercial coastal resources, i.e., contaminated fishing areas, closed shellfish beds, beach closures, and invasive species;

·         maintaining and enhancing open natural spaces, i.e., estuaries, stream buffers and forests;

·         protecting and conserving the drinking water supply;

·         fostering sustainable growth and redevelopment.

Problems facing the Saugus River and Nahant Bay/Broad Sound systems include:

·         water shortages;

·         low flows in the Saugus river;

·         flooding;

·         Combined Sewer Overflows; and

·         closure of public beaches due to bacterial contamination.

The primary concerns in the Salisbury area relate to:

·         controlling and managing growth;

·         enforcement of regulations controlling subsurface waste disposal (Title V);

·         localized flooding and coastal erosion; and

·         the closure of shellfish beds.

1B. HISTORICAL CONTEXT

The North Coastal Watersheds are a place “where people have always wanted to live.” Since its earliest beginnings people have moved into and occupied the land. For thousands of years, the relationship of the Native American populations to their environment revolved around the wheel of the seasons.

Pre-industrial agriculture: A dramatic change in land use occurred in the 1620s with the arrival of European settlers who were attracted in part by the area’s abundant and varied natural resources. This period saw the replacement of the traditional native seasonal village system, with its shifting agriculture and its hunter/gatherer activities, to permanent villages employing agricultural practices that raised crops and managed domesticated animals. Ultimately, English property systems encouraged colonists to regard the products of the land and sea, not to mention the land itself, as commodities. Over time as the population of colonists increased, the resources in their immediate reach became depleted. However there existed a seemingly endless bounty of new and unexploited resources. The rural economy of New England thus acquired a tendency toward expansion.[5]

Industrialization: America’s Industrial Revolution began in Massachusetts and neighboring Rhode Island. The development of mills powered by water transformed many of the Commonwealth’s water bodies by converting them from free flowing to impoundments with controlled releases. By the early 19th century, the North Coastal area became one of the nation’s major centers for shipping, shipbuilding, and trading with Europe and Asia. During the latter half of the 19th century, the creation of modern industrial infrastructure made possible the formation of large industrial-based cities such as Lynn, Salem, and Peabody. Industrialization also spurred the growth of the fishing industry as railroads and later the road systems allowed the shipment of fresh fish to inland markets. The industrial economy placed immense stresses on the environment as factories and municipal sewage systems discharged huge concentrated flows of all forms of waste into the waters of the Commonwealth. By the 1870’s deforestation reached its peak with only 10% of the state remaining under a wooded condition. The integrity of the region’s abundant and remarkably diverse collection of natural resources, working landscapes, historic villages, cities and towns became increasingly threatened due to over-exploitation, pollution, and an ever-increasing population.

Conservation: During this same period of industrialization, the North Shore’s scenic coastline and abundant natural resources attracted an increasingly mobile public, becoming one of Americas’ first summer resorts. The combination of environmental pressure and public interest sparked some of America’s earliest conservation activities. Visionaries such as Alice Town Lincoln and Charles Eliot sought to guard against indiscriminate development, to protect scenic and historic places, and established protective institutions such as The Trustees of Reservations, the first land trust in the world, established in 1891. Changes internal and external to New England brought about significant changes as the major industries of tanning, shoe making and chemical manufacturing closed or departed for other areas.

Suburbanization: While the North Shore has been historically one of the slower growing areas, its exceptional scenic and cultural resources are now threatened by unplanned patterns of growth. In the 1950s through 1980s much of the region evolved into a suburb of Boston, as commuter rail service and highway construction linked the North Shore with Boston and to the rest of the nation’s population centers. Recently the North Shore has since become increasingly attractive as bedroom communities for the region’s burgeoning high tech industries.

Sprawl: A host of new changes and threats are currently presenting themselves. Often referred to as “sprawl,” unplanned growth results in a decentralized and incoherent pattern of development that consumes large amounts of open space, overburdens existing infrastructure and resources, and damages our environment. Between 1950 and 1990, the population of Massachusetts grew by only 28% while the amount of developed land grew by 188%. Sprawl usually results in the abandonment of our historic urban and village centers accompanied by the consumption of land for poorly planned development in our growing suburbs and rural communities. The negative impacts of sprawl on our communities extends beyond the aesthetic. Sprawl affects quality of life in ways that are both alarming and often irreversible, including:

·         the destruction and fragmentation of important wildlife habitat;

·         increases in traffic and air pollution;

·         water supply degradation due to polluted runoff from paved surfaces and disturbed soils;

·         water shortages in our rivers, streams, ponds and aquifers as groundwater recharge areas are developed; and

·         an increase in local taxes to pay for greater infrastructure such as sewer lines and school buildings.

Clearly, sprawl is a direct threat to the quality of our water and air, the beauty of our landscape and the character of our communities. It also jeopardizes our long-term economic well-being by squandering natural resources needed to support economic development while increasing the cost of infrastructure and community services. As housing tracts and strip malls replace open spaces and critical wildlife habitats, resource-based industries, such as farming, forestry, fishing, tourism, and recreation also suffer. Ironically, as the impacts of sprawl accumulate, communities may begin to react negatively to growth proposals and foster “anti-growth” sentiments in which innovative, appropriately sited and economically beneficial development projects are spurned or discouraged. Our natural resources are limited and physically finite yet are increasingly being required to serve a multitude of conflicting and competing uses. The key to protecting the NCW’s exceptional natural and cultural heritage is ongoing interaction between environmental stewards, government representatives, and the general public.

1C. THE MASSACHUSETTS WATERSHED INITIATIVE

Formerly, EOEA’s Massachusetts Watershed Initiative (MWI) would have overseen the implementation of the Action Plan. With the dissolution of that Initiative, implementation will be accomplished in a more decentralized manner – primarily via local watershed groups, with some oversight and input from EOEA and other Watershed Team representatives. For the NCW, the Watershed Team still meets (on a monthly basis at the Mass Audubon headquarters in Beverly), as an information-sharing source and funding-opportunity source for its constituent watershed groups. EOEA lauds the Team members for doing so on their own initiative, and directs interested parties to contact them (see list in Appendix B).

Despite the organizational changes at EOEA, the principles of watershed management are still adhered to by EOEA and the continuing development of watershed based action plans underscores that commitment.  The ultimate goal, the improvement of the environmental health of all 27 watersheds, is just as achievable today as at any other time.  The principle of shared responsibility for our watershed health was a key element of the Initiative and remains critical to the success of any watershed based action plan.   This watershed action plan is designed to outline those priorities for adoption not only by government organizations but businesses and private citizens as well.

The Initiative achieved a major milestone by bringing together local citizens, government representatives and active environmental organizations.  These stakeholders' continuing interaction provide testimony to their commitment for watershed health and proof that people can work together to face the watershed issues they share.  Moving forward on their recommendations made in this Plan will prove their ability to make significant improvements without the need for continuing state intervention.  

Many funding programs, sponsored by the Commonwealth and others, remain to support these local efforts – details appear in Appendix G. EOEA remains committed to improving and supporting watershed health throughout the Commonwealth.  More details concerning the previous functioning of the Massachusetts Watershed Initiative appear in Appendix A1. It is the intent of this document to be utilized as a strategic planning document for the North Coastal Watersheds Team and its constituent members for calendar years 2004-2008.

The priority project list represents the Watershed Team’s consensus judgment on projects that should receive prioritized funding through the various funding mechanisms available to local watershed groups. The goal is to facilitate locally based problem identification and problem solving and coordinate implementation activities among all parties. The specific program goals of this action plan are (with their corresponding MWI program elements):

1. Open Space: Foster Sustainable Development (people-oriented).

2. Habitat: Conserve habitat and wildlife (nature-oriented).

3. Water Quality: Improve water quality and water-related human health.

4. Water Quantity: Better water management / flood control.

5. Recreation: Foster recreational use of natural resources and economic growth related to recreation.

6. Outreach: Local capacity building, outreach, and education.

 

2. ISSUES AND STRATEGIES

In this section we outline the issues and strategies for each of the six goals. The purpose is to introduce the issues and strategies, to provide context for the prioritizations in Section 3. More details on the issues appear in Appendix C, “Issues Background.” The previous round of goals appears in Appendix D. Corresponding previous accomplishments appear in Appendix E.

2A. Open Space: Sustainable Development

Goal 1:  Foster Sustainable Development (people-oriented)

Issues: The Grow Smart North Shore report serves as the NCW comprehensive Open Space plan. It is available on the NCW website, www.NorthCoastal.net .

The more general goal of sustainable development raises numerous transportation-related issues. The Blue Line (MBTA) is proposing to expand through Rumney Marsh to Lynn; and a reconstruction project of Rt. 1 is planned. Both construction projects will potentially impact the ACEC area and other parts of Rumney Marsh.

Strategies Several years ago the Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) and its North Shore Task Force (NSTF) sponsored a Harvard School of Design project to investigate the potential to create a metropolitan open space system for the Greater Boston Metropolitan region and adjoining areas of Eastern Massachusetts. The final report entitled Mass Bays Common proposed a network of large protected natural resource systems. As a natural progression from this larger effort, the NSTF commissioned a similar effort for the 15 communities in the North Shore area. The report entitled Grow Smart North Shore proposes:

·         a network of interconnected existing preservation areas, new preservation areas, riparian corridors setbacks and a harbor walk as the means to consider the needs and character of the region’s resources and people;

·         address the needs of the regional ecology; address the issues of water quality and quantity; address the rich cultural heritage of the region; and

·         create a realistic, regional open space reserve on the North Shore and Cape Ann.

Several NCW team members were active in the formulation of this project and the subsequent presentations to local officials and the public. It was the consensus of the team that Grow Smart North Shore could effectively serve as the NCW comprehensive Open Space plan. Planning for growth and community preservation has been an active component of the Watershed Team’s activities.

“Open Space Residential Design” (OSRD) is a rezoning method intended to implement greater open space within the same population density. Numerous documents on OSRD methods, bylaw changes, and zoning concepts are included on the website, under the heading of “Conservation Subdivision Design.”

Some NCW team members were active in programs to support local agriculture on the North Shore and Cape Ann, that protects farmland as wildlife habitat, as open space, and as cultural and historic resources.

2B. Habitat Conservation

Goal 2:  Conserve habitat and wildlife (nature-oriented)

Issues The long history of development and alteration within the watershed has placed much of the natural resources at risk. The Team has identified as a priority the restoration of degraded wetlands and the reopening of productive shellfish resources. Estimates compiled for the EOEA 2002 Report “The State of Our Environment – A Special Report on Community Preservation and the Future of our Commonwealth” indicate that the Commonwealth will have about 9.75 million people at buildout, or about 3.5 million more than today. Massachusetts is zoned for an additional 2.4 billion square feet of commercial and industrial growth at buildout. This is the equivalent of about 17,000 Wal-Marts.

The primary concern is that the ongoing land fragmentation, resulting from continuing economic development, more specifically housing growth, will seriously endanger the biodiversity within the Commonwealth and the North Coastal Watersheds. The Natural Heritage Program of the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife examined the entire landmass of the Commonwealth, reviewed all existing data on the native species that live in Massachusetts, and produced a map that identifies those areas that need to be preserved and managed. The BioMap[6] places some 40 natural communities within the NCW at risk.

Strategies The extensive alteration of the waterbodies and landscapes within the watershed often precludes the ideal application of land acquisition and establishment of protected conservation easements. Often these sensitive habitats require the imposition of remedial measures to restore some of their biological and ecological functions to better reflect a more natural condition.

·         The NCW team is generally supportive of the concept of “The Natural Flow Regime.”[7] This approach recognizes the importance of natural streamflow variability in maintaining healthy aquatic ecosystems.

·         Integrate the concept of biodiversity into the MWI program elements (which are still supported by EOEA).

·         Promote a thorough review and study in and around both surface and groundwater water supplies to insure that drawdowns needed for water supply protection cannot be so great that they wipe out the wetlands and in-stream flows to maintain biodiversity.

·         The NCW team will support on-going projects and foster new projects in the watershed targeted to restoring or remediating degraded streams, wetlands, reopening productive shellfish beds and promoting conservation of eelgrass beds.

·         In the past, support has largely been in the form of site assessment and the writing of endorsement letters to the various funding sources. However, future projects do not preclude involvement in active restoration or remediation projects.

2C. Water Quality Improvement

Goal 3:  Improve water quality and human health issues

Issues: The waters within the North Coastal Watershed generally do not support their designated uses. Water quality problems are pervasive throughout the watershed often the result of cumulative impacts from point and nonpoint sources. The most likely causes are exceedances of standards for bacterial contamination excessive nutrients/low dissolved oxygen, invasive species and priority pollutants.  A complete list of NCW impaired waters appears in Appendix F (updated as of 2002, with older lists for reference).

Sections of the North Coastal watershed have extensive areas of impervious surfaces created by dense housing developments, roads and commercial parking areas. The runoff from these areas alters the water quality and biological integrity of areas once noted for anadromous fish runs, swimming and shellfishing. In the more urbanized areas of the NCW, particularly in the Salem Sound and Saugus River subwatersheds, contaminated urban sediments is also an issue.

Thermal discharges from two major NPDES permittees located on opposite shores of the Saugus River Estuary may adversely impact fish migration as well as egg and larval development. A total of 25 waterbodies both fresh and marine are listed on as impaired waters (DEP 1996 303d list) (See Appendix D).

The North Coastal Watershed has five municipal sewage treatment facilities and several large industries, all of which are classified as major dischargers under the NPDES permitting program. Record keeping and updates on the actual number and status of minor NPDES permits needs to be updated. DEP/DWPC/NERO was responsible for overseeing a number of Administrative Consent Orders filed against municipalities and business for noncompliance with both State and Federal Water Quality Laws and Regulations. Changes in program management and personnel had lead to a lack of “up to date oversight.”

Human health issues relate not only to water quality but to air quality as well. Several community members cited air emissions as a potential cause of illness. While this report focuses on water-related issues, the comment section of the website and the associated video include discussions of other health issues.

Hence the term “health” in this category means both human health and healthy aquatic systems. That includes anadromous fish issues, for example. This category should be interpreted broadly, to include aesthetics as well.

Strategies: Develop a plan and financing to supplement the monitoring efforts of DEP/WSM, DMF, SSCW and SRWC by engaging additional partners, providing communication linkages between the respective programs and expanding the list of water quality parameters.

·         Provide direct technical assistance for DEP/DWPC/NERO compliance activities by the collection of water quality samples, biological assessments and flow measurements.

·         Promote the coordination and pooling of all federal, state and NGO efforts and tailor some of the sampling. This would enhance the individual group efforts towards meeting their targeted goals and provide a more comprehensive assessment of conditions within these targeted areas.

·         Find resources to assist DEP and EPA in the review and comment of compliance reports, daily reporting requirements, and previous studies, update files and follow up on previous permit recommendations and requirements to issue protective NPDES permits for the nine major NPDES permittees.

·         NPDES permits should contain specific limits and monitoring requirements for pollutants that impair water quality. The limits should be set so that the receiving water meets applicable water quality standards.

·         NPDES permits should conform to EPA's guidance document: Watershed-Based - National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System - (NPDES) Permitting Implementation Guidance - August 2003 - Draft

·         Develop and implement a plan to provide subwatersheds with comprehensive condition assessments and plans to maintain or improve the water quality and quantity.

·         EOEA should issue its Revised Water Policy as soon as possible.

·         The EPA’s TMDL loading limits, while sometimes criticized as onerous, do provide specific numeric goals for demonstrating water quality improvement. The Watershed Team in the past identified four subwatersheds in which to target efforts and resources – they were selected on the basis of being dispersed across the watershed; because they had common problems, and because they had active group(s) of communities in support; and because progress and improvements are readily demonstrated.

2D. Water Quantity Management

Goal 4:  Better water management / flood control

Issues The NCW does not have a unified water supply or well field located within the watershed. A number of communities have access water rights to the Ipswich River. Some communities can also access water from Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) and from privately owned wells. The numbers and locations of private wells and amounts withdrawn are not well documented. Droughts have plagued the region in the past.

The high population density places demand on the water supply resources in the drainage basin, even though several municipalities actually derive their water supply from surface or groundwater sources outside of the North Coastal Watershed. Projected water demand at buildout for municipalities will exceed presently permitted supply by 12,600,000 gallons per day (gpd). Data compiled from (EOEA 2002 The State of Our Environment – A Special Report on Community Preservation and the Future of our Commonwealth).

An area of significant concern is the Saugus River, a system that is affected by low flow conditions caused in part by registered and permitted water withdrawals by the Lynn Water and Sewer Commission. Water is diverted from the Saugus River mainstem into Hawks Pond, part of the LWSC Water Supply Reservoir system. Permitted and registered withdrawals of 10.21 MGD by the City of Lynn and a permitted withdrawal of 0.28 MGD by the Colonial Golf Course in Lynnfield contribute to a section of the Saugus River being dry (Cashins 1997).

The town of Rockport is seeking to expand its water supply by the establishment of a new reservoir and the diversion of three intermittent streams.

Salisbury officials are concerned that large scale withdrawls by neighboring Seabrook NH maybe impacting Salisbury wellfields

Strategies:

·         DEP/Drinking Water Supply personnel need to update files and permits issued to all registered water users.

·         Develop and implement a plan to protect watershed lands around water supplies. But the drawdown needed for water supply protection cannot be so great that they wipe out the wetlands and in-stream flows that maintain the Commonwealth's biodiversity. Watershed plans must employ a better balance between public water supply demands and designated uses such as Aquatic Life.

·         Water suppliers need a program to help them in securing funds for Watershed Protection.

·         Encourage public water suppliers and DEP regulators to implement water conservation measures such as leak detection installation and calibration of water meters. While providing a valuable resource to the communities at great cost savings, water conservation measures also help communities meet one of the general water conservation practices under their Water Management Act permits.

·         Develop and implement a flow monitoring program to provide accurate and reliable data on flows in most of the subbasins. Subwatershed assessments and plans are needed to provide the basis for protecting these resources.

·         Suggest inclusion of flow monitoring as a standard parameter during all water quality assessments.

2E. Recreation as Economic Resource

Goal 5:  Foster recreational use of natural resources and economic growth related to recreation.

Issues: The team had not previously identified the element of recreation as a specific priority issue to be addressed by the team. Often it is embedded or included in open space planning and habitat issues. It is currently included because of the large number of people who participate in water-based recreation in the NCW area and because of the large number of public comments that were recreation-related.

In particular, the NCW includes several of the Boston area’s most popular beaches (Revere Beach, Singing Beach in Manchester, Crane’s Beach in Ipswich, Salisbury Beach, etc.) In terms of fresh water, the NCW contains several large lakes (Lake Quannapowitt in Wakefield, Chebacco Lake in Essex) which are potentially available for recreation.

Strategies. Because of the many popular beaches in the NCW, the Watershed Team includes economic issues in this section as well. High-use beaches provide financial resources for local communities, but in addition, the recreational benefit accrues to local residents directly. More usable beaches and waterways provide greater recreational benefit – and many of the best recreational resources in NCW are degraded. Their improvement would have an immediate economic benefit and could be the basis of several economic studies. For example, cleaning Lynn’s coastal waters sufficiently to reopen the shellfish beds would provide a local recreational activity (clamming) which was the tradition for decades. Some past activities at the local level in this area include:

·          In 1999, the Watershed Team participated in a series of workshops and presentations with DCR (DEM) and  Salem State College on a study of Chebacco Lake.

·         Beginning in 1999, the Friends of Lake Quannapowitt has held a watershed awareness program with an outdoor classroom for all children that graduate the public school system.

·         In 2003, the Chebacco Lake Association wrote a series of articles in the Hamilton-Wenham Chronicle to publicize the issues about the lake. The lake has high mercury levels and problems with noxious plants including nonnative plants (fanwort).

·         While the two goals of clean beaches suitable for swimming and shellfishing is admirable, the two activities are not compatible in the same time period. Water quality monitoring and publicizing the results as well as sanitary surveys by MDMF can make this a reality.

2F. Capacity Building & Outreach

Goal 6:  Local capacity building, integration between groups, outreach, and education

Issues: The North Coastal Watershed enjoys an active citizenry often organized at the local level and generally dealing with specific or regional environmental issues. It was discovered that there is no single environmental issue affecting all of the citizenry—rather, the issues and concerns are localized. Virtually all of the environmental agencies under EOEA have a significant presence in the watershed. Communication between the various levels of government, sister agencies and local community partners is inconsistent. The Department of Environmental Protection through its regulatory authorities plays a central role in protecting and improving environmental conditions for a host of issues, such as water pollution control, wetlands protection, water supply, solid waste management, and hazardous waste management. Particularly successful at interacting at the grassroots level were, DFG (DFWELE) through their Stream Team Program and CZM/NS which provides proactive leadership and assistance in growth management, outreach programs and grants management.

Three Local Governance Committees (LGCs) Salem Sound Coastwatch  (SSCW), Eight Towns and the Bay (8T&B), and Metropolitan Boston Local Governance North Shore were organized under the Massachusetts Bay National Estuarine Program during the 1980’s and 1990’s. The LGC’s missions differ in response to the directives of their core constituency. The Saugus River Watershed Council (SRWC) founded in 1991 and Save Waters in Massachusetts (SWIM) have established regional constituencies. The Essex County Buy Local program promotes local agriculture and education about buying locally. In addition there are many other smaller constituent groups. Limitations in technical expertise, personnel, or inconsistent funding hamper their ability to address complex problems. The diverse nature of the watershed sometimes works against them, since they often must compete for funds or resources.

Strategies: Identify the communities working in the North Coastal Watersheds. Channel outreach and education efforts through the local governance organizations and environmental groups, strive to develop a pattern of reciprocal communications. Model outreach efforts employed by DFG (DFWELE), Massachusetts Audubon Society and CZM/NS to fit NCW needs. Maximize the exchange of information between team members and collaborative through electronic mail systems. As contacts are established with local officials invite them to join the team. Prioritize problems within the sub-regions, map out strategies to effect positive change, solve problems at the sub-watershed level and make the North Coastal Team relevant to the needs of all constituencies.

Rather than focusing on establishing a “NCW team identity”, a choice was made to facilitate existing programs wherever possible and provide additional resources to supplement or augment existing community efforts:

·         Support and encourage growth of local constituencies.

·         Keep all groups apprised of appropriate grants and other funding.

·         Encourage the development of working partnerships between team members.

·         Provide letters of support for funding opportunities consistent with the watershed team’s objectives.

Where possible, the watershed team will support local activities such as river clean-ups. In the opinion of the previous Watershed Team Leader[8], this was the single most effective outreach tool employed, when the watershed team was able to link this with evidence of anadromous fish spawning. This was the case in the North River cleanup, and with wildlife sightings in and around Town Line Brook – which resulted in validation of the volunteers’ efforts and incentives for doing more.

The Watershed Team should consider itself the central information source for coordinating activities between local watershed and community groups. The NCW contains many such groups that would benefit from coordination, particularly information-sharing and funding source information.

As a result of this project, the NCW Watershed Team will produce a video about the watershed. It will be appropriate for periodic broadcasting on local cable stations, at high school environment classes. The intent is to distribute the video to libraries and high schools as a means of outreach.

Public Input Process

The public input detailed in Section 3, while topical and of interest to the public, does not necessarily reflect the views of the Watershed Team. In general, the public is much more concerned with health issues and recreational issues. Similarly, city and town officials are generally most concerned with local flooding and water flow issues. Watershed groups are generally most concerned with water quality issues and ecological issues.

Our recommendations attempt to reconcile the needs of all three groups. The most likely users of the recommendations, watershed groups, can interpret the recommendations about topics primarily of interest to the public as a means to improve public outreach.

 

3. PUBLIC INPUT

  • The Watershed Team collected input from the Team members directly; from comments by members of watershed organizations at their meetings; from website comments solicited at meetings and in newspaper articles; from surveying newspaper articles in local newspapers; from videotaping at environmental events and at recreational sites; and from the previous version of the Action Plan draft.
  • The issues were summarized into 117 specific tasks, or general concepts if a task was not yet defined. These 117 issues are listed in the following table. The issues are divided into topics for ease of reference only (the topics do not associate with the goals). Within each topic, the issues are listed alphabetically. The issues are numbered from 1 through 117 for ease of reference. Details about the issues can be found in Appendix C, as well as on the website www.NorthCoastal.net. In most cases, the website documents the source of the comments– readers should interpret any data which is undocumented in this report as from the website comments section.
  • The Watershed Team determined the six goals of the Action Plan via discussions over a period of several months.
  • Each of the 117 issues is evaluated as to how they fulfill each of the six goals. The members of the Watershed Team reviewed the evaluations to come to a reasonable consensus. The rating system is:

 

        The issue has a negligible effect on the goal.

        The issue has a side effect on the goal.

        The issue has some effect on the goal.

        The issue has a direct effect on the goal.

        The issue has a major effect on the goal.

In addition to the six goals, each issue was evaluated on the same scale for “Level of Public Concern.” This was measured by the number of citations of the issue. Since every issue was raised at least once in order to be placed on to the list, there are no “negligible” ratings for this column. We consider this category to be a proxy for the political importance of an issue. While we recognize that this method favors those who simply show up to address our meetings, or those who take the time to write a newspaper article, we also recognize that such activism is a valid measure of political support.

The final column is “Resource cost,” which we use as a means of incorporating a cost factor or a factor for difficulty of implementation. The scale for cost is reversed, so that the more expensive or more difficult to implement an issue, the fewer points it receives. The “resource cost” means the additional cost to the Watershed Team, either financial or people’s time. Hence if a task would be done anyway, there is a low cost of associating the NCW Team with that task. For issues where there is no specific task, we evaluate the cost for initiating a study, or for seeking funding for a study. The rest of the scale for resource cost is interpreted as: 

 

        Implementation is prohibitively expensive or prohibitively difficult.

        Implementation is expensive or difficult, likely requiring a grant.

        Implementation has a reasonably inexpensive or easy method.

        Implementation is inexpensive and/or would require only adding to an existing project.

        Implementation is being done anyway and hence has no net cost to the Watershed Team.

 

There are no point totals assigned to the evaluations, because the Watershed Team deemed that method of evaluation inappropriately specific. The discussion section following the grid discusses all the highly evaluated tasks as priorities – those issues best fulfill the stated goals of the Watershed Team. Of course, the evaluation system is somewhat arbitrary, so the prioritization is only loosely based on evaluations – it is intended for guidance rather than determining a sequence of priorities.


 

 

 

North Coastal Watershed Action Plan – Issues from Public Input


 


Goals →
vs.
Issues ↓

  .

Waterways

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

Chebacco Lake cleanup

2

Hydrological study of North River

3

Ecosystem Restoration Project for Reedy Meadow and Saugus River – as part of GI RECONN proposal.

4

Implement Town Line Brook Watershed Restoration Project to restore habitat, improve water quality and address flooding.

5

Implement Phase II MS4 compliance in all municipalities in the watershed.

6

Implement recommendations of DEP’s 1997/1998 Water Quality Assessment of the North Coastal Watershed

7

Lake Quannapowitt algae cleanup

8

Lake Quannapowitt arsenic cleanup

9

More river/lake monitoring

10

Reissue NPDES permits with monitoring requirements included

11

Saugus River sediment study

12

SRWC river cleanup

Non-point sources

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

13

Contaminated runoff - fertilizer

14

Contaminated runoff - herbicide

15

Contaminated runoff - road salt

16

DDT in Swampscott lakes

17

Establish low road salt areas and safe salt storage locations within Saugus River watershed.

 

Goals →
vs.
Issues ↓

Non-point sources (continued)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

18

Implement NPS BMPs within Town Line Brook subbasins

19

Investigate and address sources of high bacterial pollution to Mill River

20

Investigate and address sources of high bacterial pollution to Shute Brook, Saugus.