Final Pathogen TMDL for the
Buzzards Bay Watershed
March 2009
CN: 251.1
Buzzards Bay Watershed
Prepared as a cooperative effort by:
Massachusetts DEP
1 Winter Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
USEPA New England Region 1
1 Congress Street, Suite 1100
Boston, Massachusetts 02114
*,.',,=,.-,.;,„„.,,,m
ENSR International
2 Technology Park Drive
Westford, MA 01886
-------
-------
NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY
Limited copies of this report are available at no cost by written request to:
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP)
Division of Watershed Management
627 Main Street
Worcester, Massachusetts 01608
This report is also available from MassDEP's home page on the World Wide Web.
http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/resources/tmdls.htm
A complete list of reports published since 1963 is updated annually and printed in July. This list,
titled "Publications of the Massachusetts Division of Watershed Management (DWM) - Watershed
Planning Program, 1963-(currentyear)", is also available by writing to the DWM in Worcester.
DISCLAIMER
References to trade names, commercial products, manufacturers, or distributors in this report
constituted neither endorsement nor recommendations by the Division of Watershed Management
for use.
Much of this document was prepared using text and general guidance from the previously approved
Neponset River Basin and the Palmer River Basin Bacteria Total Maximum Daily Load documents.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was developed in part by ENSR, International Inc. through a partnership with Resource
Triangle Institute (RTI) contracting with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
and the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Agency under the National
Watershed Protection Program.
Thanks is also given to our colleagues at the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management
(MCZM), the Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF), and to the City of New Bedford Shellfish Warden
for providing important data and information needed to develop this report.
Finally, special recognition is given to Dr. Joseph Costa from the Buzzards Bay National Estuaries
Program for allowing MassDEP to use important data and stormwater mapping previously published
in the "Atlas of Stormwater Discharges in the Buzzards Bay Watershed". That document represents
a premier effort to begin the work of identifying hotspot bacterial sources of pollution.
-------
Total Maximum Daily Loads for Pathogens within the Buzzards Bay Watershed
Location of the Buzzards Bay
Watershed
Key Features:
Location:
Land Type:
303(d) Listings:
Pathogen TMDL for the Buzzards Bay Watershed
EPA Region 1
New England Coastal
Pathogens
Acushnet River (MA95-31, MA95-32, MA95-33); Agawam River (MA95-29); Apponagansett Bay
(MA95-39); Aucoot Cove (MA95-09); Beaverdam Creek (MA95-53); Broad Marsh River (MA95-49);
Buttermilk Bay (MA95-01); Buttonwood Brook (MA95-13); Cedar Island Creek (MA95-52); Clarks
Cove (MA95-38); Crooked River (MA95-51); East Branch Westport River (MA95-40; MA95-41);
Hammett Cove (MA95-56); Miller Cove (MA95-10); Mattapoisett Harbor (MA95-35); New Bedford
Inner Harbor (MA95-42); Onset Bay (MA95-02); Outer New Bedford Harbor (MA95-63); Sippican
Harbor (MA95-08); Sippican River (MA95-07); Slocums River (MA95-34); Snell Creek (MA95-45);
Wankinco River (MA95-50); Wareham River (MA95-03); West Branch Westport River (MA95-37);
Westport River (MA95-54); Weweantic River (MA95-05); Snell Creek (MA95-44); Snell Creek
(MA95-59); Mattapoisett River (MA95-60); Nasketucket Bay (MA95-65); Little Bay MA95-64); Bread
and Cheese Brook (MA95-58); Buzzards Bay (MA95-62); Eel Pond (MA95-61); Cape Cod Canal
(MA95-14); Eel Pond (MA95-48); Back River (MA95-47); Phinneys Harbor (MA95-15); Pocasset
River (MA95-18); Pocasset Harbor (MA95-17); Red Brook Harbor (MA95-18); Herring Brook
(MA95-21); Harbor Head (MA95-46); Wild Harbor (MA95-20); West Falmouth Harbor (MA95-22);
Great Sippewisset Creek (MA95-23); Little Sippewisset Marsh (MA95-24); Quissett Harbor
(MA95-25).
Data Sources: MassDEP "Buzzards Bay Watershed 2000 Water Quality Assessment Report"
0 MA Division of Marine Fisheries Shellfish Data
0 MA Department of Public Health Beaches Data
[] MA Coastal Zone Management (CZM) "Atlas of Stormwater Discharges in
the Buzzards Bay Watershed"
Data Mechanism:
Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards for Fecal Coliform; The
Federal BEACH Act; Massachusetts Department of Public Health Bathing
Beaches; Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries Shellfish Sanitation
and Management; Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management
-------
Monitoring Plan: Massachusetts Watershed Five-Year Cycle; Division of Marine Fisheries
Shellfish data; Department of Public Health Beaches data; Coastal Zone
Management data.
Control Measures: Watershed Management; Storm Water Management (e.g., illicit discharge
removals, public education/behavior modification); CSO & SSO Abatement;
Agricultural and other BMPs; No Discharge Areas; By-laws; Ordinances;
Septic System Maintenance/Upgrades
IV
-------
Executive Summary
Purpose and Intended Audience
This document provides a framework to address bacterial and other fecal-related pollution in surface
waters of Massachusetts. Fecal contamination of our surface waters is most often a direct result of
the improper management of human wastes, excrement from barnyard animals, pet feces and
agricultural applications of manure. It can also result from large congregations of birds such as
geese and gulls. Illicit discharges of boat waste are of particular concern in coastal areas.
Inappropriate disposal of human and animal wastes can degrade aquatic ecosystems and negatively
affect public health. Fecal contamination can also result in closures of shellfish beds, beaches,
swimming holes and drinking water supplies. The closure of such important public resources can
erode quality of life and diminish property values.
Who should read this document?
The following groups and individuals can benefit from the information in this report:
a) towns and municipalities, especially Phase I and Phase II storm water communities, that are
required by law to address storm water discharges and/or combined sewage overflows
(CSOs) and other sources of contamination (e.g., broken sewerage pipes and illicit
connections) that contribute to a waterbody's failure to meet Massachusetts Water Quality
Standards for pathogens;
b) MassHighway and other state and local highway agencies that are responsible for
stormwater management and contributes stormwater to local surface waters..
c) watershed groups that wish to pursue funding to identify and/or mitigate sources of
pathogens in their watersheds;
d) harbormasters, public health officials and/or municipalities that are responsible for
monitoring, enforcing or otherwise mitigating fecal contamination that results in beach and/or
shellfish closures or results in the failure of other surface waters to meet Massachusetts
standards for pathogens;
e) citizens that wish to become more aware of pollution issues and may be interested in helping
build local support for funding remediation measures.
f) government agencies that provide planning, technical assistance, and funding to groups for
bacterial remediation.
-------
Major Bacteria Sources and Prioritized Areas
During the last decade, municipalities have made significant investments and progress in controlling
bacteria impacts to the various rivers, tributaries and estuary areas in The Buzzards Bay watershed.
For example, the City of New Bedford has made substantial progress in addressing CSO's since
1989. There are currently 27 CSO outfalls (formerly 41 in 1989) discharging into Clark's Cove,
Acushnet River, New Bedford Harbor, and Buzzards Bay (Shepherd 2007). Improvements have
resulted in the reopening of two shellfish beds, which have been closed for 30 years. Work towards
mitigating CSO impacts is ongoing and part of the City of New Bedford's long term CSO control plan.
The City was awarded $ 22 million in FY '07 SRF funds for implementing these long- term controls
and is on the 2009 state intended use plan for $19.3 million of SRF funds to reduce CSO by
removing major grit blockages within the system.
The majority of segments (45 out of 52) covered in this document are currently on the State list of
Impaired Waters (303d list) for pathogen impairment and are located within estuary areas that are
either classified as SA or SB and designated for shell fishing with or without depuration. The vast
majority are classified as SA waters which are designated for swimming and shellfish harvesting
without additional treatment. In order for estuary areas to meet SA and SB standards, extraordinary
work is necessary to detect specific bacteria sources, and remediate them. The goal of this work is
to reopen closed shellfishing areas and protect existing shellfishing areas from degradation.
The primary sources of bacteria appear to be; (1) illicit connections, leaking sewer pipes, and
sanitary sewer overflows in sewered areas; (2) failing septic systems around embayment's in non-
sewered areas; and (3) stormwater runoff. Illicit connections, leaking sewer pipes, and sanitary
sewer overflows must be detected (sources) and eliminated. The majority of these sources can be
found through the implementation of an effective illicit detection and elimination program and by
monitoring dry weather discharges in suspected areas. A comprehensive program needs to be
conducted to find sources to bacteria hotspots in the stormwater systems of many communities. The
Phase II Stormwater program, required in at least parts of all the communities, is an excellent
conduit to do this work.
In regards to stormwater, the Buzzards Bay Watershed has many organizations, public and private,
devoted to the sole goal of water quality improvement. These organizations include: The Buzzards
Bay Action Committee, The Coalition of Buzzards Bay, Buzzards Bay Project National Estuaries
Program, MassDEP, MACZM, DMF, EPA, and the municipalities themselves. The Buzzards Bay
National Estuaries Program produced a document, "Atlas of Stormwater Discharges in the Buzzards
Bay Watershed", which represents a premier effort to begin the work of identifying hotspot bacterial
sources of pollution. This detailed effort is often referenced throughout this report. Over 2,600
drainage pipe and road cut discharges are documented and, based on ranking of scores were
prioritized into high, medium, or low for remediation activity, Additionally, 12,700 catch basins were
also inventoried. In addition, over 37,000 fecal coliform data points were collected by the Division of
Marine Fisheries (DMF) in estuarine areas from 1997-2001. The impetus of all these efforts is aimed
at providing specific data to help prioritize efforts to improve the water quality in SA and SB waters,
VI
-------
so that many of the shellfish areas now closed can reopen. The challenge now is to identify and
devote the resources necessary to identify and remediate specific sources in high priority areas.
In addition to identifying the loads necessary to meet water quality standards this TMDL provides
guidance for setting bacterial implementation priorities within the Buzzards Bay Watershed. Table
ES- 1 below provides a prioritized list of pathogen-impaired segments that will require additional
bacterial source tracking work and implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs). Although
ambient water quality data is available, limited source information and data are available in each
impaired segment. As a result a simple scheme was used to prioritize segments based on ambient
fecal coliform concentrations. High priority was assigned to those segments where either dry or wet
weather concentrations (end of pipe or ambient) were equal to or greater than 10,000 cfu /100 ml.
Medium priority was assigned to segments where concentrations ranged from 1,000 to 9,999
col/1 OOmL. Low priority was assigned to segments where concentrations were observed less than
1,000 col/100 ml. MassDEP believes the higher concentrations are indicative of the potential
presence or raw sewage and therefore they pose a greater risk to the public. It should be noted that
in all cases, waters exceeding the water quality standards identified in Table ES- 1 are considered
impaired.
Prioritization was adjusted upward based on the proximity of waters, within the segment, to sensitive
areas such as Outstanding Resource Waters (ORWs), or where sensitive designated uses must be
protected. Examples include, but are not limited to public water supply intakes, public swimming
areas, or shellfish areas. Generally speaking, waters that were determined to be lower priority based
on the numeric range identified above were elevated up one level of priority if that segment were
adjacent to or immediately upstream of a sensitive area. An asterisk * in the priority column of the
specific segment would indicate this situation.
Table ES-1. Bacteria Impaired Segment Priorities
Segment
ID
MA95-40
MA95-45
MA95-41
MA95-37
Segment
Name
East Branch
Westport River
Snell Creek
East Branch
Westport River
West Branch
Westport River
Length
(mi.) or
size
(sq.mi.)
2.85 mi.
0.67 mi.
2. 65 sq.mi.
1.28 sq.mi.
Segment Description
Outlet Lake Noquochoke, Westport to Old
County Rd. bridge, Westport. (Class B)
Drift Rd. to Marcus' Bridge in Westport.
(Class B)
Old County Road bridge, Westport to the
mouth at Westport Harbor, Westport
(excluding Horseneck Channel). (Class
SB, Shellfishing
restricted, 0.64/2.65sq. mi.)
Outlet Grays Mill Pond, Adamsville,
Rhode Island to mouth at Westport
Harbor, Westport. (Class SA, Shellfishing
open, but impaired 0.78/2.65sq.mi.)
Priority
Medium
Medium
High*
Shellfishing
High*
Shellfishing
VII
-------
Segment
ID
MA95-54
MA95-34
MA95-44
MA95-59
MA95-31
MA95-32
MA95-33
MA95-42
MA95-63
MA95-38
MA95-13
MA95-39
Segment
Name
Westport River
Slocums River
Snell Creek
Snell Creek
Acushnet River
Acushnet River
Acushnet River
New Bedford
Harbor
Outer New
Bedford Harbor
Clark Cove
Buttonwood
Brook
Apponagansett
Bay
Length
(mi.) or
size
(sq.mi.)
0.74 sq. mi.
0.67 sq.mi.
1.5 mi.
0.01 sq.mi.
2.7 mi
1.10 mi.
0.31 sq.mi.
1.25sq.mi.
5.82sq.mi.
1.90sq.mi.
3.8 mi.
0.95sq.mi.
Segment Description
From the confluence of the East and West
Branches to Rhode Island Sound;
Bounded by a line drawn from the
southwestern point of Horseneck Point to
the easternmost point near Westport
Light. (Class SA, Shellfishing, open 0.5
sq.mi. .closed 0.78 sq.mi.)
Confluence with Paskamanset R.,
Dartmouth to mouth at Buzzards Bay.
(Class SA, Shellfishing open 0.01
sq.mi. .closed 0.66sq.mi)
Headwaters west of Main Street,
Westport, to Drift Road Westport
'Marcus Bridge', Westport to confluence
with East Branch Westport River,
Westport
Outlet New Bedford Reservoir to Hamlin
Rd. culvert, Acushnet. (Class B)
Hamlin Rd. culvert to culvert at Main St.,
Acushnet. (Class B)
Main St. culvert to Coggeshall St. bridge,
New Bedford/Fairhaven. (Class SB,
Shellfishing Restricted, entirely)
Coggeshall St. bridge to hurricane Barrier,
New Bedford/Fairhaven . (Class SB,
Shellfishing Restricted, entirely)
Hurricane Barrier to a line drawn from
Wilbur Point, Fairhaven to Clarks Point,
New Bedford . (Class SA, Shellfishing
Open, but entirely restricted)
Semi-enclosed waterbody landward of a
line drawn between Clarks Point, New
Bedford and Ricketsons Point, Dartmouth
(Class SA, Shellfishing Open, but entirely
restricted)
Headwaters at Oakdale St., New Bedford
to mouth at Apponagansett Bay,
Dartmouth. (Class B)
From the mouth of Buttonwood Brook to a
line drawn from Ricketsons Point, New
Bedford to Samoset St. near North Ave.,
Dartmouth. (Class SA, Shellfishing Open
but restricted 0.68sq.mi.)
Priority
Medium*
Shellfishing
Medium*
Shellfishing
Swimming
Medium
Medium*
Shellfishing
No Data
Medium
High*
Shellfishing
CSOs
High*
Shellfishing
High*
Shellfishing
Swimming
High*
Shellfishing
Swimming
Low
(no data)
Medium*
Shellfishing
Swimming
VIM
-------
Segment
ID
MA95-35
MA95-60
MA95-65
MA95-56
MA95-08
MA95-09
MA95-10
MA95-64
MA95-07
Segment
Name
Mattapoisett
Harbor
Mattapoisett
River
Nasketucket Bay
Hammett Cove
Sippican Harbor
Aucoot Cove
HillerCove
Little Bay
Sippican River
Length
(mi.) or
size
(sq.mi.)
1.10sq.mi.
0.05
3.7
0.07sq.mi.
2.0sq.
mi.
O.SOsq.mi.
0.04sq.mi.
0.36 sq.mi.
O.OSsq.mi.
Segment Description
From the mouth of the Mattapoisett R.,
Mattapoisett, to a line drawn from Ned
Point to a point of land between Bayview
Avenue and Grandview Ave.,
Mattapoisett. (Class SA, Shellfishing
Open, but restricted 0.1/1.1sq.mi.)
From the River Road bridge, Mattapoisett
to the mouth at Mattapoisett harbor,
Mattapoisett
From the confluence with Little bay,
Fairhaven to Buzzards bay along
Causeway Road, Fairhaven and along a
line from the southern tip of Brant Island,
Mattapoisett to the eastern tip of West
Island, Fairhaven
Hammett Cove, Marion to the confluence
with Sippican Harbor along a line from the
southwestern most point of Little Neck to
the end of the seawall on the opposite
point. (Class SA, Shellfishing impaired
0.02/0.07sq.mi.)
From the confluence with Hammett Cove
to the mouth at Buzzards Bay (excluding
Blakenship Cove and Planning Island
Cove), Marion (Class SA, Shellfishing
Open, but impaired 0.30 sq mi.)
From the confluence with Aucoot Creek,
Marion to the mouth at Buzzards Bay at a
line drawn between Converse Point and
Joes Point, Mattapoisett. (Class SA,
Shellfishing Open)
Area landward of a line drawn between
Joes Point, Mattapoisett and the second
boat dock northeast of Hiller Cove Lane,
Mattapoisett. (Class SA, Shellfishing
impaired 0.01 sq.mi.)
From the confluence with the Nasketucket
River, Fairhaven south to the confluence
with Nasketucket Bay at a line from the
southernmost tip of Mirey Neck, Fairhaven
to a point near Shore Drive.
County Rd. to confluence with Weweantic
R., Marion/Wareham. (Class SA,
Priority
Medium*
Shellfishing
Swimming
Medium*
Shellfishing
Medium*
Shellfishing
Medium*
Shellfishing
Swimming
Medium*
Shellfishing
Swimming
Medium*
Shellfishing
Medium*
Shellfishing
Swimming
Medium*
Shellfishing
Medium*
Shellfishing
IX
-------
Segment
ID
MA95-53
MA95-58
MA95-05
MA95-29
MA95-50
MA95-49
MA95-51
MA95-52
MA95-03
MA95-02
Segment
Name
Beaverdam
Creek
Bread and
Cheese Brook
Weweantic River
Agawam River
Wankinco River
Broad Marsh
River
Crooked River
Cedar Island
Creek
Wareham River
Onset Bay
Length
(mi.) or
size
(sq.mi.)
0.04sq.mi.
4.9 mi.
0.62sq.mi.
0.16 mi.
O.OSsq.mi.
0.16sq.mi.
0.04sq.mi.
O.OIsq.mi.
1.18sq.mi.
0.78sq.mi.
Segment Description
Shellfishing Open, all impaired)
Outlet from cranberry bogs of Rte. 6,
Wareham to confluence with Weweantic
River, Wareham. (Class SA, Shellfishing
restricted). (Class SA, Shellfishing all
impaired)
Headwaters, north of Old Bedford Road,
Westport to confluence with East Branch
Westport River, Westport
Outlet Horseshoe Pond, Wareham to
mouth at Buzzards Bay, Marion/Wareham.
(Class SA, Shellfishing Open, partially
impaired, 0.45sq. mi.)
From the Wareham WWTP to confluence
with Wankinco River at the Rte. 6 bridge,
Wareham. . (Class SB, Restricted)
Elm St. bridge, Wareham to confluence
with the Agawam R., at a line between a
point south of Mayflower Ridge Drive and
a point north of the railroad tracks near
Sandwich Rd., Wareham. (Class SA,
Shellfishing Restricted)
From its headwaters in a salt marsh south
of Marion Rd. and Bourne Terrace,
Wareham to the confluence with the
Wareham R. (Class SA, Shellfishing
Restricted)
From the outlet of a cranberry bog, east of
Indian Neck Rd., Wareham to confluence
with the Wareham R., Wareham. (Class
SA, Shellfishing Restricted)
From the headwaters near intersection of
Parker Dr. and Camardo Dr., Wareham to
the mouth at Marks Cove, Wareham.
(Class SA, Shellfishing Restricted)
Rte. 6 bridge to mouth at Buzzards Bay
(at an imaginary line from Cromset Point
to curved point east, southeast of Long
Beach point), Wareham. Includes Mark's
Cove, Wareham. (Class SA, Shellfishing
open, but partially restricted,
0.68/1.18sq.mi.)
Wareham. Class SA, Shellfishing open,
Priority
Medium*
Shellfishing
Medium
Medium*
Shellfishing
Medium*
Shellfishing
Medium*
Shellfishing
Medium*
Shellfishing
Swimming
Medium*
Shellfishing
Medium*
(No Data)
Shellfishing
Medium*
Shellfishing
Medium*
-------
Segment
ID
MA95-01
MA95-62
MA95-14
MA95-48
MA95-61
MA95-47
MA95-15
MA95-16
MA95-17
MA95-18
MA95-21
Segment
Name
Buttermilk Bay
Buzzards Bay
Cape Cod Canal
Eel Pond
Eel Pond
Back River
Phinneys Harbor
Pocasset River
Pocasset Harbor
Red Brook
Harbor
Herring Brook
Length
(mi.) or
size
(sq.mi.)
0.77
8.0
1.13
0.03
0.04
0.08
0.73
0.05
0.33
0.91
0.01
Segment Description
but partially restricted, 0.15/0.78sq.mi.)
Bourne/Wareham. Class SA, Shellfishing
open, but partially restricted,
0.16/0.77sq.mi)
Open water area encompassed within a
line drawn from Wilbur Point, Fairhaven to
Clarks Point, New Bedford to Ricketson
Point, Dartmouth to vicinity of Samoset
St., Dartmouth down to Round Hill Point,
Dartmouth, back to Wilbur Point,
Fairhaven
Connection between Buzzards Bay and
Cape Cod Bay in Bourne and Sandwich.
Salt water pond that discharges to Back
River, Bourne.
Coastal Pond at the head of Mattapoisett
Harbor, Mattapoisett
Outlet of small unnamed pond,
downstream from Mill Pond, Bourne to
confluence with Phinneys Harbor, Bourne
(excluding Eel Pond).
From the confluence with Back R. to its
mouth at Buzzards Bay between Mashpee
and Toby's Islands, Bourne.
From the outlet of Mill Pond, Bourne to the
mouth at Buzzards Bay, Bourne.
From the confluence with Red Brook
Harbor near the northern portion of
Bassett's Island and Patuisett to the
mouth at Buzzards Bay between Bassett's
Island and Wings Neck, Bourne.
From the confluence with Pocasset
Harbor between the northern portion of
Bassett's Island and Patuisett to its mouth
at Buzzards Bay between Bassett's island
and Scraggy Neck, Bourne (including Hen
Cove).
From its headwaters, northeast of Dale Dr.
and west of Rte. 28A, to its mouth at
Priority
Shellfishing
Medium*
Shellfishing
Medium*
Shellfishing
Medium*
Shellfishing
Medium*
Shellfishing
Medium*
Shellfishing
Medium*
Shellfishing
Medium*
Shellfishing
Swimming
Medium*
Shellfishing
Swimming
Medium*
Shellfishing
Swimming
Medium*
Shellfishing
Swimming
Medium
Shellfishing
XI
-------
Segment
ID
MA95-46
MA95-20
MA95-22
MA95-23
MA95-24
MA95-25
Segment
Name
Harbor Head
Wild Harbor
West Falmouth
Harbor
Great
Sippewisset
Creek
Little Sippewisset
Marsh
Quissett Harbor
Length
(mi.) or
size
(sq.mi.)
0.02
0.15
0.29
0.03
0.02
0.17
Segment Description
Buzzards Bay, Falmouth.
The semi-enclosed body of water south of
the confluence with West Falmouth
Harbor at Chappaquoit Rd., Falmouth.
Embayment extends from Point Road,
Nyes Neck to Crow Point at the end of
Bay Shore Road in North Falmouth
From the confluence with Harbor Head at
Chappaquoit Rd., Falmouth to the mouth
at Buzzards Bay at a line connecting the
ends of the seawalls from Little Island and
Chappaquoit Point, Falmouth (including
Snug Harbor).
From the outlet of Beach Pond in Great
Sippewissett marsh to the mouth at
Buzzards Bay, Falmouth, including the
unnamed tributary from the outlet of Fresh
Pond, and Quahog Pond, Falmouth.
From the headwaters north of Sippewisset
Rd., Falmouth to the mouth at Buzzards
Bay near Saconesset Hills, Falmouth.
The semi-enclosed body of water
landward of a line drawn between The
Knob and Gansett Point, Falmouth.
Priority
Medium,
Shellfishing
Medium*,
Shellfishing
Medium*
Shellfishing
Swimming
Medium*
Shellfishing
Swimming
Medium*
Shellfishing
Swimming
Medium*
Shellfishing
**lt should be noted that in Table ES-1 above, the Mass DEP included the last fourteen segments
(starting with MA 95-14 Cape Cod Canal and ending with MA 95-25 Quinsett Harbor), from the Cape
Cod Watershed to the Buzzards Bay Watershed because the segments although located on Cape
Cod actually discharge to Buzzards Bay.
TMDL Overview
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MassDEP) is responsible for
monitoring the waters of the Commonwealth, identifying those waters that are impaired, and
developing a plan to bring them back into compliance with the Massachusetts Water Quality
Standards (WQS). The list of impaired waters, better known as the "303d list", and now part of the
Integrated List of Waters, identifies problem lakes, coastal waters and specific segments of rivers
and streams and the reason for impairment.
XII
-------
Once a water body is identified as impaired, the MassDEP is required by the Federal Clean Water
Act (CWA) to develop a "pollution budget" designed to restore the health of the impaired body of
water. The process of developing this budget, generally referred to as a Total Maximum Daily Load
(TMDL), includes identifying the source(s) of the pollutant from direct discharges (point sources) and
indirect discharges (non-point sources), determining the maximum amount of the pollutant that can
be discharged to a specific water body to meet water quality standards, and assigning pollutant load
allocations to the sources. A plan to implement the necessary pollutant reductions is essential to the
ultimate achievement of meeting the water quality standards.
Pathogen TMDL: This report represents a TMDL for pathogen indicators (e.g. fecal coliform, E.
co//, and enterococcus bacteria) in the Buzzards Bay watershed. Certain bacteria, such as coliform,
£. co//, and enterococcus bacteria, are indicators of contamination from sewage and/or the feces of
warm-blooded wildlife (mammals and birds). Such contamination may pose a risk to human health.
Therefore, in order to prevent further degradation in water quality and to ensure that waterbodies
within the watershed meet state water quality standards, the TMDL establishes indicator bacteria
limits and outlines corrective actions to achieve that goal.
Sources of indicator bacteria in the Buzzards Bay watershed were found to be many and varied.
Most of the bacteria sources are believed to be storm water related. Table ES-2 provides a general
compilation of likely bacteria sources in the Buzzards Bay watershed including failing septic
systems, combined sewer overflows (CSO), sanitary sewer overflows (SSO), sewer pipes connected
to storm drains, certain recreational activities, wildlife including birds along with domestic pets and
animals and direct overland storm water runoff. Note that bacteria from wildlife would be considered
a natural condition unless some form of human inducement, such as feeding, is causing
congregation of wild birds or animals. A discussion of pathogen related control measures and best
management practices are provided in the companion document: "Mitigation Measures to Address
Pathogen Pollution in Surface Water: A TMDL Implementation Guidance Manual for
Massachusetts".
This TMDL applies to the 52 pathogen impaired segments of the Buzzards Bay watershed that are
currently listed on the CWA § 303(d) list of impaired waters. MassDEP recommends however, that
the information contained in this TMDL guide management activities for all other waters throughout
the watershed to help maintain and protect existing water quality. For these non-impaired waters,
Massachusetts is proposing "pollution prevention TMDLs" consistent with CWA § 303(d)(3).
The analyses conducted for the pathogen impaired segments in this TMDL would apply to the non-
impaired segments, since the sources and their characteristics are equivalent. The waste load and/
or load allocation for each source and designated use would be the same as specified herein.
Therefore, the pollution prevention TMDLs would have identical waste load and load allocations
based on the sources present and the designated use of the water body segment (see Table ES-2
and Table 7-1).
This Buzzards Bay watershed TMDL may, in appropriate circumstances, also apply to segments that
are listed for pathogen impairment in subsequent Massachusetts CWA § 303(d) Integrated List of
XIII
-------
Waters. For such segments, this TMDL may apply if, after listing the waters for pathogen impairment
and taking into account all relevant comments submitted on the CWA § 303(d) list, the
Commonwealth determines with EPA approval of the CWA § 303(d) list that this TMDL should apply
to future pathogen impaired segments.
Since accurate estimates of existing sources are generally widely variable and unavailable, it is
difficult to estimate the pollutant reductions for specific sources. However, for illicit sources, the goal
is complete elimination (100% reduction). Overall wet weather indicator bacteria load reductions can
be estimated using typical storm water bacteria concentrations. These data indicate that in general
two to three orders of magnitude reductions in storm water fecal coliform loading will be necessary,
especially in developed areas.
TMDL goals for each type of bacteria source are provided in Table ES-2. Municipalities are the
primary responsible parties for eliminating many of these sources. TMDL implementation to achieve
these goals should be an iterative process by prioritizing areas based on available data and
downstream resources affected, identification of specific sources and in particular the removal of
illicit connections contributing to both dry and wet weather violations. Once illicit connections are
removed then prioritization should be given to identifying and implementing best management
practices to mitigate storm water runoff volume. Certain towns in the watershed are classified as
Urban Areas by the United States Census Bureau and are subject to the Stormwater Phase II Final
Rule that requires the development and implementation of an illicit discharge detection and
elimination plan. Combined sewer overflows will be addressed through the on-going long-term
control plans.
In most cases, authority to regulate non-point source pollution and thus successful implementation of
this TMDL is limited to local government entities and will require cooperative support from local
volunteers, watershed associations, and local officials in municipal government. Those activities can
take the form of expanded education, obtaining and/or providing funding, and possibly local
enforcement. In some cases, such as subsurface disposal of wastewater from homes, the
Commonwealth provides the framework, but the administration occurs on the local level. Among
federal and state funds to help implement this TMDL are, on a competitive basis, the Non-Point
Source Control (CWA Section 319) Grants, Water Quality (CWA Section 604(b)) Grants, and the
State Revolving (Loan) Fund Program (SRF). Most financial aid requires some local match as well.
The programs mentioned are administered through the MassDEP. Additional funding and resources
available to assist local officials and community groups can be referenced within the Massachusetts
Non-point Source Management Plan-Volume I Strategic Summary (2000) "Section VII Funding /
Community Resources". This document is available on the MassDEP's website at: www.state.ma.us/
dep/brp/wm/wmpubs.htm. or by contacting the MassDEP's Nonpoint Source Program at (508)
792-7470 to request a copy.
XIV
-------
Table ES-2. Total Maximum Daily Load: Sources and Expectations for Limiting Bacterial
Contamination in the Buzzards Bay Watershed.
Note: This table represents waste load and load reductions based on water quality standards prior to
2007 as well as revised WQS that were adopted by MassDEP in January of 2007
Surface Water
Classification
Pathogen Source
Waste Load Allocation
Indicator Bacteria
(CFU/100mL)1
Load Allocation
Indicator Bacteria
(CFU/100mL)1
A, B, SA, SB
Illicit discharges to storm drains
0
Leaking sanitary sewer lines
0
Failing septic systems
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
0
Any regulated discharge 7-9-
including storm water runoff
subject to Phase I or II NPDES
permits
(Water supply
Intakes in
unfiltered public
water supplies)
Either;
a) fecal coliform <=20 fecal
coliform organisms per 100
ml2
or
b) total coliform <= 100
organisms per 100 ml3;
where both are measured,
only fecal must be met
Not Applicable
Nonpoint source storm water
runoff
Not Applicable
Either;
a) fecal coliform <=20 fecal
coliform organisms per 100 ml2,
or
b) total coliform <= 100 organisms
per 100 ml3; where both are
measured, only fecal must be met
xv
-------
Surface Water
Classification
Pathogen Source
Waste Load Allocation
Indicator Bacteria
(CFU/100ml_)1
Load Allocation
Indicator Bacteria
(CFU/100mL)1
Either;
Any regulated discharge-
including storm water runoff
subject to Phase I or II NPDES
permits, NPDES wastewater
treatment plant discharges 7'9,
and combined sewer overflows6.
a)
b)
(Includes filtered
water supply)
&
B
E. coli <=geometric mean5126
colonies per 100 ml; single
sample <=235 colonies per 100
ml;
or
Enterococci geometric mean5
<= 33 colonies per 100 ml and
single sample <= 61 colonies
per 100 ml
Not Applicable
Either
a)
Nonpoint source storm water
runoff
Not Applicable
b)
E. coli <=geometric mean5
126 colonies per 100 ml;
single sample <=235 colonies
per 100 ml;
or
Enterococci geometric
mean5<= 33 colonies per 100
ml and single sample <= 61
colonies per 100 ml
SA
(Designated for
shellfishing)
Any regulated discharge
including storm water runoff
subject to Phase I or II NPDES
permits, NPDES wastewater
treatment plant discharges7'9,
and combined sewer overflows6.
Fecal Coliform <= geometric mean,
MPN, of 14 organisms per 100 ml nor
shall 10% of the samples be >=28
organisms per 100 ml
Not Applicable
Nonpoint Source Storm water
Runoff4
Not Applicable
Fecal Coliform <= geometric mean,
MPN, of 14 organisms per 100 ml nor
shall 10% of the samples be >=28
organisms per 100 ml
SA&SB
(Beaches8 and
non-designated
shellfish areas)
Any regulated discharge
including storm water runoff
subject to Phase I or II NPDES
permits, NPDES wastewater
treatment plant discharges7'9,
and combined sewer overflows6.
Enterococci - geometric mean5 <= 35
colonies per 100 ml and single
sample <= 104 colonies per 100 ml
Not Applicable
Nonpoint Source Storm water
Runoff4
Not Applicable
Enterococci -geometric mean5 <= 35
colonies per 100 ml and single sample
<= 104 colonies per 100 ml
XVI
-------
Surface Water
Classification
Pathogen Source
Waste Load Allocation
Indicator Bacteria
(CFU/100ml_)1
Load Allocation
Indicator Bacteria
(CFU/100mL)1
SB
(Designated for
shellfishing
w/depuration)
Any regulated discharge
including storm water runoff
subject to Phase I or II NPDES
permits, NPDES wastewater
treatment plant discharges7-9,
and combined sewer overflows6.
Fecal Coliform <= median or
geometric mean, MPN, of 88
organisms per 100 ml nor shall
10% of the samples be >=260
organisms per 100 ml
Not Applicable
Nonpoint Source Storm water
Runoff4
Not Applicable
Fecal Coliform <= median or
geometric mean, MPN, of 88
organisms per 100 ml nor shall
10% of the samples be >=260
organisms per 100 ml
1 Waste Load Allocation (WLA) and Load Allocation (LA) refer to fecal coliform densities unless specified in table.
2 In all samples taken during any 6 month period
3 In 90% of the samples taken in any six month period;
4 The expectation for WLAs and LAs for storm water discharges is that they will be achieved through the
implementation of BMPs and other controls.
5 Geometric mean of the 5 most recent samples is used at bathing beaches. For all other waters and during the non-
bathing season the geometric mean of all samples taken within the most recent six months, typically based on a
minimum of five samples.
6 Or other applicable water quality standards for CSO's
7 Or shall be consistent with the Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit.
8 Massachusetts Department of Public Health regulations (105 CMR Section 445)
9 Seasonal disinfection may be allowed by the Department on a case-by-case basis.
Note: this table represents waste load and load allocations based on water quality standards
current as of the publication date of these TMDLs. If the pathogen criteria change in the future,
MassDEP intends to revise the TMDL by addendum to reflect the revised criteria.
XVII
-------
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY V
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 WATERSHED DESCRIPTION 8
3.0 WATER QUALITY STANDARDS 13
4.0 PROBLEM ASSESSMENT 16
4.2 SEGMENTS ON THE STATE LIST OF IMPAIRED WATERS FOR PATHOGENS WHERE NO
RECENT DATA ARE AVAILABLE 54
6.0 PRIORITIZATION AND KNOWN SOURCES 63
7.0PATHOGEN TMDL DEVELOPMENT 78
DESCRIPTION 93
STORMWATER CONTRIBUTION 93
9.0MONITORING PLAN 116
10.0REASONABLE ASSURANCES 116
11.0PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 123
REFERENCES 124
Appendix A Selected Maps from: Atlas of Stormwater Discharges in the Buzzards Bay
Watershed (MACZM 2003) 126
Appendix B Public participation 155
XVIII
-------
Appendix C EPA: Robert Wayland Guidance 170
XIX
-------
List of Tables
TABLE ES-1. BACTERIA IMPAIRED SEGMENT PRIORITIES VII
SEGMENT ID VII
SEGMENT NAME VII
LENGTH (Ml.) OR SIZE (SQ.MI.) VII
SEGMENT DESCRIPTION VII
PRIORITY VII
MA95-40VII
EAST BRANCH WESTPORT RIVER VII
2.85 Ml. VII
OUTLET LAKE NOQUOCHOKE, WESTPORT TO OLD COUNTY RD. BRIDGE, WESTPORT.
(CLASS B) VII
MEDIUM VII
MA95-45VII
SNELL CREEK VII
0.67 Ml. VII
DRIFT RD. TO MARCUS' BRIDGE IN WESTPORT. (CLASS B) VII
MEDIUM VII
MA95-41VII
xx
-------
EAST BRANCH WESTPORT RIVER VII
2.65SQ.MI VII
OLD COUNTY ROAD BRIDGE, WESTPORT TO THE MOUTH AT WESTPORT HARBOR,
WESTPORT (EXCLUDING HORSENECK CHANNEL). (CLASS SB, SHELLFISHING
RESTRICTED,0.64/2.65SQ.MI.) VII
SHELLFISHING VII
MA95-37VII
WEST BRANCH WESTPORT RIVER VII
1.28SQ.MI VII
OUTLET GRAYS MILL POND, ADAMSVILLE, RHODE ISLAND TO MOUTH AT WESTPORT
HARBOR, WESTPORT. (CLASS SA, SHELLFISHING OPEN, BUT IMPAIRED 0.78/2.65SQ.MI.)VII
SHELLFISHING VII
MA95-54VIII
WESTPORT RIVER VIM
0.74 SO. Ml VIM
FROM THE CONFLUENCE OF THE EAST AND WEST BRANCHES TO RHODE ISLAND
SOUND; BOUNDED BY A LINE DRAWN FROM THE SOUTHWESTERN POINT OF
HORSENECK POINT TO THE EASTERNMOST POINT NEAR WESTPORT LIGHT. (CLASS SA,
SHELLFISHING, OPEN 0.5 SQ.MI.,CLOSED 0.78 SQ.MI.) VIM
SHELLFISHING VIM
MA95-34VIM
SLOCUMS RIVER VIM
XXI
-------
0.67SQ.MI VIM
CONFLUENCE WITH PASKAMANSET R., DARTMOUTH TO MOUTH AT BUZZARDS BAY.
(CLASS SA, SHELLFISHING OPEN 0.01 SQ.MI.,CLOSED 0.66SQ.MI) VIM
SWIMMING VIM
MA95-44VIM
SNELL CREEK VIM
1.5 Ml. VIM
HEADWATERS WEST OF MAIN STREET, WESTPORT, TO DRIFT ROAD WESTPORT VIM
MEDIUM VIM
MA95-59VIM
SNELL CREEK VIM
0.01 SQ.MI VIM
'MARCUS BRIDGE', WESTPORT TO CONFLUENCE WITH EAST BRANCH WESTPORT RIVER,
WESTPORT VIM
SHELLFISHING VIM
MA95-31VIM
ACUSHNET RIVER VIM
2.7 Ml VIM
OUTLET NEW BEDFORD RESERVOIR TO HAMLIN RD. CULVERT, ACUSHNET. (CLASS B). VIM
NO DATA VIM
XXII
-------
MA95-32VIII
ACUSHNET RIVER VIM
1.10 Ml. VIM
HAMLIN RD. CULVERT TO CULVERT AT MAIN ST., ACUSHNET. (CLASS B) VIM
MEDIUM VIM
MA95-33VIM
ACUSHNET RIVER VIM
0.31 SQ.MI VIM
MAIN ST. CULVERT TO COGGESHALL ST. BRIDGE, NEW BEDFORD/FAIRHAVEN. (CLASS
SB, SHELLFISHING RESTRICTED, ENTIRELY) VIM
CSOS VIM
MA95-42VIM
NEW BEDFORD HARBOR VIM
1.25SQ.MI VIM
COGGESHALL ST. BRIDGE TO HURRICANE BARRIER, NEW BEDFORD/FAIRHAVEN .
(CLASS SB, SHELLFISHING RESTRICTED, ENTIRELY) VIM
MA95-63VIM
OUTER NEW BEDFORD HARBOR VIM
5.82SQ.MI VIM
XXIII
-------
HURRICANE BARRIER TO A LINE DRAWN FROM WILBUR POINT, FAIRHAVEN TO CLARKS
POINT, NEW BEDFORD . (CLASS SA, SHELLFISHING OPEN, BUT ENTIRELY RESTRICTED)
VIM
SWIMMING VIM
MA95-38VIM
CLARK COVE VIM
1.90SQ.MI VIM
SEMI-ENCLOSED WATERBODY LANDWARD OF A LINE DRAWN BETWEEN CLARKS POINT,
NEW BEDFORD AND RICKETSONS POINT, DARTMOUTH (CLASS SA, SHELLFISHING OPEN,
BUT ENTIRELY RESTRICTED) VIM
SWIMMING VIM
MA95-13VIM
BUTTONWOOD BROOK VIM
3.8 Ml. VIM
HEADWATERS AT OAKDALE ST., NEW BEDFORD TO MOUTH AT APPONAGANSETT BAY,
DARTMOUTH. (CLASS B) VIM
LOW VIM
(NO DATA) VIM
MA95-39VIM
APPONAGANSETT BAY VIM
0.95SQ.MI VIM
XXIV
-------
FROM THE MOUTH OF BUTTONWOOD BROOK TO A LINE DRAWN FROM RICKETSONS
POINT, NEW BEDFORD TO SAMOSET ST. NEAR NORTH AVE., DARTMOUTH. (CLASS SA,
SHELLFISHING OPEN BUT RESTRICTED 0.68SQ.MI.) VIM
SWIMMING VIM
MA95-35IX
MATTAPOISETT HARBOR IX
1.10SQ.MI IX
FROM THE MOUTH OF THE MATTAPOISETT R., MATTAPOISETT, TO A LINE DRAWN FROM
NED POINT TO A POINT OF LAND BETWEEN BAYVIEW AVENUE AND GRANDVIEW AVE.,
MATTAPOISETT. (CLASS SA, SHELLFISHING OPEN, BUT RESTRICTED 0.1/1.1SQ.MI.) IX
SWIMMING IX
MA95-60IX
MATTAPOISETT RIVER IX
0.05 IX
FROM THE RIVER ROAD BRIDGE, MATTAPOISETT TO THE MOUTH AT MATTAPOISETT
HARBOR, MATTAPOISETT IX
MA95-65IX
NASKETUCKET BAY IX
3.7 IX
FROM THE CONFLUENCE WITH LITTLE BAY, FAIRHAVEN TO BUZZARDS BAY ALONG
CAUSEWAY ROAD, FAIRHAVEN AND ALONG A LINE FROM THE SOUTHERN TIP OF BRANT
ISLAND, MATTAPOISETT TO THE EASTERN TIP OF WEST ISLAND, FAIRHAVEN IX
MA95-56IX
XXV
-------
HAMMETT COVE IX
0.07SQ.MI IX
HAMMETT COVE, MARION TO THE CONFLUENCE WITH SIPPICAN HARBOR ALONG A LINE
FROM THE SOUTHWESTERN MOST POINT OF LITTLE NECK TO THE END OF THE SEAWALL
ON THE OPPOSITE POINT. (CLASS SA, SHELLFISHING IMPAIRED 0.02/0.07SQ.MI.) IX
SWIMMING IX
MA95-08IX
SIPPICAN HARBOR IX
Ml. IX
FROM THE CONFLUENCE WITH HAMMETT COVE TO THE MOUTH AT BUZZARDS BAY
(EXCLUDING BLAKENSHIP COVE AND PLANNING ISLAND COVE), MARION (CLASS SA,
SHELLFISHING OPEN, BUT IMPAIRED 0.30 SQ Ml.) IX
SWIMMING IX
MA95-09IX
AUCOOTCOVE IX
0.50SQ.MI IX
FROM THE CONFLUENCE WITH AUCOOT CREEK, MARION TO THE MOUTH AT BUZZARDS
BAY AT A LINE DRAWN BETWEEN CONVERSE POINT AND JOES POINT, MATTAPOISETT.
(CLASS SA, SHELLFISHING OPEN) IX
MA95-10IX
HILLERCOVE IX
0.04SQ.MI IX
XXVI
-------
AREA LANDWARD OF A LINE DRAWN BETWEEN JOES POINT, MATTAPOISETT AND THE
SECOND BOAT DOCK NORTHEAST OF HILLER COVE LANE, MATTAPOISETT. (CLASS SA,
SHELLFISHING IMPAIRED 0.01 SQ.MI.) IX
SWIMMING IX
MA95-64IX
LITTLE BAY IX
0.36 SQ.MI IX
FROM THE CONFLUENCE WITH THE NASKETUCKET RIVER, FAIRHAVEN SOUTH TO THE
CONFLUENCE WITH NASKETUCKET BAY AT A LINE FROM THE SOUTHERNMOST TIP OF
MIREY NECK, FAIRHAVEN TO A POINT NEAR SHORE DRIVE IX
MA95-07IX
SIPPICAN RIVER IX
0.08SQ.MI IX
COUNTY RD. TO CONFLUENCE WITH WEWEANTIC R., MARION/WAREHAM. (CLASS SA,
SHELLFISHING OPEN, ALL IMPAIRED) IX
MA95-53X
BEAVERDAM CREEK X
0.04SQ.MI X
OUTLET FROM CRANBERRY BOGS OF RTE. 6, WAREHAM TO CONFLUENCE WITH
WEWEANTIC RIVER, WAREHAM. (CLASS SA, SHELLFISHING RESTRICTED). (CLASS SA,
SHELLFISHING ALL IMPAIRED) X
MA95-58X
BREAD AND CHEESE BROOK X
XXVII
-------
4.9 Ml. X
HEADWATERS, NORTH OF OLD BEDFORD ROAD, WESTPORT TO CONFLUENCE WITH
EAST BRANCH WESTPORT RIVER, WESTPORT X
MEDIUM X
MA95-05X
WEWEANTIC RIVER X
0.62SQ.MI X
OUTLET HORSESHOE POND, WAREHAM TO MOUTH AT BUZZARDS BAY,
MARION/WAREHAM. (CLASS SA, SHELLFISHING OPEN, PARTIALLY IMPAIRED,0.45SQ.MI.)X
MA95-29X
AGAWAM RIVER X
0.16 Ml. X
FROM THE WAREHAM WWTP TO CONFLUENCE WITH WANKINCO RIVER AT THE RTE. 6
BRIDGE, WAREHAM. . (CLASS SB, RESTRICTED) X
SHELLFISHING X
MA95-50X
WANKINCO RIVER X
0.05SQ.MI X
ELM ST. BRIDGE, WAREHAM TO CONFLUENCE WITH THE AGAWAM R., AT A LINE
BETWEEN A POINT SOUTH OF MAYFLOWER RIDGE DRIVE AND A POINT NORTH OF THE
RAILROAD TRACKS NEAR SANDWICH RD., WAREHAM. (CLASS SA, SHELLFISHING
RESTRICTED) X
XXVIII
-------
SHELLFISHING X
MA95-49X
BROAD MARSH RIVER X
0.16SQ.MI X
FROM ITS HEADWATERS IN A SALT MARSH SOUTH OF MARION RD. AND BOURNE
TERRACE, WAREHAM TO THE CONFLUENCE WITH THE WAREHAM R. (CLASS SA,
SHELLFISHING RESTRICTED) X
SWIMMING X
MA95-51 X
CROOKED RIVER X
0.04SQ.MI X
FROM THE OUTLET OF A CRANBERRY BOG, EAST OF INDIAN NECK RD., WAREHAM TO
CONFLUENCE WITH THE WAREHAM R., WAREHAM. (CLASS SA, SHELLFISHING
RESTRICTED) X
SHELLFISHING X
MA95-52X
CEDAR ISLAND CREEK X
0.01SQ.MI X
FROM THE HEADWATERS NEAR INTERSECTION OF PARKER DR. AND CAMARDO DR.,
WAREHAM TO THE MOUTH AT MARKS COVE, WAREHAM. (CLASS SA, SHELLFISHING
RESTRICTED) X
MEDIUM* X
XXIX
-------
(NO DATA) X
SHELLFISHING X
MA95-03X
WAREHAM RIVER X
1.18SQ.MI X
RTE. 6 BRIDGE TO MOUTH AT BUZZARDS BAY (AT AN IMAGINARY LINE FROM CROMSET
POINT TO CURVED POINT EAST, SOUTHEAST OF LONG BEACH POINT), WAREHAM.
INCLUDES MARK'S COVE, WAREHAM. (CLASS SA, SHELLFISHING OPEN, BUT PARTIALLY
RESTRICTED, 0.68/1.18SQ.MI.) X
SHELLFISHING X
MA95-02X
ONSET BAY X
0.78SQ.MI X
WAREHAM. CLASS SA, SHELLFISHING OPEN, BUT PARTIALLY RESTRICTED,
0.15/0.78SQ.MI.) X
SHELLFISHING XI
MA95-01 XI
BUTTERMILK BAY XI
0.77 XI
BOURNE/WAREHAM. CLASS SA, SHELLFISHING OPEN, BUT PARTIALLY RESTRICTED,
0.16/0.77SQ.MI) XI
SHELLFISHING XI
XXX
-------
MA95-62XI
BUZZARDS BAY XI
8.0 XI
OPEN WATER AREA ENCOMPASSED WITHIN A LINE DRAWN FROM WILBUR POINT,
FAIRHAVEN TO CLARKS POINT, NEW BEDFORD TO RICKETSON POINT, DARTMOUTH TO
VICINITY OF SAMOSET ST., DARTMOUTH DOWN TO ROUND HILL POINT, DARTMOUTH,
BACK TO WILBUR POINT, FAIRHAVEN XI
MA95-14XI
CAPE COD CANAL XI
1.13 XI
CONNECTION BETWEEN BUZZARDS BAY AND CAPE COD BAY IN BOURNE AND
SANDWICH XI
SHELLFISHING XI
MA95-48XI
EEL POND XI
0.03 XI
SALTWATER POND THAT DISCHARGES TO BACK RIVER, BOURNE XI
MA95-61 XI
EEL POND XI
0.04 XI
COASTAL POND AT THE HEAD OF MATTAPOISETT HARBOR, MATTAPOISETT XI
XXXI
-------
MA95-47XI
BACK RIVER XI
0.08 XI
OUTLET OF SMALL UNNAMED POND, DOWNSTREAM FROM MILL POND, BOURNE TO
CONFLUENCE WITH PHINNEYS HARBOR, BOURNE (EXCLUDING EEL POND) XI
MA95-15XI
PHINNEYS HARBOR XI
0.73 XI
FROM THE CONFLUENCE WITH BACK R. TO ITS MOUTH AT BUZZARDS BAY BETWEEN
MASHPEE AND TOBY'S ISLANDS, BOURNE XI
MA95-16XI
POCASSET RIVER XI
0.05 XI
FROM THE OUTLET OF MILL POND, BOURNE TO THE MOUTH AT BUZZARDS BAY,
BOURNE XI
MA95-17XI
POCASSET HARBOR XI
0.33 XI
FROM THE CONFLUENCE WITH RED BROOK HARBOR NEAR THE NORTHERN PORTION OF
BASSETT'S ISLAND AND PATUISETT TO THE MOUTH AT BUZZARDS BAY BETWEEN
BASSETT'S ISLAND AND WINGS NECK, BOURNE XI
MA95-18XI
XXXII
-------
RED BROOK HARBOR XI
0.91 XI
FROM THE CONFLUENCE WITH POCASSET HARBOR BETWEEN THE NORTHERN PORTION
OF BASSETT'S ISLAND AND PATUISETT TO ITS MOUTH AT BUZZARDS BAY BETWEEN
BASSETT'S ISLAND AND SCRAGGY NECK, BOURNE (INCLUDING HEN COVE) XI
MA95-21 XI
HERRING BROOK XI
0.01 XI
FROM ITS HEADWATERS, NORTHEAST OF DALE DR. AND WEST OF RTE. 28A, TO ITS
MOUTH AT BUZZARDS BAY, FALMOUTH XI
MEDIUM SHELLFISHING XI
MA95-46XII
HARBOR HEAD XII
0.02 XII
THE SEMI-ENCLOSED BODY OF WATER SOUTH OF THE CONFLUENCE WITH WEST
FALMOUTH HARBOR AT CHAPPAQUOIT RD., FALMOUTH XII
SHELLFISHING XII
MA95-20XII
WILD HARBOR XII
0.15 XII
EMBAYMENT EXTENDS FROM POINT ROAD, NYES NECK TO CROW POINT AT THE END OF
BAY SHORE ROAD IN NORTH FALMOUTH XII
XXXIII
-------
SHELLFISHING XII
MA95-22XII
WEST FALMOUTH HARBOR XII
0.29 XII
FROM THE CONFLUENCE WITH HARBOR HEAD AT CHAPPAQUOIT RD., FALMOUTH TO THE
MOUTH AT BUZZARDS BAY AT A LINE CONNECTING THE ENDS OF THE SEAWALLS FROM
LITTLE ISLAND AND CHAPPAQUOIT POINT, FALMOUTH (INCLUDING SNUG HARBOR) XII
MA95-23XII
GREAT SIPPEWISSET CREEK XII
0.03 XII
FROM THE OUTLET OF BEACH POND IN GREAT SIPPEWISSETT MARSH TO THE MOUTH AT
BUZZARDS BAY, FALMOUTH, INCLUDING THE UNNAMED TRIBUTARY FROM THE OUTLET
OF FRESH POND, AND QUAHOG POND, FALMOUTH XII
MA95-24XII
LITTLE SIPPEWISSET MARSH XII
0.02 XII
FROM THE HEADWATERS NORTH OF SIPPEWISSET RD., FALMOUTH TO THE MOUTH AT
BUZZARDS BAY NEAR SACONESSET HILLS, FALMOUTH XII
MA95-25XII
QUISSETT HARBOR XII
0.17 XII
XXXIV
-------
THE SEMI-ENCLOSED BODY OF WATER LANDWARD OF A LINE DRAWN BETWEEN THE
KNOB AND GANSETT POINT, FALMOUTH XII
SHELLFISHING XII
TABLE 2-1. BUZZARDS BAY WATERSHED BASIN LAND USE AS OF 1999 9
TABLE 4-1. WACHUSETT RESERVOIR STORM WATER SAMPLING (AS REPORTED IN
MASSDEP 2002B) ORIGINAL DATA PROVIDED IN MDC WACHUSETT STORM WATER STUDY
(JUNE 1997) 17
TABLE 4-2. LOWER CHARLES RIVER BASIN STORM WATER EVENT MEAN BACTERIA
CONCENTRATIONS (DATA SUMMARIZED FROM USGS 2002)1 17
TABLE 4-3. BUZZARDS BAY PATHOGEN IMPAIRED SEGMENTS REQUIRING TMDLS
(ADAPTED FROM MASSDEP 2003B AND MASSGIS 2005) 18
TABLE 4-4. MA95-40 EAST BRANCH WESTPORT RIVER WRWA FECAL COLIFORM DATA
SUMMARY 25
TABLE 4-5. MA95-45 SNELL CREEK WRWA FECAL COLIFORM DATA SUMMARY 26
TABLE 4-6. MA95-59 SNELL CREEK DMF FECAL COLIFORM DATA 26
TABLE 4-7. MA95-41 EAST BRANCH WESTPORT RIVER; WRWA; ESS; DMF FECAL
COLIFORM DATA 27
TABLE 4-8. MA95-37 WEST BRANCH WESTPORT RIVER ; DMF/WRWA FECAL COLIFORM
DATA 28
TABLE 4-9. MA95-54 WESTPORT RIVER; WRWA FECAL COLIFORM DATA SUMMARY 28
TABLE 4-10. MA95-34 SLOCUMS RIVER; DMF FECAL COLIFORM DATA 29
TABLE 4-11. MA95-44 SNELL CREEK; WRWA FECAL COLIFORM DATA SUMMARY 29
TABLE 4-12. MA95-32, MA95-33 ACUSHNET RIVER; DMF FECAL COLIFORM DATA 30
XXXV
-------
TABLE 4-13. MA95-42 NEW BEDFORD INNER HARBOR ; DMF AND CITY OF NEW BEDFORD
(NBSSP) FECAL COLIFORM DATA 31
TABLE 4-14. MA95-63 OUTER NEW BEDFORD HARBOR ; DMF AND CITY OF NEW BEDFORD
(NBSSP) FECAL COLIFORM DATA 32
TABLE 4-15. MA95-38 CLARKS COVE ; DMF AND CITY OF NEW BEDFORD (NBSSP) FECAL
COLIFORM DATA 33
TABLE 4-16. MA95-39 APPONAGANSETT BAY DMF FECAL COLIFORM DATA 34
TABLE 4-17. MA95-35 MATTAPOISETT RIVER AND MA95-60 MATTAPOISETT HARBOR; DMF
FECAL COLIFORM DATA 35
TABLE 4-18. MA95-65 NASKETUCKET BAY ;DMF FECAL COLIFORM DATA 35
TABLE 4-19. MA95-08 SIPPICAN HARBOR; MA 95-56 HAMMETT COVE DMF FECAL
COLIFORM DATA 36
TABLE 4-20. MA95-09 AUCOOT COVE ; DMF FECAL COLIFORM DATA 37
TABLE 4-21. MA95-10 HILLER COVE; DMF FECAL COLIFORM DATA 37
TABLE 4-22. MA95-64 LITTLE BAY; DMF FECAL COLIFORM DATA 38
TABLE 4-23. MA95-07 SIPPICAN RIVER; DMF FECAL COLIFORM DATA 38
TABLE 4-24. MA95-53 BEAVERDAM CREEK; DMF FECAL COLIFORM DATA 39
TABLE 4-25. MA95-58 BREAD AND CHEESE BROOK; WRWA FECAL COLIFORM DATA
SUMMARY 39
TABLE 4-26. MA95-05 WEWEANTIC RIVER; DMF FECAL COLIFORM DATA 40
TABLE 4-27. MA95-29 & MA95-50 AGAWAM AND WANKINCO RIVERS; DMF FECAL
COLIFORM DATA 41
TABLE 4-28. MA95-49 BROAD MARSH RIVER;DMF FECAL COLIFORM DATA 42
XXXVI
-------
TABLE 4-29. MA95-51 CROOKED RIVER; DMF FECAL COLIFORM DATA 42
TABLE 4-30. MA95-03 WAREHAM RIVER; DMF FECAL COLIFORM DATA 43
TABLE 4-31. MA95-02 ONSET BAY; DMF FECAL COLIFORM DATA 44
TABLE 4-32. MA95-01 BUTTERMILK BAY; DMF FECAL COLIFORM DATA 44
TABLE 4-33. MA95-62 BUZZARDS BAY DMF AND CITY OF NEW BEDFORD (NBSSP) FECAL
COLIFORM DATA 45
TABLE 4-34. MA95-14 CAPE COD CANAL ; DMF FECAL COLIFORM DATA 46
DMF DATA (TAKEN IN BOTH DRY AND WET WEATHER PERIODS) WERE TAKEN OVER THE
YEARS 1985- 2001 FOR THE COMBINED SEGMENTS EEL POND MA 95-48 (IN BOURNE) AND
BACK RIVER MA 95-47 AND ARE SUMMARIZED IN TABLE 4-35, AS WELL AS IN FIGURES 4-1
AND 4-2 ABOVE. THESE ARE ALSO AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD AT
HTTP://WWW.BUZZARDSBAY.ORG/STORMATLAS.HTM 46
THESE TWO SEGMENTS WERE PREVIOUSLY DETERMINED TO BE IMPAIRED BASED ON
DMF DATA AND PERIODIC EXCEEDANCES OF THE STATE WATER QUALITY STANDARDS.
47
TABLE 4-35. MA95-48 EEL POND & MA95-47 BACK RIVER ; DMF FECAL COLIFORM DATA 47
TABLE 4-36. MA95-61 EEL POND (MATTAPOISETT) DMF FECAL COLIFORM DATA 47
TABLE 4-37. MA95-15 PHINNEY'S HARBOR; DMF FECAL COLIFORM DATA 47
TABLE 4-38. MA95-16 POCASSET RIVER; DMF FECAL COLIFORM DATA 48
TABLE 4-39. MA95-17 POCASSET HARBOR; DMF FECAL COLIFORM DATA 49
TABLE 4-40. MA95-18 RED BROOK HARBOR; DMF FECAL COLIFORM DATA 49
TABLE 4-41. MA95-21 HERRING BROOK ;DMF FECAL COLIFORM DATA 50
TABLE 4-42. MA95-46 HARBOR HEAD ; DMF FECAL COLIFORM DATA 50
XXXVII
-------
TABLE 4-43. MA95-20 WILD HARBOR ; DMF FECAL COLIFORM DATA 51
TABLE 4-44. MA95-22 WEST FALMOUTH HARBOR; DMF FECAL COLIFORM DATA 51
TABLE 4-45. MA95-23 GREAT SIPPEWISSETT CREEK; DMF FECAL COLIFORM DATA 52
TABLE 4-46. MA95-24 LITTLE SIPPEWISSET MARSH ;DMF FECAL COLIFORM DATA 52
TABLE 4-47. MA95-25 QUISETT HARBOR;DMF FECAL COLIFORM DATA 53
4.2 SUMMATION OF THE DATA FROM THE 48 SEGMENTS ABOVE 53
CLEARLY, THE AREAS OF GREATEST CONCERN FROM THE DATA ABOVE ARE: (A) EAST
BRANCH OF THE WESTPORT RIVER MA95-41; (B) ACUSHNET RIVER MA 95-33 TO THE NEW
BEDFORD INNER AND OUTER HARBOR (INCLUDING CLARK'S COVE) AREA. THE EAST
BRANCH, WESTPORT RIVER AREA SHOWS QUITE A FEW ELEVATED DATA SETS FOR
FECAL COLIFORM IN THE TENS OF THOUSANDS, UP TO A MAXIMUM AT ONE SITE OF
OVER 2,100,000 CFU/100ML. SOME OF THE LAND USES SUSPECTED IN THESE HIGH
BACTERIA COUNTS INCLUDE: ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS, DAIRY FARMS, GRAZING
IN RIPARIAN AREAS, MS4 SOURCES, ON-SITE SEPTIC SYSTEMS, AND HIGHWAY/ ROAD
RUNOFF 53
THE LOWER ACUSHNET RIVER TO NEW BEDFORD HARBOR AND CLARK'S COVE SHOW
HISTORICALLY ELEVATED FECAL COLIFORM COUNTS, PARTICULARLY DURING/
FOLLOWING WET WEATHER EVENTS. THIS APPEARS DUE TO CSO DISCHARGES (A
TOTAL OF 28 REMAINING IN THE WHOLE AREA). DMF DATA (1985- 2001) INDICATE THAT
THE ACUSHNET RIVER (SEGMENT MA 95-33) HAS A GEOMETRIC MEAN OF 62.3 CFU/
100ML, THE INNER- OUTER HARBOR AREAS HAVE A GEOMETRIC MEAN OF 9.0 CFU/100ML,
AND IN CLARK'S COVE IT IS 6.9 CFU/100ML. THE CITY OF NEW BEDFORD IS
IMPLEMENTING CORRECTIVE ACTIONS THROUGH ITS LONG-TERM CSO CONTROL PLAN
WHICH IS LIKELY TO ALREADY RESULT IN DECREASING LEVELS TO THESE SEGMENTS.
CLEARLY, CONTINUED IMPLEMENTATION OF THE CSO DISCHARGES WILL GREATLY
REDUCE BACTERIA LOADINGS IN THIS WHOLE AREA 53
TABLE 5-1. POTENTIAL SOURCES OF BACTERIA IN PATHOGEN IMPAIRED SEGMENTS IN
THE BUZZARDS BAY WATERSHED 57
TABLE 5-2. LOWER CHARLES RIVER BASIN STORM WATER EVENT MEAN BACTERIA
CONCENTRATIONS (DATA SUMMARIZED FROM USGS 2002) AND NECESSARY
REDUCTIONS TO MEET CLASS B WQS 62
XXXVIII
-------
TABLE 5-3. STORM WATER EVENT MEAN FECAL COLIFORM CONCENTRATIONS (AS
REPORTED IN MASSDEP 2002B; ORIGINAL DATA PROVIDED IN METCALF & EDDY, 1992)
AND NECESSARY REDUCTIONS TO MEET CLASS B WQS 62
.64
TABLE 6-1. BACTERIA IMPAIRED SEGMENT PRIORITIES 65
SEGMENT ID 65
SEGMENT NAME 65
LENGTH (Ml.) OR SIZE (SQ.MI.) 65
SEGMENT DESCRIPTION 65
PRIORITY 65
MA95-4065
EAST BRANCH WESTPORT RIVER 65
2.85 Ml. 65
OUTLET LAKE NOQUOCHOKE, WESTPORT TO OLD COUNTY RD. BRIDGE, WESTPORT.
(CLASS B) 65
MEDIUM 65
MA95-4565
SNELL CREEK 65
0.67 Ml. 65
DRIFT RD. TO MARCUS' BRIDGE IN WESTPORT. (CLASS B) 65
MEDIUM 65
xxxix
-------
MA95-41 65
EAST BRANCH WESTPORT RIVER 65
2.65SQ.MI 65
OLD COUNTY ROAD BRIDGE, WESTPORT TO THE MOUTH AT WESTPORT HARBOR,
WESTPORT (EXCLUDING HORSENECK CHANNEL). (CLASS SB, SHELLFISHING
RESTRICTED,0.64/2.65SQ.MI.) 65
SHELLFISHING 65
MA95-3765
WEST BRANCH WESTPORT RIVER 65
1.28SQ.MI 65
OUTLET GRAYS MILL POND, ADAMSVILLE, RHODE ISLAND TO MOUTH AT WESTPORT
HARBOR, WESTPORT. (CLASS SA, SHELLFISHING OPEN, BUT IMPAIRED 0.78/2.65SQ.MI.)65
SHELLFISHING 65
MA95-5465
WESTPORT RIVER 65
0.74 SO. Ml 65
FROM THE CONFLUENCE OF THE EAST AND WEST BRANCHES TO RHODE ISLAND
SOUND; BOUNDED BY A LINE DRAWN FROM THE SOUTHWESTERN POINT OF
HORSENECK POINT TO THE EASTERNMOST POINT NEAR WESTPORT LIGHT. (CLASS SA,
SHELLFISHING, OPEN 0.5 SQ.MI.,CLOSED 0.78 SQ.MI.) 65
SHELLFISHING 65
MA95-3465
xl
-------
SLOCUMS RIVER 65
0.67SQ.MI 65
CONFLUENCE WITH PASKAMANSET R., DARTMOUTH TO MOUTH AT BUZZARDS BAY.
(CLASS SA, SHELLFISHING OPEN 0.01 SQ.MI.,CLOSED 0.66SQ.MI) 65
SWIMMING 65
MA95-4465
SNELL CREEK 65
1.5 Ml. 65
HEADWATERS WEST OF MAIN STREET, WESTPORT, TO DRIFT ROAD WESTPORT 65
MEDIUM 65
MA95-5965
SNELL CREEK 65
0.01 SQ.MI 65
'MARCUS BRIDGE', WESTPORT TO CONFLUENCE WITH EAST BRANCH WESTPORT RIVER,
WESTPORT 65
SHELLFISHING 65
MA95-31 65
ACUSHNET RIVER 65
2.7 Ml 65
OUTLET NEW BEDFORD RESERVOIR TO HAMLIN RD. CULVERT, ACUSHNET. (CLASS B). .65
xli
-------
NO DATA 65
MA95-3265
ACUSHNET RIVER 65
1.10 Ml. 65
HAMLIN RD. CULVERT TO CULVERT AT MAIN ST., ACUSHNET. (CLASS B) 65
MEDIUM 65
MA95-3365
ACUSHNET RIVER 65
0.31 SQ.MI 65
MAIN ST. CULVERT TO COGGESHALL ST. BRIDGE, NEW BEDFORD/FAIRHAVEN. (CLASS
SB, SHELLFISHING RESTRICTED, ENTIRELY) 65
CSOS 65
MA95-4265
NEW BEDFORD HARBOR 65
1.25SQ.MI 65
COGGESHALL ST. BRIDGE TO HURRICANE BARRIER, NEW BEDFORD/FAIRHAVEN .
(CLASS SB, SHELLFISHING RESTRICTED, ENTIRELY) 65
MA95-6366
OUTER NEW BEDFORD HARBOR 66
5.82SQ.MI 66
xlii
-------
HURRICANE BARRIER TO A LINE DRAWN FROM WILBUR POINT, FAIRHAVEN TO CLARKS
POINT, NEW BEDFORD . (CLASS SA, SHELLFISHING OPEN, BUT ENTIRELY RESTRICTED) 66
SWIMMING 66
MA95-3866
CLARK COVE 66
1.90SQ.MI 66
SEMI-ENCLOSED WATERBODY LANDWARD OF A LINE DRAWN BETWEEN CLARKS POINT,
NEW BEDFORD AND RICKETSONS POINT, DARTMOUTH (CLASS SA, SHELLFISHING OPEN,
BUT ENTIRELY RESTRICTED) 66
SWIMMING 66
MA95-1366
BUTTONWOOD BROOK 66
3.8 Ml. 66
HEADWATERS AT OAKDALE ST., NEW BEDFORD TO MOUTH AT APPONAGANSETT BAY,
DARTMOUTH. (CLASS B) 66
LOW 66
(NO DATA) 66
MA95-3966
APPONAGANSETT BAY 66
0.95SQ.MI 66
xliii
-------
FROM THE MOUTH OF BUTTONWOOD BROOK TO A LINE DRAWN FROM RICKETSONS
POINT, NEW BEDFORD TO SAMOSET ST. NEAR NORTH AVE., DARTMOUTH. (CLASS SA,
SHELLFISHING OPEN BUT RESTRICTED 0.68SQ.MI.) 66
SWIMMING 66
MA95-3566
MATTAPOISETT HARBOR 66
1.10SQ.MI 66
FROM THE MOUTH OF THE MATTAPOISETT R., MATTAPOISETT, TO A LINE DRAWN FROM
NED POINT TO A POINT OF LAND BETWEEN BAYVIEW AVENUE AND GRANDVIEW AVE.,
MATTAPOISETT. (CLASS SA, SHELLFISHING OPEN, BUT RESTRICTED 0.1/1.1SQ.MI.) 66
SWIMMING 66
MA95-6066
MATTAPOISETT RIVER 66
0.05 66
FROM THE RIVER ROAD BRIDGE, MATTAPOISETT TO THE MOUTH AT MATTAPOISETT
HARBOR, MATTAPOISETT 66
MA95-6566
NASKETUCKET BAY 66
3.7 66
FROM THE CONFLUENCE WITH LITTLE BAY, FAIRHAVEN TO BUZZARDS BAY ALONG
CAUSEWAY ROAD, FAIRHAVEN AND ALONG A LINE FROM THE SOUTHERN TIP OF BRANT
ISLAND, MATTAPOISETT TO THE EASTERN TIP OF WEST ISLAND, FAIRHAVEN 66
MA95-5666
xliv
-------
HAMMETT COVE 66
0.07SQ.MI 66
HAMMETT COVE, MARION TO THE CONFLUENCE WITH SIPPICAN HARBOR ALONG A LINE
FROM THE SOUTHWESTERN MOST POINT OF LITTLE NECK TO THE END OF THE SEAWALL
ON THE OPPOSITE POINT. (CLASS SA, SHELLFISHING IMPAIRED 0.02/0.07SQ.MI.) 66
SWIMMING 66
MA95-0867
SIPPICAN HARBOR 67
Ml. 67
FROM THE CONFLUENCE WITH HAMMETT COVE TO THE MOUTH AT BUZZARDS BAY
(EXCLUDING BLAKENSHIP COVE AND PLANNING ISLAND COVE), MARION (CLASS SA,
SHELLFISHING OPEN, BUT IMPAIRED 0.30 SQ Ml.) 67
SWIMMING 67
MA95-0967
AUCOOTCOVE 67
0.50SQ.MI 67
FROM THE CONFLUENCE WITH AUCOOT CREEK, MARION TO THE MOUTH AT BUZZARDS
BAY AT A LINE DRAWN BETWEEN CONVERSE POINT AND JOES POINT, MATTAPOISETT.
(CLASS SA, SHELLFISHING OPEN) 67
MA95-1067
HILLERCOVE 67
0.04SQ.MI 67
xlv
-------
AREA LANDWARD OF A LINE DRAWN BETWEEN JOES POINT, MATTAPOISETT AND THE
SECOND BOAT DOCK NORTHEAST OF HILLER COVE LANE, MATTAPOISETT. (CLASS SA,
SHELLFISHING IMPAIRED 0.01 SQ.MI.) 67
SWIMMING 67
MA95-6467
LITTLE BAY 67
0.36 SQ.MI 67
FROM THE CONFLUENCE WITH THE NASKETUCKET RIVER, FAIRHAVEN SOUTH TO THE
CONFLUENCE WITH NASKETUCKET BAY AT A LINE FROM THE SOUTHERNMOST TIP OF
MIREY NECK, FAIRHAVEN TO A POINT NEAR SHORE DRIVE 67
MA95-0767
SIPPICAN RIVER 67
0.08SQ.MI 67
COUNTY RD. TO CONFLUENCE WITH WEWEANTIC R., MARION/WAREHAM. (CLASS SA,
SHELLFISHING OPEN, ALL IMPAIRED) 67
MA95-5367
BEAVERDAM CREEK 67
0.04SQ.MI 67
OUTLET FROM CRANBERRY BOGS OF RTE. 6, WAREHAM TO CONFLUENCE WITH
WEWEANTIC RIVER, WAREHAM. (CLASS SA, SHELLFISHING RESTRICTED). (CLASS SA,
SHELLFISHING ALL IMPAIRED) 67
MA95-5867
BREAD AND CHEESE BROOK 67
xlvi
-------
4.9 Ml. 67
HEADWATERS, NORTH OF OLD BEDFORD ROAD, WESTPORT TO CONFLUENCE WITH
EAST BRANCH WESTPORT RIVER, WESTPORT 67
MEDIUM 67
MA95-0567
WEWEANTIC RIVER 67
0.62SQ.MI 67
OUTLET HORSESHOE POND, WAREHAM TO MOUTH AT BUZZARDS BAY,
MARION/WAREHAM. (CLASS SA, SHELLFISHING OPEN, PARTIALLY IMPAIRED,0.45SQ.MI.)
67
MA95-2967
AGAWAM RIVER 67
0.16 Ml. 67
FROM THE WAREHAM WWTP TO CONFLUENCE WITH WANKINCO RIVER AT THE RTE. 6
BRIDGE, WAREHAM. . (CLASS SB, RESTRICTED) 67
SHELLFISHING 67
MA95-5068
WANKINCO RIVER 68
0.05SQ.MI 68
ELM ST. BRIDGE, WAREHAM TO CONFLUENCE WITH THE AGAWAM R., AT A LINE
BETWEEN A POINT SOUTH OF MAYFLOWER RIDGE DRIVE AND A POINT NORTH OF THE
RAILROAD TRACKS NEAR SANDWICH RD., WAREHAM. (CLASS SA, SHELLFISHING
RESTRICTED) 68
xlvii
-------
SHELLFISHING 68
MA95-4968
BROAD MARSH RIVER 68
0.16SQ.MI 68
FROM ITS HEADWATERS IN A SALT MARSH SOUTH OF MARION RD. AND BOURNE
TERRACE, WAREHAM TO THE CONFLUENCE WITH THE WAREHAM R. (CLASS SA,
SHELLFISHING RESTRICTED) 68
SWIMMING 68
MA95-51 68
CROOKED RIVER 68
0.04SQ.MI 68
FROM THE OUTLET OF A CRANBERRY BOG, EAST OF INDIAN NECK RD., WAREHAM TO
CONFLUENCE WITH THE WAREHAM R., WAREHAM. (CLASS SA, SHELLFISHING
RESTRICTED) 68
SHELLFISHING 68
MA95-5268
CEDAR ISLAND CREEK 68
0.01SQ.MI 68
FROM THE HEADWATERS NEAR INTERSECTION OF PARKER DR. AND CAMARDO DR.,
WAREHAM TO THE MOUTH AT MARKS COVE, WAREHAM. (CLASS SA, SHELLFISHING
RESTRICTED) 68
MEDIUM* 68
xlviii
-------
(NO DATA) 68
SHELLFISHING 68
MA95-0368
WAREHAM RIVER 68
1.18SQ.MI 68
RTE. 6 BRIDGE TO MOUTH AT BUZZARDS BAY (AT AN IMAGINARY LINE FROM CROMSET
POINT TO CURVED POINT EAST, SOUTHEAST OF LONG BEACH POINT), WAREHAM.
INCLUDES MARK'S COVE, WAREHAM. (CLASS SA, SHELLFISHING OPEN, BUT PARTIALLY
RESTRICTED, 0.68/1.18SQ.MI.) 68
SHELLFISHING 68
MA95-0268
ONSET BAY 68
0.78SQ.MI 68
WAREHAM. CLASS SA, SHELLFISHING OPEN, BUT PARTIALLY RESTRICTED,
0.15/0.78SQ.MI.) 68
SHELLFISHING 68
MA95-01 68
BUTTERMILK BAY 68
0.77 68
BOURNE/WAREHAM. CLASS SA, SHELLFISHING OPEN, BUT PARTIALLY RESTRICTED,
0.16/0.77SQ.MI) 68
SHELLFISHING 68
xlix
-------
MA95-6268
BUZZARDS BAY 68
8.0 68
OPEN WATER AREA ENCOMPASSED WITHIN A LINE DRAWN FROM WILBUR POINT,
FAIRHAVEN TO CLARKS POINT, NEW BEDFORD TO RICKETSON POINT, DARTMOUTH TO
VICINITY OF SAMOSET ST., DARTMOUTH DOWN TO ROUND HILL POINT, DARTMOUTH,
BACK TO WILBUR POINT, FAIRHAVEN 68
MA95-1468
CAPE COD CANAL 68
1.13 68
CONNECTION BETWEEN BUZZARDS BAY AND CAPE COD BAY IN BOURNE AND
SANDWICH 68
SHELLFISHING 68
MA95-4869
EEL POND 69
0.03 69
SALTWATER POND THAT DISCHARGES TO BACK RIVER, BOURNE 69
MA95-61 69
EEL POND 69
0.04 69
COASTAL POND AT THE HEAD OF MATTAPOISETT HARBOR, MATTAPOISETT 69
-------
MA95-4769
BACK RIVER 69
0.08 69
OUTLET OF SMALL UNNAMED POND, DOWNSTREAM FROM MILL POND, BOURNE TO
CONFLUENCE WITH PHINNEYS HARBOR, BOURNE (EXCLUDING EEL POND) 69
MA95-1569
PHINNEYS HARBOR 69
0.73 69
FROM THE CONFLUENCE WITH BACK R. TO ITS MOUTH AT BUZZARDS BAY BETWEEN
MASHPEE AND TOBY'S ISLAND, BOURNE 69
MA95-1669
POCASSET RIVER 69
0.05 69
FROM THE OUTLET OF MILL POND, BOURNE TO THE MOUTH AT BUZZARDS BAY,
BOURNE 69
MA95-1769
POCASSET HARBOR 69
0.33 69
FROM THE CONFLUENCE WITH RED BROOK HARBOR NEAR THE NORTHERN PORTION OF
BASSETT'S ISLAND AND PATUISETT TO THE MOUTH AT BUZZARDS BAY BETWEEN
BASSETT'S ISLAND AND WINGS NECK, BOURNE 69
MA95-1869
-------
RED BROOK HARBOR 69
0.91 69
FROM THE CONFLUENCE WITH POCASSET HARBOR BETWEEN THE NORTHERN PORTION
OF BASSETT'S ISLAND AND PATUISETT TO ITS MOUTH AT BUZZARDS BAY BETWEEN
BASSETT'S ISLAND AND SCRAGGY NECK, BOURNE (INCLUDING HEN COVE) 69
MA95-21 69
HERRING BROOK 69
0.01 69
FROM ITS HEADWATERS, NORTHEAST OF DALE DR. AND WEST OF RTE. 28A, TO ITS
MOUTH AT BUZZARDS BAY, FALMOUTH 69
MEDIUM SHELLFISHING 69
MA95-4669
HARBOR HEAD 69
0.02 69
THE SEMI-ENCLOSED BODY OF WATER SOUTH OF THE CONFLUENCE WITH WEST
FALMOUTH HARBOR AT CHAPPAQUOIT RD., FALMOUTH 69
SHELLFISHING 69
MA95-2069
WILD HARBOR 69
0.15 69
EMBAYMENT EXTENDS FROM POINT ROAD, NYES NECK TO CROW POINT AT THE END OF
BAY SHORE ROAD IN NORTH FALMOUTH 69
-------
SHELLFISHING 69
MA95-2269
WEST FALMOUTH HARBOR 69
0.29 69
FROM THE CONFLUENCE WITH HARBOR HEAD AT CHAPPAQUOIT RD., FALMOUTH TO THE
MOUTH AT BUZZARDS BAY AT A LINE CONNECTING THE ENDS OF THE SEAWALLS FROM
LITTLE ISLAND AND CHAPPAQUOIT POINT, FALMOUTH (INCLUDING SNUG HARBOR) 69
MA95-2370
GREAT SIPPEWISSET CREEK 70
0.03 70
FROM THE OUTLET OF BEACH POND IN GREAT SIPPEWISSETT MARSH TO THE MOUTH AT
BUZZARDS BAY, FALMOUTH, INCLUDING THE UNNAMED TRIBUTARY FROM THE OUTLET
OF FRESH POND, AND QUAHOG POND, FALMOUTH 70
MA95-2470
LITTLE SIPPEWISSET MARSH 70
0.02 70
FROM THE HEADWATERS NORTH OF SIPPEWISSET RD., FALMOUTH TO THE MOUTH AT
BUZZARDS BAY NEAR SACONESSET HILLS, FALMOUTH 70
MA95-2570
QUISSETT HARBOR 70
0.17 70
-------
THE SEMI-ENCLOSED BODY OF WATER LANDWARD OF A LINE DRAWN BETWEEN THE
KNOB AND GANSETT POINT, FALMOUTH 70
SHELLFISHING 70
7.2 WASTE LOAD ALLOCATIONS (WLAS) AND LOAD ALLOCATIONS (LAS) AS DAILY
CONCENTRATION (COLONIES/1 OOML) 80
7.4 - APPLICATION OF THE TMDL TO UNIMPAIRED OR CURRENTLY UNASSESSED
SEGMENTS 100
TABLE 8-1. TASKS 103
WATERSHED SPECIFIC COMMENTS / RESPONSES 169
RESPONSE: THE MASSDEP RELIES ON INFORMATION FROM LOCAL BOARDS OF HEALTH
AND THE COMMONWEALTH'S DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH FOR INFORMATION ON
BEACH CLOSURES. THIS INFORMATION IS BECOMING MORE TIMELY AND READILY
AVAILABLE WITH THE INSTITUTION OF A STATE WIDE REPORTING SYSTEM REQUIRED
AND FACILITATED BY THE PASSAGE OF THE NATIONAL BEACHES ACT. THIS WILL
PERMIT MUCH MORE RECENT INFORMATION TO BE USED IN THE LISTING OF IMPAIRED
WATERS IN THE FUTURE. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT BEACHES SUBJECT TO CHRONIC
CLOSURES NORMALLY WOULD BE LISTED AS IMPAIRED, BUT THOSE REPORTING
OCCASIONAL CLOSURES IN WHICH BATHER DENSITY IS SUSPECTED AS A POSSIBLE
CAUSE MAY NOT BE LISTED 169
2. CZM COMMENT 170
liv
-------
List of Figures
FIGURE 1-1. BUZZARDS BAY WATERSHED AND PATHOGEN IMPAIRED SEGMENTS 2
FIGURE 1-2. RELATIONSHIPS AMONG INDICATOR ORGANISMS (USEPA 2001) 4
FIGURE 2-1 BUZZARDS BAY WATERSHED LAND USE AS OF 1999 10
10
11
FIGURE 2-3. GENERAL LOCATION OF MASSACHUSETTS' NO DISCHARGE AREAS (USEPA
2004A). 12
FIGURE 4-1. DMF FECAL COLIFORM FIVE YEAR GEOMETRIC MEAN (1997-2001; MACZM
2003). 24
Iv
-------
-------
1.0 Introduction
Section 303(d) of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and Environmental Protection Agencies (EPA's)
Water Quality Planning and Management Regulations (40 CFR Part 130) require states to place
waterbodies that do not meet established water quality standards on a list of impaired waterbodies
(commonly referred to as the "303d List") and to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for
listed waters and the pollutant(s) contributing to the impairment. In Massachusetts, impaired
waterbodies are included in Category 5 of the "Massachusetts Year 2006 Integrated List of Water: Part
2- Final Listing of Individual Categories of Waters" (2006 List; MassDEP 2006a). Figure 1-1 provides a
map of the Buzzards Bay watershed with pathogen impaired segments indicated. As shown in Figure
1-1, much of the Buzzards Bay waterbodies are listed as a Category 5 "impaired or threatened for one
or more uses and requiring a TMDL" due to excessive indicator bacteria concentrations.
TMDLs are to be developed for water bodies that are not meeting designated uses under technology-
based controls only. TMDLs determine the amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can safely assimilate
without violating water quality standards. The TMDL process establishes the maximum allowable
loading of pollutants or other quantifiable parameters for a water body based on the relationship
between pollutant sources and instream conditions. The TMDL process is designed to assist states
and watershed stakeholders in the implementation of water quality-based controls specifically targeted
to known sources of pollution in order to restore and maintain the quality of their water resources
(USEPA 1999). TMDLs allow watershed stewards to establish measurable water quality goals based
on the difference between site-specific instream conditions and state water quality standards.
A major goal of this TMDL is to achieve meaningful environmental results with regard to the designated
uses of the Buzzards Bay waterbodies. These include water supply, shellfish harvesting, and fishing,
boating, and swimming. This TMDL establishes the necessary pollutant load to achieve designated
uses and water quality standard and the companion document entitled; "Mitigation Measures to
Address Pathogen Pollution in Surface Water: A TMDL Implementation Guidance Manual for
Massachusetts" provides guidance for the implementation of this TMDL.
Historically, water and sediment quality studies have focused on the control of point sources of
pollutants (i.e., discharges from pipes and other structural conveyances) that discharge directly into
well-defined hydrologic resources, such as lakes, ponds, rivers, or estuarine segments. While this
localized approach may be appropriate under certain situations, it typically fails to characterize the
more subtle and chronic sources of pollutants that are widely scattered throughout a broad geographic
region such as a watershed (e.g., roadway runoff, failing septic systems in high groundwater, areas of
concentrated wildfowl use, fertilizers, pesticides, pet waste, and certain agricultural sources). These so
called nonpoint sources of pollution often contribute significantly to the decline of water quality through
their cumulative impacts. A watershed-level approach that uses the surface drainage area as the basic
study unit enables managers to gain a more complete understanding of the potential pollutant sources
impacting a waterbody and increases the precision of identifying local problem areas or "hot spots"
which may detrimentally affect water and sediment quality. It is within this watershed-level framework
that the MassDEP commissioned the development of watershed based TMDLs
-------
Figure 1-1. Buzzards Bay Watershed and Pathogen Impaired Segments
SoLrce: Office of Geographic and ' nMi onmertal InTonnation
(MassGlS), Commonwealth of Massachusetts EOF A
Sh^efiles DEP 2002 Irtegrated List of Waters C305(b)/303Ccf))
as of July 2000
dowiloaded from http://vww«mass.gov>mgis/ctecia.ht
Legend
City/Town Boundary DMF Designated Shellfish Growng Areas St
rmDEP Assessed |n1>.iim»ef* St^Uis ^H APPROVED
|^^| Pathogen Non-Impaired Segment | | CONDITIOHALLYAPPROVED
• Pathogen Impaired Segment I I CONDITIONALLY RESTRICTED
Buzzards Bay Watershed
Pathogen Impaired Segments
and Designated Shellfish
Growing Area
Pathogen Impaired Estuary _J MAN AG EM EN T CLOSURE
11 PROHIBITED
^^^= Highway
-------
1.1. Pathogens and Indicator Bacteria
The Buzzards Bay pathogen TMDL is designed to support reduction of waterborne disease-causing
organisms, known as pathogens, to reduce public health risk. Waterborne pathogens enter surface
waters from a variety of sources including sewage and the feces of warm-blooded wildlife. These
pathogens can pose a risk to human health due to gastrointestinal illness through exposure via
ingestion and contact with recreational waters, ingestion of drinking water, and consumption of filter-
feeding shellfish.
Waterborne pathogens include a broad range of bacteria and viruses that are difficult to identify and
isolate. Thus, specific nonpathogenic bacteria have been identified that are typically associated with
harmful pathogens in fecal contamination. These associated nonpathogenic bacteria are used as
indicator bacteria as they are easier to identify and measure in the environment. High densities of
indicator bacteria increase the likelihood of the presence of pathogenic organisms.
Selection of indicator bacteria is difficult as new technologies challenge current methods of detection
and the strength of correlation of indicator bacteria and human illness. Currently, coliform and fecal
streptococci bacteria are commonly used as indicators of potential pathogens (i.e., indicator bacteria).
Coliform bacteria include total coliforms, fecal coliform and Escherichia coli (E. coli). Fecal coliform (a
subset of total coliform) and E. coli (a subset of fecal coliform) bacteria are present in the intestinal
tracts of warm blooded animals. Presence of coliform bacteria in water indicates fecal contamination
and the possible presence of pathogens. Fecal streptococci bacteria are also used as indicator
bacteria, specifically enterococci a subgroup of fecal streptococci. These bacteria also live in the
intestinal tract of animals, but their presence is a better predictor of human gastrointestinal illness than
fecal coliform since the die-off rate of enterococci is much lower (i.e., enterococci bacteria remain in
the environment longer) (USEPA 2001). The relationship of indicator organisms is provided in Figure
1-2. The EPA, in the "Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986" document, recommends the
use of E. coli or enterococci as potential pathogen indicators in fresh water and enterococci in marine
waters (USEPA 1986).
Massachusetts now uses E. coli and enterococci as indicator organisms of potential harmful pathogens
in fresh water. The Water Quality Standards (WQS) that apply for fresh water were revised in 2007 and
E. coli has replaced fecal coliform as the indicator organism for pathogens (MassDEP, 2007). The
Water Quality Standards can be viewed at:
http://www.mass.gov/dep/service/regulations/314cmr04.pdf. Fecal coliform are still used in the
Massachusetts Water Quality Standards for marine waters and are consistent with the Massachusetts
Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) in their classification of shellfish growing areas. In freshwater beach
areas, Enterococci or E. coli are used as the indicator organism while Enterococci is used for marine
beaches, as required by the Federal Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Act of 2000
(Beach Act), an amendment to the CWA.
-------
Figure 1-2. Relationships among Indicator Organisms (USEPA 2001).
LUSJUB6JO
Total Coliform
Bacteria
euepeg
Enterococci
Escherichia coli
snumba
LUn/AB
s//eoee/
snooooo/e^ug
u/n/oee/
snooooo/e^ug
The Buzzards Bay watershed pathogen TMDL has been developed using fecal coliform as an indicator
bacterium for shellfish areas and enterococci for bathing in marine waters and generally E. coli for
fresh waters (even though much of the recent ambient data is for fecal coliform). Any changes in the
Massachusetts pathogen water quality standard will apply to this TMDL at the time of the standard
change. Massachusetts believes that the magnitude of indicator bacteria loading reductions outlined in
this TMDL will be both necessary and sufficient to attain present WQS and any future modifications to
the WQS for pathogens.
1.2. Comprehensive Watershed-based Approach to TMDL Development
Consistent with Section 303(d) of the CWA, the MassDEP has chosen to complete pathogen TMDLs
for all waterbodies in the Buzzards Bay watershed at this time, regardless of current impairment status
(i.e., for all waterbody categories on the approved 2006 Integrated List of Waters). MassDEP believes
a comprehensive management approach carried out by all watershed communities is needed to
address the ubiquitous nature of pathogen sources present in the Buzzards Bay watershed.
Watershed-wide implementation is needed to meet WQS and restore designated uses in impaired
segments while providing protection of desirable water quality in waters that are not currently impaired
or not assessed.
As discussed below, this TMDL applies to the 52 pathogen impaired segments of the Buzzards Bay
watershed that are currently listed on the CWA § 303(d) list of impaired waters and determined to be
pathogen impaired in the "Buzzards Bay Watershed 2000 Water Quality Assessment Report'
-------
(MassDEP WQA; MassDEP 2003b) (see Figure 1-1, Table 4-3). MassDEP recommends however,
that the information contained in this TMDL guide management activities for all other waters throughout
the watershed to help maintain and protect existing water quality. For these non-impaired waters,
Massachusetts is proposing "pollution prevention TMDLs" consistent with CWA § 303(d) (3).
The analyses conducted for the pathogen impaired segments in this TMDL would apply to the non-
impaired segments, since the sources and their characteristics are equivalent. The waste load and/or
load allocation for each source and designated use would be the same as specified herein. Therefore,
the pollution prevention TMDLs would have identical waste load and load allocations based on the
sources present and the designated use of the water body segment (see Table ES-2 and Table 7-1).
This Buzzards Bay watershed TMDL may, in appropriate circumstances, also apply to segments that
are listed for pathogen impairment in subsequent Massachusetts CWA § 303(d) Integrated List of
Waters. For such segments, this TMDL may apply if, after listing the waters for pathogen impairment
and taking into account all relevant comments submitted on the CWA § 303(d) list, the Commonwealth
determines with EPA approval of the CWA § 303(d) list that this TMDL should apply to future pathogen
impaired segments.
There are 109 waterbody segments assessed by the MassDEP in the Buzzards Bay watershed
(MassGIS 2005). These segments consist of 45 estuaries, all of which are pathogen impaired. Seven
of the 14 river segments are pathogen impaired and only one of the 70 lake segments is pathogen
impaired and appears as such on the official impaired waters list (303(d) List) (Figure 1-1). Pathogen
impairment has been documented by the MassDEP in previous reports, including the MassDEP Water
Quality Assessment Report (WQA), resulting in the impairment determination. In this TMDL document,
an overview of pathogen impairment is provided to illustrate the nature and extent of the pathogen
impairment problem. Additional data, not collected by the MassDEP or used to determine impairment
status, are also provided in this TMDL to illustrate the pathogen problem. Since pathogen impairment
has been previously established only a summary is provided herein.
The watershed based approach applied to complete the Buzzards Bay pathogen TMDL is
straightforward. The approach is focused on identification of sources, source reduction, and
implementation of appropriate management plans. Once identified, sources are required to meet
applicable WQS for indicator bacteria or be eliminated. Do to limited available source data, this
approach does not include water quality analysis or other approaches designed to link ambient
concentrations with source loadings. For pathogens and indicator bacteria, water quality analyses are
generally resource intensive and provide results with large degrees of uncertainty. Rather, this
approach focuses on sources and required load reductions, proceeding efficiently toward water quality
restoration activities.
The stepwise implementation strategy for reducing indicator bacteria is an iterative process where data
are gathered on an ongoing basis, sources are identified and eliminated where possible, and control
measures including Best Management Practices (BMPs) are implemented, assessed and modified as
needed. Measures to abate probable sources of waterborne pathogens include everything from the
identification and removal of illicit connections to stormwater systems, which should be given the
-------
highest priority, to public education, improved storm water management, and reducing the influence
from inadequate and/or failing sanitary sewer infrastructure.
MassDEP believes that segments ranked as high priority in Table 6-1 are indicative of the potential
presence of raw sewage and therefore they pose a greater risk to the public. Elevated dry weather
bacteria concentrations could be the result of illicit sewer connections or failing septic systems. As a
result, the first priority should be given to bacteria source tracking activities in those segments where
sampling activities show elevated levels of bacteria during dry weather. Identification and remediation
of dry weather bacteria sources is usually more straightforward and successful than tracking and
eliminating wet weather sources. If illicit bacteria sources are found and eliminated it should result in a
dramatic reduction of bacteria concentration in the segment in both dry and wet-weather. Segments
that remain impaired during wet weather should be evaluated for stormwater BMP implementation
opportunities starting with less costly non-structural practices first (such as street sweeping, and/or
managerial approach using local regulatory controls with ongoing evaluation of the success of those
programs. If it is determined that less costly approaches are not sufficient to address the issue then
appropriate structural BMPs should be identified and implemented where necessary. Structural
stormwater BMP implementation may require additional study to identify cost efficient and effective
technology.
1.3.TMDL Report Format
This document contains the following sections:
D Watershed Description (Section 2) - provides watershed specific information
D Water Quality Standards (Section 3) - provides a summary of current Massachusetts WQS
as they relate to indicator bacteria
D Problem Assessment (Section 4) - provides an overview of indicator bacteria
measurements collected in the Buzzards Bay watershed
D Identification of Sources (Section 5) - identifies and discusses potential sources of
waterborne pathogens within the Buzzards Bay watershed.
D Priority of Existing Sources (Section 6)
D TMDL Development (Section 7) - specifies required TMDL development components
including:
o Definitions and Equation
o Loading Capacity
o Load and Waste Load Allocations
o Margin of Safety
o Seasonal Variability
D Implementation Plan (Section 8) - describes specific implementation activities designed to
remove pathogen impairment. This section and the companion "Mitigation Measures to
Address Pathogen Pollution in Surface Water: A TMDL Implementation Guidance Manual
for Massachusetts" document should be used together to support implementing
management actions.
D Monitoring Plan (Section 9) - describes recommended monitoring activities
-------
D Reasonable Assurances (Section 10) - describes reasonable assurances the TMDL will be
implemented
D Public Participation (Section 11) - describes the public participation process, and
D References (Section 12)
-------
2.0 Watershed Description
Buzzards Bay watershed is bordered to the east by Cape Cod and to the northeast by southeastern
Massachusetts. The bay is 28 miles long and 8 miles wide (MACZM 2003). The Buzzards Bay
watershed drains 432 square miles and includes 17 cities and towns within Massachusetts and Rhode
Island. Land use within the watershed is primarily undeveloped forest (Table 2-1, Figure 2-1).
Development in the watershed is concentrated in a half mile area landward of the coastline. MassDEP
estimated a population of 373,690 people living in the watershed in 2000 (MassDEP 2003b). Two-
fifths of these people reside in the Greater New Bedford area. The 280 mile coastline includes 11 miles
of public beaches (Figure 2-2). Information regarding swimming beaches can be obtained from the
beach quality annual reports available for download at the Massachusetts Department of Public Health
website (http://www.mass.gov/dph/beha/tox/reports/beach/beaches.htm).
The drainage basin includes several rivers, which flow into Buzzards Bay. The rivers tend to increase
in velocity and width as they near the bay. In comparison to other rivers in the state, the rivers in the
Buzzards Bay watershed tend to be shorter and have smaller drainage areas. Water also enters the
Bay through groundwater seepage.
Significant natural and cultural resources exist in the Buzzards Bay Watershed that warrants special
protection. The Back River and the Pocasset River have been established as Areas of Critical
Environmental Concern (ACECs). Projects within ACECs are subject to state agency jurisdiction and
are reviewed in greater detail to avoid deleterious impacts to these sensitive environments. The entire
Buzzards Bay is considered a "No Discharge Area" (NDA). NDAs are waterbodies in which a state,
with EPA approval, has determined to be important ecological or recreational areas worthy of special
protection against the release of raw or treated sewage in navigable waters. Vessels are banned from
discharging both raw and treated sewage in a NDA. NDAs in Massachusetts are provided in Figure
2-3 (USEPA 2004a).
The Buzzards Bay watershed waters are commonly used for primary and secondary contact recreation
(swimming and boating), fishing, wildlife viewing, habitat for aquatic life, industrial cooling, shellfish
harvesting, irrigation, agricultural uses, public water supply, and beachfront.
-------
Table 2-1. Buzzards Bay Watershed Basin Land Use as of 1999.
Land Use Category
Pasture
Urban Open
Open Land
Cropland
Woody Perennial
Forest
Wetland/Salt Wetland
Water Based Recreation
Water
General Undeveloped Land
Spectator Recreation
Participation Recreation
> 1/2 acre lots Residential
1/4 - 1/2 acre lots Residential
< 1/4 acre lots Residential
Multi-family Residential
Mining
Commercial
Industrial
Transportation
Waste Disposal
General Developed Land
% of Total Watershed Area
1.9
0.8
3.2
3.5
3.1
59.2
3.8
0.3
0.3
76.1
<0.1
1.3
7.3
6.0
2.8
0.2
0.4
1.8
1.2
1.4
1.5
23.9
-------
Figure 2-1 Buzzards Bay Watershed Land Use as of 1999.
City/Town Boundary
Major Road
Pasture; Urban Open; Open Land; Cropland
| Woody Perennial; Forest
^Bl Wetland; Salt Wetland
|^B Water Based Recreation, Water
Spectators. Participation Recreation
I Low, Medium and High Density Residential
Mining; Commercial; Industrial; Transportation; Waste Disposal
2.5
10
15
20
25
30
• Miles
Sou-ce; Office of C-eaqraphic and Envitonmential Information
iMg-ffGI SX C.ommon^vealth of Massachueetts E OEA
Shspefi les Land U ~s by To\».nA:itv dov/nloaded from
rttp: //vwvwmass.gov/m gjs/ftpltis.htm
Buzzards Bay
Watershed Land Use
as of 1999
i No. 10598-001
ENSR
AECOM
Figure 2-1
10
-------
Figure 2-2. Buzzards Bay Marine Beach Locations and Pathogen Impaired
Segments.
SOLTce: Q ffi ce of Geographi c and E nvironm ertal I nform ation
(MassGIS), CotnmonM\ealth of Massachusetts E OEA
Shapefiles DEP 2002 IrtegratecJ List of Waters C305[b)/303(d))
dovnloaded from
Mtttp: /Mvvwm asagovAn gisAfltis2002 .htm
Marine Beaches dovyiloaded frcm
.govATisis^'m iarinebeaches.htm
10
15
20
25
30
iMik
Legend
Marine Beach Type
^^™ Public
^^^^ Semi - Public
Highway
Major Road
Pathogen Impaired Segment
Pathogen Impaired Estuary
Basin Outline
Buzzards Bay Watershed
Marine Beach Locations and
Pathogen Impaired Segments
Project No. 10598-001
ENSR
AECOM
Figure 2-2
11
-------
Figure 2-3. General Location of Massachusetts' No Discharge Areas (USEPA 2004a).
No
in
12
-------
3.0 Water Quality Standards
The Surface Water Quality Standards (WQS) for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts establish
chemical, physical, and biological standards for the restoration and maintenance of the most sensitive
uses (MassDEP 2000a). The WQS limit the discharge of pollutants to surface waters for the
protection of existing uses and attainment of designated uses in downstream and adjacent segments.
Fecal coliform, enterococci, and E. coli bacteria are found in the intestinal tract of warm-blooded
animals, soil, water, and certain food and wood processing wastes. "Although they are generally not
harmful themselves, they indicate the possible presence of pathogenic (disease-causing) bacteria,
viruses, and protozoans that also live in human and animal digestive systems" (USEPA 2004b). These
bacteria are often used as indicator bacteria since it is expensive and sometimes difficult to test for the
presence of individual pathogenic organisms.
In 2007 Massachusetts revised its freshwater WQS by replacing fecal coliform with E. coli and
enterococci as the regulated indicator bacteria in freshwater systems, as recommended by the EPA in
the "Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986" document (USEPA 1986). The new WQS can
be accessed at: http://www.mass.gov/dep/service/regulations/314cmr04.pdf. The state had previously
done so for public beaches through regulations of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health as
discussed below. Up until January of 2007 Massachusetts used fecal coliform as the indicator
organism for all waters except for marine bathing beaches, where the Federal BEACH Act requires the
use of enterococci. Massachusetts adopted E. coli and enterococci for all fresh waters and
enterococci for all marine waters, including non-bathing marine beaches. Fecal coliform will remain the
indicator organism for shellfishing areas, however.
Pathogens can significantly impact humans through ingestion of, and contact with recreational waters,
ingestion of drinking water, and consumption of filter-feeding shellfish. In addition to contact
recreation, excessive pathogen numbers impact potable water supplies. The amount of treatment (i.e.,
disinfection) required to produce potable water increases with increased pathogen contamination.
Such treatment may cause the generation of disinfection by-products that are also harmful to humans.
Further detail on pathogen impacts can be accessed at the following EPA websites:
D Water Quality Criteria: Microbial (Pathogen)
http://www.epa.gov/ost/humanhealth/microbial/microbial.html
D Human Health Advisories:
o Fish and Wildlife Consumption Advisories
http://www.epa.gov/ebtpages/humaadvisofishandwildlifeconsumption.html
o Swimming Advisories
http://www.epa.gov/ebtpages/humaadvisoswimmingadvisories.html
The Buzzards Bay watershed contains waterbodies classified as Class A, Class B, Class SA, and
Class SB.
Shellfish growing areas are classified by the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF). The
classification system is provided below (MassGIS 2005). Figure 1-1 provides designated shellfish
13
-------
growing areas status as of July 1, 2000. The August, 2003 "Atlas of Stormwater Discharges in the
Buzzards Bay Watershed" reports that the growing area status remains virtually unchanged (MACZM,
2003). MACZM uses the following definitions to describe managed shellfish areas in Massachusetts.
Approved - "Open for harvest of shellfish for direct human consumption subject to local rules
and state regulations." (MassGIS 2005) "The area is shown to be free of bacterial contaminants
under a variety of climatological and hydrographical situations (i.e. assumed adverse pollution
conditions)." (MassDEP 2002a).
Conditionally Approved - "During the time area is approved it is open for harvest of shellfish
for direct human consumption subject to local rules and state regulations." (MassGIS 2005)
"This classification category may be assigned for growing areas subject to intermittent and
predictable microbiological contamination that may be present due to operation of a sewage
treatment plant, rainfall, and/or season." (MassDEP 2002a)
Conditionally Restricted - "During the time area is restricted it is only open for the harvest of
shellfish with depuration subject to local rules and state regulations." (MassGIS 2005) "A
classification used to identify a growing area that meets the criteria for the restricted
classification except under certain conditions described in a management plan." (MassDEP
2002a)
Restricted - "Open for harvest of shellfish with depuration subject to local rules and state
regulations or for the relay of shellfish." (MassGIS 2005) "A classification used to identify where
harvesting shall be by special license and the shellstock, following harvest, is subject to a
suitable and effective treatment process through relaying or depuration. Restricted growing
areas are mildly or moderately contaminated only with bacteria." (MassDEP 2002a)
Management Closure - "Closed for the harvest of shellfish. Not enough testing has been
done in the area to determine whether it is fit for shellfish harvest or not." (MassDEP 2002a)
Prohibited - "Closed for harvest of shellfish." (MassGIS 2005) "A classification used to identify
a growing area where the harvest of shellstock is not permitted. Growing area waters are so
badly contaminated that no reasonable amount of treatment will make the shellfish safe for
human consumption. Growing areas must also be classified as Prohibited if there is no or
insufficient information available to make a classification decision." (MassDEP 2002a)
In general, shellfish harvesting use is supported (i.e., non-impaired) when shellfish harvested from
approved open shellfish areas are suitable for consumption without depuration and shellfish harvested
from restricted shellfish areas are suitable for consumption with depuration. For an expanded
discussion on the relationship between the DMF shellfish growing areas classification and the
MassDEP designated use support status, please see the "Buzzards Bay Watershed 2000 Water
Quality Assessment Report' (MassDEP WQA; MassDEP 2003b).
In addition to the WQS, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MADPH)
has established minimum standards for bathing beaches (105 CMR 445.000) under the State Sanitary
Code, Chapter VII (www.mass.gov/dph/dcs/bb4_01.pdf). These standards have been adopted by the
14
-------
MassDEP as state surface WQS for fresh water and apply to this revised TMDL. The MADPH bathing
beach standards are generally the same as those which were recommended in the "Ambient Water
Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986" document published by the EPA (USEPA 1986). In the above
referenced document, the EPA recommended the use of enterococci as the indicator bacterium for
marine recreational waters and enterococci or E. coli for fresh waters. As such, the following MADPH
standards have been established for bathing beaches in Massachusetts:
Marine Waters - (1) No single enterococci sample shall exceed 104 colonies per 100 ml and
the geometric mean of the most recent five enterococci levels within the same bathing season
shall not exceed 35 colonies per 100 ml.
Freshwaters - (1) No single E. coli sample shall exceed 235 colonies per 100 ml and the
geometric mean of the most recent five E. coli samples within the same bathing season shall
not exceed 126 colonies per 100 ml; or (2) No single enterococci sample shall exceed 61
colonies per 100 ml and the geometric mean of the most recent five enterococci samples
within the same bathing season shall not exceed 33 colonies per 100 ml.
The Federal BEACH Act of 2000 established a Federal standard for marine beaches. These standards
are essentially the same as the MADPH marine beach standard (i.e., single sample not to exceed 104
cfu/100ml_ and geometric mean of a statistically sufficient number of samples not to exceed 35
cfu/100ml_). The Federal BEACH Act and MADPH standards can be accessed on the worldwide web
at http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beaches/act.html and www.mass.gov/dph/dcs/bb4_01 .pdf.
respectively.
Figure 2-2 provides the location of marine bathing beaches, where the MADPH Marine Waters and the
Federal BEACH Act standards would apply. A map of freshwater beaches is not available at this time.
However, a list of beaches (fresh and marine) by community with indicator bacteria data can be found
in the annual reports on the testing of public and semi-public beaches provided by the MADPH. These
reports are available for download from the MADPH website located at http://www.mass.gov/dph/beha/
tox/re ports/beach/beaches.htm.
15
-------
4.0 Problem Assessment
Pathogen impairment has been documented at numerous locations throughout the Buzzards Bay
watershed, as shown in Figure 1-1. The amount of indicator bacteria and potential pathogens entering
waterbodies is dependent on several factors including watershed characteristics and meteorological
conditions. Indicator bacteria levels generally increase with increasing development activities,
including increased impervious cover, illicit sewer connections, and failed septic systems.
Indicator bacteria levels also tend to increase with wet weather conditions as storm sewer systems
overflow and/or storm water runoff carries fecal matter that has accumulated to the receiving water via
overland flow and storm water conduits. In some cases, dry weather bacteria concentrations can be
higher when there is a constant source that becomes diluted during periods of precipitation, such as
with illicit connections. The magnitude of these relationships is variable, however, and can be
substantially different temporally and spatially throughout the United States or within each watershed.
Tables 4-1 and 4-2 provide typical ranges of fecal coliform concentrations in storm water associated
with various land use types. Pristine areas are observed to have low indicator bacteria levels and
residential areas are observed to have elevated indicator bacteria levels. Development activity
generally leads to decreased water quality (e.g., pathogen impairment) in a watershed. Development-
related watershed modification includes increased impervious surface area which can (USEPA 1997):
[] Increase flow volume,
[] Increase peak flow,
[] Increase peak flow duration,
[] Increase stream temperature,
0 Decrease base flow, and
0 Change sediment loading rates.
Many of the impacts associated with increased impervious surface area also result in changes in
pathogen loading (e.g., increased sediment loading can result in increased pathogen loading). In
addition to increased impervious surface impacts, increased human and pet densities in developed
areas increase potential fecal contamination. Furthermore, storm water drainage systems and
associated storm water culverts and outfall pipes often result in the channelization of streams which
leads to less attenuation of pathogen pollution.
16
-------
Table 4-1. Wachusett Reservoir Storm Water Sampling (as reported in MassDEP 2002b) original
data provided in MDC Wachusett Storm Water Study (June 1997).
Land Use Category
Agriculture, Storm 1
Agriculture, Storm 2
"Pristine" (not developed, forest), Storm 1
"Pristine" (not developed, forest), Storm 2
High Density Residential (not sewered, on septic systems), Storm 1
High Density Residential (not sewered, on septic systems), Storm 2
Fecal Coliform Bacteria1
Organisms / 100 ml_
110 -21,200
200 -56,400
0-51
8-766
30-29,600
430-122,000
1 Grab samples collected for four storms between September 15, 1999 and June 7, 2000
Table 4-2. Lower Charles River Basin Storm Water Event Mean Bacteria Concentrations (data
summarized from USGS 2002)1.
Land Use Category
Single Family Residential
Multifamily Residential
Commercial
Fecal Coliform
(CFU/100mL)
2,800-94,000
2,200-31,000
680-28,000
Enterococcus Bacteria
(CFUMOOmL)
5,500-87,000
3,200-49,000
2,100-35,000
Number of
Events
8
8
8
Pathogen impaired estuary segments represent 100% of the total estuary area assessed (25 square
miles). Pathogen impaired river segments represent 21.3% of the total river miles assessed (10.2
miles of 47.9 total river miles). In total, 52 segments, each in need of a TMDL, contain indicator
bacteria concentrations in excess of the Massachusetts WQS for Class A, SA, B, or SB waterbodies
(314 CMR 4.05)1, the MADPH standard for bathing beaches2, and/or the BEACH Act3. The basis for
impairment listings is provided in the 2006 Integrated List of Waters (MassDEP 2006a). Data
presented in the Water Quality Assessment Report (WQA) and other data collected by the MassDEP
were used to generate the Integrated List. For more information regarding the basis for listing particular
segments for pathogen impairment, please see the Assessment Methodology section of the MassDEP
WQA for this watershed.
A list of pathogen impaired segments requiring TMDLs is provided in Table 4-3. Segments are listed
and discussed in hydrologic order (upstream to downstream) in the following sections. Additional
11 An Event Mean Concentration (EMC) is the concentration of a flow proportioned sample throughout a storm event.
These samples are commonly collected using an automated sampler which can proportion sample aliquots based on
flow.
2 See Table ES-2, or Table 7-1, or web address
link:http://www. mass, aov/dep/service/reaulations/314cmr04.pdf
17
-------
details regarding each impaired segment including water withdrawals, discharges, use assessments
and recommendations to meet use criteria are provided in the MassDEP WQA.
An overview of the Buzzards Bay watershed pathogen impairment is provided in this section to
illustrate the nature and extent of the impairment. Since pathogen impairment has been previously
established and documented on the Integrated List, it is not necessary to provide detailed
documentation of pathogen impairment herein. Available data from the MassDEP WQA and other
sources such as the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (MACZM) were reviewed and
are summarized by segment below for illustrative purposes. The intent is to provide the reader with
background information and data for each segment currently listed as impaired on the state Integrated
List of Waters.
Table 4-3. Buzzards Bay Pathogen
MassDEP 2003b and MassGIS 2005).
Impaired Segments Requiring TMDLs (adapted from
Segment
ID
MA95-40
MA95-45
MA95-59
MA95-41
MA95-37
MA95-54
MA95-34
MA95-44
MA95-31
MA95-32
MA95-33
MA95-42
MA95-63
MA95-38
Segment Name
East Branch Westport
River
Snell Creek
Snell Creek
East Branch Westport
River
West Branch Westport
River
Westport River
Slocums River
Snell Creek
Acushnet River
Acushnet River
Acushnet River
New Bedford Harbor
Outer New Bedford
Harbor
Clark Cove
Segment
Type
River
River
Estuary
Estuary
Estuary
Estuary
Estuary
River
River
River
Estuary
Estuary
Estuary
Estuary
Segment
Size1
2.85 mi
0.67 mi
0.01
sq. mi.
2.65
sq. mi.
1.28
sq. mi.
0.74
sq. mi.
0.67
sq. mi.
1.5 mi.
2.7 mi.
1.0 mi.
0.32
sq. mi.
1.17
sq. mi.
5.82
sq. mi.
1.15
sq. mi.
Segment Description
Outlet Lake Noquochoke, Westport to Old County Rd.
bridge, Westport
Drift Rd. to Marcus' Bridge in Westport
'Marcus Bridge', Westport to confluence with East
Branch Westport River, Westport
Old County Road bridge, Westport to the mouth at
Westport Harbor, Westport (excluding Horseneck
Channel)
Outlet Grays Mill Pond, Adamsville, Rhode Island to
mouth at Westport Harbor, Westport
From the confluence of the East and West Branches to
Rhode Island Sound; Bounded by a line drawn from the
southwestern point of Horseneck Point to the
easternmost point near Westport Light
Confluence with Paskamanset R., Dartmouth to mouth
at Buzzards Bay
Headwaters west of Main Street, Westport, to Drift
Road Westport
Outlet New Bedford Reservoir to Hamlin Rd. culvert,
Acushnet
Hamlin Rd. culvert to culvert at Main St., Acushnet
Main St. culvert to Coggeshall St. bridge, New Bedford/
Fairhaven
Coggeshall St. bridge to hurricane Barrier, New
Bedford/Fairhaven
Hurricane Barrier to a line drawn from Wilbur Point,
Fairhaven to Clarks Point, New Bedford
Semi-enclosed waterbody landward of a line drawn
between Clarks Point, New Bedford and Ricketsons
Point, Dartmouth
18
-------
Segment
ID
MA95-13
MA95-39
MA95-35
MA95-60
MA95-65
MA95-56
MA95-08
MA95-09
MA95-10
MA95-64
MA95-07
MA95-53
MA95-58
MA95-05
MA95-29
MA95-50
MA95-49
Segment Name
Buttonwood Brook
Apponagansett Bay
Mattapoisett Harbor
Mattapoisett River
Nasketucket Bay
Hammett Cove
Sippican Harbor
Aucoot Cove
Hiller Cove
Little Bay
Sippican River
Beaverdam Creek
Bread and Cheese
Brook
Weweantic River
Agawam River
Wankinco River
Broad Marsh River
Segment
Type
River
Estuary
Estuary
Estuary
Estuary
Estuary
Estuary
Estuary
Estuary
Estuary
Estuary
Estuary
River
Estuary
Estuary
Estuary
Estuary
Segment
Size1
3.8 mi.
0.95
sq. mi.
1.1
sq. mi.
0.05
sq. mi.
3.7
sq. mi.
0.07
sq. mi.
2.0
sq. mi.
0.4
sq. mi. 7
0.04
sq. mi.
0.36
sq. mi.
0.09
sq. mi.
0.04
sq. mi.
4.9 mi.
0.62
sq. mi.
0.16
sq. mi.
0.05
sq. mi.
0.16
sq. mi.
Segment Description
Headwaters at Oakdale St., New Bedford to mouth at
Apponagansett Bay, Dartmouth
From the mouth of Buttonwood Brook to a line drawn
from Ricketsons Point, New Bedford to Samoset St.
near North Ave., Dartmouth
From the mouth of the Mattapoisett R., Mattapoisett, to
a line drawn from Ned Point to a point of land between
Bayview Avenue and Grandview Ave., Mattapoisett
From the River Road bridge, Mattapoisett to the mouth
at Mattapoisett harbor, Mattapoisett
From the confluence with Little bay, Fairhaven to
Buzzards bay along Causeway Road, Fairhaven and
along a line from the southern tip of Brant Island,
Mattapoisett to the eastern tip of West Island, Fairhaven
Hammett Cove, Marion to the confluence with Sippican
Harbor along a line from the southwestern most point of
Little Neck to the end of the seawall on the opposite
point
From the confluence with Hammett Cove to the mouth
at Buzzards Bay (excluding Blakenship Cove and
Planning Island Cove), Marion
From the confluence with Aucoot Creek, Marion to the
mouth at Buzzards Bay at a line drawn between
Converse Point and Joes Point, Mattapoisett
Area landward of a line drawn between Joes Point,
Mattapoisett and the second boat dock northeast of
Hiller Cove Lane, Mattapoisett
From the confluence with the Nasketucket River,
Fairhaven south to the confluence with Nasketucket
Bay at a line from the southernmost tip of Mirey Neck,
Fairhaven to a point near Shore Drive.
County Rd. to confluence with Weweantic R.,
Marion/Wareham
Outlet from cranberry bogs of Rte. 6, Wareham to
confluence with Weweantic River, Wareham
Headwaters, north of old Bedford Road, Westportto
confluence with East Branch Westport River, Westport
Outlet Horseshoe Pond, Wareham to mouth at
Buzzards Bay, Marion/Wareham
From the Wareham WWTP to confluence with
Wankinco River at the Rte. 6 bridge, Wareham
Elm St. bridge, Wareham to confluence with the
Agawam R., at a line between a point south of
Mayflower Ridge Drive and a point north of the railroad
tracks near Sandwich Rd., Wareham
From its headwaters in a salt marsh south of Marion Rd.
and Bourne Terrace, Wareham to the confluence with
the Wareham R.
19
-------
Segment
ID
MA95-51
MA95-52
MA95-03
MA95-02
MA95-01
MA95-62
MA95-14
**
MA95-48
MA95-61
MA95-47
MA95-15
MA95-16
MA95-17
MA95-18
MA95-21
MA95-46
MA95-20
MA95-22
Segment Name
Crooked River
Cedar Island Creek
Wareham River
Onset Bay
Buttermilk Bay
Buzzards Bay
Cape Cod Canal-
Estuary
Eel Pond-Estuary
Eel Pond-Estuary
Back River-Estuary
Phinneys Harbor-
Estuary
Pocasset River- Estuary
Pocasset Harbor-
Estuary
Red Brook Harbor-
Estuary
Herring Brook- Estuary
Harbor Head- Estuary
Wild Harbor- Estuary
West Falmouth Harbor-
Estuary
Segment
Type
Estuary
Estuary
Estuary
Estuary
Estuary
Estuary
Estuary
Estuary
Estuary
Estuary
Estuary
Estuary
Estuary
Estuary
Estuary
Estuary
Estuary
Estuary
Segment
Size1
0.04
sq. mi.
0.01
sq. mi.
1.18
sq. mi.
0.79
sq. mi.
0.77
sq. mi.
8.0
sq. mi.
1.13
sq. mi.
0.03
sq. mi.
0.04
sq. mi.
0.08
sq. mi.
0.73
sq. mi.
0.05
sq. mi.
0.33
sq. mi.
0.91
sq. mi.
0.01
sq. mi.
0.02
sq. mi.
0.15
sq. mi.
0.29
sq. mi.
Segment Description
From the outlet of a cranberry bog, east of Indian Neck
Rd., Wareham to confluence with the Wareham R.,
Wareham
From the headwaters near intersection of Parker Dr.
and Camardo Dr., Wareham to the mouth at Marks
Cove, Wareham
Rte. 6 bridge to mouth at Buzzards Bay (at an
imaginary line from Cromset Point to curved point east,
southeast of Long Beach point), Wareham. Includes
Mark's Cove, Wareham
Wareham
Bourne/Wareham
Open water area encompassed within a line drawn from
Wilbur Point, Fairhaven to Clarks Point, New Bedford to
Ricketson Point, Dartmouth to vicinity of Samoset St.,
Dartmouth down to Round Hill Point, Dartmouth, back
to Wilbur Point, Fairhaven
Connection between Buzzards Bay and Cape Cod Bay
in Bourne and Sandwich.
Salt water pond that discharges to Back River, Bourne.
Coastal pond at the head of Mattapoisett Harbor,
Mattapoisett
Outlet of small unnamed pond, downstream from Mill
Pond, Bourne to confluence with Phinneys Harbor,
Bourne (excluding Eel Pond).
From the confluence with Back R. to its mouth at
Buzzards Bay between Mashpee and Toby's Island,
Bourne.
From the outlet of Mill Pond, Bourne to the mouth at
Buzzards Bay, Bourne.
From the confluence with Red Brook Harbor near the
northern portion of Bassett's Island and Patuisett to the
mouth at Buzzards Bay between Bassett's Island and
Wings Neck, Bourne.
From the confluence with Pocasset Harbor between the
north Island and Patuisett to its mouth at Buzzards Bay
between Bassetts island and Scraggy Neck, Bourne
(including Hen Cove).
From its headwaters, northeast of Dale Dr. and west of
Rte. 28A, to its mouth at Buzzards Bay, Falmouth.
The semi-enclosed body of water south of the
confluence with West Falmouth Harbor at Chappaquoit
Rd., Falmouth.
Embayment extends from Point Road, Nyes Neck to
Crow Point at the end of Bay Shore Road in North
Falmouth
From the confluence with Harbor Head at Chappaquoit
Rd., Falmouth to the mouth at Buzzards Bay at a line
connecting the ends of the seawalls from Little Island
and Chappaquoit Point, Falmouth (including Snug
20
-------
Segment
ID
MA95-23
MA95-24
MA95-25
Segment Name
Great Sippewisset
Creek- Estuary
Little Sippewisset
Marsh- Estuary
Quissett Harbor-
Estuary
Segment
Type
Estuary
Estuary
Estuary
Segment
Size1
0.03
sq. mi.
0.02
sq. mi.
0.17
sq. mi.
Segment Description
Harbor).
From the outlet of Beach Pond in Great Sippewissett
marsh to the mouth at Buzzards Bay, Falmouth,
including the unnamed tributary from the outlet of Fresh
Pond, and Quahog Pond, Falmouth.
From the headwaters north of Sippewisset Rd.,
Falmouth to the mouth at Buzzards Bay near
Saconesset Hills, Falmouth.
The semi-enclosed body of water landward of a line
drawn between The Knob and Gansett Point, Falmouth.
1 Units = Miles for river segments and square miles for estuaries
*lt should be noted that in Table 4-3 above, the Mass DEP moved the last fourteen segments (starting
with MA 95-14 Cape Cod Canal and ending with MA 95-25 Quinsett Harbor), from the Cape Cod
Watershed to the Buzzards Bay Watershed because these segments actually discharge to Buzzards
Bay even though they are on the Cape Cod.
This TMDL is based on the current WQS using fecal coliform for shellfish areas, and E. coli for fresh
and enterococcus for either salt or fresh water bathing respectively, as the indicator organisms.
Enterococci data are provided at the bottom of each table when data are available. The MassDEP has
incorporated E. coli and enterococci as indicator organisms for all waters other than shellfishing and
potable water intake areas. Not all data presented herein were used to determine impairment listing,
due to a variety of reasons (including data quality assurance and quality control). The MassDEP used
only a subset of the available data to generate the Integrated Lists
Data from the Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) were used, in part, as the basis for
pathogen impairment for many of the estuarine areas (Figure 1-1). Numerous samples have been
collected throughout the Buzzards Bay watershed by the DMF. DMF has a well-established and
effective shellfish monitoring program that provides quality assured data for each shellfish growing
area. In addition, each growing area must have a complete sanitary survey every 12 years, a triennial
evaluation every three years and an annual review in order to maintain a shellfishing harvesting
classification with the exception of those areas already classified as Prohibited. The National Shellfish
Sanitation Program establishes minimum requirements for sanitary surveys, triennial evaluations,
annual reviews and annual fecal coliform water quality monitoring and includes identification of specific
sources and assessment of effectiveness of controls and attainment of standards. "Each year water
samples are collected by the DMF at 2,320 stations in 294 growing areas in Massachusetts's coastal
waters at a minimum frequency of five times while open to harvesting" (DMF 2002). Due to the volume
of data collected by the DMF, only a small sub-set of these data are provided herein. For the most
recent indicator bacteria sampling data, please contact your local city or town shellfish constable or
DMF's Shellfish Project.
Available bacteria data are summarized in the following section. The primary sources of data include,
but are not limited to, DMF, CZM, MassDEP, and the Westport River Watershed Alliance (WRWA).
Additional discussion can be found at:
21
-------
D MassDEP WQA 2003 - Buzzards Bay Watershed 2000 Water Quality Assessment Report
available for download at http://www.mass.gov/dep/brp/wm/wqassess.htm.
D MACZM 2003 - Atlas of Stormwater Discharges in the Buzzards Bay Watershed available for
download at http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm
The summary tables for each segment contain data sources and calendar years for which data were
collected. The "Station" column displays the sampling location identifier issued by sampling
organization and a short narrative description if available. The next three columns provide statistics
relating to sampling conducted. These columns provide the number of samples collected as well as the
number of those samples that were collected during the primary contact season. The next column
provides the range of fecal coliform values for the samples collected at that station. The "geometric
mean" column provides the geometric mean of all the samples collected for a particular station if
sufficient data exists. The number and percentage of samples exceeding a threshold value is also
reported in this column. The threshold values provided in this TMDL are those established by the
MassDEP in the WQA and are: 100 cfu/100ml_ (Class A WQS- average shall not exceed 20
cfu/100ml_, and 10% of the samples shall not exceed 100 cfu/100ml_); (Class SA Shellfishing
Approved- average shall not exceed 14cfu/ 100mL, and 10% of the samples shall not exceed 28
cfu/100 ml); (Class SB Shellfishing Approved (but not necessarily open)- average shall not exceed
88cfu/100 ml, and 10% of samples shall not exceed 260 cfu/100ml_); (Class B WQS: geometric
average (E coli) shall not exceed 126cfu/100ml_, and a single sample shall not exceed 235 cfu/100ml_
(it should be noted that in January 2007, MA WQS for bacteria were revised to E coli). The percentage
value indicates the percent of the samples exceeding the noted threshold. For example "7 samples >
126 (44%)" indicates that 7 samples contained fecal coliform densities greater than 126 cfu/100ml_,
equating to 44% of the samples analyzed. It should be noted that some of these percentages are
calculated based on the number of samples analyzed during the primary contact season, while others
may be calculated based on total number of samples. Note that while many of the data included here
are for fecal coliform, which remain the indicator of sanitary quality for shellfish areas, E. coli and
enterococcus in fresh water and enterococcus in salt water are now the standards for swimming.
Nevertheless, fecal coliform remain a qualitative indicator of water quality.
The MADPH publishes annual reports on the testing of public and semi-public beaches for both marine
and fresh waters. These documents provide water quality data for each bathing beach by community
and note if there were exceedances of water quality criteria. There is also a list of communities that did
not report testing results. These reports can be downloaded from
http://www.mass.gov/dph/beha/tox/reports/beach/beaches.htm. Marine and freshwater beach status is
highly variable and is therefore not provided in each segment description. Please see the MADPH
annual beach report for specific details regarding swimming beaches.
Individual maps showing catch basins and storm drain discharges are available in the "Atlas of
Stormwater Discharges in the Buzzards Bay Watershed" (MACZM 2003), and are provided in
appropriate parts of this section of the report. The Buzzards Bay Project National Estuary Program,
through the Mass CZM office in East Wareham, has granted permission to include maps and other
relevant information in this final TMDL report. These maps provide locations and prioritization of catch
basins, storm drains and road cuts inventoried by the MACZM. This entire report is also available for
download: http://www.buzzardsbav.ora/stormatlas.htm.
22
-------
The effort to prioritize storm water discharges (storm drains or road cuts) within the "Atlas of
Stormwater Discharges in the Buzzards Bay Watershed" includes maps which are included in
Appendix A in this report. Each discharge is assigned a "high", "medium", or "low" priority ranking for
actual remediation based upon combined scores from a number of criteria, such as: (1) DMF estimate
of quality of shellfish production potential from the particular area; (2) Actual present DMF
management usage of the shellfish area adjacent to the discharge, e.g., closure of area = "0" points;
(3) production potential from adjoining/.adjacent shellfish areas; (4) relative bacteria water quality
levels of the particular area; (5) potential remediation project cost; (6) whether or not there is sewering
in the adjoining land area; (7) number of discharges in the adjoining sub basin area; (8) number of
discharges in the adjoining sub basin area (9) particular discharge problem as a percent of all
discharges with problems in the area; (10) proximity to a public bathing area; etc., (see pages 19- 27 in
the Atlas, http://www.mass.gov/dep/brp/wm/wqassess.htm for more details).
The following section of this report is intended to briefly summarize the impaired waterbody segments
and available data in the Buzzards Bay watershed. For more information on any of these segments,
see the "Buzzards Bay Watershed 2000 Water Quality Assessment Report" on the MassDEP website:
http://www.mass.gov/dep/brp/wm/wqassess.htm.
Between 1997 and 2001, DMF collected over 37,000 fecal coliform samples from tributaries of
Buzzards Bay. A summarization of the geometric means for shellfish growing areas over the same
period is given in Figures 4-1 and 4-2 below. Status of these growing areas as of July 1, 2000 is
provided in Figure 1-1.
23
-------
Figure 4-1. DMF Fecal Coliform Five Year Geometric Mean (1997-2001; MACZM 2003).
5 Year Fecal Coliform Geometric Mean
1997-2001 for Individual Sampling Stations
Fecal coltforni per 100 ml:
S 0-4.5
4.5-7
7-12
8 12-18
S 18-85
Lakei and ponds
River5 ^d streams
/V* Blizzards Bay watershed
Note: Sample? were aim: amen? Jumg die :> yea: paiod ai
536 Miles
Mvj p?p?r?c lv d'.iizai'':.- 3t~ proi^c
T- :S70 CraritarvHisJrmv. E '.V.Teijui VJi 02558
Dartmouth \ New
l! Bedford
4.1 Segments With Data Available And Are Currently on the State List of Impaired Waters for
Pathogens.
East Branch Westport River Segment MA95-40
This 2.85 mile long segment is a Class B warm water fishery in Westport. The segment begins at the
outlet of Lake Noquochoke and extends to Old County Road bridge. The East Branch Westport River
watershed contains 169.4 acres of cranberry bog open space. Mid City Scrap Iron & Salvage has a
general storm water permit for this segment. The Town of Westport has submitted a Notice of Intent
(NOI) requesting permit coverage under the NPDES program for their municipal separate storm sewer
system (MS4). According to the "Atlas of Stormwater Discharges in the Buzzards Bay Watershed",
within the two combined MA segments, East Branch Westport River, MA 95-40, and 95-41, there are
584 catch basins, of which 103 are treated, and there are a total of 332 pipe or road cut discharges, of
which 126 are ranked medium or high priority for remediation, 17 of which have been remediated. A
map showing stormwater discharge priorities (Priority Map #1) for this particular segment is provided in
Section 6 herein. A separate map, outlining stormwater drainage systems with outfalls (Westport Map
24
-------
#2) of this segment and surrounding areas is shown also in Appendix A. This is also available for
download at http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
A summary of fecal coliform data collected by the Westport River Watershed Alliance (WRWA), and
Environmental Sciences Services, Inc. (ESS), in 2001 and 2002 (MassDEP 2003b) is provided in Table
4-4. The Alliance conducted their monitoring program under an approved QAPP (Costa 2008).
Samples were collected during both wet and dry weather. The majority of the high fecal coliform counts
were collected during wet weather conditions.
Table 4-4. MA95-40 East Branch Westport River WRWA Fecal Coliform Data Summary.
Station
A-1: Westport River
at Rte 177 (WRWA)
3: Head of Westport
River at Old Colony
Rd
(WRWA)
Storm drain at
Gifford Road
between Route 177
and Old Colony Rd.
(ESS)
Total Number of Samples
(Number of Samples during
Primary Contact Season)
18(16)
18(16)
2
Fecal Coliform
Bacteria Range
(cfu/100ml_)
2-2,470
25 - 84,000
580,000-
2,100,000
Geometric Mean
(cfu/100ml_)
83
3 samples > 400 (19%)
1 sample > 2,000 (5%)
375
7 samples > 400 (44%)
4 samples > 2,000 (22%)
Insufficient data
Enterococci counts, collected by WRWA, ranged from 2-201,000 cfu/100mL (35 samples); 74% > 61 cfu/100mL
Snell Creek Segment (MA95-45)
This segment 0.67 mile long Class B creek extends from Drift Road to Marcus' Bridge in Westport.
The first Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFO) permit was issued to a farm bordering the
waterbody on Drift Road, but this farm no longer operates. The town of Westport has submitted a NOI
requesting permit coverage under the NPDES program for their MS4. Within the Town of Westport,
The "Atlas of Stormwater Discharges in the Buzzards Bay Watershed" has identified a total of 173 pipe
or road cut outfall discharges. Out of this total, 126 are ranked either high or medium priority for
remediation, and 18 have already been remediated. A map showing stormwater discharge priorities
(Priority Map #1) for this particular segment is provided in Section 6 herein. A separate map, outlining
stormwater drainage systems with outfalls (Westport Map #3) of this segment and surrounding areas is
shown also in Appendix A. This is also available for download at
http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
A summary of fecal coliform data collected by the WRWA between March and October of 2001
(MassDEP 2003b) is provided in Table 4-5. The WRWA program operated under an approved QAPP
(Costa 2008). Samples were collected during both wet and dry weather. The majority of the high fecal
coliform counts were collected during wet weather conditions.
25
-------
Table 4-5. MA95-45 Snell Creek WRWA Fecal Coliform Data Summary.
Station
S-7: Snell Creek at
Marcus' Bridge
Total Number of Samples
(Number of Samples during Primary
Contact Season)
17(16)
Fecal Coliform
Bacteria Range
(cfu/100mL)
17-6,000*
Geometric Mean
(cfu/100mL)
307*
7 samples > 400 (44%)
4 samples > 2,000 (24%)
* value reported as zero was not used in the number of samples analyzed, reported range or calculation.
Enterococci counts ranged from 12-94,000 cfu/100mL
Snell Creek Segment MA 95-59
This Class A shellfishing, impaired segment covers 0.01 square miles beginning at the 'Marcus
Bridge', Westport, and running to the confluence with East Branch Westport River, Westport. As a
result of elevated fecal coliform bacteria counts documented by WRWA at Marcus' Bridge and the
known problems at the Pimental Farm (see segment MA95-45) both recreational uses (primary contact
and shellfishing) are assessed as impaired.
DMF data (taken in both dry and wet weather periods) were taken over the years 1985- 2001 for the
Snell Creek Segment MA 95-59 are summarized in Table 4-6 as well as in Figures 4-1 and 4-2 above.
These are also available for download at http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
Table 4-6. MA95-59 Snell Creek DMF Fecal Coliform Data
Total Number of
Data Points 1985-2005
202
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Range (cfu/100mL)
1-247
Geometric Mean, 1997- 2001
data base
(cfu/100ml_)
24
East Branch Westport River Segment (MA95-41)
This Class SB Shellfishing (restricted) segment covers 2.65 square miles beginning at Old County
Road bridge. In the East Branch Westport River subwatershed, cranberry bogs make up 169.4 acres
of open space.. F L Tripp & Sons Inc. has a general storm water permit to discharge in this watershed.
This river segment is adjacent to a farm on Drift Road, which was issued the CAFO permit as
discussed under Snell Creek MA95-45. Town of Westport has submitted a NOI requesting permit
coverage under the NPDES program for their MS4. According to the "Atlas of Stormwater Discharges
in the Buzzards Bay Watershed", within the two combined MA segments, East Branch Westport River,
MA 95-40, and 95-41, there are 584 catch basins, of which 103 are treated, and there are a total of 332
pipe or road cut discharges, of which 126 are ranked medium or high priority for remediation, of which
17 have actually been remediated. A map showing stormwater discharge priorities (Priority Map #1) for
this particular segment is provided in Section 6 herein. Separate maps, outlining stormwater drainage
systems with outfalls (Westport Maps #2-4;6,7,9) of this segment and surrounding areas, is shown also
in Appendix A. This is also available for download at http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
Shellfish harvesting is impaired because of elevated levels of fecal coliform in 0.64 square miles of this
segment. Designated shellfish growing areas status as of July 1, 2000 is provided in Figure 1-1.
WRWA, ESS, and DMF data (taken in both dry and wet weather periods) are summarized in Table 4-7.
Also, DMF data are summarized in Figures 4-1 and 4-2 above.
26
-------
Table 4-7. MA95-41 East Branch Westport River; WRWA: ESS: DMF Fecal Coliform Data.
Station
14
(WRWA)
15(WRWA)
17(WRWA)
18(WRWA)
19(WRWA)
KB(WRWA)
K4(WRWA)
WR1 (ESS)
WR2(ESS)
WR5(ESS)
DMF
stations
Total Number of
Samples
(Number of Samples
during Primary Contact
Season)
23 (20)
20(18)
15(14)
15(13)
15(15)
11 (10)
20(18)
3
2
2
2127
Fecal Coliform
Bacteria
Range (cfu/100ml_)
2-2,900
1 - 9,200
6-25,000
6 - 30,600
10-29,900
56-31,800
14-2,500
1-700
610-1,600
580,000-2,100,000
1-492
Geometric Mean
(cfu/100mL)
31
3 samples > 400 (14%)
1 sample > 2,000 (4%)
31
4 samples > 400 (22%)
3 samples > 2,000 (15%)
90
4 samples > 400 (29%)
2 samples > 2,000 (13%)
322
4 samples > 2000 (27%)
292
4 samples > 2,000 (27%)
423
2 samples > 2,000 (18%)
87
2 samples > 400 (1 1 %)
1 sample > 2,000 (5%)
Insufficient data
Insufficient data
Insufficient data
8.3
Enterococci counts (data collected by WRWA) ranged from 0-49,400 cfu/100mL (83 samples)
West Branch Westport River Segment MA95-37
This 1.28 square mile segment begins at the outlet of Gray's Mill Pond (also known as Adamsville
Pond) in Adamsville, Rhode Island to the mouth at Westport Harbor in Westport. This segment is a
Class SA, shellfishing (open) waterbody. The Gray's Mill Pond, which is created by a dam and is used
by Gray's Grist Mill forms the headwaters of this segment. There are no permitted NPDES dischargers
in this segment. Town of Westport has submitted a NOI requesting permit coverage under the NPDES
program for their MS4. According to the "Atlas of Stormwater Discharges in the Buzzards Bay
Watershed", within this segment sub watershed there are 158 catch basins, of which 12 are treated,
and there are a total of 43 pipe or road cut discharges, of which 13 are ranked medium or high priority
for remediation. One of these has been remediated. A map showing stormwater discharge priorities
(Priority Map #1) for this particular segment is provided in Section 6 herein. A separate map, outlining
stormwater drainage systems with outfalls (Westport Map #5) of this segment and surrounding areas is
shown also in Appendix A.
Shellfish harvesting is impaired in 0.78 square miles of this segment. The suspected source of fecal
coliform is the MS4. Designated shellfish growing areas status as of July 1, 2000 is provided in Figure
1-1. DMF and WRWA data (taken in both dry and wet weather periods) are summarized in Table 4-8,
DMF data are also summarized in Figures 4-1 and 4-2 above.
27
-------
Table 4-8. MA95-37 West Branch Westport River ; DMF/WRWA Fecal Coliform Data
Total Number of
Data Points 1985- 2001
2197 (DMF)
19at1 station (WRWA)
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Range (cfu/100mL)
1-2400
0-2,500
Geometric Mean, 1997- 2001
data base
(cfu/100mL)
5.2
8.6
* zero value reported in the range was not used in the calculation
Enterococci counts ranged from 0-3,200 cfu/100mL
Westport River MA95-54
This 0.74 square mile segment is a Class SA waterbody. The segment extends from the confluences
of the East and West Branches of the Westport River to Rhode Island Sound. The Town of Westport
has submitted a NOI requesting permit coverage under the NPDES program for their MS4. According
to the "Atlas of Stormwater Discharges in the Buzzards Bay Watershed", within the town of Westport
(which includes part of this segment) there are 29 low priority, 109 medium priority, and 17 high priority
discharges (see Priority Map #1 in Section 6 herein). A total of 17 of these discharges have been
remediated. Separate maps, outlining stormwater drainage systems with outfalls (Westport Maps
#8,9) of this segment and surrounding areas are shown also in Appendix A. This is also available for
download at http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
Shellfish harvesting is supported in 0.5 square miles of this segment and impaired in 0.78 square miles
due to elevated fecal coliform concentrations. Designated shellfish growing areas status as of July 1,
2000 is provided in Figure 1-1. DMF 5 year (1997-2001) fecal coliform geometric mean data (taken in
both dry and wet weather periods) for stations in this segment indicate relatively low levels for the SA
Classification at most stations (0- 4.4cfu/100ml_) Summaries of fecal coliform data are in figures 4-1
and 4-2 above and are available for download at http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
A summary of fecal coliform data collected by WRWA between March and October 2001 (MassDEP
2003b) is provided in Table 4-9.
Table 4-9. MA95-54 Westport River; WRWA Fecal Coliform Data Summary.
Station
11 A: Off of
Westport Town
Wharf
7: Harbor entrance
at Charlton Wharf
Total Number of Samples
(Number of Samples
during Primary Contact
Season)
19(17)
9* (9)
Fecal Coliform
Bacteria Range
(cfu/100ml_)
<1 -1040
1 -157
Geometric Mean
(cfu/100ml_)
5.0
1 sample > 400 (6%)
5.9
* value reported as zero was not used in the reported range or calculation
Enterococci counts for 11A ranged from 0-410 cfu/100mL (17 samples); counts at station 7 ranged from 0-240 (17
samples)
Slocums River Segment MA95-34
This 0.67 square mile segment is a Class SA, Shellfishing (open) waterbody. The segment begins at
the confluence with Paskamanset River at Rock O'Dundee Road in Dartmouth and flows to its mouth
at Buzzards Bay in Dartmouth. The Slocums River subwatershed contains 74.6 acres of cranberry bog
28
-------
open space. The discharges from general permittees into the Paskamansett River, an upstream
segment, ultimately end up in this segment. Discharge permits on the Paskamansett River include
nine general storm water permits and one permit to discharge emergency overflow from lagoons at the
Chase Road Well D Water Treatment Plant. The Town of Dartmouth was awarded $2.33 million in
FY'07 SRF Funds for_construction of new sewers. The Town of Dartmouth has also submitted a NOI
requesting permit coverage under the NPDES program for their MS4. . According to the "Atlas of
Stormwater Discharges in the Buzzards Bay Watershed", within this segment sub watershed there are
107 catch basins, of which none are treated, and there are a total of 136 pipe or road cut discharges,
of which 16 are ranked medium or high priority for remediation, of which none have actually been
remediated. A map showing stormwater discharge priorities (Priority Map #1) for this particular
segment is provided in Section 6 herein. A separate map, outlining stormwater drainage systems with
outfalls (Dartmouth Map #6) of this segment and surrounding areas is shown also in Appendix A. This
information is also available for download at http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
Impairment status for this segment was based on DMF growing area status. Shellfish harvesting is
supported in 0.01 square miles and impaired in 0.66 square miles of this segment. Designated
shellfish growing areas status as of July 1, 2000 is provided in Figure 1-1. DMF data (taken in both dry
and wet weather periods) are summarized in Table 4-10, as well as in Figures 4-1 and 4-2 above.
Table 4-10. MA95-34 Slocums River; DMF Fecal Coliform Data
Total Number of
Data Points 1985- 2001
336
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Range (cfu/100mL)
0- 4800
Geometric Mean, 1997- 2001
data base
(cfu/100mL)
12
Snell Creek Segment MA95-44
This 1.5 mile long Class B warm water fishery flows from the headwaters area west of Main Street,
Westport, to Drift Road, Westport. WRWA collected fecal coliform and Enterococci bacteria samples at
Station S-1, Snell Creek at Drift Road between March and October 2001. Samples were collected
during both wet and dry weather. The majority of exceedances were recorded during wet weather
conditions (Carvalho-Souza 2002).
Table 4-11. MA95-44 Snell Creek; WRWA Fecal Coliform Data Summary.
Station
S-1 (n=20, 17 during primary
contact season)
Fecal Coliform Bacteria Range
(cfu/100ml_)
6-3,100
Geometric Mean
92
6 samples > 400 (35%)
2 samples > 2,000 (10%)
Enterococci counts ranged from 2 to 37,000 cfu/100ml_.
Acushnet River Segments MA95-32 & MA95-33
Segment MA95-32 is a 1.10 mile long Class B warm water fishery flows from the Hamlin Road culvert
to the culvert at Main Street, both in Acushnet. The Acushnet River subwatershed contains 429.6 acres
of cranberry bog open space. The only NPDES permitted discharger along this segment is the
29
-------
Acushnet Company-Titleist Golf Division. The company discharges treated sanitary waste (via outfall
008) and treated process waste, NCCW, and boiler blow-down (via outfall 010). The outfall's
secondary limit for fecal coliform bacteria is 200/1 OOmL.
Segment MA 95-33 is a 0.31 square mile segment and is classified as Class SB, Shellfishing
(Restricted), CSO river segment. The segment runs from the outlet Main Street culvert in Acushnet to
the Coggeshall Street bridge in New Bedford/Fairhaven. This segment receives discharges from ten
CSOs in the City of New Bedford. This segment also receives discharge from nine storm drains.
Aerovox Inc. has a permit to discharge storm water into the Acushnet River/New Bedford Harbor.
Additionally, Riverside Auto Service, Titleist and Foot Joy Ball Planting, and Acushnet Rubber
Company have general storm water permits. . The Town of Acushnet has submitted a NOI requesting
permit coverage under the NPDES program for their MS4. The Town of Acushnet was awarded $16.8
million in FY'07 SRF Funds for Phase II of a sewer collection system construction effort. According to
the "Atlas of Stormwater Discharges in the Buzzards Bay Watershed", within this segment sub
watershed (including MA 95-31, 95-32, 95-33) there are 736 catch basins, of which none are treated,
and there are a total of 66 pipe or road cut discharges which are within the "potential stormwater
contribution zone" of the embayment. A map showing stormwater discharge priorities (Priority Map #3)
for this particular segment is provided in Section 6 A herein. This is also available for download at
http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
Impairment status for this segment was based on DMF growing area status. This segment is impaired
for shellfish harvesting. The causes of impairment are elevated fecal coliform concentrations and
PCBs. Designated shellfish growing areas status as of July 1, 2000 is provided in Figure 1-1. DMF
data (taken in both dry and wet weather periods) were taken over the years 1985- 2001 for both
Acushnet River Segments MA 95-32, and MA 95-33, and are summarized in Table 4-12, as well as in
Figures 4-1 and 4-2
Table 4-12. MA95-32, MA95-33 Acushnet River; DMF Fecal Coliform Data
Total Number of
Data Points 1985-2001
195
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Range (cfu/100mL)
0-494
Geometric Mean, 1997- 2001
data base
(cfu/100ml_)
62
During the winter of 2002 Umass Dartmouth School of Marine Science (SMAST) was given a grant of
$30,000 to quantify nitrogen loading to the New Bedford Inner Harbor. Although the project was
intended to address nitrogen additional bacterial data was collected by SMAST to determine the
potential for the river to be a source of bacterial (fecal coliform, E. coli, Enterococci) contamination to
the estuary. A stream gauge was maintained and nitrogen and bacterial samples were collected
weekly for 12 months, with additional samples associated with rain events. Unfortunately, the bacterial
data was not available to MassDEP for inclusion in this TMDL but will be evaluated once available to
the Department to determine its associated impact on this TMDL.
New Bedford Inner Harbor Segment MA95-42
This 1.25 square mile segment is a Class SB Shellfishing (restricted), CSO area. The segment
extends from Coggeshall Street Bridge to Hurricane Barrier in New Bedford/Fairhaven. In the 1960s
the New Bedford-Fairhaven-Acushnet Hurricane Protection Project made three major alterations to the
30
-------
Harbor: a barrier across New Bedford and Fairhaven Harbor including an extension dike on the
mainland, Clarks Cove Dike, and Fairhaven Dike.
Industrial waste water NPDES permittees include Revere Copper Products, Inc. (three cooling water
outfalls going to the wastewater treatment plant), Glen Petroleum Company, and Trio Agarvio Inc.
NPDES storm water dischargers include Revere Copper Products, Inc. (two outfalls), DN Kelley & Son
Inc. and Global Companies LLC. The City of New Bedford (12 CSOs and 6 storm water outfalls) and
the Town of Fairhaven have submitted NOIs for NPDES MS4 coverage. The City of New Bedford
recently updated (2006) and is actively implementing a major long- term CSO control plan (see "Draft
CSO Baseline Conditions Report', Sept. 2006). The City was awarded $ 22 million in FY '07 SRF
funds for implementing these long- term controls and is on the 2009 state intended use plan for $19.3
million of SRF funds to reduce CSO by removing major grit blockages within the system.
According to the "Atlas of Stormwater Discharges in the Buzzards Bay Watershed", within this segment
sub watershed, there are a total of 96 road cut and pipe discharges, of which 75 are medium or high
priority for remediation, of which none have been remediated yet. A map showing stormwater
discharge priorities (Priority Map #3) for this particular segment is provided in Section 6 herein.
Separate maps, outlining stormwater drainage systems with outfalls (Fairhaven Map #1,3) of this
segment and surrounding areas are shown in Appendix A. Sanitary waste NPDES dischargers include
the Town of Fairhaven and the City of Bedford (12 CSO outfalls) into the Acushnet River.
Impairment status for this segment was based on DMFgrowing area status. Shellfish harvesting is
impaired in this segment due to fecal coliform bacteria and PCBs. Designated shellfish growing areas
status as of July 1, 2000 is provided in Figure 1-1. DMF data (taken in both dry and wet weather
periods) were taken over the years 1985- 2001 for both New Bedford Inner and Outer Harbor
Segments MA 95-42, and MA 95-63, and are summarized in Table 4-13, as well as in Figures 4-1 and
4-2 above. Also, the City of New Bedford, Shellfish Sanitation Program conducted sampling between
August 1997 and August 2007 (Labelle, 2008). These data are also summarized in Table 4-13.
Table 4-13. MA95-42 New Bedford Inner Harbor ; DMF and City of New Bedford (NBSSP) Fecal
Coliform Data
Total Number of
Data Points 1985- 2007
1084 (DMF)
271 (8 stations up to 41 X)
(NBSSB)
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Range (cfu/100mL)
0-247
0->311
Geometric Mean, 1997- 2001
data base
(cfu/100mL)
9.0
>28*
4->311
146 readings >28
73 readings >100.
Station #90 (@Fairhaven
WWTP outfall had 18 out of
41 readings >311
most samples were reported at an upper limit rather than actually being determined. As such an exact
geometric mean could not be determined.
This segment was also covered by the SMAST nitrogen and bacteria loading study indentified in the
segment above.
31
-------
Outer New Bedford Harbor Segment MA95-63
This 5.82 square mile segment is a Class SA, Shellfishing (open) segment. The outer harbor is
defined by a straight line connecting Wilbur Point to Clarks Point and extends inwards to the Hurricane
Barrier. Seven CSOs in the City of New Bedford, as well as the New Bedford WWTP (goes
approximately 1.5 miles off- shore), discharge into the outer harbor. As noted above the City of New
Bedford is actively implementing a major long- term CSO control plan and has received $ 22 million in
FY '07 SRF funds for implementing these long- term controls. The City is also permitted to discharge
storm water into Clark's Cove and Outer New Bedford Harbor. Cornell-Dubilier Electronics Corporation
discharges storm water to Fort Phoenix Reach near the Acushnet River Estuary in the lower harbor.
Allegheny Rodney also has a storm water permit to discharge in this segment. Fairhaven and New
Bedford have submitted NOI's requesting permit coverage under the NPDES program for their MS4.
According to the "Atlas of Stormwater Discharges in the Buzzards Bay Watershed", within this segment
sub watershed, there are a total of 32 road cut and pipe discharges, of which all 32 are medium or high
priority for remediation. A map showing stormwater discharge priorities (Priority Map #3) for this
particular segment is provided in Section 6 herein. Separate maps, outlining stormwater drainage
systems with outfalls (Fairhaven Map #3,4) of this segment and surrounding areas are shown in
Appendix A. This is also available for download at http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
Impairment status for this segment was based on DMF growing area status. Shellfish harvesting in
this segment is impaired due to fecal coliform bacteria. Designated shellfish growing areas status as of
July 1, 2000 is provided in Figure 1-1. DMF data (taken in both dry and wet weather periods) were
taken over the years 1985- 2001 for both New Bedford Inner and Outer Harbor Segments MA 95-42,
and MA 95-63, and are summarized in Table 4-14, as well as in Figures 4-1 and 4-2 above. Also, the
City of New Bedford, Shellfish Sanitation Program conducted sampling between August 1997 and
August 2008 (Labelle, 2008). These data are also summarized in Table 4-14.
Table 4-14. MA95-63 Outer New Bedford Harbor ; DMF and City of New Bedford (NBSSP) Fecal
Coliform Data
Total Number of
Data Points
1084 (DMF)
West Shore— 584(16
stations up to 75 X) (NBSSP)
East Shore — 367 (9 stations
up to 43 X) (NBSSP)
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Range (cfu/100ml_)
0-247
<2->311
<2->311
Geometric Mean
(cfu/100ml_)
9.0
Stations 65, 66: >28
All other stations <11
80 readings >28
20 readings >100
Stations #65, 66 near Hurricane Barrier
have numerous readings >28 (at least
50%oftime)
Undetermined
18 readings >28.
• most samples were reported at an upper limit rather than actually being determined. As such an
exact geometric mean could not be determined.
Clarks Cove Segment MA95-38
This segment is a 1.90 square mile marine segment and is classified under the Massachusetts Surface
Water Quality Standards as Class SA Shellfishing (open). The cove extends from Clarks Point in New
Bedford southeast to Ricketsons Point in Dartmouth. New Bedford discharges storm water into Clark's
32
-------
Cove. New Bedford also discharges via nine CSOs. Dartmouth and New Bedford submitted NOIs
requesting permit coverage under the NPDES program for their MS4. According to the "Atlas of
Stormwater Discharges in the Buzzards Bay Watershed", within this segment sub watershed there are
173 catch basins, of which 47 are treated, and there are a total of 27 pipe or road cut discharges which
are rated as medium or high in priority for remediation, of which 2 have been remediated. Maps
showing stormwater discharge priorities (Priority Map #2,3) for this particular segment are provided in
Section 6 herein. A separate map, outlining stormwater drainage systems with outfalls (Dartmouth Map
#5) of this segment and surrounding areas, is shown in Appendix A. Theses are also available for
download at http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
Impairment status for this segment was based on DMF growing area status. Shellfish harvesting in this
segment is impaired by fecal coliform. Designated shellfish growing areas status as of July 1, 2000 is
provided in Figure 1-1. DMF data (taken in both dry and wet weather periods) were taken over the
years 1985- 2001 for the Clarks Cove Segment MA 95-38 are summarized in Table 4-15, as well as in
Figures 4-1 and 4-2 above. Also, the City of New Bedford, Shellfish Sanitation Program conducted
sampling between August 1997 and August 2008 (Labelle, 2008). These data are also summarized in
Table 4-16.
Table 4-15. MA95-38 Clarks Cove ; DMF and City of New Bedford (NBSSP) Fecal Coliform Data
Total Number of
Data Points 1985-2007
1932 (DMF)
398 (9 stations sampled up
to 63 X) Inner Clarks Cove
(NBSSP)
294 (7 stations sampled up
to 56 X) Outer Clarks Cove
(NBSSP)
304 (6 stations sampled up
to 75 X) Outside of Outer
Clarks Cove (NBSSP)
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Range (cfu/100mL)
1-3,200 (DMF)
<2- 560- TNTC
<2- 240
<2- 240
Geometric Mean, 1997- 2007
data base
(cfu/100ml_)
6.9 (DMF)
28 readings>28MPN
Insufficient data*
11 readings >28
Insufficient data*
7 readings >28 (6 of these @
station #37, near WWTP
outfall)
Insufficient data*
* most samples were reported at an upper limit rather than actually being determined. As such
an exact geometric mean could not be determined.
Apponagansett Bay Segment MA95-39
This is a 0.95 square mile Class SA Shellfishing (open) waterbody. Apponagansett Bay begins at the
mouth of Buttonwood Brook and stretches to Ricketsons Point in New Bedford and Samoset Street in
Dartmouth. The Apponagansett Bay subwatershed contains 4. 5 acres of cranberry bog open space.
Davis and Tripp Inc. is permitted to discharge within this segment. The Town of Dartmouth was
awarded $2.33 million in FY'07 SRF Funds for construction of new sewers. Dartmouth submitted an
NOI requesting permit coverage under the NPDES program for their MS4. According to the "Atlas of
Stormwater Discharges in the Buzzards Bay Watershed", within the Town_of Dartmouth, there are a
total of 423 road cut and pipe discharges, of which all 121 are ranked medium or high priority for
remediation, of which 13 have been remediated. A map showing stormwater discharge priorities
(Priority Map #2) for this particular segment is provided in Section 6 herein. Separate maps, outlining
33
-------
stormwater drainage systems with outfalls (Dartmouth Maps #4,5,7) of this segment and surrounding
areas are shown also in Appendix A. These are also available for download at
http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
Impairment status for this segment was based on DMF growing area status. Periodic high
concentrations of fecal coliform have caused 0.68 square miles of the Bay to be impaired for shellfish
harvesting. Designated shellfish growing areas status as of July 1, 2000 is provided in Figure 1-1.
DMF data (taken in both dry and wet weather periods) were taken over the years 1985- 2001 for the
Apponagansett Bay Segment MA 95-39 are summarized in Table 4-16, as well as in Figures 4-1 and
4-2 above. These are also available for download at http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
Table 4-16. MA95-39 Apponagansett Bay DMF Fecal Coliform Data
Total Number of
Data Points 1985-2001
1178
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Range (cfu/100mL)
1-460
Geometric Mean, 1997- 2001
data base
(cfu/100ml_)
4.75
Mattapoisett Harbor Segment MA95-35 & MA95-60
Segment MA95-35 is a 1.10 square mile Class SA segment which is open to shellfishing. The
segment begins at the mouth of the Mattapoisett River and extends to Ned Point and to a point of land
between Bayview and Grandview Avenues in Mattapoisett. Coen Brook is a tributary to Mattapoisett
Harbor. The Old Rochester Regional School District has a permit to discharge treated sewage effluent
into Coen Brook. In 2002, the school district tied into the Mattapoisett sewer system, which, after going
through the Fairhaven VWVTF, discharges treated water into the New Bedford Inner Harbor.
Segment MA95-60 is a 0.05 square mile, Class SA Shellfishing estuary that extends from the River
Road bridge, Mattapoisett to the mouth at Mattapoisett Harbor, Mattapoisett. The DMF Shellfishing
Status Report of July 2000 indicates that shellfishing area BB26.1 is conditionally approved, and
BB26.2 is restricted. Therefore the entire 0.05 square mile segment is assessed as impaired.
The Town of Mattapoisett received a FY'07 SRF Grant Award of $160,000 for development of a
comprehensive wastewater management plan. Mattapoisett submitted an NOI requesting permit
coverage under the NPDES program for their MS4. According to the "Atlas of Stormwater Discharges
in the Buzzards Bay Watershed", the Mattapoisett River (upstream of this segment) has a total of 814
catch basins, of which 19 are treated, and there are a total of 241 pipe or road cut discharges which
are rated as medium or high in priority for remediation, of which 2 have been remediated. A map
showing stormwater discharge priorities (Priority Map #3) for this particular segment is provided in
Section 6 herein. Separate maps, outlining stormwater drainage systems with outfalls (Mattapoisett
Maps #3,4) of this segment and surrounding areas are shown also in Appendix A. These maps are
also available for download at http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
Impairment status for these segments was based on DMF growing area status. Shellfish harvesting in
this segment is supported for 1.0 square miles and is impaired for 0.1 square miles due to periodic
excessive fecal coliform concentrations. Designated shellfish growing areas status as of July 1, 2000
34
-------
is provided in Figure 1-1. DMF data (taken in both dry and wet weather periods) were taken over the
years 1985- 2001 for the Mattapoisett Harbor Segment MA 95-35, and Mattapoisett River Segment MA
95-60 are summarized in the following Table 4-17, as well as in Figures 4-1 and 4-2 above. These are
also available for download at http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
Table 4-17. MA95-35 Mattapoisett River and MA95-60 Mattapoisett Harbor; DMF Fecal Coliform
Data
Total Number of
Data Points 1985-2001
1614
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Range (cfu/100mL)
1-3,200
Geometric Mean, 1997- 2001
data base
(cfu/100ml_)
13
Nasketucket Bay Segment MA95-65
This is a 3.7 square mile, Class SA Shellfishing estuary that extends from the confluence with
Little Bay, Fairhaven to Buzzards bay along Causeway Road, Fairhaven and along a line from the
southern tip of Brant Island, Mattapoisett to the eastern tip of West Island, Fairhaven. Based on
the DMF Shellfish Status Report of 2000, Shellfish Harvesting Use was assessed as support for
3.2 square miles, and impaired for 0.5 square miles.
DMF data (taken in both dry and wet weather periods) were taken over the years 1985- 2001 for
Nasketucket Bay (Segment MA 95-65 are summarized in Table 4-18 as well as in Figures 4-1 and 4-2
above. These are also available for download at http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
Table 4-18. MA95-65 Nasketucket Bay ;DMF Fecal Coliform Data
Total Number of
Data Points 1985- 2001
1178
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Range (cfu/100mL)
1-460
Geometric Mean, 1997- 2001
data base
(cfu/100mL)
4.8
Hammett Cove Segment MA95-56
This is a 0.07 square mile Class SA waterbody. Hammett Cove is located in Marion and runs south to
the confluence with Sippican Harbor. A line connecting the southwest most point of Little Neck to the
end of the seawall on the opposite point delineates the southern boundary of this segment. The
Hammett Cove subwatershed contains 34.7 acres of cranberry bog open space. Marion submitted an
NOI requesting permit coverage under the NPDES program for their MS4. According to the "Atlas of
Stormwater Discharges in the Buzzards Bay Watershed", the Town of Marion has a total of 280 catch
basins tied into treatment systems, and the town has a total of 125 pipe or road cut discharges which
are rated as medium or high in priority for remediation, of which 13 have been remediated. A map
showing stormwater discharge priorities (Priority Map #4) for this particular segment is provided in
Section 6 herein. A separate map, outlining stormwater drainage systems with outfalls (Marion Map
#2) of this segment and surrounding areas is shown also in Appendix A. This is also available for
download at http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
35
-------
Impairment status for this segment was based on DMF growing area status. Shellfish harvesting is
impaired in 0.02 square miles of this segment due to periodic elevated fecal coliform concentrations.
Designated shellfish growing areas status as of July 1, 2000 is provided in Figure 1-1. Hammett Cove
MA 95-56 is part of the larger Sippican Harbor Segment MA 95-08 (Table 4-22) immediately below.
DMF data for both segments is summarized in Figure 4-19 below, and are provided in Figures 4-1 and
4-2 above, and are also available for download at http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
Sippican Harbor Segment MA95-08
This is a 2.0 square mile Class SA Shellfishing (open) waterbody. Sippican Harbor extends from the
confluence with Hammetts Cove to the mouth of Buzzards Bay (excluding Blankenship Cove and
Planning Island Cove). The Sippican Harbor subwatershed contains 37.8 acres of cranberry bog open
space. Barden's Boat Yard Inc and Edey & Duff Ltd. have general storm water permits. The Town of
Marion submitted an NOI requesting permit coverage under the NPDES program for their MS4.
According to the "Atlas of Stormwater Discharges in the Buzzards Bay Watershed", the Town of Marion
has a total of 280 catch basins tied into treatment systems, and the town has a total of 125 pipe or road
cut discharges which are rated as medium or high in priority for remediation, of which 13 have been
remediated. A map showing stormwater discharge priorities (Priority Map #4) for this particular
segment is provided in Section 6 herein. Separate maps, outlining stormwater drainage systems with
outfalls (Marion Maps #2,4,5) of this segment and surrounding areas are shown also in Appendix A,
and is available for download at http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm. Island Wharf has a
vessel sewage pump out shoreside facility and porta-potty dump.
Impairment status for this segment was based on DMF growing area status. Shellfish harvesting is
impaired in 0.30 square miles of this segment due to periodic fecal coliform concentrations.
Designated shellfish growing areas status as of July 1, 2000 is provided in Figure 1-1. DMF data (taken
in both dry and wet weather periods) were taken over the years 1985- 2001 for the Sippican Harbor
Segment MA 95-08, and the connecting Hammett Cove Area MA 95-56 are summarized in Table 4-19,
as well as in Figures 4-1 and 4-2 above. These are also available for download at
http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
Table 4-19. MA95-08 Sippican Harbor; MA 95-56 Hammett Cove DMF Fecal Coliform Data
Total Number of
Data Points 1985- 2001
1,275
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Range (cfu/100mL)
1-350
Geometric Mean, 1997- 2001
data base
(cfu/100mL)
4.1
Aucoot Cove Segment MA95-09
This is a 0.50 square mile segment which is classified as SA, Shellfishing (open) segment. Aucoot
Cove extends from the confluence with Aucoot Creek to the mouth of Buzzards Bay. The area is
bounded to the south by a line drawn from Converse Point to Joes Point. The Aucoot Cove
subwatershed contains 52.7 acres of cranberry bog open space. Marion submitted an NOI requesting
36
-------
permit coverage under the NPDES program for their MS4. According to the "Atlas of Stormwater
Discharges in the Buzzards Bay Watershed", the Town of Marion has a total of 280 catch basins tied
into treatment systems, and the town has a total of 125 pipe or road cut discharges which are rated as
medium or high in priority for remediation, of which 13 have been remediated. A map showing
stormwater discharge priorities (Priority Map #4) for this particular segment is provided in Section 6
herein. A separate map, outlining stormwater drainage systems with outfalls (Marion Map#4) of this
segment and surrounding areas is shown also in Appendix A. This is also available for download at
http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm. The Town of Marion Waste Water Treatment Plant
discharges treated waste water into an unnamed brook tributary to Aucoot Cove.
Impairment status for this segment was based on DMF growing area status .Shellfish harvesting is
impaired in 0.04 square miles of this segment. Designated shellfish growing areas status as of July 1,
2000 is provided in Figure 1-1. DMF data (taken in both dry and wet weather periods) were taken over
the years 1985- 2001 for the Aucoot Cove Segment MA 95-09 are summarized in Table 4-20 as well
as in Figures 4-1 and 4-2 above. These are also available for download at http://www.buzzardsbay.org/
stormatlas.htm.
Table 4-20. MA95-09 Aucoot Cove ; DMF Fecal Coliform Data
Total Number of
Data Points 1985-2001
502
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Range (cfu/100ml_)
1-128
Geometric Mean, 1997- 2001
data base
(cfu/100ml_)
3.1
Miller Cove Segment MA95-10
Miller Cove is a 0.04 square mile Class SA segment. It is located landward of a line drawn between
Jones Point and the second boat dock northeast of Miller Cove Lane in Mattapoisett. Mattapoisett
submitted an NOI requesting permit coverage under the NPDES program for their MS4. According to
the "Atlas of Stormwater Discharges in the Buzzards Bay Watershed", the Town of Mattapoisett has a
total of 310 catch basins tied into treatment systems, and the town has a total of 195 pipe or road cut
discharges which are rated as medium or high in priority for remediation, of which 2 have been
remediated. A map showing stormwater discharge priorities (Priority Map #4) for this particular
segment is provided in Section 6 herein. This is also available for download at
http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
Impairment status for this segment was based on DMF growing area status. Shellfish harvesting is
impaired in 0.01 square miles of Miller Cove due to periodic excessive fecal coliform concentrations.
Designated shellfish growing areas status as of July 1, 2000 is provided in Figure 1-1. Designated
shellfish growing areas status as of July 1, 2000 is provided in Figure 1-1. DMF data (taken in both dry
and wet weather periods) were taken over the years 1985- 2001 for the Hillier Cove Segment MA
95-10 are summarized in Table 4-21 as well as in Figures 4-1 and 4-2 above. These are also available
for download at http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
Table 4-21. MA95-10 Miller Cove; DMF Fecal Coliform Data
Total Number of
Data Points 1985-2001
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Range (cfu/100mL)
Geometric Mean, 1997- 2001
data base
37
-------
373
1-240
(cfu/100ml_)
5.9
Little Bay Segment MA95-64
Little Bay is a 0.36 square mile, Class SA segment. It runs from the confluence with the Nasketucket
River, Fairhaven south to the confluence with Nasketucket Bay at a line from the southernmost tip
of Mirey Neck, Fairhaven to a point near Shore Drive. The DMF Shellfish Status Report in July,
2000, indicates that growing areas BB22.0 and BB22.3 are conditionally approved and BB22.1 is
prohibited. Therefore, the entire segment is classified as prohibited.
DMF data (taken in both dry and wet weather periods) were taken over the years 1985- 2001 for the
Little Bay Segment MA 95-64 are summarized in Table 4-22 as well as in Figures 4-1 and 4-2 above.
These are also available for download at http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
Table 4-22. MA95-64 Little Bay; DMF Fecal Coliform Data
Total Number of
Data Points 1985-2001
1009
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Range (cfu/100ml_)
1-492
Geometric Mean, 1997- 2001
data base
(cfu/100ml_)
5.9
Sippican River Segment MA95-07
This 0.08 square mile segment is designated as a Class SA, Shellfishing (open) river segment. This
segment flows from County Road to its confluence with Weweantic River in Marion/Wareham. The
Sippican River subwatershed contains 2313.1 acres of cranberry bog open space. The Town of
Marion submitted an NOI requesting permit coverage under the NPDES program for their MS4.
According to the "Atlas of Stormwater Discharges in the Buzzards Bay Watershed", the Sippican
Harbor Area (including this segment) has a total of 426 catch basins, of which 48 are treated, and has
a total of 55 pipe or road cut discharges which are rated as medium or high in priority for remediation,
of which 6 have been remediated. A map showing stormwater discharge priorities (Priority Map #4) for
this particular segment is provided in Appendix A herein. Separate maps, outlining stormwater
drainage systems with outfalls (Marion Maps #2,3) of this segment and surrounding areas are shown
in Appendix A, and is also available for download at http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
Impairment status for this segment was based on DMF growing area status. This entire river segment
is impaired for shellfishing due to periodic high fecal coliform concentrations. Designated shellfish
growing areas status as of July 1, 2000 is provided in Figure 1-1. DMF data (taken in both dry and wet
weather periods) were taken over the years 1985- 2001 for the Sippican River Segment MA 95-07 are
summarized in Table 4-23, as well as in Figures 4-1 and 4-2 above. These are also available for
download at http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
Table 4-23. MA95-07 Sippican River; DMF Fecal Coliform Data
Total Number of
Data Points 1985- 2001
1275
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Range (cfu/100ml_)
1-350
Geometric Mean, 1997- 2001
data base
(cfu/100ml_)
4.1
38
-------
Beaverdam Creek Segment MA95-53
Beaverdam Creek is a 0.04 square mile Class SA segment. It begins at the outlet from the cranberry
bogs southeast of Route 6 and flows to its confluence with the Weweantic River. The Beaverdam
Creek subwatershed contains 40.8 acres of cranberry bog open space. Wareham submitted an NOI
requesting permit coverage under the NPDES program for their MS4. According to the "Atlas of
Stormwater Discharges in the Buzzards Bay Watershed", the Town of Wareham has a total of 710 pipe
or road cut discharges of which 547 which are rated as medium or high in priority for remediation, of
which 32 have been remediated. A map showing stormwater discharge priorities (Priority Map #4) for
this particular segment is provided in Section 6 herein. A separate map, outlining stormwater drainage
systems with outfalls (Marion Map #3) of this segment and surrounding areas is shown also in
Appendix A. This is also available for download at http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
Impairment status for this segment was based on DMF growing area status. Periodic high fecal
coliform values have caused shellfish harvesting impairment in this segment. Designated shellfish
growing areas status as of July 1, 2000 is provided in Figure 1-1. DMF data (taken in both dry and wet
weather periods) were taken over the years' 1985- 2001 for Beaverdam Creek (DMF shellfishing area
BB-35-1), and are summarized in Table 4-24 as well as in Figures 4-1 and 4-2 above. These are also
available for download at http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
Table 4-24. MA95-53 Beaverdam Creek; DMF Fecal Coliform Data
Total Number of
Data Points 1985- 2001
92
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Range (cfu/100mL)
1-460
Geometric Mean, 1997- 2001
data base
(cfu/100ml_)
3.8
Bread and Cheese Brook Segment MA95-58
This is a 4.9 mile long Class B river segment, running from the headwaters, north of Old Bedford
Road, Westport to confluence with East Branch Westport River, Westport. WRWA collected
bacteria samples from Bread and Cheese Brook at Rte 177 between March and October 2001 (Table
4-25 below). Two elevated counts were representative of wet weather conditions. ESS also collected
fecal coliform bacteria samples from the three stations along Bread and Cheese Brook as part of a
Nonpoint Source bacteriological assessment project (01-02/MWI). ESS noted that large impervious
areas along Route 6 and Gifford Road convey storm water runoff directly into Bread and Cheese
Brook. Livestock pastures were also noted within 200 feet of the brook.
Bread and Cheese Brook was previously listed for pathogen impairments. Data collected by the
Westport River Watershed Alliance and ESS are provided in Table 4-25 and identify periodic
exceedances of the State Water Quality Standards.
Table 4-25. MA95-58 Bread and Cheese Brook; WRWA Fecal Coliform Data Summary.
Station(s)
Total Number of Samples
(Number of Samples during Primary
Contact Season)
Fecal Coliform
Bacteria Range
(cfu/100ml_)
Geometric Mean
(cfu/100ml_)
39
-------
Route 177,
Westport (WRWA)
WR-13, Bedford
Rd; WR-12, Route
6; WR-10, Route
177 (ESS)
17
12
0-1,190*
< 100
55.9
2 samples > 400 (13%),
rep. of wet weather
conditions.
< 100
* Enterococci counts at Rte 177 ranged from 0 to 4940 cfu/100ml (n=16).
Weweantic River Segment MA95-05
This segment is designated as Class SA - Open to shellfishing. It is a 0.62 square mile segment that
begins at the outlet to Horseshoe Pond in Wareham and continues to the mouth at Buzzards Bay in
Marion/Wareham. Point Independence Yacht Club has a vessel sewage pump out sewage facility
within this segment. The Weweantic River subwatershed contains 8969.4 acres of cranberry bog open
space. The Towns of Wareham, Marion, and Rochester have all submitted NOIs requesting permit
coverage under the NPDES program for their MS4. According to the "Atlas of Stormwater Discharges
in the Buzzards Bay Watershed", this segment has a total of 627 catch basins with potential
stormwater contribution, of which 122 are treated, and has a total of 84 pipe or road cut discharges
which are rated as medium or high in priority for remediation, of which 2 have been remediated. A map
showing stormwater discharge priorities (Priority Map #4) for this particular segment is provided in
Section 6 herein. Separate maps, outlining stormwater drainage systems with outfalls (Marion Maps
#2,3; Wareham Maps 1,5) of this segment and surrounding areas are shown also in Appendix A. This
is also available for download at http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
Impairment status for this segment was based on DMF growing area status. Periodic high levels of
fecal coliform have caused shellfish harvesting impairment in 0.45 square miles of this segment.
MassDEP suspects municipal separate storm sewer systems and failing septic systems to be the
source of bacteria. Designated shellfish growing areas status as of July 1, 2000 is provided in Figure
1-1. DMF data (taken in both dry and wet weather periods) were taken for the Weweantic River
Segment MA95-05 (DMF shellfishing area BB-35) over the years 1985- 2001, and are summarized in
Table 4-26 as well as in Figures 4-1 and 4-2 above. These are also available for download at
http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
Table 4-26. MA95-05 Weweantic River; DMF Fecal Coliform Data
Total Number of
Data Points 1985- 2001
1065
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Range (cfu/100mL)
1-460
Geometric Mean, 1997- 2001
data base
(cfu/100mL)
4.4
Agawam River Segment MA95-29 & Wankinco River Segment MA95-50
Segment MA95-29 (Agawam River) is 0.16 miles long and is classified as a Class SB waterway which
is restricted for shellfishing. The segment runs from the Wareham WWTP to the confluence with
Wankinco River at the Route 6 bridge in Wareham. The Agawam River subwatershed contains 2792.0
acres of cranberry bog open space. The Town of Wareham has a permit to discharge treated sanitary
wastewater into the Agawam River. The Town of Wareham submitted an NOI requesting permit
coverage under the NPDES program for their MS4. According to the "Atlas of Stormwater Discharges
40
-------
in the Buzzards Bay Watershed", this segment has a total of 437 catch basins with potential
stormwater contribution, of which 24 are treated, and has a total of 96 pipe or road cut discharges
which are rated as medium or high in priority for remediation, of which none have been remediated. A
map showing stormwater discharge priorities (Priority Map #4) for this particular segment is provided in
Section 6 herein. Separate maps, outlining stormwater drainage systems with outfalls (Wareham Maps
2,3) of this segment and surrounding areas are shown in Appendix A. This is also available for
download at http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
Segment MA95-50 is 0.05 square mile Class SA waterbody extends from the Elm Street bridge in
Wareham to the confluence with the Agawam River. The subwatershed of the upstream segment
MA95-30 contains 1770.6 acres of cranberry bog open space. According to the "Atlas of Stormwater
Discharges in the Buzzards Bay Watershed", this segment has a total of 547 pipe or road cut
discharges which are rated as medium or high in priority for remediation, of which 32 have been
remediated. A map showing stormwater discharge priorities (Priority Map #4) for this particular
segment is provided in Section 6 herein. A separate map, outlining stormwater drainage systems with
outfalls (Wareham Map #2) of this segment and surrounding areas is shown also in Appendix A.
Impairment status for these segments was previously based on DMF growing area status. Shellfish
harvesting along these segments is impaired due to periodic elevated fecal coliform levels. Designated
shellfish growing areas status as of July 1, 2000 is provided in Figure 1-1. DMF data (taken in both dry
and wet weather periods) were taken over the years 1985- 2001 for the Agawam River Segment MA
95-29, and the smaller connecting Wankinco River Segment MA 95-50, are summarized in Table 4-27,
as well as in Figures 4-1 and 4-2 above. These are also available for download at
http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
Table 4-27. MA95-29 & MA95-50 Agawam and Wankinco Rivers; DMF Fecal Coliform Data
Total Number of
Data Points 1985- 2001
223
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Range (cfu/100mL)
1-2,228
Geometric Mean, 1997- 2001
data base
(cfu/100mL)
10.8
Broad Marsh River Segment MA95-49
This 0.16 square mile Class SA waterbody flows from its headwaters in a salt marsh south of Marion
Road to the confluence with the Wareham River. There is a public beach as well as several private
beaches along the river. Wareham submitted an NOI requesting permit coverage under the NPDES
program for their MS4. Fifteen storm drain pipes discharge directly into the river. The Broad Marsh
Stormwater Remediation Project reduced fecal coliform concentrations in runoff by >99.99%,
according to post-project monitoring (MassDEP 2003b). According to the "Atlas of Stormwater
Discharges in the Buzzards Bay Watershed", the Town of Wareham has a total of 710 pipe or road cut
discharges of which 547 which are rated as medium or high in priority for remediation, of which 32
have been remediated. A map showing stormwater discharge priorities (Priority Map #4) for this
particular segment is provided in Section 6 herein. A separate map, outlining stormwater drainage
systems with outfalls (Wareham Map #6) of this segment and surrounding areas is shown in Appendix
A. This is also available for download at http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
41
-------
Impairment status for this segment was previously based on DMF growing area status. Shellfish
harvesting along this segment was deemed to be impaired due to periodic high fecal coliform values.
This segment should be reassessed to determine if the Broad Marsh Remediation Project has
eliminated the impairment. Designated shellfish growing areas status as of July 1, 2000 is provided in
Figure 1-1. DMF data (taken in both dry and wet weather periods) were taken over the years 1985-
2001 for the Broad Marsh River Segment MA 95-49 are summarized in Table 4-28, as well as in
Figures 4-1 and 4-2 above. These are also available for download at
http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
Table 4-28. MA95-49 Broad Marsh River;DMF Fecal Coliform Data
Total Number of
Data Points 1985-2001
259
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Range (cfu/100mL)
1-130
Geometric Mean, 1997- 2001
data base
(cfu/100ml_)
5.5
Crooked River Segment MA95-51
The Crooked River is a 0.04 square mile Class SA waterbody extending from the outlet of a cranberry
bog, east of Indian Neck Road, to the confluence with Wareham River. The Town of Wareham
submitted an NOI requesting permit coverage under the NPDES program for their MS4. According to
the "Atlas of Stormwater Discharges in the Buzzards Bay Watershed", the Town of Wareham has a
total of 710 pipe or road cut discharges of which 547 which are rated as medium or high in priority for
remediation, of which 32 have been remediated. A map showing stormwater discharge priorities
(Priority Map #4) for this particular segment is provided in Section 6 herein. Separate maps, outlining
stormwater drainage systems with outfalls (Wareham Map #6,7) of this segment and surrounding
areas are shown also in Appendix A. This also available for download at
http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
Impairment status for this segment was previously based on DMF growing area status. Shellfish
harvesting along this segment is impaired due to periodic high fecal coliform concentrations.
Designated shellfish growing areas status as of July 1, 2000 is provided in Figure 1-1. DMF data (taken
in both dry and wet weather periods) were taken over the years 1985- 2001 for the Crooked River
Segment MA 95-51 are summarized in Table 4-29, as well as in Figures 4-1 and 4-2 above. These are
also available for download at http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
Table 4-29. MA95-51 Crooked River; DMF Fecal Coliform Data
Total Number of
Data Points 1985- 2001
30
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Range (cfu/100mL)
1-240
Geometric Mean, 1997- 2001
data base
(cfu/100mL)
15.3
Wareham River Segment MA95-03
42
-------
This segment includes 1.18 square miles and extends from the Route 6 bridge to the mouth at
Buzzards Bay. The segment is classified in the state Water Quality Standards as an SA water. Warr's
Marine has a vessel pump-out facility and porta-potty dump located within this segment. The
Wareham River subwatershed contains 2842.5 acres of cranberry bog open space. As previously
noted the Town of Wareham has submitted an NOI requesting permit coverage under the NPDES
program for their MS4. According to the "Atlas of Stormwater Discharges in the Buzzards Bay
Watershed", this segment has a total of 714 catch basins with potential stormwater contribution, and a
total of 229 pipe or road cut discharges which are rated as medium or high in priority for remediation, of
which 18 have been remediated. A map showing stormwater discharge priorities (Priority Map #4) for
this particular segment is provided in Section 6 herein. A separate map, outlining stormwater drainage
systems with outfalls (Wareham Map #6) of this segment and surrounding areas is shown in Appendix
A, and is available for download at http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
Impairment status for this segment was previously based on DMF growing area status. Shellfish
harvesting was determined to be impaired in 0.25 square miles of this segment due to periodic high
fecal coliform levels. Designated shellfish growing areas status as of July 1, 2000 is provided in Figure
1-1. http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm. DMF data (taken in both dry and wet weather
periods) were taken over the years 1985- 2001 for the Wareham River Segment MA 95-03 are
summarized in Table 4-30, as well as in Figures 4-1 and 4-2 above. These are also available for
download at http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
Table 4-30. MA95-03 Wareham River; DMF Fecal Coliform Data
Total Number of
Data Points 1985- 2001
1320
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Range (cfu/100mL)
1-4800
Geometric Mean, 1997- 2001
data base
(cfu/100ml_)
8.5
Onset Bay Segment MA95-02
This 0.78 square mile Class SA segment is located in the Town of Wareham. Three vessel sewage
pump out facilities are located on this segment. The Onset Bay subwatershed contains 162.8 acres of
cranberry bog open space. The Town of Wareham submitted an NOI requesting permit coverage
under the NPDES program for their MS4. According to the "Atlas of Stormwater Discharges in the
Buzzards Bay Watershed", this segment has a total of 471 catch basins with potential stormwater
contribution, of which 76 are treated, and has a total of 94 pipe or road cut discharges which are rated
as medium or high in priority for remediation, of which 9 have been remediated. Maps showing
stormwater discharge priorities (Priority Map #4,5) for this particular segment are provided in Section 6
herein. Separate maps, outlining stormwater drainage systems with outfalls (Wareham maps 7, 8) are
shown in Appendix A. This is also available for download at
http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
Impairment status for this segment was previously based on DMF growing area status. Shellfish
harvesting is impaired in 0.15 square miles of this segment due to periodic high fecal coliform
concentrations. Designated shellfish growing areas status as of July 1, 2000 is provided in Figure 1-1.
DMF data (taken in both dry and wet weather periods) were taken over the years 1985- 2001 for the
43
-------
Onset Bay Segment MA 95-02 are summarized in Table 4-31, as well as in Figures 4-1 and 4-2 above.
These are also available for download at http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
Table 4-31. MA95-02 Onset Bay; DMF Fecal Coliform Data
Total Number of
Data Points 1985-2001
3245
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Range (cfu/100mL)
1-4800
Geometric Mean, 1997- 2001
data base
(cfu/100ml_)
3.3
Buttermilk Bay Segment MA95-01
Segment MA95-01 is a 0.67 square mile Class SA segment is located in Bourne/Wareham. There is
one vessel sewage pump-out boat in this segment. The Buttermilk Bay subwatershed contains 515.0
acres of cranberry bog open space. Both Towns of Bourne and Wareham submitted NOIs requesting
permit coverage under the NPDES program for their MS4. According to the "Atlas of Stormwater
Discharges in the Buzzards Bay Watershed", this segment has a total of 58 discharges with potential
stormwater contribution, and has a total of 46 pipe or road cut discharges which are rated as medium
or high in priority for remediation, of which 14 have been remediated. A map showing stormwater
discharge priorities (Priority Map #5) for this particular segment are provided in Section 6 herein.
Separate maps, outlining stormwater drainage systems with outfalls (Bourne maps 1,2) are shown in
Appendix A. This is also available for download at http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
Impairment status for this segment was previously based on DMF growing area status. Shellfish
harvesting was determined to be impaired in 0.16 square miles of this segment due to excessive
periodic exceedances of the state fecal coliform criteria . Designated shellfish growing areas status as
of July 1, 2000 is provided in Figure 1-1. DMF 5 year (1997-2001) fecal coliform geometric mean data
(taken in both dry and wet weather periods) for stations in this segment indicate very high levels
(>18cfu/1 OOmL) in the northwest portion of the Bay on the border of Wareham and Bourne, and low to
moderate levels (0-7cfu/1 OOmL) throughout the other portions of the Bay. DMF data (taken in both dry
and wet weather periods) were taken over the years 1985- 2001 for the Buttermilk Bay Segment MA
95-01 are summarized in Table 4-32, as well as in Figures 4-1 and 4-2 above. These are also available
for download at http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
Table 4-32. MA95-01 Buttermilk Bay; DMF Fecal Coliform Data
Total Number of
Data Points 1985- 2001
1892
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Range (cfu/100mL)
1-2,400
Geometric Mean, 1997- 2001
data base
(cfu/100ml_)
8.5
44
-------
Buzzards Bay Segment MA 95-62
Segment 95-62 encompasses 8.0 square miles of open water estuary within a line drawn from Wilbur
Point, Fairhaven to Clarks Point, New Bedford to Ricketson Point, Dartmouth to vicinity of
Samoset St., Dartmouth down to Round Hill Point, Dartmouth, back to Wilbur Point, Fairhaven.
The 18,000-acre New Bedford Harbor is an urban tidal estuary with sediments that are highly
contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and heavy metals.
The DMF Shellfish Status Report of July 2000 indicates that shellfish growing area BB11.0 and BB14.0
are approved, BB11.3 and BB14.3 are conditionally approved, and BB11.2, BB11.30, BB14.2, and
BB14.30 are prohibited (DFWELE 2000). DMF data (taken in both dry and wet weather periods) were
taken over the years 1985- 2001 for the Buzzards Bay Segment MA 95-62 are summarized in Table
4-33, as well as in Figures 4-1 and 4-2 above. These are also available for download at
http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm. Also, the City of New Bedford, Shellfish Sanitation
Program conducted sampling between August 1997 and August 2007 (Labelle, 2008). These data are
also summarized in Table 4-33.
Also located in the segment are three public beaches - Noquitt Beach, Anthony Beach, and Town
Beach. According to the Dartmouth Board of Health, there have been no closures (Dartmouth 2003
and MDPH 2002b).
Table 4-33. MA95-62 Buzzards Bay DMF and City of New Bedford (NBSSP) Fecal Coliform Data
Total Number of
Data Points 1985-2001
845 (DMF)
142 (NBSSP) (4 stations
sampled up to 38 X)
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Range (cfu/100mL)
1-128
<2 to 18, with 95+% of
readings <2.
Geometric Mean, 1997- 2001
data base
(cfu/100ml_)
2.3
<2
The following fourteen segments (starting with MA 95-14 Cape Cod Canal and ending with MA
95-25 Quinsett Harbor) were previously included in the Cape Cod Pathogen TMDL. They were
moved to this document because although they are on the Cape Cod side of Buzzards Bay they
discharge to Buzzards Bay
Cape Cod Canal Segment MA95-14
The Cape Cod Canal is designated as a class SB waterbody and is designated for shellfishing with
depuration. The segment encompasses 1.13 mi2 and connects Buzzards Bay and Cape Cod Bay. Two
vessel sewage pump-out boats are located in Bourne and Sandwich. Mirant Canal, LLC has five
NPDES discharge outfalls, which discharge condenser cooling water, intake screen and flume flushing
water, floor and equipment drains, waste system blowdown and demineralizer and condensate polisher
waste waters. Massachusetts Maritime Academy has a NPDES permit to discharge treated sanitary
waste, untreated boiler water blowdown and treated swimming pool discharge via two outfalls. The
Towns of Bourne and Sandwich applied for NPDES permits for their MS4s.
45
-------
The DMF Designated Shellfish Growing Areas Status identified 0.49 mi2for approved shellfishing; and
0.33 mi2 where shellfishing is presently prohibited (Figure 1-1).
DMF data (taken in both dry and wet weather periods) were taken over the years 1985- 2001 for the
Cape Cod Canal Segment MA 95-14 are summarized in Table 4-34, as well as in Figures 4-1 and 4-2
above. These are also available for download at http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
Table 4-34. MA95-14 Cape Cod Canal ; DMF Fecal Coliform Data
Total Number of
Data Points 1985- 2001
395
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Range (cfu/100mL)
1-9,800
Geometric Mean, 1997- 2001
data base
(cfu/100ml_)
3.2
One of the recent DMF sanitary surveys ( data included in Table 4-37 above) conducted on January
31, 2006, (following a rain event), had elevated readings: 1) at Sagamore Bridge, 9,800 cfu/100ml_;
Bourne Rotary Bridge culvert, 560 cfu/100ml_; Boat Basin ramp, 280 cfu/100ml_.
The MA Department of Public Health (DPH) sampled for enterococcus levels at Gilder Road Beach, 12
times just adjacent to this segment during 2006. Results ranged between <2 and 82 cfu /100mL with
no closures.
Eel Pond Segment MA95-48 & Back River Segment MA95-47
The Eel Pond segment encompasses 0.03 mi2 and is classified as a Class SA waterbody under the
state Water Quality Standards. The segment is designated for shellfishing and is a salt water pond that
discharges into the Back River. There are no known dischargers in this segment other than MS4s.
The Town of Bourne has applied for a NPDES permit for their MS4.
The Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) has Conditionally Approved this area for shellfishing (Figure
1-1).
The Back River Segment is a 0.08 mi2 segment and is designated as a Class SA waterbody and is
designated for shellfishing. This segment flows from the outlet of a small unnamed pond (downstream
of Mill Pond) to its confluence with Phinneys Harbor. The Lobster Trap Company has a permit to
discharge treated wastewater.
The DMF has conditionally approved the use of shellfishing in much of this segment and prohibited use
in a small portion (see BBWQA, DMF website for growing areas BB47.1, BB47.2, BB47.20 and BB47.3
for more specific information at
http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dmf/programsandprojects/dsga.htm#shelsani).
DMF data (taken in both dry and wet weather periods) were taken over the years 1985- 2001 for the
combined segments Eel Pond MA 95-48 (in Bourne) and Back River MA 95-47 and are summarized in
Table 4-35, as well as in Figures 4-1 and 4-2 above. These are also available for download at
http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
46
-------
These two segments were previously determined to be impaired based on DMF data and periodic
exceedances of the state Water Quality Standards.
Table 4-35. MA95-48 Eel Pond & MA95-47 Back River ; DMF Fecal Coliform Data
Total Number of
Data Points 1985-2001
523
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Range (cfu/100mL)
1-2,400
Geometric Mean, 1997- 2001
data base
(cfu/100ml_)
6.7
Eel Pond Segment MA95-61
Segment MA95-61 is a 0.04 square mile coastal salt water pond at the head of Mattapoisett Harbor,
Mattapoisett.
The DMF Shellfish Status Report of July 2000 indicates that shellfish growing areas BB27.0 is
prohibited. DMF data (taken in both dry and wet weather periods) were taken over the years 1985-
2001 for the Eel Pond Segment MA 95-61 (in Mattapoisett) are summarized in Table 4-36, as well as in
Figures 4-1 and 4-2 above. These are also available for download at
http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
Based on the DMF shellfish growing area status this entire 0.04 mi2 segment was previously assessed
as being impaired due to periodically high coliform concentrations.
Table 4-36. MA95-61 Eel Pond (Mattapoisett) DMF Fecal Coliform Data
Total Number of
Data Points 1985- 2001
134
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Range (cfu/100mL)
1-492
Geometric Mean, 1997- 2001
data base
(cfu/100ml_)
67
Phinneys Harbor Segment MA95-15
Phinney's Harbor is a 0.73 mi2 Class SA waterbody. Its designated uses include shellfish harvesting .
The segment extends from the confluence with the Back River to its mouth at Buzzards Bay. A long
dike to Hog and Mashnee Islands partially encloses the harbor. There are no known dischargers in
this segment other than MS4s. The Town of Bourne has applied for a NPDES permit for their MS4.
DMF has approved 0.58 mi2 for shellfish harvesting and conditionally approved 0.15 mi2 (Figure 1-1).
DMF data (taken in both dry and wet weather periods) were taken over the years 1985- 2001 for the
Phinney's Harbor Segment MA 95-15 are summarized in Table 4-37, as well as in Figures 4-1 and 4-2
above. These are also available for download at http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
Table 4-37. MA95-15 Phinney's Harbor; DMF Fecal Coliform Data
Total Number of
Fecal Coliform Bacteria | Geometric Mean, 1997- 2001
47
-------
Data Points 1985-2001
848
Range (cfu/100mL)
1-4,800
data base
(cfu/100ml_)
4.3
The MA Department of Public Health (DPH) also sampled for enterococcus levels at Monument Beach,
12 times, and at Monument Marina 11 times within this segment during 2006. Results ranged between
<2 and 26 cfu /100mL with no closures.
Pocasset River Segment MA95-16
This segment encompasses 0.05 mi2 It is designated as a Class SA waterbody and designated for,
shellfishing. This segment is also designated as an Outstanding Resource Water. The Town of Bourne
has applied for a NPDES permit for their MS4.
The Division of marine Fisheries has listed this area as "Prohibited" for shellfishing which has resulted
in it being designated as an impaired water by MassDEP. (Figure 1 -1).
DMF data (taken in both dry and wet weather periods) were taken over the years 1985- 2001 for the
Pocasset River Segment MA 95-16 are summarized in the following Table 4-38, as well as in Figures
4-1 and 4-2 above. These are also available for download at
http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
Table 4-38. MA95-16 Pocasset River; DMF Fecal Coliform Data
Total Number of
Data Points 1985- 2001
173
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Range (cfu/100mL)
1-4,800
Geometric Mean, 1997- 2001
data base
(cfu/100ml_)
11.0
The MA Department of Public Health (DPH) also sampled for enterococcus levels at Tahanto
Associates, Inc., Beach, 13 times within this segment during 2006. Results ranged between <2 and
272 cfu /100mL with 2 failures.
Pocasset Harbor Segment MA95-17
Pocasset Harbor is 0.33 mi2 and is a Class SA waterbody designated for shellfishing. The segment
commences at the confluence with Red Brook Harbor to the mouth at Buzzards Bay. DMF has
designated 0.20 mi2 of the Harbor as "Approved" for shellfishing with another 0.13 mi2 "Conditionally
Approved" (Figure 1-1).
DMF data (taken in both dry and wet weather periods) were taken over the years 1985- 2001 for the
Pocasset Harbor Segment MA 95-17 are summarized in Table 4-39, as well as in Figures 4-1 and 4-2
above. These are also available for download at http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
This segment was previously listed by MassDEP as being impaired for pathogens based on the DMF
designation including periodic exceedances of Water Quality Standards.
48
-------
The MA Department of Public Health (DPH) also sampled for enterococcus levels at Barlow's Landing
Beach, Pocasset Beach Imp. Association Beach, and at Wings Neck Trust South Beach 12 times
within this segment during 2006. Results ranged between <2 and 84 cfu /100mL with no closures.
Table 4-39. MA95-17 Pocasset Harbor; DMF Fecal Coliform Data
Total Number of
Data Points 1985-2005
631
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Range (cfu/100mL)
1-3,200
Geometric Mean, 1997- 2001
data base
(cfu/100ml_)
4.0
Red Brook Harbor Segment MA95-18
Red Brook Harbor is a 0.91 mi2 Class SA segment which commences at the confluence with Pocasset
Harbor to its mouth at Buzzards Bay. The DMF has designated 0.80 mi2 of the Harbor as "Approved"
for shellfishing with another 0.11 mi2 "Conditionally Approved" (Figure 1-1). Based on the DMF
designation and the periodic exceedances of MA Water Quality Standards the MassDEP has listed this
segment as impaired on the state list of impaired waters.
DMF data (taken in both dry and wet weather periods) were taken over the years 1985- 2001 for the
Red Brook Harbor (including Hen Cove) Segment MA 95-18 are summarized in the following Table
4-40, as well as in Figures 4-1 and 4-2 above. These are also available for download at
http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
Table 4-40. MA95-18 Red Brook Harbor; DMF Fecal Coliform Data
Total Number of
Data Points 1985- 2005
788
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Range (cfu/100mL)
1-3,200
Geometric Mean, 1997- 2001
data base
(cfu/100mL)
4.0
It should be noted that several sanitary surveys conducted since 2001 show indications of elevated
fecal coliform levels > 50 cfu/100ml_ in the Hen Cove area.
Herring Brook Segment MA95-21
This segment encompasses 0.01 mi2 and is designated as a Class SA waterbody according to MA
Water Quality Standards. As such it a primary designated use is for shellfishing. The segment
commences at its headwaters located northeast of Dale Drive and west of Route 28A to its mouth at
Buzzards Bay. The Town of Falmouth has applied for a NPDES permit for its MS4. This entire
segment has been designated as "Prohibited" for shellfishing by the Division of Marine Fisheries.
Based on this designation the MassDEP has listed it as impaired on the state list of impaired waters.
(Figure 1-1).
DMF data (taken in both dry and wet weather periods) were taken over the years 1985- 2001 for the
Herring Brook Segment MA 95-21 are summarized in the following Table 4-41, as well as in Figures
4-1 and 4-2 above. These are also available for download at
http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
49
-------
Table 4-41. MA95-21 Herring Brook ;DMF Fecal Coliform Data
Total Number of
Data Points 1985-2005
84
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Range (cfu/100mL)
1-350
Geometric Mean, 1997- 2001
data base
(cfu/100ml_)
5.7
It should noted that the DMF has done extensive sampling in the (non- connecting) Wild Harbor and
Wild River area, an adjacent reach/ harbor approximately 1 mile to the north of Herring Brook. A major
public beach, Old Silver Beach, lies between the two reaches. At least several of the stations (#4 to #7)
are behind Old Silver Beach and the Seacrest Hotel property, in an apparent drainage pattern,
suggesting a possible linkage with the Herring Brook sub- watershed. Fecal coliform readings in the
Wild Harbor/ River reaches, in October- November 1988, ranged between 7.8-1,600, with 3 readings >
200 cfu/100ml_. Between August 2003 and April 2006, there were 10 stations sampled 16 times, and
the ranges were between <2- >50 cfu/100ml_, with 17 readings >50 cfu/100ml_. These samplings
included stations #4- #7, mentioned above.
The MA Department of Public Health (DPH) also sampled for enterococcus levels in 2006 at four
locations on Old Silver Beach: two stations (residents beach) approximately 100- 200 yards to the
north of where Herring Brook enters Buzzards Bay, and two stations (public beach) right at where
Herring brook enters Buzzards Bay. All four stations were sampled 13 times during 2006. Results
ranged between <2 and 124 cfu /100mL, with one closure.
Harbor Head Segment MA95-46
Harbor Head is a Class SA waterbody and as such is designated for shellfish use in the MA Water
Quality Standards. This 0.02 mi2 waterbody is located south of the confluence with West Falmouth
Harbor at Chappaquoit Road. There are no known discharges in this segment other than MS4s. The
Town of Falmouth has applied for a NPDES permit for its MS4.
The DMF has designated this area as "restricted" for shellfishing. (Figure 1-1). Based on this
designation and the periodic exceedances of MA Water Quality Standards the MassDEP has listed this
segment as impaired on the state list of impaired waters.
DMF data (taken in both dry and wet weather periods) were taken over the years 1985- 2001 for the
Harbor Head Segment MA 95-46 are summarized in the following Table 4-42, as well as in Figures 4-1
and 4-2 above. These are also available for download at http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
Table 4-42. MA95-46 Harbor Head ; DMF Fecal Coliform Data
Total Number of
Data Points 1985-2005
93
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Range (cfu/100mL)
1-128
Geometric Mean, 1997- 2001
data base
(cfu/100ml_)
8
Wild Harbor Segment MA95-20
Wild Harbor is designated as a Class SA waterbody by MassDEP and as such must support
shellfishing. This 0.15 mi2 embayment extends from Point Road, Nyes Neck to Crow Point at the end
50
-------
of Bay Shore Road in North Falmouth. There are no known discharges in this segment other than
MS4s. As previously mentioned the Town of Falmouth has applied for a NPDES permit for its MS4.
The DMF has designated this area as "restricted" for shellfishing. (Figure 1-1). Based on this
designation and the periodic exceedances of MA Water Quality Standards the MassDEP has listed this
segment as impaired on the state list of impaired waters.
DMF data (taken in both dry and wet weather periods) were taken over the years 1985- 2001 for the
Wild Harbor Segment MA 95-20 are summarized in Table 4.43, as well as in Figures 4-1 and 4-2
above. These are also available for download at http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
Table 4-43. MA95-20 Wild Harbor ; DMF Fecal Coliform Data
Total Number of
Data Points 1985- 2005
566
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Range (cfu/100mL)
1-3,200
Geometric Mean, 1997- 2001
data base
(cfu/100ml_)
7.3
Of particular note is that DMF has done extensive sampling in the (non-connecting) Wild Harbor and
Wild River area, an adjacent reach/ harbor approximately 1 mile to the north of Herring Brook. A major
public beach, Old Silver Beach, lies between the two reaches. At least several of the stations (#4 to #7)
are behind Old Silver Beach and the Seacrest Hotel property, in an apparent drainage pattern,
suggesting a possible linkage with the Herring Brook sub- watershed. Fecal coliform readings in the
Wild Harbor/ River reaches, in October- November 1988, ranged between 7.8-1,600, with 3 readings >
200 cfu/100ml_. Between August 2003 and April 2006, there were 10 stations sampled 16 times, and
the ranges were between <2- >50 cfu/100ml_, with 17 readings >50 cfu/100ml_. These samplings
included stations #4- #7, mentioned above.
West Falmouth Harbor Segment MA95-22
The West Falmouth Harbor segment encompasses 0.29 mi2 and extends from the confluence with
Harbor Head to the mouth at Buzzards Bay. This segment has been designated as a Class SA
waterbody capable of supporting shellfishing. The segment is in the Town of Falmouth which has
applied for a NPDES permit for its MS4.
The DMF has designated 0.09 mi2 of the Harbor as "Approved" for shellfishing with another 0.20 mi2
"Conditionally Approved" (Figure 1-1).
DMF data (taken in both dry and wet weather periods) were taken over the years 1985- 2001 for the
West Falmouth Harbor Segment MA 95-22 are summarized in Table 4-44, as well as in Figures 4-1
and 4-2 above. These are also available for download at http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
Table 4-44. MA95-22 West Falmouth Harbor; DMF Fecal Coliform Data
51
-------
Total Number of
Data Points 1985-2005
525
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Range (cfu/100ml_)
1-130
Geometric Mean, 1997- 2001
data base
(cfu/100ml_)
9.6
The MA Department of Public Health (DPH) also sampled 13 times for enterococcus levels in 2006 at
three other locations within this segment during 2006: 1) Little Island Beach Club Beach; 2) and 3)
Chapaquoit Association, Front Beach, and Back Beach). Results ranged between <2 and 10 cfu /
100mL, with no closures.
Great Sippewisset Creek Segment MA95-23
The Great Sippewisset Creek is designated as a Class SA waterbody. It encompasses 0.03 mi2
extending from the outlet of Beach Pond to the mouth at Buzzards Bay. The DMF has designated this
entire segment as "Prohibited" for shellfishing. As such MassDEP has included it on the state list of
impaired waters. (Figure 1-1).
DMF data (taken in both dry and wet weather periods) were taken over the years 1985- 2001 for the
Great Sippewissett Creek Segment MA 95-23 are summarized in Table 4-45, as well as in Figures 4-1
and 4-2 above. These are also available for download at http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
Table 4-45. MA95-23 Great Sippewissett Creek; DMF Fecal Coliform Data
Total Number of
Data Points 1985- 2005
104
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Range (cfu/100ml_)
1-128
Geometric Mean, 1997- 2001
data base
(cfu/100mL)
2.8
In addition, the MA Department of Public Health collected fecal coliform samples at Saconesset Hills
Association Beach within this segment during 2006. A total of 14 samples were collected. Fecal
coliform values ranged from <2 to >400 cfu/100ml_, with 2 failures.
Little Sippewisset Marsh Segment MA95-24
Little Sippewisset Marshjs a 0.02 mi2, Class SA, waterbody. It extends from its headwaters north of
Sippewisset Road to the mouth at Buzzards Bay. It is located within the Town of Falmouth. The Town
has applied for an NPDES permit for its MS4.
The DMF has designated this entire segment as "Prohibited" for shellfishing. As such MassDEP has
included it on the state list of impaired waters. (Figure 1-1).
DMF data (taken in both dry and wet weather periods) were taken over the years 1985- 2001 for the
Wild Harbor Segment MA 95-24 are summarized in the following Table 4-46, as well as in Figures 4-1
and 4-2 above. These are also available for download at http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
Table 4-46. MA95-24 Little Sippewisset Marsh ;DMF Fecal Coliform Data
52
-------
Total Number of
Data Points 1985-2005
88
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Range (cfu/100ml_)
1-128
Geometric Mean, 1997- 2001
data base
(cfu/100ml_)
5.4
In addition, the MA Department of Public Health collected fecal coliform samples at Wood Neck River
Beach within this segment during 2006. Fecal coliform values ranged from <2 to >400 (3 readings
exceeded 135 cfu/100ml_), with three failures.
Quissett Harbor Segment MA95-25
Quissett Harbor is designated as a Class SA waterbody in the MA Water Quality Standards. Its
designated uses includes shellfishing. The segment is 0.17 mi2 and includes landward of a line drawn
between The Knob and Gansett Point in Falmouth . The Town of Falmouth has applied for a NPDES
permit for its MS4.
The DMF has designated 0.1 mi2 of the Harbor as "Approved" for shellfishing with another 0.05 mi2
"Conditionally Approved" (Figure 1-1). The MassDEP has listed this segment as "impaired" on the list
of impaired waters based primarily on the DMF designation and periodic exceedances of state Water
Quality Standards.
Available DMF data (taken in both dry and wet weather periods) were taken over the years 1985- 2005
for the Quissett Harbor Segment MA 95-25 are summarized in Table 4-47, as well as in Figures 4-1
and 4-2 above. These are also available for download at http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
Table 4-47. MA95-25 Quisett Harbor;DMF Fecal Coliform Data
Total Number of
Data Points 1985- 2005
482
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Range (cfu/100ml_)
1-128
Geometric Mean, 1997- 2001
data base
(cfu/100mL)
3
4.2 Summation of the Data from the 48 Segments Above
Clearly, the areas of greatest concern from the data above are: (A) East Branch of the Westport River
MA95-41; (B) Acushnet River MA 95-33 to the New Bedford Inner and Outer Harbor (including Clark's
Cove) Area. The East Branch, Westport River area shows quite a few elevated data sets for fecal
coliform in the tens of thousands, up to a maximum at one site of over 2,100,000 cfu/100ml_. Some of
the land uses suspected in these high bacteria counts include: animal feeding operations, dairy farms,
grazing in riparian areas, MS4 sources, on-site septic systems, and highway/ road runoff.
The Lower Acushnet River to New Bedford Harbor and Clark's Cove show historically elevated fecal
coliform counts, particularly during/ following wet weather events. This appears due to CSO
discharges (a total of 28 remaining in the whole area). DMF data (1985- 2001) indicate that the
Acushnet River (segment MA 95-33) has a geometric mean of 62.3 cfu/ 100mL, the Inner- Outer
Harbor areas have a geometric mean of 9.0 cfu/100ml_, and in Clark's Cove it is 6.9 cfu/100ml_. The
53
-------
City of New Bedford is implementing corrective actions through its long-term CSO control plan which is
likely to already result in decreasing levels to these segments. Clearly, continued implementation of the
CSO discharges will greatly reduce bacteria loadings in this whole area.
4.2 Segments on the State List of Impaired Waters for Pathogens Where No Recent Data are
Available
Acushnet River Segment MA95-31
This segment on the Achusnet River extends 2.7miles from the outlet of the New Bedford Reservoir to
the Hamlin Road culvert in Acushnet. It is designated in the MA Water Quality Standards as a Class B,
warm water fishery. The subwatershed contains 423.7 acres of cranberry bog open space. The Town
of Acushnet submitted a NOI requesting permit coverage under the NPDES program for their MS4.
According to the "Atlas of Stormwater Discharges in the Buzzards Bay Watershed", within this segment
sub watershed (including MA 95-31, 95-32, 95-33) there are 736 catch basins, of which none are
treated, and there are a total of 66 pipe or road cut discharges which are within the "potential
stormwater contribution zone" of the embayment. A map showing stormwater discharge priorities
(Priority Map #3) for this particular segment is provided in Section 6 herein. This is also available for
download at http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
Buttonwood Brook Segment MA95-13
Buttonwood Brook begins at its headwaters at Oakdale Street in New Bedford and flows 3.8 miles to its
mouth at Apponagansett Bay in Dartmouth. This segment is also designated as a Class B, warm water
fishery segment in the MA Water Quality Standards. Buttonwood Brook has been engineered for
storm water management and is considered a "controlled stream." Buttonwood Brook is a major
source of fecal coliform to Apponagansett Bay. The Town of Dartmouth and City of New Bedford have
both submitted NOIs requesting permit coverage under the NPDES program for their MS4. According
to the "Atlas of Stormwater Discharges in the Buzzards Bay Watershed", within the Town of Dartmouth,
there are a total of 423 road cut and pipe discharges, of which 121 are ranked medium or high priority
for remediation, of which 13 have been remediated. A map showing stormwater discharge priorities
(Priority Map #2) for this particular segment is provided in Section 6 herein. Separate maps, outlining
stormwater drainage systems with outfalls (Dartmouth Map #3,4,5) of this segment and surrounding
areas are shown also in Appendix A. These are also available for download at
http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
Cedar Island Creek Segment MA95-52
This segment encompasses 0.01 square miles extending from the headwaters near the intersection of
Parker Drive and Camardo Drive to the mouth at Marks Cove. It is designated as a Class SA
waterbody capable for supporting shellfish. The Town of Wareham submitted an NOI requesting
permit coverage under the NPDES program for their MS4. According to the "Atlas of Stormwater
Discharges in the Buzzards Bay Watershed", the Town of Wareham has a total of 710 pipe or road cut
discharges of which 547 which are rated as medium or high in priority for remediation, of which 32
have been remediated. A map showing stormwater discharge priorities (Priority Map #4) for this
particular segment is provided in Section 6 herein. A separate map, outlining stormwater drainage
systems with outfalls (Wareham Map #6) of this segment and surrounding areas is shown also in
Appendix A, and are available for download at http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm.
54
-------
Impairment status for this segment was based on former DMF growing area status. Shellfish
harvesting along this segment is impaired due to periodic high fecal coliform concentrations .
Designated shellfish growing areas status as of July 1, 2000 is provided in Figure 1-1.
55
-------
5.0 Potential Bacteria Sources
The Buzzards Bay watershed has 52 segments, located throughout the watershed, that are
listed as pathogen impaired requiring a TMDL. These segments represent 100% of the
estuary area and 21.3% of the river miles that have been assessed. Sources of indicator bacteria in
the Buzzards Bay watershed are many and varied. A number of organizations and local governments
have conducted work over the last decade in an effort to identify and address local sources of bacteria.
Even with these efforts much more needs to be done.
Largely through the efforts organizations such as the Westport River Watershed Association (WRWA),
the Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF), the MA Office of Coastal Zone Management (MACZM), and
MassDEP field staff, numerous point and non-point sources of pathogens have been identified. Table
5-1 summarizes a number of impaired segments and some of the suspected and known sources
identified in the state Watershed Assessment Report (WAR) or by other organizations (e.g., MACZM,
WRWA, etc.).
Suspected dry weather sources include:
[] animal feeding operations,
[] animal grazing in riparian zones,
0 leaking sewer pipes,
0 storm water drainage systems (illicit connections of sanitary sewers to storm drains),
0 failing septic systems,
0 recreational activities,
0 wildlife, including birds, and
0 illicit boat discharges.
Suspected and known wet weather sources include:
[] wildlife and domesticated animals (including pets),
[] storm water runoff including municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4),
[] combined sewer overflows (CSOs), and
[] sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs).
It is difficult to provide accurate quantitative estimates of indicator bacteria contributions from the
various sources in the Buzzards Bay watershed because many of the sources are diffuse and
intermittent, and extremely difficult to monitor or accurately model. Many of the sources (failing septic
systems, leaking sewer pipes, sanitary sewer overflows, and illicit sanitary sewer connections) are
prohibited, because they could result in a potential health risk and, therefore, must be eliminated.
Estimating the magnitude of overall indicator bacteria loading (the sum of all contributing sources) can
perhaps be achieved for wet and dry conditions using ambient data available that define baseline
conditions (see segment summary data information, Section 6 priority maps herein, Appendix A and
other information in the "Atlas of Stormwater Discharges in the Buzzards Bay Watershed", and
MassDEP 2003b).
56
-------
Table 5-1. Potential Sources of Bacteria in Pathogen Impaired Segments in the Buzzards Bay
Watershed.
Segment
MA95-40
MA95-45
MA95-59
MA95-41
MA95-37
MA95-54
MA95-34
MA95-44
MA95-31
MA95-32
MA95-33
MA95-42
MA95-63
MA95-38
MA95-13
MA95-39
MA95-35
MA95-39
MA95-65
MA95-56
MA95-08
MA95-09
MA95-10
MA95-64
MA95-07
MA95-53
MA95-58
MA95-05
MA95-29
MA95-50
MA95-49
MA95-51
MA95-52
Segment Name
East Branch Westport
River
Snell Creek
Snell Creek
East Branch Westport
River
West Branch Westport
River
Westport River
Slocums River
Snell Creek
Acushnet River
Acushnet River
Acushnet River
New Bedford Inner Harbor
Outer New Bedford Harbor
Clarks Cove
Buttonwood Brook
Apponagansett Bay
Mattapoisett Harbor
Mattapoisett River
Nasketucket Bay
Hammett Cove
Sippican Harbor
Aucoot Cove
HillerCove
Little Bay
Sippican River
Beaverdam Creek
Bread and Cheese Brook
Weweantic River
Agawam River
Wankinco River
Broad Marsh River
Crooked River
Cedar Island Creek
Potential Sources
MS4, highway/road runoff, animal feeding operations
MS4, on-site septic systems, highway/road runoff
MS4, on-site septic systems, highway/road runoff
Animal feeding operation, dairy outside milk parlor
area, grazing in riparian zone, MS4, on-site septic
systems, highway/road runoff
MS4
MS4
On-site treatment systems (septic systems), urbanized
high density area, MS4
MS4, on-site septic systems, highway/road runoff
Unknown
Unknown
CSO, urbanized high density area
CSO, urbanized high density area, waterfowl
MS4
CSO, urbanized high density area, MS4
Unknown
On-site treatment systems, urbanized high density
area, MS4
MS4
MS4
MS4
MS4
MS4
MS4
MS4
Unknown
MS4
MS4
MS4, Livestock
MS4, on-site treatment systems (septic systems)
MS4, municipal point source discharge
MS4
MS4
MS4
MS4
57
-------
Segment
MA95-03
MA95-02
MA95-01
MA95-62
MA95-14
MA95-48
MA95-51
MA95-47
MA95-15
MA95-16
MA95-17
MA95-18
MA95-21
MA95-46
MA95-20
MA95-22
MA95-23
MA95-24
MA95-25
Segment Name
Wareham River
Onset Bay
Buttermilk Bay
Buzzards Bay
Cape Cod Canal
Eel Pond
Eel Pond
Back River
Phinneys Harbor
Pocasset River
Pocasset Harbor
Red Brook Harbor
Herring Brook
Harbor Head
Wild Harbor Estuary
West Falmouth Harbor
Great Sippewisset Creek
Little Sippewisset Marsh
Quissett Harbor
Potential Sources
MS4
MS4
MS4
MS4
MS4, Boats
MS4, on-site treatment systems (septic systems)
MS4, on-site treatment systems (septic systems)
MS4, on-site treatment systems (septic systems)
On-site treatment systems (septic systems),
highway/road runoff
On-site treatment systems (septic systems), road
runoff, MS4
On-site treatment systems (septic systems),
highway/road MS4
On-site treatment systems (septic systems),
highway/road MS4
On-site treatment systems (septic systems)
On-site treatment systems (septic systems),
highway/road runoff, MS4
On-site treatment systems (septic systems),
highway/road runoff, MS4
On-site treatment systems (septic systems),
highway/road runoff, MS4
On-site treatment systems (septic systems),
highway/road runoff
On-site treatment systems (septic systems),
highway/road runoff
On-site treatment systems (septic systems), road
runoff
Specific sources for the remaining impaired segments are unknown
MS4 = Municipal Separate Storm Water Sewer System - community storm water drainage system
Most sources were identified in the MassDEP WQA, although some sources have been identified by other organizations
such as WRWA and MACZM.
A brief overview of potential sources of bacteria and ways to mitigate them are provided below.
Agriculture -Animal Feeding Operations and Grazing
Land used primarily for agriculture is likely to be impacted by a number of activities that can contribute
to indicator bacteria impairments of surface waters. Activities with the potential to contribute to high
indicator bacteria concentrations include:
D Field application of manure,
D Runoff from grazing areas,
D Direct deposition from livestock in streams,
D Animal feeding operations,
58
-------
D Leaking manure storage facilities, and
D Runoff from barnyards.
Elevated indicator bacteria concentrations are generally associated with sediment loading. Reducing
sediment loading often results in a reduction of indicator bacteria loading as well. Brief summaries of
some of these techniques are provided in the "Mitigation Measures to Address Pathogen Pollution in
Surface Water: A TMDL Implementation Guidance Manual for Massachusetts".
Sanitary Waste
Leaking sewer pipes, illicit sewer connections, sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs), combined sewer
overflows (CSOs) and failing septic systems represent a direct threat to public health since they result
in discharge of partially treated or untreated human wastes to the surrounding environment.
Quantifying these sources is extremely speculative without direct monitoring of the source because the
magnitude is directly proportional to the volume of the source and its proximity to the surface water.
Typical values of fecal coliform in untreated domestic wastewater range from 104 to 10s MPN/100mL
(Metcalf and Eddy 1991).
Illicit sewer connections into storm drains result in direct discharges of sewage via the storm drainage
system outfalls. The existence of illicit sewer connections to storm drains is well documented in many
urban drainage systems, particularly older systems that may have once been combined. The EPA,
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA), the Boston Water and Sewer Commission
(BWSC), City of Worcester, City of New Bedford and many communities throughout the
Commonwealth have been active in the identification and mitigation of these sources. It is probable
that numerous other illicit sewer connections exist in storm drainage systems serving the older
developed portions of the Buzzards Bay watershed.
Monitoring of storm drain outfalls during dry weather is needed to document the presence or absence
of sewage in the drainage systems. Approximately 30 percent of the Buzzards Bay watershed is
classified as Urban Areas by the United States Census Bureau and is therefore subject to the
Stormwater Phase II Final Rule that requires the development and implementation of an illicit
discharge detection and elimination plan. See Section 8.0 of this TMDL for information regarding illicit
discharge detection guidance.
Septic systems designed, installed, operated and maintained in accordance with 310 CMR 15.000:
Title 5, are not significant sources of fecal coliform bacteria. Studies demonstrate that wastewater
located four feet below properly functioning septic systems contain on average less than one fecal
coliform bacteria organism per 100 mL (Ayres Associates 1993). Failed or non-conforming septic
systems, however, can be a major contributor of fecal coliform to the Buzzards Bay watershed,
especially since most of Buzzards Bay's population relies on septic systems versus municipal sewer
systems. Wastes from failing septic systems enter surface waters either as direct overland flow or via
groundwater. Wet weather events typically increase the rate of transport of pollutant loadings from
failing septic systems to surface waters because of the wash-off effect from runoff and the increased
rate of groundwater recharge.
59
-------
Recreational use of waterbodies is a source of pathogen contamination. Swimmers themselves may
contribute to bacterial impairment at swimming areas. When swimmers enter the water, residual fecal
matter may be washed from the body and contaminate the water with pathogens. In addition, small
children in diapers may contribute to contamination of the recreational waters. These sources are
likely to be particularly important when the number of swimmers is high and the flushing action of
waves or tides is low.
Another potential source of pathogens is the discharge of sewage from vessels with onboard toilets.
These vessels are required to have a marine sanitation device (MSD) to either store or treat sewage.
When MSDs are operated or maintained incorrectly they have the potential to discharge untreated or
inadequately treated sewage. For example, some MSDs are simply tanks designed to hold sewage
until it can be pumped out at a shore-based pump-out facility or discharged into the water more than 3
miles from shore. Uneducated boaters may discharge untreated sewage from these devices into near-
shore waters. In addition, when MSDs designed to treat sewage are improperly maintained or
operated they may malfunction and discharge inadequately treated sewage. Finally, even properly
operating MSDs may discharge sewage in concentrations higher than allowed in ambient water for
fishing or shellfishing. Vessels are most likely to contribute to bacterial impairment in situations where
large numbers of vessels congregate in enclosed environments with low tidal flushing. Many marinas
and popular anchorages are located in such environments.
Wildlife and Pet Waste
Animals that are not pets can be a potential source of pathogens. Geese, gulls, and ducks are
speculated to be a major pathogen source, particularly at lakes and storm water ponds where large
resident populations have become established (Center for Watershed Protection 1999).
Household pets such as cats and dogs can be a substantial source of bacteria - as much as
23,000,000 colonies/gram, according to the Center for Watershed Protection (1999). A rule of thumb
estimate for the number of dogs is ~1 dog per 10 people producing an estimated 0.5 pound of feces
per dog per day. Using the MassDEP's population estimate in 2000, this translates to an estimated
37,369 dogs in the watershed producing 18,685 pounds of feces per day. Uncollected pet waste is
then flushed from the parks, beaches and yards where pets are walked and transported into nearby
waterways during wet-weather.
Storm Water
Storm water runoff is another significant contributor to pathogen pollution. As discussed above, during
rain events fecal matter from domestic animals and wildlife are readily transported to surface waters
via the storm water drainage systems and/or overland flow. The natural filtering capacity provided by
vegetative cover and soils is dramatically reduced as urbanization occurs because of the increase in
impervious areas (i.e., streets, parking lots, etc.) and stream channelization in the watershed.
Extensive storm water data have been collected and compiled both locally and nationally (e.g., Tables
4-1, 4-2, 5-2 and 5-3) in an attempt to characterize the quality of storm water. Bacteria are easily the
most variable of storm water pollutants, with concentrations often varying by factors of 10 to 100 during
a single storm. Considering this variability, storm water bacteria concentrations are difficult to
accurately predict. Caution must be exercised when using values from single wet weather grab
samples to estimate the magnitude of bacteria loading because it is often unknown whether the sample
60
-------
is representative of the "true" mean. To gain an understanding of the magnitude of bacterial loading
from storm water and avoid overestimating or underestimating bacteria loading, event mean
concentrations (EMC) are often used. An EMC is the concentration of a flow proportioned sample
throughout a storm event. These samples are commonly collected using an automated sampler which
can proportion sample aliquots based on flow. Typical storm water event mean densities for various
indicator bacteria in Massachusetts watersheds and nationwide are provided in Tables 5-2 and 5-3.
These EMCs illustrate that storm water indicator bacteria concentrations from certain land uses (i.e.,
residential) are typically at levels sufficient to cause water quality problems.
To obtain a better idea of segments most impacted by storm water and upland areas contributing to
storm water, MACZM conducted a survey of the watershed to document storm water discharges
(Appendix A). MACZM also noted road cuts in their survey. Impoundments often form upstream of
road cuts, which reduce the flow of water. Water accumulates in these impounded areas and can
contain elevated fecal coliform levels due to stagnation of the water. Larger impounded areas attract
waterfowl thereby increasing the potential for increased bacteria numbers.
Discharge areas were prioritized for remediation in the "Atlas of Stormwater Discharges in the
Buzzards Bay Watershed" (MACZM 2003), provided in various maps in Appendix A of this report.
Prioritization of storm water discharge sites is based on several factors including water quality, shellfish
resource area classifications, and cost estimates. A complete list and explanation of these criteria is
available in this "Atlas", pages 19-27, and is available for download at
httD://www.buzzardsbav.ora/stormatlas.htm.
61
-------
Table 5-2. Lower Charles River Basin Storm Water Event Mean Bacteria Concentrations (data
summarized from USGS 2002) and Necessary Reductions to Meet Class B WQS.
Land Use Category
Single Family Residential
Multifamily Residential
Commercial
Fecal Coliform
EMC(CFU/100mL)
2,800-94,000
2,200-31,000
680-28,000
Number
of
Events
8
8
8
Class B WQS1
10% of the
samples shall
not exceed 400
organisms/ 100
mL
Reduction to Meet
WQS (%)
2,400 - 93,600
(85.7-99.6)
1,800-30,600
(81.8-98.8)
280-27,600
(41.2-98.6)
1 Class B Standard: Shall not exceed a geometric mean of 200 organisms in any set of representative samples,
nor shall 10% of the samples exceed 400 organisms. Used 400 to illustrate required reductions since a geometric
mean of the samples were not provided.
Table 5-3. Storm Water Event Mean Fecal Coliform Concentrations (as reported in MassDEP
2002b; original data provided in Metcalf & Eddy, 1992) and Necessary Reductions to Meet Class
BWQS.
Land Use Category
Single Family Residential
Multifamily Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Fecal Coliform1
Organisms / 100 mL
37,000
17,000
16,000
14,000
Class B WQS2
10% of the
samples shall not
exceed 400
organisms/ 100
mL
Reduction to Meet WQS
(%)
36,600 (98.9)
16,600 (97.6)
15,600(97.5)
13,600(97.1)
1 Derived from NURP study event mean concentrations and nationwide pollutant buildup data (USEPA 1983).
2 Class B Standard: Shall not exceed a geometric mean of 200 organisms in any set of representative samples, nor shall
10% of the samples exceed 400 organisms. Used 400 to illustrate required reductions since a geometric mean of the
samples were not provided.
62
-------
6.0 Prioritization and Known Sources
This section is intended to provide guidance for setting implementation priorities to identify and
eliminate bacteria sources within the Buzzards Bay River Watershed and to briefly describe on-going
efforts within the watershed. Guidance is provided by prioritizing both impaired segments as well as
specific sources where known.
The Buzzards Bay National Estuaries Program has conducted a significant amount of investigation of
potential bacteria sources to the Buzzards Bay System. The program produced a document, "Atlas of
Stormwater Discharges in the Buzzards Bay Watershed", which represents a premier effort to begin
the work of identifying hotspot bacterial sources of pollution. This intensive effort investigated and
documented over 2,600 drainage pipe and road cut discharges which have the potential to contribute
bacteria pollution to nearby surface waters. That effort also prioritized each discharge into high,
medium, or low for remediation, based on a ten category ranking of scores to help set priorities for
remediation. (See Figures 6-1 to 6-6 below. Additionally, 12,700 catch basins were also inventoried.
(See Appendix A). In addition, over 37,000 fecal coliform data points were collected by DMF in estuary
areas between 1997-2001. The impetus of all these efforts is aimed at identifying potential outfall data
locations/priorities as a beginning to improvement of water quality in SA and SB waters. The ultimate
goal is to remove these sources and reopen many closed shellfish areas.
For the prioritization, drainage network characterizations were based on the total drainage basin
characterized within the contributing area represented by the appropriate Designated Shellfish Growing
Areas (DSGAs). The DMF determined DSGAs were used as the management unit for evaluating and
scoring many of the parameters in this study. To evaluate stormwater remediation sites, the following
ten categories were considered, with up to a maximum number of points determined for each
category :
(1) DMF DSGA Recommended Ranking- High Shellfish Value Resource- 30 points; Medium
Shellfish Value Resource-15 points; Low Shellfish Value Resource- 0 pts.
(2) Existing DSGA Classification of Receiving Waters- Conditionally Approved- 15 points;
Approved- 7 points; Conditionally Restricted, or Management Closure 5 points; Prohibited- 0
points.
(3) Existing Fecal Coliform Concentrations of Receiving Waters relative to Restoration Potential-
Waters close to a change to a higher classification with appreciable restoration potential- 20
points; waters with moderate restoration potential-10 points; waters with negligible restoration
potential- down to 0 points.
(4) Projected Costs of Each Discharge- $ 9,000 or under- 10 points; $ 15,000- 50,000- 6 points;
$50,000- 75,000- 4 points; 75,001-100,000- 2 points; >$100,000- 0 points.
(5) Sewering (if area is sewered, it figures it will be easier for remediation)- 5 points.
(6) Number of Discharges and Catch basins in the DSGA Drainage Area- the principal here is that
the fewer discharge pipes and catch basins in a drainage area, the easier it will be to achieve
water quality goals- up to 30 points.
(7) Percent of the problem- even a drainage area with large number of catch basins, if a single
discharge pipe is connected to a large drainage system with many catch basins, it would
represent a "large percent of the problem"- up to 30 points.
63
-------
(8) Proximity (200 feet) to Public or Private Swimming Beaches-10 points.
(9) The Discharge is Within a 303(d) Listed Pathogen Impaired Area-10 points.
(10) The Discharge is from a Phase II MS4 Area-10 points.
The ten category maximum scores add up to a total of 170 possible points. The total 2,600+
discharges were then placed into four priority classifications and were then located on 6 priority maps
(Figures 6-1 to 6-6 below) : red dot- highest priority; yellow dot- medium priority; green dot- lowest
priority; blue dot- site already remediated.
Finally, in an effort to provide further guidance for setting bacterial implementation priorities within the
Buzzards Bay Watershed, a summary table is provided. Table 6-1 below provides a prioritized list of
pathogen-impaired segments that will require additional bacterial source tracking work and
implementation of structural and non-structural Best Management Practices (BMPs). It is based on a
combination of the results of the Buzzards Bay Program effort adjusted by MassDEP based upon
available data and the designated uses of the ambient water body in question. Since limited source
information and data are available in each impaired segment a simple scheme was used to prioritize
segments based on fecal coliform concentrations. High priority was assigned to those segments where
either dry or wet weather concentrations (end of pipe or ambient) were equal to or greater than 10,000
cfu /100 ml. Medium priority was assigned to segments where concentrations ranged from 1,000 to
9,999 col/100ml. Low priority was assigned to segments where concentrations were observed less
than 1,000 col/100 ml. MassDEP believes the higher concentrations are indicative of the potential
presence or raw sewage and therefore they pose a greater risk to the public. It should be noted that in
all cases, waters exceeding the water quality standards identified in Table ES- 2 are considered
impaired.
Also, prioritization is adjusted upward based on proximity of waters, within the segment, to sensitive
areas such as Outstanding Resource Waters (ORWs), or designated uses that require higher water
quality standards than Class B, such as public water supply intakes, public swimming areas, or
shellfish areas. Best professional judgment was used in determining this upward adjustment. Generally
speaking, waters that were determined to be lower priority based on the numeric range identified
above were elevated up one level of priority if that segment were adjacent to or immediately upstream
of a sensitive use. An asterisk * in the priority column of the specific segment would indicate this
situation.
64
-------
Table 6-1. Bacteria Impaired Segment Priorities
Segment
ID
MA95-40
MA95-45
MA95-41
MA95-37
MA95-54
MA95-34
MA95-44
MA95-59
MA95-31
MA95-32
MA95-33
MA95-42
Segment
Name
East Branch
Westport River
Snell Creek
East Branch
Westport River
West Branch
Westport River
Westport River
Slocums River
Snell Creek
Snell Creek
Acushnet River
Acushnet River
Acushnet River
New Bedford
Length
(mi.) or
size
(sq.mi.)
2.85 mi.
0.67 mi.
2.65 sq.mi.
1.28 sq.mi.
0.74 sq. mi.
0.67 sq.mi.
1.5 mi.
0.01 sq.mi.
2.7 mi
1.10 mi.
0.31 sq.mi.
1.25sq.mi.
Segment Description
Outlet Lake Noquochoke, Westport to
Old County Rd. bridge, Westport.
(Class B)
Drift Rd. to Marcus' Bridge in Westport.
(Class B)
Old County Road bridge, Westport to
the mouth at Westport Harbor,
Westport (excluding Horseneck
Channel). (Class SB, Shellfishing
restricted, 0.64/2.65sq. mi.)
Outlet Grays Mill Pond, Adamsville,
Rhode Island to mouth at Westport
Harbor, Westport. (Class SA,
Shellfishing open, but impaired
0.78/2.65sq.mi.)
From the confluence of the East and
West Branches to Rhode Island
Sound; Bounded by a line drawn from
the southwestern point of Horseneck
Point to the easternmost point near
Westport Light. (Class SA,
Shellfishing, open 0.5 sq.mi. .closed
0.78 sq.mi.)
Confluence with Paskamanset R.,
Dartmouth to mouth at Buzzards Bay.
(Class SA, Shellfishing open 0.01
sq.mi. .closed 0.66sq.mi)
Headwaters west of Main Street,
Westport, to Drift Road Westport
'Marcus Bridge', Westport to
confluence with East Branch Westport
River, Westport
Outlet New Bedford Reservoir to
Hamlin Rd. culvert, Acushnet. (Class
B)
Hamlin Rd. culvert to culvert at Main
St., Acushnet. (Class B)
Main St. culvert to Coggeshall St.
bridge, New Bedford/Fairhaven. (Class
SB, Shellfishing Restricted, entirely)
Coggeshall St. bridge to hurricane
Priority
Medium
Medium
High*
Shellfishing
High*
Shellfishing
Medium*
Shellfishing
Medium*
Shellfishing
Swimming
Medium
Medium*
Shellfishing
No Data
Medium
High*
Shellfishing
CSOs
High*
65
-------
Segment
ID
MA95-63
MA95-38
MA95-13
MA95-39
MA95-35
MA95-60
MA95-65
MA95-56
Segment
Name
Harbor
Outer New
Bedford Harbor
Clark Cove
Buttonwood
Brook
Apponagansett
Bay
Mattapoisett
Harbor
Mattapoisett
River
Nasketucket Bay
Hammett Cove
Length
(mi.) or
size
(sq.mi.)
5.82sq.mi.
1.90sq.mi.
3.8 mi.
0.95sq.mi.
1.10sq.mi.
0.05
3.7
0.07sq.mi.
Segment Description
Barrier, New Bedford/Fairhaven .
(Class SB, Shellfishing Restricted,
entirely)
Hurricane Barrier to a line drawn from
Wilbur Point, Fairhaven to Clarks
Point, New Bedford . (Class SA,
Shellfishing Open, but entirely
restricted)
Semi-enclosed waterbody landward of
a line drawn between Clarks Point,
New Bedford and Ricketsons Point,
Dartmouth (Class SA, Shellfishing
Open, but entirely restricted)
Headwaters at Oakdale St., New
Bedford to mouth at Apponagansett
Bay, Dartmouth. (Class B)
From the mouth of Buttonwood Brook
to a line drawn from Ricketsons Point,
New Bedford to Samoset St. near
North Ave., Dartmouth. (Class SA,
Shellfishing Open but restricted
0.68sq.mi.)
From the mouth of the Mattapoisett R.,
Mattapoisett, to a line drawn from Ned
Point to a point of land between
Bayview Avenue and Grandview Ave.,
Mattapoisett. (Class SA, Shellfishing
Open, but restricted 0.1/1.1sq.mi.)
From the River Road bridge,
Mattapoisett to the mouth at
Mattapoisett harbor, Mattapoisett
From the confluence with Little bay,
Fairhaven to Buzzards bay along
Causeway Road, Fairhaven and along
a line from the southern tip of Brant
Island, Mattapoisett to the eastern tip
of West Island, Fairhaven
Hammett Cove, Marion to the
confluence with Sippican Harbor along
a line from the southwestern most
point of Little Neck to the end of the
seawall on the opposite point. (Class
SA, Shellfishing impaired
0.02/0.07sq.mi.)
Priority
Shellfishing
High*
Shellfishing
Swimming
High*
Shellfishing
Swimming
Low
(no data)
Medium*
Shellfishing
Swimming
Medium*
Shellfishing
Swimming
Medium*
Shellfishing
Medium*
Shellfishing
Medium*
Shellfishing
Swimming
66
-------
Segment
ID
MA95-08
MA95-09
MA95-10
MA95-64
MA95-07
MA95-53
MA95-58
MA95-05
MA95-29
Segment
Name
Sippican Harbor
Aucoot Cove
Miller Cove
Little Bay
Sippican River
Beaverdam
Creek
Bread and
Cheese Brook
Weweantic River
Agawam River
Length
(mi.) or
size
(sq.mi.)
2.0sq.
mi.
O.SOsq.mi.
0.04sq.mi.
0.36 sq.mi.
O.OSsq.mi.
0.04sq.mi.
4.9 mi.
0.62sq.mi.
0.16 mi.
Segment Description
From the confluence with Hammett
Cove to the mouth at Buzzards Bay
(excluding Blakenship Cove and
Planning Island Cove), Marion (Class
SA, Shellfishing open, but impaired
0.30 sq mi.)
From the confluence with Aucoot
Creek, Marion to the mouth at
Buzzards Bay at a line drawn between
Converse Point and Joes Point,
Mattapoisett. (Class SA, Shellfishing
Open)
Area landward of a line drawn between
Joes Point, Mattapoisett and the
second boat dock northeast of Miller
Cove Lane, Mattapoisett. (Class SA,
Shellfishing impaired 0.01 sq.mi.)
From the confluence with the
Nasketucket River, Fairhaven south to
the confluence with Nasketucket Bay
at a line from the southernmost tip of
Mirey Neck, Fairhaven to a point near
Shore Drive.
County Rd. to confluence with
Weweantic R., Marion/Wareham.
(Class SA, Shellfishing Open, all
impaired)
Outlet from cranberry bogs of Rte. 6,
Wareham to confluence with
Weweantic River, Wareham. (Class
SA, Shellfishing restricted). (Class SA,
Shellfishing all impaired)
Headwaters, north of Old Bedford
Road, Westport to confluence with
East Branch Westport River, Westport
Outlet Horseshoe Pond, Wareham to
mouth at Buzzards Bay,
Marion/Wareham. (Class SA,
Shellfishing Open, partially
impaired, 0.45sq. mi.)
From the Wareham WWTP to
confluence with Wankinco River at the
Rte. 6 bridge, Wareham. . (Class SB,
Restricted)
Priority
Medium*
Shellfishing
Swimming
Medium*
Shellfishing
Medium*
Shellfishing
Swimming
Medium*
Shellfishing
Medium*
Shellfishing
Medium*
Shellfishing
Medium
Medium*
Shellfishing
Medium*
Shellfishing
67
-------
Segment
ID
MA95-50
MA95-49
MA95-51
MA95-52
MA95-03
MA95-02
MA95-01
MA95-62
MA95-14
Segment
Name
Wankinco River
Broad Marsh
River
Crooked River
Cedar Island
Creek
Wareham River
Onset Bay
Buttermilk Bay
Buzzards Bay
Cape Cod Canal
Length
(mi.) or
size
(sq.mi.)
O.OSsq.mi.
0.16sq.mi.
0.04sq.mi.
O.OIsq.mi.
1.18sq.mi.
0.78sq.mi.
0.77
8.0
1.13
Segment Description
Elm St. bridge, Wareham to
confluence with the Agawam R., at a
line between a point south of
Mayflower Ridge Drive and a point
north of the railroad tracks near
Sandwich Rd., Wareham. (Class SA,
Shellfish ing Restricted)
From its headwaters in a salt marsh
south of Marion Rd. and Bourne
Terrace, Wareham to the confluence
with the Wareham R. (Class SA,
Shellfish ing Restricted)
From the outlet of a cranberry bog,
east of Indian Neck Rd., Wareham to
confluence with the Wareham R.,
Wareham. (Class SA, Shellfishing
Restricted)
From the headwaters near intersection
of Parker Dr. and Camardo Dr.,
Wareham to the mouth at Marks Cove,
Wareham. (Class SA, Shellfishing
Restricted)
Rte. 6 bridge to mouth at Buzzards
Bay (at an imaginary line from Cromset
Point to curved point east, southeast of
Long Beach point), Wareham.
Includes Mark's Cove, Wareham.
(Class SA, Shellfishing open, but
partially restricted, 0.68/1. 18sq. mi.)
Wareham. Class SA, Shellfishing
open, but partially restricted,
0.15/0.78sq.mi.)
Bourne/Wareham. Class SA,
Shellfishing open, but partially
restricted, 0.16/0.77sq.mi)
Open water area encompassed within
a line drawn from Wilbur Point,
Fairhaven to Clarks Point, New
Bedford to Ricketson Point, Dartmouth
to vicinity of Samoset St., Dartmouth
down to Round Hill Point, Dartmouth,
back to Wilbur Point, Fairhaven
Connection between Buzzards Bay
and Cape Cod Bay in Bourne and
Priority
Medium*
Shellfishing
Medium*
Shellfishing
Swimming
Medium*
Shellfishing
Medium*
(No Data)
Shellfishing
Medium*
Shellfishing
Medium*
Shellfishing
Medium*
Shellfishing
Medium*
Shellfishing
Medium*
Shellfishing
68
-------
Segment
ID
MA95-48
MA95-61
MA95-47
MA95-15
MA95-16
MA95-17
MA95-18
MA95-21
MA95-46
MA95-20
MA95-22
Segment
Name
Eel Pond
Eel Pond
Back River
Phinneys Harbor
Pocasset River
Pocasset Harbor
Red Brook
Harbor
Herring Brook
Harbor Head
Wild Harbor
West Fa I mouth
Harbor
Length
(mi.) or
size
(sq.mi.)
0.03
0.04
0.08
0.73
0.05
0.33
0.91
0.01
0.02
0.15
0.29
Segment Description
Sandwich.
Salt water pond that discharges to
Back River, Bourne.
Coastal Pond at the head of
Mattapoisett Harbor, Mattapoisett
Outlet of small unnamed pond,
downstream from Mill Pond, Bourne to
confluence with Phinneys Harbor,
Bourne (excluding Eel Pond).
From the confluence with Back R. to its
mouth at Buzzards Bay between
Mashpee and Toby's Island, Bourne.
From the outlet of Mill Pond, Bourne to
the mouth at Buzzards Bay, Bourne.
From the confluence with Red Brook
Harbor near the northern portion of
Bassett's Island and Patuisett to the
mouth at Buzzards Bay between
Bassett's Island and Wings Neck,
Bourne.
From the confluence with Pocasset
Harbor between the northern portion of
Bassett's Island and Patuisett to its
mouth at Buzzards Bay between
Bassett's island and Scraggy Neck,
Bourne (including Hen Cove).
From its headwaters, northeast of Dale
Dr. and west of Rte. 28A, to its mouth
at Buzzards Bay, Falmouth.
The semi-enclosed body of water
south of the confluence with West
Falmouth Harbor at Chappaquoit Rd.,
Falmouth.
Embayment extends from Point Road,
Nyes Neck to Crow Point at the end of
Bay Shore Road in North Falmouth
From the confluence with Harbor Head
at Chappaquoit Rd., Falmouth to the
mouth at Buzzards Bay at a line
connecting the ends of the seawalls
Priority
Medium*
Shellfishing
Medium*
Shellfishing
Medium*
Shellfishing
Medium*
Shellfishing
Swimming
Medium*
Shellfishing
Swimming
Medium*
Shellfishing
Swimming
Medium*
Shellfishing
Swimming
Medium Shellfishing
Medium,
Shellfishing
Medium*,
Shellfishing
Medium*
Shellfishing
Swimming
69
-------
Segment
ID
MA95-23
MA95-24
MA95-25
Segment
Name
Great
Sippewisset
Creek
Little Sippewisset
Marsh
Quissett Harbor
Length
(mi.) or
size
(sq.mi.)
0.03
0.02
0.17
Segment Description
from Little Island and Chappaquoit
Point, Falmouth (including Snug
Harbor).
From the outlet of Beach Pond in
Great Sippewissett marsh to the mouth
at Buzzards Bay, Falmouth, including
the unnamed tributary from the outlet
of Fresh Pond, and Quahog Pond,
Falmouth.
From the headwaters north of
Sippewisset Rd., Falmouth to the
mouth at Buzzards Bay near
Saconesset Hills, Falmouth.
The semi-enclosed body of water
landward of a line drawn between The
Knob and Gansett Point, Falmouth.
Priority
Medium*
Shellfishing
Swimming
Medium*
Shellfishing
Swimming
Medium*
Shellfishing
As previously noted MassDEP believes that segments ranked as high priority in Table 6-1 are
indicative of the potential presence of raw sewage and therefore they pose a greater risk to the public.
Elevated dry weather bacteria concentrations could be the result of illicit sewer connections or failing
septic systems. As a result, the first priority should be given to bacteria source tracking activities in
those segments where sampling activities show elevated levels of bacteria during dry weather.
Identification and remediation of dry weather bacteria sources is usually more straightforward and
successful than tracking and eliminating wet weather sources. If illicit bacteria sources are found and
eliminated it should result in a dramatic reduction of bacteria concentration in the segment in both dry
and wet-weather. Segments that remain impaired during wet weather should be evaluated for
stormwater BMP implementation opportunities starting with less costly non-structural practices first
(such as street sweeping, and/or managerial approaches using local regulatory controls with ongoing
evaluation of the success of those programs. If it is determined that less costly approaches are not
sufficient to address the issue then appropriate structural BMPs should be identified and implemented
where necessary. Structural stormwater BMP implementation may require additional study to identify
cost efficient and effective technology.
70
-------
Figure 6-1:
Westport River Area
5$fh^
Stormwater Discharge Prioritization
• High O Medium O Low • Remediated I 'a.f~
0.5 0 0.5 1 Miles 4 ^^j^f
m
ds Cvrnll , •'
•**-*»':
.,.
/
&^
-------
Figure 6-2
Apponagansett Bay/Clark Cove Area
Stormwater Discharge Prioritization
• High O Medium O Low • Remediated
N
fliles A
;
-;.$;'
-}:'-: W
""^$4!
- •%
HEj$Wv''^,£v. |gj
•-,/• ^ ' •••••-.• ..•'••-V
tlftW -'-'
yi«
• •
•
i=y» - -! -
J
72
-------
Figure 6-3: New Bedford
Harbor/Little Harbor/Mattapoisett
Harbor Areas
Stormwater Discharge Prioritization
• High O Medium O Low • Remediated
0.5 0 0.5 1 Miles \ ^&^9
5 ^A u/,'aT !\fa->
^-=M - i&—-r
... .. "^s
_.i_-^
,_: wSErSStft i -. \
73
-------
Figure 6-4: Aucoot Cove,
Sippican Harbor,
Weweantic River,
Wareham/Agawam River
W
Stormwater Discharge Prioritization
^ High O Medium O Low ^ Remediated
N
0.5 0 0.5 1 Miles A
m
rf^
W A E E H A K -""J 6-»M^T
*^
•!§£iK;*l
"f'tf£-'-
rf5
fo «^^ °^
i P . x_ jsy o
^' |/§ 5*0
ow^B|.L?'-; j-^
•^^y®®-\ ;^^;2
*"! 7 > f .'!*'"%;'
:oj
,w : A; R •
«»
M ".'A E : 1 0 N
m
-------
FIGURE 6-4
FIGURE 6-3
-»
,
• . •-» £
Figure 6-5: Onset Bay,
Buttermilk Bay, Cape Cod
Canal, Phinney's Harbor,
Pocasset Harbor Areas
•
Stormwater Discharge Prioriiization |HL 1
* High O MvdMpn * low * Ronw^vd
C 5 0 05 1 We* L ^5^=*
'\'[
...; *
* '
fe
.
•*
*
• *
**
rT • ' *
Si -
*
t
* * *
* *»
.
/.
* .
v /
*
• • J^ •
** ••
75
-------
Figure 6-6: West
Falmouth Harbor,
Quisett Harbor Areas
%
* V
*
*
Stormwater Discharge Priorittzation
OS I UBn i ^^
— i\ "•"•
* -
flE
, -f\ ^u-s •''
w
V .
r * u
t Ttf -
• ^-\
•: ;
.
.
i : •-
• •
76
-------
The challenge now is to devote the resources necessary to do bacteria source monitoring of the
medium and high priority inland discharge pipes and road cut discharges to find hotspots, and then to
remediate the pollution sources. In regards to stormwater, this watershed has several advantages that
many others don't have: a plethora of organizations, both public and private, devoted to the sole goal
of water quality improvement- Buzzards Bay Action Committee, the Coalition of Buzzards Bay,
Buzzards Bay Project National Estuaries Program, MassDEP, MACZM, DMF, EPA, and the
municipalities themselves. Help is needed from all these entities to utilize the Stormwater Atlas results
in conducting monitoring activities with particularly the medium and high ranked outfalls identified in the
Atlas report for remediation. Monitoring work is needed to confirm or deny the suspicion of high
bacteria counts at particular outfalls, and to do source tracking in the drainage sub- basins of the
confirmed high count outfalls to find the pollutant sources and remediate the sources.
Critical here would be activities conducted by the communities under the EPA Phase II Stormwater
Program. Detection and elimination of illicit connections into stormwater conveyances, elimination of
sanitary sewer overflows, and detection and elimination of other overland type bacterial sources
(including failing septic systems and pet waste) would be tantamount in each community. Frequent
referral to the information in the Stormwater Atlas is advised.
Section 8 of this report ( Implementation Plan) provides a summary of existing activities within the
Buzzards Bay watershed and a narrative overview of MassDEP nonpoint source (319) project activity
in recent years that relate to the implementation of bacteria BMP's and other work to remediate
sources. Section 8.3, Stormwater Runoff, provides an additional overview of each town's Stormwater
Phase II plans. In general this information is intended to summarize progress to date, as well as future
plans for finding and remediating bacteria sources of pollution. Communities should carefully refer to
appropriate information parts of the Stormwater Atlas, particularly to the catch basin and priority
discharge outfall maps within their community area included within Appendix A.
77
-------
7.0 Pathogen TMDL Development
Section 303 (d) of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to place water bodies that do
not meet the water quality standards on a list of impaired waterbodies. The most recent impairment list,
2006, identifies 52 segments within the Buzzards Bay watershed for use impairment caused by
excessive indicator bacteria concentrations.
The CWA requires each state to establish Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for listed waters and
the pollutant contributing to the impairment(s). TMDLs determine the amount of a pollutant that a
waterbody can safely assimilate without violating the water quality standards. Both point and non-point
pollution sources are accounted for in a TMDL analysis. EPA regulations require that point sources of
pollution (those discharges from discrete pipes or conveyances) subject to NPDES permits receive a
waste load allocation (WLA) specifying the amount of pollutant each point source can release to the
waterbody. Non-point sources of pollution (and point sources not subject to NPDES permits) receive
load allocations (LA) specifying the amount of a pollutant that can be released to the waterbody. In the
case of stormwater, it is often difficult to identify and distinguish between point source discharges that
are subject to NPDES regulation and those that are not. Therefore, EPA has stated that it is
permissible to include all point source stormwater discharges in the WLA portion of the TMDL.
MassDEP has taken this approach. In accordance with the CWA, a TMDL must account for seasonal
variations and a margin of safety, which accounts for any lack of knowledge concerning the
relationship between effluent limitations and water quality. Thus:
TMDL = WLAs + LAs + Margin of Safety
Where:
WLA = Waste Load Allocation which is the portion of the receiving water's loading capacity that
is allocated to each existing and future point source of pollution.
LA = Load Allocation which is the portion of the receiving water's loading capacity that is
allocated to each existing and future non-point source of pollution (and point sources
not subject to NPDES permits.
This TMDL was developed using an alternative standards-based approach, which is based on indicator
bacteria concentrations, but considers the terms of the above equation. This approach is more in line
with the way bacterial pollution is regulated (i.e., according to concentration standards) but the
standard loading approach is provided as well.
7.1 - General Approach: Development of TMDL Targets
For this TMDL, the MassDEP developed two types of daily TMDL targets. First, MassDEP set daily
concentration TMDL (WLA/LA) targets for each one of the discharge sources by category (i.e.,NPDES
discharges, storm water, CSO, etc). MassDEP recommends that the concentration targets be used as
the primary guide for implementation. Second, maximum daily loads were developed as a function of
watershed size and runoff volume. For streams, since no USGS gages are located in this area the
78
-------
maximum loads were calculated as a function of the long-term average runoff observed at USGS
gages in New England (which accounts for infiltration and evapotranspiration), the watershed size and
water quality standard criteria for e-coli and enterococcus applicable to each segment. For
embayment's, maximum daily loads were calculated as a function of the observed long-term
precipitation on Cape Cod, the estimated average runoff associated within 200 feet from each
embayment or entire contributing watershed area for each segment and the most stringent water
quality criteria based on segment classification. Each methodology is described in greater detail in the
following sections however both assure loading capacities are equal to or less than the Water Quality
Standards.
MassDEP believes that expressing a loading capacity for bacteria in terms of concentrations set equal
to the Commonwealth's adopted criteria, as provided in Table 7-1, provides the clearest and most
understandable expression of water quality goals to the public and to groups that conduct water quality
monitoring. MassDEP believes that expressing the loading capacity for bacteria in terms of loadings
(e.g., numbers of organisms per day) although provided, is more difficult for the public to interpret and
understand because the "allowable" loading number varies with flow and runoff over the course of the
day and season and is very large (i.e. billions or trillions of organisms per day) and therefore is not as
easily understood in the context of the State Water Quality Standards or public health criteria.
To ensure attainment with water quality standards throughout the waterbody, MassDEP emphasizes
the simplest and most readily understood way of meeting the TMDL is to try to meet the bacteria
standard at the point of discharge. However, for compliance purposes in-stream measurements must
be used.
It is important to note that MassDEP realizes given the vast potential number of bacteria sources and
the difficulty of identifying and removing them from some sources such as stormwater require an
iterative process and will take some time to accomplish. While the stated goal in the TMDL is to meet
the water quality standard at the point of discharge it also attempts to be clear that MassDEP's
expectation is that for stormwater an iterative approach is needed that includes prioritization of outfalls
and the application of BMPs should be used to achieve water quality standards. MassDEP believes
this is approach is consistent with current EPA guidance and regulations as stated in a November 22,
2002 EPA memo from Robert Wayland (see attachment C) Further discussion on this issue is
provided in Section 8.
7.1.1 Potential Sources of Bacterial Contamination
Some insight on potential sources of bacteria is gained using dry or wet weather bacteria
concentrations as a benchmark for reductions. Where a segment is identified as having high dry
weather concentrations, sources such as permitted discharges, failing septic tanks, illicit sanitary
sewers connected to storm drains, and/or leaking sewers may be the primary contributors. Where
elevated levels are observed during wet weather, potential sources may include flooded septic
systems, surcharging sewers (combined sewer overflows or sanitary sewer overflows, and/or
stormwater runoff. In urban areas, sources of elevated bacteria concentrations can include runoff in
areas with high populations of domestic animals or pets. In agricultural areas, sources may include
runoff from farms, poorly managed manure piles or areas where wild animals or birds congregate.
79
-------
Other potential sources may include sanitary sewers connected to storm drains that result in flow that
is retarded until the storm drain is flushed during wet weather. Sections 4, 5 and 6 of this document
discuss in more detail the types of sources identified as well as their prioritization for implementation.
7.2 Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) and Load Allocations (LAs) As Daily Concentration
(Colonies/1 OOmL).
As previously noted there are many different potential sources of indicator bacteria in the Buzzards
Bay Watershed. Most of the bacteria sources are believed to be storm water related. Table 7-1
presents the TMDL indicator bacteria WLAs and LAs for the various source categories as daily
concentration targets for the Buzzards Bay Watershed. Point sources within the Buzzards Bay
Watershed include several wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) and other NPDES-permitted
wastewater discharges. NPDES wastewater discharge WLAs are set at the water quality standards.
All piped discharges are, by definition, point sources regardless of whether they are currently subject to
the requirements of NPDES permits. Therefore a WLA set equal to the WQS criteria will be assigned
to the portion of the stormwater that discharges to surface waters via storm drains. For any illicit
sources including illicit discharges to stormwater systems and sewer system overflows (SSO's) the
goal is complete elimination (100% reduction). The specific goal for controlling combined sewer
overflows (CSO's) is meeting water quality standards through implementation of approved Long-term
Control Plans. It is recommended that these concentration targets be used to guide implementation.
The goal to attain WQS at the point of discharge is environmentally protective, and offers a practical
means to identify and evaluate the effectiveness of control measures. In addition, this approach
establishes clear objectives that can be easily understood by the public and others responsible for
monitoring activities. Success of the control efforts and subsequent conformance with the TMDL will be
determined by documenting that a sufficient number of bacteria samples from the receiving water meet
the appropriate indicator criteria (WQS) for the water body.
Table 7-1: Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) and Load Allocations (LAs) as Daily Concentrations
(Colonies/1 OOmL)
Surface Water
Classification
A, B, SA, SB
Pathogen Source
Illicit discharges to storm drains
Leaking sanitary sewer lines
Failing septic systems
Waste Load Allocation
Indicator Bacteria
(CFU/100mL)1
0
0
N/A
Load Allocation
Indicator Bacteria
(CFU/100mL)1
Not Applicable
Not Applicable
0
80
-------
Surface Water
Classification
Pathogen Source
Waste Load Allocation
Indicator Bacteria
(CFU/100ml_)1
Load Allocation
Indicator Bacteria
(CFU/100mL)1
Any regulated discharge 7S-
including storm water runoff
subject to Phase I or II NPDES
permits
(Water supply
Intakes in
unfiltered public
water supplies)
Either;
c) fecal coliform <=20 fecal
coliform organisms per 100 ml2
or
d) total coliform <= 100 organisms
per 100 ml3; where both are
measured, only fecal must be
met
Not Applicable
Nonpoint source storm water
runoff
Not Applicable
Either;
b) fecal coliform <=20 fecal
coliform organisms per 100 ml2,
or
b) total coliform <= 100 organisms
per 100 ml3; where both are
measured, only fecal must be met
Either;
(Includes filtered
water supply)
&
B
Any regulated discharge-
including storm water runoff
subject to Phase I or II NPDES
permits, NPDES wastewater
treatment plant discharges 7|9,
and combined sewer overflows6.
b)
b)
E. coli <=geometric mean5126
colonies per 100 ml; single
sample <=235 colonies per 100
ml;
or
Enterococci geometric mean5
<= 33 colonies per 100 ml and
single sample <= 61 colonies
per 100 ml
Not Applicable
Either
c)
Nonpoint source storm water
runoff
Not Applicable
E. coli <=geometric mean5
126 colonies per 100 ml;
single sample <=235 colonies
per 100 ml;
or
d) Enterococci geometric
mean5<= 33 colonies per 100
ml and single sample <= 61
colonies per 100 ml
SA
(Designated for
shellfishing)
Any regulated discharge
including storm water runoff
subject to Phase I or II NPDES
permits, NPDES wastewater
treatment plant discharges7'9,
and combined sewer overflows6.
Fecal Coliform <= geometric mean,
MPN, of 14 organisms per 100 ml nor
shall 10% of the samples be >=28
organisms per 100 ml
Not Applicable
Nonpoint Source Storm water
Runoff4
Not Applicable
Fecal Coliform <= geometric mean,
MPN, of 14 organisms per 100 ml nor
shall 10% of the samples be >=28
organisms per 100 ml
81
-------
Surface Water
Classification
Pathogen Source
Waste Load Allocation
Indicator Bacteria
(CFU/100ml_)1
Load Allocation
Indicator Bacteria
(CFU/100mL)1
SA&SB
(Beaches8 and
non-designated
shellfish areas)
Any regulated discharge
including storm water runoff
subject to Phase I or II NPDES
permits, NPDES wastewater
treatment plant discharges7'9,
and combined sewer overflows6.
Enterococci - geometric mean5 <= 35
colonies per 100 ml and single
sample <= 104 colonies per 100 ml
Not Applicable
Nonpoint Source Storm water
Runoff4
Not Applicable
Enterococci -geometric mean5 <= 35
colonies per 100 ml and single sample
<= 104 colonies per 100 ml
SB
(Designated for
shellfishing
w/depu ration)
Any regulated discharge
including storm water runoff
subject to Phase I or II NPDES
permits, NPDES wastewater
treatment plant discharges7-9,
and combined sewer overflows6.
Fecal Coliform <= median or
geometric mean, MPN, of 88
organisms per 100 ml nor shall
10% of the samples be >=260
organisms per 100 ml
Not Applicable
Nonpoint Source Storm water
Runoff4
Not Applicable
Fecal Coliform <= median or
geometric mean, MPN, of 88
organisms per 100 ml nor shall
10% of the samples be >=260
organisms per 100 ml
1 Waste Load Allocation (WLA) and Load Allocation (LA) refer to fecal coliform densities unless specified in the table.
2 In all samples taken during any 6-month period
3 In 90% of the samples taken in any six-month period;
"The expectation for WLAs and LAs for storm water discharges is that they will be achieved through the implementation
of BMPs and other controls .
5 Geometric mean of the 5 most recent samples is used at bathing beaches. For all other waters and during the non-
bathing season the geometric mean of all samples taken within the most recent six months, typically based on a
minimum of five samples.
6 Or other applicable water quality standards for CSO's
7 Or shall be consistent with the Waste Water Treatment Plant (WWTP) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit.
8 Massachusetts Department of Public Health regulations (105 CMR Section 445)
9 Seasonal disinfection may be allowed by the Department on a case-by-case basis.
Note: this table represents waste load and load allocations based on water quality standards
current as of the publication date of these TMDLs. If the pathogen criteria change in the future,
MassDEP intends to revise the TMDL by addendum to reflect the revised criteria.
7.3 -TMDL Expressed as Daily Load (Colonies/Day)
7.3.1 Rivers
82
-------
Background discussion: Flow in rivers and streams is highly variable. Nearly all are familiar with seeing
the same river as a raging, flooding torrent and at another time as a tame and calm stream. In many
areas, seasonal patterns are evident. A common pattern is high flow in the spring when winter snow
melts and spring rains swell rivers. Summer time generally is a period of low flows except for the
extreme events of heavy rainfall storms that can scale up to the high flows expected during hurricanes.
Across the United States, the US Geological Survey and others maintain a network of stream gages
that measure these flows on a continuous basis thus providing quantitative values to the qualitative
scenarios described above. These flow measurements are reported in terms of a volume of water
passing the gage in a given time period. Often the reported values are in cubic feet per second. A
cubic foot of water is 7.48 gallons, and flows can range from less that a cubic foot per second to many
thousands of cubic feet per second depending on the time of year and the size of the river or stream.
The size of the river or stream and the amount of water that it usually carries is determined by the area
of land it drains (known as a watershed), the type of land in the watershed, and the amount of
precipitation that falls on the watershed. A common way the USGS reports flow is in cubic feet per
second (cfs) averaged over a day since flow can vary even over the course of a day.
In addition to quantity, there is of course a quality aspect to water. Most chemical constituents are
measured in terms of weight per volume, generally using the metric system with milligrams (mg) per
liter (L) as the units. A milligram is one thousandth of a gram, 28 of which weighs one ounce. A liter is
slightly more than a quart, so there are 3.76 L in a gallon. The total amount of material is called mass
and is the quantity in a given volume of water. For instance, if a liter of water had 16 milligrams of salt
and one evaporated all of the water, the 16 milligrams of salt would remain. A volume of two liters with
the same 16 mg/L of salt would yield 32 milligrams of salt upon evaporation of the water. So, the total
amount of material in a volume of water is the combination of the amount (volume) of water and the
concentration of the substance being assessed. These two characteristics, in compatible units, are
multiplied to determine the quantity of the material present. In the case of a river or stream, the total
amount of material passing a gaging station in a day is the total volume multiplied by the concentration
of the chemical being assessed. This quantity often is referred to as "load", and if the time frame is a
day, the quantity is called the "daily load." If another time frame is used, such as a year, the term used
is "yearly" or "annual" load.
Application to Bacteria: Bacteria also can be discussed in terms of concentrations and loads. However,
the common way of expressing concentrations of bacteria is in terms of numbers rather than weight
(although one could use weight). Bacteria standards for water are written in terms of concentrations,
and while the method of determining the concentrations can be by direct count or estimated through
the outcome of some reaction, it is the number of organisms that are determined to be in a given
volume of water. Once again, the load is determined by the concentration multiplied by the volume of
water. As can be seen, changes in concentration and/or changes in flow result in changes in the
loads. Also, maximum loads can increase and if flow increases in proportion, the concentration will
remain the same. For instance, if the total number of bacteria entering a section of stream doubles, but
the flow also doubles, the concentration remains the same. This means that as flow increases,
allowable load can increase so that concentration remains constant (or lower if dilution occurs) while
continuing to meet the water quality criterion. In its simplest application, this is the concept of the flow
duration curve approach. At each given flow, the maximum load that can enter and still meet the water
83
-------
quality concentration criterion is set. If the number of bacteria in a water body segment is higher than
the allowable load as set by the water quality standard and flow, then a reduction is needed.
As a practical matter, determining the flow at each sampling point is resource intensive, expensive and
generally is not done. This issue is magnified in the Buzzards Bay Watershed where long-term records
of USGS gages are not available. Given this, however, some estimates can be made of the volume of
runoff based on long-term records of USGS gages in New England. This is the approach used in the
development of this TMDLS.
The pollutant loading that a waterbody can safely assimilate is expressed as either mass-per-time,
toxicity or some other appropriate measure (40 CFR § 130.2). Typically, TMDLs are expressed as total
maximum daily loads. However, as previously mentioned expressing pathogen TMDLs in terms of
daily loads is difficult to interpret given the very high numbers of indicator bacteria and the magnitude
of the allowable load is dependent on flow conditions and, therefore, will vary as flow rates change. For
example, a very high load of indicator bacteria is allowable if the volume of water that transports
indicator bacteria is also high. Conversely, a relatively low load of indicator bacteria may exceed the
water quality standard if flow rates are low. Given the intermittent nature of storm water related
discharges, MassDEP believes it is appropriate to express storm water-dominated indicator bacteria
TMDLs proportional to flow for flows greater than 7Q10 (the lowest flow that is expected to occur for
seven consecutive days over a ten day period). This approach is appropriate for storm water TMDLs
because of the intermittent nature of storm water discharges. However, the WLAs for continuous
discharges are not set based on the receiving water's proportional flow, but rather, are based on the
criteria multiplied by the permitted effluent flow (applying the appropriate conversion factor). Because
the water quality standard is also expressed in terms of the concentration of organisms per 100 mL,
the acceptable in-stream daily load or TMDL is the product of the river flow at any given time and the
water quality standard criterion.
7.3.2 Embayment's
For embayment's, the allowable loading was estimated using two different methodologies. First, for
most of those embayment's located on the eastern side of Buzzards Bay (Cape Cod side) where, for
the most part, precipitation readily percolates into the groundwater rather than runoff, an assumption
was made that only the runoff within a 200-foot buffer area of the perimeter of the embayment would
likely runoff directly to the waterbody in question. Further, in this 200-foot buffer there are both pervious
and impervious areas. To estimate this load, in the impervious areas it was assumed that all 45 inches
(3.75 feet) of annual rainfall resulted in runoff directly to the embayment.
84
-------
A review of existing USGS studies was conducted to estimate the amount of runoff anticipated from the
pervious areas on Cape Cod. Walter and Whealan (2005; Fig 6)1 report precipitation results at
Hatchville (in Falmouth, MA from 1941-1995. That data indicate that an average of 45 in/yr typically
falls on Cape Cod varying from a low of about 25 inches (1965) to a high of 73 in. (1972). Walter and
Whealan also report and average ground water recharge rate (amount of precipitation that goes
directly into the ground) of 27 in/yr for Cape Cod. Desimone2 estimates that approximately 24 inches of
precipitation on Cape Cod is lost to evapotranspiration. Adding these two values together indicates that
on an average over the years virtually all precipitation to the pervious areas on Cape Cod either
recharges directly to the aquifer or evapotranspirates and thus none is expected to runoff from these
areas. As a result it was assumed that no runoff occurs from the pervious areas and therefore no load
allocation was provided. A buffer area of 200 feet was chosen as a reasonable estimate of the area
which is likely to contribute stormwater discharges directly to each embayment. Within this area it is
assumed that all 45 inches per year of precipitation runs directly off any impervious area within this
buffer zone and zero inches per year runs off from non-impervious areas. Hence, the allowable total
number of bacteria for a day is the water quality standard times the estimated daily runoff associated
with impervious areas within the 200 foot buffer zone once conversions for the various units are
applied. .
In a few cases, where the specific contributing watershed had already been developed for other
reasons, the entire contributing watershed area was used to calculate the total load.
It was therefore conservatively assumed that all impervious runoff entered the estuary through a formal
conveyance system and thus was included in the wasteload allocation portion of the TMDL.
In the embayment's on the western part of Buzzards Bay a different method was chosen because 1)
most embayment's are fed by a surface water feature such as a river or stream, 2) even though the
soil characteristics in many areas near Buzzards Bay Watershed are similar to those on Cape Cod the
soils become less pervious in other areas of the watershed further from the shore, and 3) there are
several urban areas like New Bedford that operate large sewer and stormwater systems and have vast
amounts of impervious cover. As a result, the allowable loading was calculated using the concentration
allowed by the Massachusetts Water Quality Standards and the estimated volume of runoff entering
from each contributing watershed. Since there are no long-term USGS gage stations in the Buzzards
Bay area it was conservatively assumed that all precipitation to impervious areas runs directly off into a
local waterway (average runoff value of 45 inches per year or 3.75 feet). In pervious areas a
conservative estimate of 23.8 inches per year (1.98 feet) was used which represents the 50 percentile
of runoff values observed at USGS gages in New England (Hydrologic Unit 1) based on long-term
records(1901-2002) http://water.usgs.gov/waterwatch/index.php?
map tvpe1=real&map tvpe2=&map tvpe3=&map tvpe4=&web tvpe=real
1 Walter, D.A., and Whealan, AT., 2005, Simulated Water Sources and Effects of Pumping on Surface and
Ground Water, Sagamore and Monomoy Flow Lenses, Cape Cod, Massachusetts: U.S. Geological Survey
Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5181, 85p.
2 Desimone, Leslie, 2003, Simulation of Advective Flow under Steady-State and Transient Recharge
Conditions, Camp Edwards,Massachusetts Military Reservation, Cape Cod, USGS Massachusetts Water-
Resources Investigations Report 03-4053,U.S., Northborough, Massachusetts,
85
-------
%2Cmap&state=ma&xinfo=&map_type=roplt&group_idx=4®ion_cd=ma&group_idx_changed=1&se
I_nm=map_type4&sel_va=roplt.
Since the USGS records actual streamflow over the course of time the estimates already account for
recharge and evapotranspiration and thus reflect a true runoff value.
These runoff values were multiplied by the contributing watershed acreage and the most stringent
water guality standard for each segment to calculate the allowable total number of bacteria per year.
The daily TMDL was then calculated by dividing the allowable annual load by the number of days, on
average, that it rains. Since it rains once every three to four days the annual load was divided by 105
days per year with rainfall to calculate the daily load. Precipitation data were based on information
interpreted from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) at
http://cdo.ncdc.noaa.gov/ancsum/ACS and www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/online/ccd/prego1.txt.
The 105 days per year of rainfall represents an average of the total number of days of precipitation
>0.01". It is assumed that precipitation less than 0.01 inches either adsorbs into the ground or
evaporates and therefore does not runoff. Finally, the total daily load allocation was then split into
wasteload and load allocations based on the ratio of impervious to pervious land within each
watershed.
7.3.3 Water Quality Criteria
The water quality criteria used to develop the TMDL was based on the most stringent designated use
identified in the Massachusetts Water Quality Standards. The criteria applied to each segment are
identified in Tables 7.3a and 7.3b. The criteria are summarized as follows:
For Class A surface waters:
a. At intakes in unfiltered public water supplies fecal coliform shall not exceed 20
organisms per 100 ml in all samples taken in any six-month period; or total coliform
shall not exceed 100 organisms per 100 ml in 90% of the samples taken in any six-
month period.
b. At bathing beaches the geometric mean of the 5 most recent e-coli samples taken
during the same bathing season shall not exceed 126 colonies per 100 ml and no
single sample taken during the same bathing season shall exceed 235 colonies per
100 ml, or where enterococcus is used the geometric mean of the 5 most recent e-coli
samples taken during the same bathing season shall not exceed 33 colonies per 100
ml and no single sample taken during the same bathing season shall exceed 61
colonies per 100 ml.
c. For all other class A waters and during the non-bathing season the geometric mean of
all e-coli samples taken within the most recent 6 months shall not exceed 126 colonies
per 100 ml typically based on a minimum of 5 samples and no single sample shall
exceed 235 colonies per 100 ml, or where enterococcus is used the geometric mean of
all samples taken within the most recent six months shall not exceed 33 colonies per
100 ml and no single sample taken during the same bathing season shall exceed 61
colonies per 100 ml.
86
-------
For Class B surface waters:
Criteria b and c above apply for bathing beaches and for other waters and during non-
bathing season.
For Coastal Waters designated as Class SA:
a. For waters designated for shellfishing: fecal coliform shall not exceed a geometric
mean Most Probable Number (MPN) of 14 organisms per 100 ml nor shall more
than 10 % of the samples exceed an MPN of 28 per 100 ml.
b. At bathing beaches no single enterococci sample taken during the bathing season
shall not exceed 104 colonies per 100 ml, and the geometric mean of the five most
recent samples taken within the same bathing season shall exceed 35 colonies per
100ml.
c. In non-bathing beach waters and bathing beach waters during the non-bathing
season, no single sample shall exceed 104 colonies per 100 ml, and the geometric
mean of all samples taken within the most recent six months typically based on 5
samples shall exceed 35 colonies per 100 ml.
For Coastal Waters designated as Class SB:
a. Waters designated for shellfishing with depuration: fecal coliform shall not exceed a
median or geometric mean Most Probable Number (MPN) of 88 organisms per 100
ml nor shall more than 10 % of the samples exceed an MPN of 260 per 100 ml.
b. at bathing beaches and in non-bathing beach waters and bathing beach waters
during the non-bathing season the same criteria as Class SA apply.
MassDEP is basing the TMDL on the recently (1/07) revised Massachusetts Water Quality Standards
for the indicator organisms (£. coli and enterococci). The full version of the revised standards can be
found at: http://mass.gov/dep/water/laws/reaulati.htm#waual
7.3.4 Calculating the TMDL as Daily Loads (Colonies/Day)
MassDEP believes it is appropriate to express indicator bacteria TMDLs proportional to flow. Because
the water quality standard is also expressed in terms of the concentration of organisms per 100 ml,
the acceptable in-stream daily load or TMDL is the product of that flow and the water quality standard
criterion, which is the same approach used for any pollutant with a numerical criterion. In the case of
embayments, runoff is the flow that is being used to determine the maximum daily load.
The TMDL is calculated based on flow or volume and the concentration of the applicable
Massachusetts water quality standard criterion for bacteria in the river. Once the flow or volume is
estimated, the total maximum daily load of bacteria in numbers per day is derived by multiplying the
87
-------
estimated flow or runoff volume by the water quality standard criterion for the indicator bacteria. The
actual allowable load of bacteria, in numbers of bacteria per day, varies with flow at or above 7Q10 in
each segment as presented in Figures 7-1 a and 7-1 b. This approach sets a target for reducing the
loads so that water quality criteria for indicator bacteria are met at all flows equal to or greater than
7Q10.
Example calculations for determining the TMDL are provided as follows:
For Rivers, the TMDL associated each 1.0 cubic foot per second of flow to meet a water quality
standard of 126 colonies per 100 ml (Class B) is derived as follows:
TMDL= (0.02832 rrf/sec) x (86,400 sec/day) x (1000 liters/m3) x (1000 ml/liter) x (126 col/100ml) = 3.08
x109 col/day.
For Embayment's
For embayment's the size of the watershed contributing to the flow must be accounted for.
Therefore the TMDL associated with each acre of contributing watershed to meet a water quality
standard for 14 colonies per 100 ml of fecal coliform (Class SAfor shellfishing) is derived as follows:
On Eastern Side of Buzzards Bay (Cape Cod Side):
TMDL = (1 acre) x (43,560 ft2/acre) x (3.75 ft (% impervious area in 200 ft buffer)/105 days ) x (7.48
gallons/ft3) x (3.78 liters/gallon) x (14 colonies/100 ml) x (1000 ml/I) = 6.19 X 106 col/day
The TMDL attributed to each acre of contributing watershed area to meet a water quality standard of
88 colonies/100 ml of fecal coliform (Class SB for shellfishing) is derived as follows:
TMDL = (1 acre) x (43,560 ft2/acre) x (3.75 ft (% impervious area in 200 ft buffer)/105 days )) x (7.48
gallons/ft3) x (3.78 liters/gallon) x (88 colonies/100 ml) x (1000 ml/I) = 3.87 X 107 col/day
The TMDL attributed to each acre of contributing watershed area to meet a water quality standard of
104 colonies/100 ml of enterococcus (Class SA and SB for swimming) is derived as follows:
TMDL = (1 acre) x (43,560 ft2/acre) x (3.75 ft (% impervious area in 200 ft buffer)/105 days )) x (7.48
gallons/ft3) x (3.78 liters/gallon) x (104 colonies/100 ml) x (1000 ml/l) = 4.57 X 107 col/day
On the Western Side of Buzzards Bay:
The TMDL associated with each acre of contributing watershed to meet a water quality standard for 14
colonies per 100 ml of fecal coliform (Class SAfor shellfishing) is derived as follows:
TMDL = (1 acre) x (43,560 ft2/acre) x ((1.98 ft (% pervious area) + 3.75 ft (% impervious area)/105 days
)) x (7.48 gallons/ft3) x (3.78 liters/gallon) x (14 colonies/100 ml) x (1000 ml/l)
88
-------
The TMDL attributed to each acre of contributing watershed area to meet a water quality standard of
88 colonies/100 ml of fecal coliform (Class SBforshellfishing) is derived as follows:
TMDL = (1 acre) x (43,560 ft2/acre) x ((1.98 ft (% pervious area) + 3.75 ft (% impervious area)/105 days
)) x (7.48 gallons/ft3) x (3.78 liters/gallon) x (88 colonies/100 ml) x (1000 ml/l)
The TMDL attributed to each acre of contributing watershed area to meet a water quality standard of
104 colonies/100 ml of enterococcus (Class SA and SB for swimming) is derived as follows:
TMDL = (1 acre) x (43,560 ft2/acre) x ((1.98 ft (% pervious area) + 3.75 ft (% impervious area) /105
days )) x (7.48 gallons/ft3) x (3.78 liters/gallon) x (104 colonies/100 ml) x (1000 ml/l)
The following plot (Figure 7.1 a) depicts the number or amount of E. coli bacteria per day that can be in
any Class B river segment at any given location in the Buzzards Bay Watershed depending on flow:
Figure 7-1a: TMDL: E. coli Rivers
•1 nnp+i.^
1 nnr+1^ -
1 nnp+19
1 nnr+1 1 -
1 nnp+1 n -
»
»
•\ nnp+nci
TMDLl 1 nrtC4-n«
Col E-Coli/day
•i nnp+nfi -
•1 nnp+no
1 nnp+m -
1 nnp+nn
1
^--x
_^-*-"^
^^^
^^*^^
^*^~
r-"""
—X— bacti/day
cfs*0. 02832 m3/sec*86,400sec/day*126 col bacti/1 OOmL*1 ,000,000 ml/m3
= maximum allovrable daily load of E. coli
10 100 1000 10000 100000
Flow(CFS)
89
-------
Figure 7.1b depicts the number or amount of Enterococcus bacteria per day that can be in
any Class B river segment at any given location in the Buzzards Bay Watershed depending on
flow:
Figure 7-1b:TMDL: Entercoccus Rivers
§
o
o
o
0)
HI
re
I
o
O
1 nnp+1? -
1 nnp+19
1 OOE+11 -
1 nnp+m -
1 nnp+nQN
1 nnF+ny
1 nnp+nfi
1 nnp+n^
1 OOE+04 -
1 nnp+n? -
1 nnp+n9
1 OOE+01 -
1 nnF+nn -
XX ^^^^^
^^^^^
^^^^^^^
f^^^^^^
\
cfs*0.028.32 m3/sec*86,400s/d*33 bacti/100mL*1, 000,000 ml/m3= maximum
10
100 1000
Flow (CFS)
10000
100000
7.3.5 - Wasteload Allocations (WLAs) and Load Allocations (LAs)
There are several WWTPs and other NPDES-permitted wastewater discharges within the watershed.
NPDES wastewater discharge WLAs are set at the WQS. In addition there are numerous storm water
discharges from storm drainage systems throughout the watershed. All piped discharges are, by
definition, point sources regardless of whether they are currently subject to the requirements of NPDES
permits. Therefore, a WLA set equal to the WQS will be assigned to the portion of the storm water that
discharges to surface waters via storm drains.
90
-------
WLAs and LAs are identified for all known source categories including both dry and wet weather
sources for Class SA, Class SB, B segments within the Buzzards Bay watershed. Establishing WLAs
and LAs that only address dry weather indicator bacteria sources would not ensure attainment of
standards because of the significant contribution of wet weather indicator bacteria sources to WQS
exceedances. Illicit sewer connections and deteriorating sewers leaking to storm drainage systems
represent the primary dry weather point sources of indicator bacteria, while failing septic systems and
possibly leaking sewer lines represent the non-point sources. Wet weather point sources include
discharges from storm water drainage systems (including MS4s) and sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs).
Wet weather non-point sources primarily include diffuse storm water runoff.
7.3.6 Stormwater Contribution
Part of the stormwater contribution originates from point sources and is included in the waste load
allocation, and part comes from non-point sources and is included in the load allocation of the TMDL.
The fraction of the runoff load attributed to the waste load allocation is estimated from the fraction of
the watershed that has impervious cover because storm water from impervious cover is more likely to
be diverted, collected and conveyed to the receiving water by storm water collection systems than non-
impervious areas. The fraction of the TMDL associated with the wasteload allocation was estimated,
using MassGIS and the algorithm within it to estimate the extent of impervious surface. The wasteload
allocation was then defined by multiplying the TMDL for each segment by the percent of
imperviousness in each watershed. Likewise the load allocation was estimated using the percent
pervious cover in each watershed. MassDEP believes this approach is conservative because it
assumes that all runoff from impervious areas actually makes it to the waterbody segment in question,
which may or may not always be the case.
For example, consider waterbody segment 95-31 of the Achusnet River from the Outlet of New
Bedford Reservoir to the Hamlin Rd. culvert, Acushnet. This segment is designated as a Class B water
in the Massachusetts Water Quality Standards and thus must meet the Water Quality Standard of 126
colonies/100 ml. The TMDL for 1 cubic feet per second of flow was calculated to be 3.08 x 109 colonies
per day. According to the MassGIS data layer, the watershed above this point is 5.8% impervious and
94.2% pervious. Thus, the wasteload allocation was calculated to be (3.08 x 109) x .058 = 1.79 x 108
colonies per day. Likewise the load allocation was calculated to be (3.08 x 109) x .942 = 2.9 x 109
colonies per day.
Using this procedure the wasteload allocations and load allocations for each river segment were
calculated for varying flow regimes and are provided in Table 7-2a below while the wasteload
allocations and load allocations for each marine segment based on contributing acreage are provided
in Table 7-2b.
91
-------
92
-------
Table 7- 2a: WLA and LA for River Segments - TMDL By Segment (Colonies/Day)
River
Segments
/Size
MA95-31
3.1 miles
MA95-32
1.1 miles
MA95-58
4.9 miles
MA95-13
3.8 miles
MA95-40
2.9 miles
MA-95-44
1.5 miles
MA-95-45
0.36 miles
Description
Achusnet River
Class B (126
col/1 00ml)
Achusnet River
Class B (126
col/1 00ml)
Bread and
Cheese Brook
Class B (126
col/1 00ml)
Buttonwood
Brook
Class B (126
col/1 00ml)
East Branch
Westport River
Class B (126
col/1 00ml)
Snell Creek
Class B (126
col/1 00ml)
Snell Creek
Class B (126
col/1 00ml)
River Segments
TMDL based on Flow (Colonies of E. co///day) (from Figure 7-1 a)
Stormwater
Contribution
WLA
(5.8%
impervious)
LA
( 94.2% pervious)
WLA
(8.0%
impervious)
LA
(92.0% pervious)
WLA
(8.5%
impervious)
LA
(91.5% pervious)
WLA
(18.9%
impervious)
LA
(81.1% pervious)
WLA
(6.1%
impervious)
LA
(93.9% pervious)
WLA
(4.0%
impervious)
LA
(96.0% pervious)
WLA
(5.7%
impervious)
LA
(94.3% pervious)
1cfs
1.79E
+08
2.9E
+09
2.46E
+08
2.83E
+09
2.62E
+08
2.82E
+09
5.8E
+08
2.5E
+09
1.88E
+08
2.89E
+09
1.23E
+08
2.96E
+09
1.76E
+08
2.9E
+09
10cfs
1.79E
+09
2.9E
+10
2.46E
+09
2.83E
+10
2.62E
+09
2.82E
+10
5.8E
+09
2.5E
+10
1.88E
+09
2.89E
+10
1.23E
+09
2.96E
+10
1.76E
+09
2.9E
+10
"lOOcfs
1.79E
+10
2.9E
+11
2.46E
+10
2.83E
+11
2.62E
+10
2.82E
+11
5.8E
+10
2.5E
+11
1.88E
+10
2.89E
+11
1.23E
+10
2.96E
+11
1.76E
+10
2.9E
+11
"lOOOcfs
1.79E
+11
2.9E
+12
2.46E
+11
2.83E
+12
2.62E
+11
2.82E
+12
5.8E
+11
2.5E
+12
1.88E
+11
2.89E
+12
1.23E
+11
2.96E
+12
1.76E
+11
2.9E
+12
"lOOOOcfs
1.79E
+12
2.9E
+13
2.46E
+12
2.83E
+13
2.62E
+12
2.82E
+13
5.8E
+12
2.5E
+13
1.88E
+12
2.89E
+13
1.23E
+12
2.96E
+13
1.76E
+12
2.9E
+13
93
-------
Table 7- 2b: WLA and LA for Estuarine Waters - TMDL By Segment (Colonies/Day)
Segm
ent/Si
ze
MA95-33
0.31 sq mi.
MA95-29
0.17 sq. mi.
MA95-39
1.1 sq. mi.
MA95-09
0.5 sq. mi.
MA95-47
O.OSsq. mi.
MA95-53
0.04 sq. mi.
MA95-49
0.16 sq. mi.
MA95-01
0.67 sq. mi.
Description
Achusnet River
Class SB - based on
88/1 00 ml)
Agawam River
Class SB - based on
88/1 00 ml)
Apponagansett Bay
Class SA
Aucoot Cove
Class SA
Back River
Class SA
Beaverdam Creek
Class SA
Broad Marsh River
Class SA
Buttermilk Bay
Class SA
Watershed
Size (Acres)
13895.1
13,423.4
5,379.9
2,650.2
5.41
481.4
798.0
10,082.6
Stormwater Contribution
WLA
(1 1 .7% impervious)
WLA
(4.8% impervious)
WLA
(12.9% impervious)
WLA
(5.1% impervious)
WLA
(9.2% impervious)
WLA
(1 1 .5% impervious)
WLA
(14.9% impervious)
WLA
(8.2% impervious)
LA
(88.3% pervious)
LA
(95.2% pervious)
LA
(87.1% pervious)
LA
(94.9% pervious)
LA
(90.8% pervious)
LA
(88.5% pervious)
LA
(85.1% pervious)
LA
(91.8% pervious)
TMDL
Col/Day
3.14E
+11
2.86E
+11
1.95E
+10
9.01E
+09
1.90E
+07
1.73E
+09
2.94E
+09
3.52E
+10
TMDL
WLA
Col/day
6.29E
+10
2.49E
+10
4.27E
+09
8.32E
+08
3.06E
+06
3.41E
+08
7.32E
+08
5.1E
+09
TMDL
LA
Col/day
2.51E
+11
2.61E
+11
1.52E
+10
8.18E
+09
1.6E
+07
1.39E
+09
2.21E
+09
3.01E
+10
94
-------
Table 7- 2b: WLA and LA for Estuarine Waters - TMDL By Segment (Colonies/Day)
Segm
ent/Si
ze
MA95-62
8.0 sq. mi.
MA95-14
1.13 sq. mi.
MA95-52
0.01 sq. mi.
MA95-38
1.9 sq. mi.
MA95-51
0.04 sq mi.
MA-95-41
2.6 sq. mi.
MA95-48
(96075)
O.OSsq. mi.
MA95-61
(95049)
0.04 sq. mi.
Description
Buzzards Bay (open
water- see description)
Class SA
Cape Cod Canal
Class SB - based on
88/1 00 ml)
Cedar Island Creek
Class SA
Clarks Cove
Class SA
Crooked River
Class SA
East Branch Westport
River Class SB -
based on 88/100 ml)
Eel Pond
Class SA
Eel Pond
(Mattapoisett)
Class SA
Watershed
Size (Acres)
27,111.6
394.61
251.4
2,087.6
312.1
37,370.3
4.51
616.8
Stormwater Contribution
WLA
(16.5%
Impervious)
WLA
(13.9% impervious)
WLA
(7.6% impervious)
WLA
(30.8% impervious)
WLA
(10.7% impervious)
WLA
(5.9% impervious)
WLA
(7.7% impervious)
WLA
(5.7% impervious)
LA
(83.5% pervious)
LA
(86.1% pervious)
LA
(92.4% pervious)
LA
(69.2% pervious)
LA
(89.3% pervious)
LA
(94.1% pervious)
LA
(92.3% pervious)
LA
(94.3% pervious)
TMDL
Col/Day
1.01E
+11
9.07E
+09
8.73E
+08
8.66E
+09
1.11E
+09
8.04E
+11
1.57E
+07
2.11E
+09
TMDL
WLA
Col/day
2.75E
+10
2.12E
+09
1.18E
+08
3.96E
+09
2.06E
+08
8.54E
+10
2.13E
+06
2.16E
+08
TMDL
LA
Col/day
7.34E
+10
6.95E
+09
7.55E
+08
4.7E
+09
9.04E
+08
7.19E
+11
1.36E
+07
1.89E
+09
95
-------
Table 7- 2b: WLA and LA for Estuarine Waters - TMDL By Segment (Colonies/Day)
Segm
ent/Si
ze
MA95-23
O.OSsq. mi.
MA95-56
0.07 sq. mi.
MA95-46
0.02 sq. mi.
MA95-21
0.01 sq. mi.
MA95-10
0.04 sq. mi.
MA95-42
1.3 sq. mi.
MA95-64
0.36sq.mi.
MA95-24
0.02 sq. mi.
Description
Great Sippewissett
Creek
Class SA
Hammett Cove
Class SA
Harbor Head
Class SA
Herring Brook
Class SA
HillerCove
Class SA
Inner New Bedford
Harbor
Class SB - based on
88/1 00 ml)
Little Bay
Class SA
Little Sippewisset
Marsh
Class SA
Watershed
Size (Acres)
55.61
865.2
2.21
27.81
262.5
6,590.8
2,561
30.61
Stormwater Contribution
WLA
(2.4% impervious)
WLA
(10.7% impervious)
WLA
(1 1 .5% impervious)
WLA
(7.6% impervious)
WLA
(6.1% impervious)
WLA
(33.7% impervious)
WLA
(13.6% impervious)
WLA
(3.2% impervious)
LA
(97.6% pervious)
LA
(89.3% pervious)
LA
(88.5% pervious)
LA
(92.4% pervious)
LA
(93.9% pervious)
LA
(66.3% pervious)
LA
(86.4% pervious)
LA
(96.8% pervious)
TMDL
Col/Day
1.85E
+08
3.08E
+09
7.92E
+06
9.68E
+07
9.0E
+08
1.75E
+11
9.34E
+09
1.02E
+08
TMDL
WLA
Col/day
8.22E
+06
5.7E
+08
1.56E
+06
1.3E
+07
9.86E
+07
8.6E
+10
2.14E
+09
6.03E
+06
TMDL
LA
Col/day
1.77E
+08
2.51E
+09
6.35E
+06
8.38E
+07
8.01E
+08
8.9E
+10
7.2E
+09
9.6E
+07
96
-------
Table 7- 2b: WLA and LA for Estuarine Waters - TMDL By Segment (Colonies/Day)
Segm
ent/Si
ze
MA95-60
0.05 sq. mi.
MA95-35
1.1 sq. mi.
MA95-65
3.7 sq. mi.
MA95-02
0.78 sq. mi.
MA95-63
5.8 sq. mi.
MA95-15
0.73 sq. mi.
MA95-17
0.33sq. mi.
MA95-16
0.05 sq. mi.
Description
Mattapoisett River
Class SA
Mattapoisett Harbor
Class SA
Nasketucket Bay
Class SA
Onset Bay
Class SA
Outer New Bedford
Harbor
Class SA
Phinneys Harbor
Class SA
Pocasset Harbor
Class SA
Pocassett River
Class SA
Watershed
Size (Acres)
15,790.9
18,168.2
4,369.2
3,144.9
18,806.2
5.41
91.41
69.61
Stormwater Contribution
WLA
(4.1% impervious)
WLA
(5.2% impervious)
WLA
(10.4% impervious)
WLA
(13.5% impervious)
WLA
(16.3% impervious)
WLA
(10.2% impervious)
WLA
(8.0% impervious)
WLA
(10.0% impervious)
LA
(95.9% pervious)
LA
(94.8% pervious)
LA
(89.6% pervious)
LA
(86.5% pervious)
LA
(83.7% pervious)
LA
(89.8% pervious)
LA
(92.0% pervious)
LA
(90.0% pervious)
TMDL
Col/Day
5.32E
+10
6.18E
+10
1.55E
+10
1.15E
+10
7.36E
+12
1.92E
+07
3.18E
+08
2.5E
+08
TMDL
WLA
Col/day
3.99E
+09
5.82E
+09
2.8E
+09
2.61E
+09
1.89E
+10
3.4E
+06
4.5E
+07
4.29E
+07
TMDL
LA
Col/day
4.92E
+10
5.6E
+10
1.27E
+10
8.9E
+09
7.34E
+12
1.6E
+07
2.73E
+08
2.07E
+08
97
-------
Table 7- 2b: WLA and LA for Estuarine Waters - TMDL By Segment (Colonies/Day)
Segm
ent/Si
ze
MA95-25
0.17 sq. mi.
MA95-18
0.92 sq. mi.
MA95-08
2.5 sq. mi.
MA95-07
O.OSsq. mi.
MA95-34
0.67 sq. mi.
MA-95-59
0.01 sq. mi.
MA95-50
0.05 sq. mi.
MA95-03
1.2 sq. mi.
Description
Quissett Harbor
Class SA
Red Brook Harbor
Class SA
Sippican Harbor
Class SA
Sippican River
Class SA
Slocums River
Class SA
Snell Creek
Class SA
Wankinco River
Class SA
Wareham River
Class SA
Watershed
Size (Acres)
329.82
170.51
2,293.1
20,232.6
23,766.9
1073.5
13,214.9
28,686.4
Stormwater Contribution
WLA
(9.1% impervious)
WLA
(12.5% impervious)
WLA
(1 1 .8% impervious)
WLA
(5.0% impervious)
WLA
(9.8% impervious)
WLA
(5.7% impervious)
WLA
(4.2% impervious)
WLA
(5.1% impervious)
LA
(90.9% pervious)
LA
(87.5% pervious)
LA
(88.2% pervious)
LA
(95.0% pervious)
LA
(91.2% pervious)
LA
(94.3% pervious)
LA
(95.8% pervious)
LA
(94.9% pervious)
TMDL
Col/Day
1.16E
+09
6.2E
+08
8.24E
+09
6.87E
+10
8.48E
+10
3.7E
+09
4.46E
+10
9.75E
+10
TMDL
WLA
Col/day
1.85E
+08
1.31E
+08
1.7E
+09
6.23E
+09
1.43E
+10
3.77E
+08
3.42E
+09
9.0E
+09
TMDL
LA
Col/day
9.75E
+08
4.9E
+08
6.57E
+09
6.25E
+10
7.04E
+10
3.3E
+09
4.12E
+10
8.8E
+10
98
-------
Table 7- 2b: WLA and LA for Estuarine Waters - TMDL By Segment (Colonies/Day)
Segm
ent/Si
ze
MA95-37
1.3 sq. Mi.
MA95-22
0.29 sq. mi.
MA95-54
0.74 sq. mi.
MA95-05
0.62 sq. mi.
MA95-20
0.15 sq. mi.
Description
West Branch Westport
River
Class SA
West Falmouth Harbor
Class SA
Westport River
Class SA
Weweantic River
Class SA
Wild Harbor
Class SA
Watershed
Size (Acres)
5,842.1
6.21
45,894
58,286.4
631.3
Stormwater Contribution
WLA
(3.7% impervious)
WLA
(13.9% impervious)
WLA
(5.6% impervious)
WLA
(5.8 impervious)
WLA
(12.7% impervious)
LA
(96.3% pervious)
LA
(86.1% pervious)
LA
(94.4% pervious)
LA
(94.2% pervious)
LA
(87.3% pervious)
TMDL
Col/Day
1.96E
+10
2.27E
+07
1.57E
+11
1.99E
+11
2.29E
+09
TMDL
WLA
Col/day
1.33E
+09
5.31E
+06
1.58E
+10
2.1E
+10
4.94E
+08
TMDL
LA
Col/day
1.83E
+10
1.74E
+07
1.41E
+11
1.78E
+11
1.8E
+09
1 Estimated Average annual runoff in 200ft buffer area
2 Previously established watershed area.
99
-------
7.3.7 Summary
This TMDL provides the allowable daily loads (TMDLs) needed to attain the goals of the TMDL. Since
accurate estimates of existing sources are generally unavailable, it is difficult to estimate the pollutant
reductions for specific sources. The TMDL for discharges from illicit sewer connections, sewer system
overflows (SSO's), and discharges from failing septic systems are not allowed and therefore set to
zero. Regulated discharges including wastewater treatment facilities and other NPDES-permitted
wastewater discharges within the watershed are set at the WQS. The WLAs and LAs for stormwater
are proportioned based on the amount of pervious and impervious area from the contributing
watershed as defined in Tables 7-2a and 7-2b for each segment with the goal of meeting the most
stringent water quality standard for each segment. Compliance with the TMDL, however, should be
measured by an appropriate number of samples over a specific timeframe taken from the receiving
water in each segment pursuant to the WQS. Achievement of WQS for stormwater is expected to be
accomplished through an iterative process of finding and eliminating sources and through the
implementation of best management practices (BMPs).
7.4 - Application of the TMDL To Unimpaired or Currently Unassessed Segments
This TMDL applies to the pathogen impaired segments of the Buzzards Bay watershed that are
currently listed on the CWA § 303(d) list of impaired waters. MassDEP recommends however, that the
information contained in this TMDL guide management activities for all other waters throughout the
watershed to help maintain and protect existing water quality. For these non-impaired waters,
Massachusetts is proposing "pollution prevention TMDLs" consistent with CWA § 303(d)(3).
The analyses conducted for the pathogen-impaired segments in this TMDL would apply to the non-
impaired segments, since the sources and their characteristics are equivalent. The waste load and/or
load allocation for each source and designated use would be the same as specified herein. Therefore,
the pollution prevention TMDLs would have identical waste load and load allocations based on the
sources present and the designated use of the water body segment (see Table ES-1 and Table 7-1).
This Buzzards Bay watershed TMDL may, in appropriate circumstances, also apply to segments that
are listed for pathogen impairment in subsequent Massachusetts CWA § 303(d) Integrated List of
Waters. For such segments, this TMDL may apply if, after listing the waters for pathogen impairment
and taking into account all relevant comments submitted on the CWA § 303(d) list, the Commonwealth
determines with EPA approval of the CWA § 303(d) list that this TMDL should apply to future pathogen
impaired segments.
100
-------
7.5 - Margin of Safety
This section addresses the incorporation of a Margin of Safety (MOS) in the TMDL analysis. The MOS
accounts for any uncertainty or lack of knowledge concerning the relationship between pollutant
loading and water quality. The MOS can either be implicit (i.e., incorporated into the TMDL analysis
through conservative assumptions) or explicit (i.e., expressed in the TMDL as a portion of the
loadings). This TMDL uses an implicit MOS, through inclusion of several conservative assumptions.
First, the TMDL does not account for mixing in the receiving waters and assumes that zero dilution is
available. Realistically, influent water will mix with the receiving water and become diluted lowering
instream bacteria concentrations, provided that the receiving water concentration does not exceed the
TMDL concentration. Second, the goal of attaining standards at the point of discharge does not
account for losses due to die-off and settling of indicator bacteria that are known to occur. Third, the
TMDL assumes that all the runoff from impervious areas throughout the contributing watershed
actually makes it to the impaired segment, which is generally not the case especially in large
watersheds where impervious surfaces are not continually connected.
7.6 - Seasonal Variability
In addition to a Margin of Safety, TMDLs must also account for seasonal variability. Pathogen sources
to Buzzards Bay waters arise from a mixture of continuous and wet-weather driven sources, and there
may be no single critical condition that is protective for all other conditions. This TMDL has set WLAs
and LAs for all known and suspected source categories equal to the Massachusetts WQS independent
of seasonal and climatic conditions. This will ensure the attainment of water quality standards
regardless of seasonal and climatic conditions. Controls that are necessary will be in place throughout
the year, protecting water quality at all times. However, for discharges that do not affect shellfish beds,
intakes for water supplies and when primary contact recreation is not taking place (i.e., during the
winter months) seasonal disinfection is permitted for NPDES point source discharges if prior approval
is granted by MassDEP.
101
-------
8.0 Implementation Plan
Setting and achieving TMDLs should be an iterative process with realistic goals over a reasonable
timeframe and adjusted as warranted based on ongoing monitoring. It is the Department's expectation
that existing regulatory programs should be used to the maximum extent feasible to address identified
sources. The concentrations set out in the TMDL represent reductions that will require substantial time
and financial commitment to be attained. A comprehensive control strategy is needed to address the
numerous and diverse sources of pathogens in the Buzzards Bay watershed.
Elevated dry weather bacteria concentrations could be the result of illicit sewer connections, leaking
sewer pipes, sanitary sewer overflows, or failing septic systems. These sources are illegal and must be
eliminated, so first priority overall should be given to bacteria source tracking activities to investigate
potential illicit bacteria sources in segments impaired by bacteria during dry weather. Tracking and
remediation of dry weather bacteria sources is usually more straightforward and successful than
tracking and eliminating wet weather sources. If illicit bacteria sources are found and eliminated it
should result in a dramatic reduction of bacteria concentration in the segment in both dry and wet
weather. A comprehensive program is needed to ensure illicit sources are identified and that
appropriate actions will be taken to eliminate them. Guidance can be found in the following references:
A Center for Watershed Protection Manual entitled: Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination: A
Guidance Manual for Program Development and Technical Assessments which can be downloaded
at:: http://www.cwp.org/Resource_Library/Controlling_Runoff_and_Discharges/idde.htm
Practical guidance for municipalities is provided in a New England Interstate Water Pollution Control
Commission publication entitled Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Manual, A Handbook for
Municipalities available at: http://www.neiwpcc.org/iddemanual.asp.
Storm water runoff represents another major source of pathogens in the Buzzards Bay watershed, and
the current level of control is inadequate for standards to be attained in many segments. Improving
storm water runoff quality is essential for restoring water quality and recreational uses. It may not be
cost effective or even possible to track and identify all wet weather sources of bacteria, therefore
segments impaired during wet weather should be evaluated for stormwater BMP implementation
opportunities starting with intensive application of less costly non-structural practices (such as street
sweeping, and/or managerial strategies using local regulatory controls). Periodic monitoring to
evaluate the success of these practices should be performed and, depending on the degree of success
of the non-structural stormwater BMPs, structural controls may need to be identified and implemented
to meet water quality standards. Structural stormwater BMP implementation may require additional
study to identify cost efficient and effective technology. This adaptive management approach to
controlling stormwater contamination is the most practical and cost effective strategy to reduce
pathogen loadings as well as loadings of other storm water pollutants (e.g., nutrients and sediments)
contributing to use impairment in the Buzzards Bay Watershed.
For all the above noted reasons, a basin-wide implementation strategy is recommended. The strategy
includes a mandatory program for implementing storm water BMPs and eliminating illicit sources. The
"Mitigation Measures to Address Pathogen Pollution in Surface Water: A TMDL Implementation
Guidance Manual for Massachusetts" was developed to support implementation of pathogen TMDLs.
TMDL implementation-related tasks are shown in Table 8-1. Additionally the "Atlas of Stormwater
Discharges in the Buzzards Bay Watershed" should be utilized to find and confirm suspect stormwater
102
-------
conveyance discharge outfall sites that are 'hotspots'. The MassDEP working with EPA and other team
partners shall make every reasonable effort to assure implementation of this TMDL. These
stakeholders can provide valuable assistance in defining hot spots and sources of pathogen
contamination as well as the implementation of mitigation or preventative measures.
Table 8-1. Tasks
Task
Writing TMDL
TMDL public meeting
Response to public comment
Organization, contacts with volunteer groups
Development of comprehensive storm water
management programs including identification and
implementation of BMPs
Illicit discharge detection and elimination
Leaking sewer pipes and sanitary sewer overflows
CSO management
Inspection and upgrade of on-site sewage disposal
systems as needed
Organize and implement; work with stakeholders and
local officials to identify remedial measures and
potential funding sources
Organize and implement education and outreach
program
Write grant and loan funding proposals
Inclusion of TMDL recommendations in Executive Office
of Environmental Affairs (EOEA) Watershed Action
Plan
Surface Water Monitoring
Bacteria Source Tracking
Provide periodic status reports on implementation of
remedial activities
Organization
MassDEP
MassDEP
MassDEP
MassDEP/CBB/BBP
Buzzards Bay Communities, MassHighway
Buzzards Bay Communities with CBB
Buzzards Bay Communities
City of New Bedford
Homeowners and Buzzards Bay Communities
(Boards of Health)
MassDEP, BBP and Buzzards Bay Communities
MassDEP, CBB and Buzzards Bay Communities
CBB, Buzzards Bay Communities and Planning
Agencies with guidance from MassDEP
EOEEA
MassDEP, CBB, BBP, CZM, DMF
MassDEP, Buzzards Bay Communities,
MassHighway
Buzzards Bay Communities
103
-------
8.1 Summary of Activities within the Buzzards Bay Watershed
There are two not-for-profit active stewards of the Buzzards Bay, the Coalition for Buzzards Bay (CBB)
and the Buzzards Bay Action Committee (BBAC). The CBB is a citizens group primarily focused on
education and outreach and the BBAC, consisting of municipal officials, focusing on regulation and
legislation issues. These organizations, with assistance from the EPA and MACZM, have developed
the Buzzards Bay Project National Estuary Program where their mission is "To protect and restore
water quality and living resources in Buzzards Bay and its surrounding watershed through the
implementation of the Buzzards Bay Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan" (CCMP;
available for download at http://www.buzzardsbay.org/ccmptoc.htmy The CCMP includes the
following action plans:
0 Managing Nitrogen-Sensitive Embayment's
0 Protecting and Enhancing Shellfish Resources
0 Controlling Stormwater Runoff
0 Managing Sanitary Wastes from Boats
0 Managing On-Site Systems
0 Preventing Oil Pollution
0 Protecting Wetlands and Coastal Habitat
0 Planning for a Shifting Shoreline
0 Managing Sewage Treatment Facilities
0 Reducing Toxic Pollution
0 Managing Dredging and Dredged Material Disposal
The first effort in controlling storm water runoff featured a storm water mapping task. This effort
resulted in the publication of the "Atlas of Stormwater Discharges in the Buzzards Bay
Watershed"( relevant maps are provided in Appendix A). Storm water mapping is continuing in areas
not included in the original effort. Data collected during the mapping process is used to set
remediation implementation priorities within the watershed. The BBAC works closely with
municipalities in an effort to improve conditions within the Bay. A list of on-going and past projects is
provided on the following web-site http://www.buzzardsbay.org/.
In addition, the DEP and EPA have sponsored various program (MWI, 319, 104(b)(3) grant projects
related to controlling bacteria throughout the basin over the past decade. A brief summary of some of
these projects follows and can be used as a guide for developing implementation approaches in the
future.
Watershed Initiative Grants program: MWI Project 01-02, Westport River NPS Assessment Project"- a
$49,500 project assessing land- use, mapping NPS sources of pollution (including bacteria),
conducting a Stormwater pollution assessment at Head of Westport area, and recommending BMP's
for NPS pollution remediation;
319 Nonpoint Source Grant program: (1) Project 97-07- "Protecting Nitrogen Sensitive Coastal
Embayment's Through Land Conservation"- a $72,500 project to develop tools for controlling nitrogen
(and would relate to control of bacteria as well) inputs from increased development, by using BMP's on
104
-------
fertilizer use, manure management, septic system maintenance, vegetative buffers in the Slocum's
River and Onset Bay sub- watersheds; (2) Project 99-01, " Alternative Septic System Test Center
Project Monitoring"- a $188,000 project to monitor pollutant removal by 21 different waste water
treatment systems at the alternative septic system test center, Mass. Military Reservation, which will
speed approval of effective technologies having advanced contamination removal (nitrogen and
bacteria), and result in wide dissemination and use by the public; (3) Project 00-02, continue "
Alternative Septic System Test Center Project Monitoring"- $190,500, to continue the work of 319
project 99-01 outlined above; (4) Project 00-03, "Development of a Rapid Field Test for Quality of
Stone Aggregate in Onsite Septic Systems"- a $28,500 project to improve soil absorption portions of
leaching systems of on-site septic systems; (5) Project 00-05, "Atlas of Stormwater Discharges in
Buzzards Bay Watershed"- a $41,000 project, often quoted and referred to throughout this report; (6)
Project 00-09, "Onset Bay, Wareham MA, Nonpoint Source Pollution Remediation Project"- a $218,000
project to upgrade seasonally closed shellfish areas in Onset Bay (northern portion particularly) by
installing 4 subsurface infiltration "first flush" BMP's (with deep sumps, hoods, pipes to infiltration
chambers) and conducting pre and post construction monitoring; (7) Project 01-07, "Wareham NPS
Remediation Program: East River, Broad Cove, Muddy Cove"- a $455,000 project, to continue the
work of Project 00-09 above, to install stormwater BMP's (deep sump catch basins, infiltration
chambers, stormtreat systems, etc) at 7 outlets in (upstream) Onset Village, with pre and post
construction monitoring; (8) Project 02-06, "Head of Westport Stormwater Project"- a $444,000 project
to improve water quality in the East Branch of the Westport River by reducing NPS pollution at Head of
River by construction of a sediment forebay for pretreatment of stormwater runoff before discharge into
2 detention basins, before discharge into a constructed wetlands, with an attendant O & M program.
104(b)(3) Water Quality Grant program: (1) Project 01/104, "Acushnet River TMDL Data Collection"- a
$30,000 project to quantify Acushnet River Discharge nitrogen and bacteria loading from the upper
watershed river discharge to New Bedford Inner Harbor Area, to provide data for water quality models
to help EPA and DEP to develop appropriate TMDL management approaches for restoring water
quality in the Acushnet River Estuary System.
The Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management's (CZM) Buzzards Bay National Estuary
Program (NEP) announced in mid- July, 2007, over $98,000 in grants to assist the 5 South Coast-
Cape Cod communities in their efforts to protect and restore Buzzards Bay. The grants will help
municipalities test, map and treat stormwater discharges; protect and restore wetlands and habitat; and
safeguard open space. The communities with their projects include:
Rochester - $25,000 for the Church Family Property Land Preservation Project, which will
permanently protect a 20.8-acre parcel of land on Marion Road (Route 105), a designated Scenic
Highway. The town will partner with the non-profit Rochester Land Trust to acquire the property at the
bargain price of $100,000. The land trust will hold title to the property, which will be open to the public.
Located within the Sippican River watershed, the area includes dense mature pine and oak forests,
wetlands, and significant wildlife habitat, and is close to other permanently protected properties.
Bourne - $16,000 for the Head of the Bay Stormwater Pollution Identification project, a collaborative
effort between the towns of Bourne, Wareham, and Marion to conduct detailed water quality sampling
of 20 high priority stormwater discharges. With a goal of reopening closed shellfish beds, data
105
-------
collected from this project will be used to prioritize these discharges, in order to target funds for future
remediation. The three towns have partnered with The Coalition for Buzzards Bay, which will serve as
the principal contractor, providing all project management, field sampling, analysis lab coordination,
data compilation, and final presentation.
The town of Bourne will also receive $15,305 for the second phase of a Culvert Replacement
Feasibility study for Conservation Pond along the shores of Hen Cove. This project is evaluating the
feasibility of installing a larger culvert under Circuit Avenue at Conservation Pond. Phase one of the
project was funded by the NEP through a $17,000 mini-grant in January. The tidal pond currently
connects to Hen Cove via an 18-inch wide, 50-foot long corrugated steel culvert. The culvert's small
size, elevation, and regular blockage severely restrict tidal flow to the pond.
New Bedford - The City of New Bedford Department of Public Works Waste Water Division has been
addressing CSOs since 1989 (City of New Bedford 2005). There are currently 27 CSO outfalls (as
opposed to formerly 41 in 1989) discharging into Clarks Cove, New Bedford Harbor and Buzzards Bay
(Shepherd 2008). As a result of their efforts, two shellfish beds, which have been closed for 30 years,
have been reopened (City of New Bedford 2005). Work toward mitigating CSO impacts is ongoing and
part of the City of New Bedford's long term CSO control plan (New Bedford CSO Facilities Plan). The
City was awarded $ 22 million in FY '07 SRF funds for implementing these long- term controls and is
on the 2009 state intended use plan for $19.3 million of SRF funds to reduce CSO by removing major
grit blockages within the system.
The City also received a $20,000 grant from CZM to continue mapping stormwater drainage networks
as part of an update of the city's GIS data of stormwater and sewer systems. The NEP awarded New
Bedford $10,000 in January to initiate this project, which involves field work and computer mapping
performed by UMass/Dartmouth engineering interns.
Marion - Received $22,000 for the Washburn Park Wetland Restoration and Creation project. The
municipality seeks to remove fill from a wetland and create additional wetlands on a property that is
being purchased by the town for permanent conservation. The grant will also help fund two appraisals
required by the state Division of Conservation Services' Self-Help Grant Program. The town intends to
apply for Self-Help funds to assist in the acquisition and protection of the property. The non-profit
Sippican Lands Trust has partnered with the town and will hold title to the property until the town
completes the transfer.
Mattapoisett - has received in-kind support from the NEP to map stormwater drainage systems in
some new subdivisions not mapped in previous stormwater system mapping efforts. Due to its limited
nature, the NEP agreed to undertake the proposed work at no cost to the town.
MassDEP can also assist towns and local groups in identifying bacterial sources. In 2004 the
MassDEP/DWM purchased an IDEXX system for in-house bacteria analyses and developed a protocol
for conducting bacteria source tracking surveys. A pilot bacteria source tracking study in the
Blackstone and Sudbury River watersheds was conducted by the DWM to test the protocol and
develop "low-tech" methodologies to differentiate between human and non-human sources of bacteria.
106
-------
A report on this study can be accessed at http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/priorities/bact2004.pdf.
Bacteria source tracking surveys are now being conducted as part the duties of the regional DWM
monitoring coordinators in the MassDEP southeast region. These surveys focus mostly on detecting
dry weather bacteria inputs. When illicit sources are found, the MassDEP Southeast regional Office
(SERO) notifies the community and/or responsible party and works with them to implement repairs.
In summary although work is underway much more needs to be done to obtain the goal of achieving
designated uses in the Buzzards Bay Watershed. Data supporting this TMDL indicate that indicator
bacteria enter the Buzzards Bay from a number of contributing sources, under a variety of conditions.
Activities that are currently ongoing and/or planned to ensure that the TMDL can be implemented
include and are summarized in the following subsections. The "Mitigation Measures to Address
Pathogen Pollution in Surface Water: A TMDL Implementation Guidance Manual for Massachusetts"
provides additional details on the implementation of pathogen control measures summarized below as
well as additional measures not provided herein, such as by-law, ordinances and public outreach and
education.
8.2 Agricultural Runoff-Animal Feeding Operations and Grazing
Animal feeding operations and barnyards can produce significant volumes of manure with high fecal
loads. To reduce the impacts of animal feeding operations, EPA recommends addressing the following
eight issues (USEPA 2003).
1. Divert clean water - divert clean water (run-off from uplands, water from roofs) from contact
with feedlots and holding pens, animal manure, or manure storage systems.
2. Prevent seepage.
3. Provide adequate storage.
4. Apply manure in accordance with a nutrient management plan that meets the performance
expectations of the nutrient management measure.
5. Address lands receiving wastes. Areas receiving manure should be managed in accordance
with the erosion and sediment control, irrigation, and grazing management measures as
applicable.
6. Recordkeeping. Operators should keep records that indicate the quantity of manure produced
and its utilization or disposal method, including land application.
7. Mortality management. Dead animals should be managed in a way that does not adversely
affect ground or surface waters.
8. Consider the full range of environmental constraints and requirements. When siting a new or
expanding facility, consideration should be given to the proximity of the facility to (a) surface
waters; (b) areas of high leaching potential; (c) areas of shallow groundwater; and (d) sink
holes or other sensitive areas.
Grazing best management practices can reduce erosion, the concentrations of bacteria in runoff from
grazing areas, and the direct deposition of fecal matter into water bodies. The following grazing
management practices may be implemented at agricultural sites as part of the overall implementation
strategy to reduce pathogen discharges to receiving waters.
D Exclude livestock from surface water bodies, and sensitive shoreline and riparian zones,
D Provide bridges or culverts for stream crossings,
D Provide alternative drinking water locations,
107
-------
0 Locate salt, feeding areas, and additional shade away from sensitive areas, and
[] Use improved grazing management to reduce erosion and overgrazing.
Additional details and a list of useful resources regarding animal feeding operations and grazing
management is provided in the "Mitigation Measures to Address Pathogen Pollution in Surface Water:
A TMDL Implementation Guidance Manual for Massachusetts".
8.3 Illicit Sewer Connections, Failing Infrastructure and CSOs
Elimination of illicit sewer connections, repairing failing infrastructure, and controlling impacts
associated with CSOs are of extreme importance. As previously noted, The City of New Bedford
Department of Public Works Waste Water Division has been addressing CSOs since 1989 (City of
New Bedford 2005). In 1990, the New Bedford CSO Facilities Plan was completed, with a projected
total cost of $191 million for full implementation. Work on the plan has ensued since that time. There
are currently 27 CSO outfalls (as opposed to formerly 41 in 1989) discharging into Clarks Cove, New
Bedford Harbor and Buzzards Bay (Shepherd 2008). As a result of their efforts, two shellfish beds,
which have been closed for 30 years, have been reopened (City of New Bedford 2005). Work toward
mitigating CSO impacts is ongoing and part of the City of New Bedford's long term CSO control plan
(New Bedford CSO Facilities Plan).
EPA's Phase II rule specifies an MS4 community must develop, implement, and enforce a storm water
management program that is designed to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent
practicable, protect water quality, and satisfy the applicable water quality requirements of the Clean
Water Act. Illicit discharge detection and elimination (IDDE) is one of the six minimum control
measures that must be included in the storm water management program. The other control measures
are:
• Public education and outreach on storm water impacts
• Public involvement and participation
• Construction site storm water runoff control
• Post-construction storm water management in new development and redevelopment
• Pollution prevention and good housekeeping for municipal operations
As part of their applications for Phase II permit coverage, MS4 communities must identify the best
management practices they will use to comply with each of these six minimum control measures and
the measurable goals they have set for each measure.
In general, a comprehensive IDDE Program must contain the following four elements:
1) Develop (if not already completed) a storm sewer system map showing the location of all
outfalls, and the names and location of all waters of the United States that receive discharges
from those outfalls.
2) Develop and promulgate municipal regulations that require the municipality to comply with
Phase II regulations including prohibition of illicit discharges and appropriate enforcement
mechanisms.
108
-------
3) Develop and implement a plan to detect and address illicit discharges, including illegal
dumping, to the system. EPA recommends that the plan include the following four
components: locating priority areas; tracing the source of an illicit discharge; removing the
source of an illicit discharge; and program evaluation and assessment.
4) Inform public employees, businesses, and the general public of hazards associated with
illegal discharges and improper disposal of waste. IDDE outreach can be integrated into the
broader stormwater outreach program for the community. Fulfilling the outreach requirement
for IDDE helps the MS4 community to comply with this mandatory element of the stormwater
program.
Communities that are not covered under the Phase II rule (i.e., not designated as MS4 communities)
are encouraged to implement a program for detecting and eliminating sewage discharges to storm
sewer systems including illicit sewer connections. Implementation of the Phase II rule (USEPA 2000),
whether voluntarily or mandated will help communities achieve bacteria TMDLs.
Guidance for implementing an illicit discharge detection and elimination program is available from
several documents. EPA New England developed a specific plan for the Lower Charles River to
identify and eliminate illicit discharges (both dry and wet weather) to their separate storm sewer
systems (USEPA 2004b). Although originally prepared for the Charles River watershed it may be
applicable to other watersheds throughout the Commonwealth, however it represents just one of the
approved methodologies available. More generic guidance is provided in a document prepared for
EPA by the Center for Watershed Protection and the University of Alabama entitled Illicit Discharge
Detection and Elimination: A Guidance Manual for Program Development and Technical Assessments
which can be downloaded from:
http://www.cwp.org/Resource_Library/Controlling_Runoff_and_Discharges/idde.htm
In addition, practical guidance for municipalities is provided in a New England Interstate Water
Pollution Control Commission publication entitled Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination Manual, A
Handbook for Municipalities available at: http://www.neiwpcc.org/iddemanual.asp. Implementation of
the protocol outlined in these guidance documents satisfies the Illicit Discharge Detection and
Elimination requirement of the NPDES program.
A list of the municipalities in Massachusetts regulated by the Phase II Rule, as well as the Notices
of Intent for each municipality can be viewed at
http://www.epa.gov/region01/npdes/stormwater/ma.html.
8.4 Storm Water Runoff
It is MassDEP's expectation that bacteria source identification and elimination will be conducted
through existing regulatory programs such as EPA Phase I and Phase II stormwater programs and
new regulatory programs that are currently being considered summarized in this section.
As previously noted MassDEP realizes given the vast potential number of bacteria sources and the
difficulty of identifying and removing them from some sources such as stormwater require an iterative
process and will take some time to accomplish. While the stated goal in the TMDL is to meet the water
109
-------
quality standard at the point of discharge it also attempts to be clear that MassDEP's expectation is
that for stormwater an iterative approach is needed that includes prioritization of outfalls and the
application of BMPs should be used to achieve water quality standards. MassDEP believes this is
approach is consistent with current EPA guidance and regulations as stated in a November 22, 2002
EPA memo from Robert Wayland (see Attachment C)
In general, storm water runoff can be categorized in two forms; 1) point source discharges and 2) non-
point source discharges (includes sheet flow or direct runoff). Many point source storm water
discharges are regulated under the NPDES Phase I and Phase II permitting programs when
discharged to a Waters of the United States. Municipalities that operate regulated municipal separate
storm sewer systems (MS4s) must develop and implement a storm water management plan (SWMP),
which must employ and set measurable goals for the following six minimum control measures:
1. public education and outreach particularly on the proper disposal of pet waste,
2. public participation/involvement,
3. illicit discharge detection and elimination,
4. construction site runoff control,
5. post construction runoff control, and
6. pollution prevention/good housekeeping.
Portions of towns in this watershed are classified as Urban Areas by the United States Census Bureau
and are subject to the Stormwater Phase II Final Rule. This rule requires the development and
implementation of an illicit discharge detection and elimination plan.
The BBAC created a web page to help municipalities with obtaining their Phase II permits. Partly due
to their efforts, 95% of the municipalities submitted their permit applications within the required time
limit (all municipalities have submitted their permit application at this point)
The NPDES permit does not, however, establish numeric effluent limitations for storm water
discharges. Maximum extent practicable (MEP) is the statutory standard that establishes the level of
pollutant reductions that regulated municipalities must achieve. The MEP standard is a narrative
effluent limitation that is satisfied through implementation of SWMPs and achievement of measurable
goals.
Non-point source discharges are generally characterized as sheet flow runoff and are not categorically
regulated under the NPDES program and can be difficult to manage. However, some of the same
principles for mitigating point source impacts may be applicable. Individual municipalities not regulated
under the Phase I or II should implement the exact same six minimum control measures minimizing
storm water contamination.
In addition to the Phase I and II programs described above the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection's proposed new "Stormwater Management Regulations," that would
establish a statewide general permit program aimed at controlling the discharge of stormwater runoff
from certain privately-owned sites containing large impervious surfaces.
The proposed regulations would require private owners of land containing five or more acres of
impervious surfaces to apply for and obtain coverage under a general permit; implement nonstructural
best management practices (BMPs) for managing stormwater; install low impact development (LID)
110
-------
techniques and structural stormwater BMPs at sites undergoing development or redevelopment; and
submit annual compliance certifications to the Department. Any new construction will have to comply
with state stormwater standards and permits and with the antidegradation requirements of the state
water quality standards.
A review of the various communities' SWMP's progress to date includes the following:
Westport- Has produced educational materials for distribution in the community to citizens. The
Highway Department and the Board of Health have embarked on a program to identify and map all
significant discharges and flows. The town will embark on changing by-laws on controlling illicit
discharges, if necessary.
Dartmouth- The public education program consists of mainly involving the Middle School in a storm
drain stenciling contest type project, with coordination through the Buzzards Bay Coalition. The town
turned down funding to continue mapping storm drains and finding illicit connections. Rather, the
solution of having high school students do this was proposed. Also, a partnership with the Lloyd Center
for Environmental Studies and U Mass is being considered to find illicit detections, mainly through
water quality testing and stream flow monitoring. Geese in Apponagansett Bay have been identified as
a bacteria source, and discussions are underway on how to remove them. Streets and catch basins
are cleaned annually. The town got a grant to purchase a vacuum truck/ Vortechnic unit for servicing
storm drains.
New Bedford- Public education fact sheets have been prepared, and mailed out in several batches to
citizens in their utility bills. Regular tours to the New Bedford P.O.T.W. are conducted for interested
citizens. The high school vocational/ technical students have stenciled 1,000 catch basins. The City
has mapped all known illicit connection locations, and major discharge outfall points. It has had CSO
crews, pump station personnel, plus the shellfish warden investigating all significant dry weather flows
with sampling and dye testing. They have identified a total of 250 illicit connections, and have corrected
them. A city ordinance has been developed to disallow all illegal connections to the stormwater system.
Acushnet- An educational outreach flyer on stormwater controls has been developed and mailed out
to citizens in their tax bills. Maps of the Town's stormwater infrastructure have been developed and
posted in the Town hall meeting room. A Stormwater Planning Committee was formed and activated in
2004. Its emphasis was determined to be erosion/sediment controls and illicit connection
detection/removal. An inventory (on maps and GIS) was completed on every discharge pipe from a
stormwater conveyance, with the help of the Buzzards Bay Protection, and Buzzards Bay Action
Committees. The Board of Health, through enforcement actions, discovered and fixed 14 illegal tie-ins.
Rochester- Educational flyers have been created, and are available at the Highway Department
Offices. There is an active Stormwater Management Committee, which invites all interested residents
to an annual meeting. Large format stormwater drainage and principal outfall maps are available (and
are all on GPS) at the highway barn. A complaint log is maintained at the Board of Health offices.
Priority stenciling of at least 10 storm drains per year occurs. Suspect illicit connections are also
located on the stormwater drainage/ outfall maps. A number of illicit connections have been detected
and fixed. The Town has developed adequate authority to properly regulate illicit discharges.
111
-------
Marion- The current DPW Director has reorganized the Stormwater Management Committee of the
Town, including the plan of holding quarterly action review meetings involving key personnel/citizens
interested in stormwater related efforts. An annual meeting will be held to review all progress to date,
and lay the foundation for the next year's planned activities. Significant funding was appropriated by
the Town in late 2004 to fund a stormwater management program. Educational flyers were prepared
on the subject, and mailed out to all addresses in June, 2005. The harbor master is responsible for an
extensive storm drain stenciling project throughout Town. Storm drain and conveyance mapping has
been conducted (maps are on display in town hall), and a number of illicit connections found and fixed.
During the winter of 2005-6, the Board of Health will be conducting training for all relevant town
personnel on stormwater management issues.
Mattapoisett- Comprehensive public education program began in 2003, particularly after the large off-
shore oil spill from a tanker occurred. Informational water cycle and water quality posters were created
and distributed. Maps have been created of all stormwater outfalls within the urbanized areas, and
suspected illicit connections have been located on the maps. Failing septic systems are defined by the
Town as part of this problem. Records of pump outs and problems are now kept at the Board of Health
office. Sewer lines are being installed in problem (septic system) areas of the Town.
Plymouth- The Town appears to have an active SWP program. Public education includes flyers for
distribution, programs on the local cable channel, and storm water drain stenciling. The Town has an
active conservation officer in the SWPP, and has an active citizen stormwater committee, as well as an
active volunteer monitoring group for ponds/lakes. The Town engineer, Board of Health, Planning
Board, Conservation Officer have developed an illicit detection and elimination program, and they have
developed draft and final by- laws, to be finalized by the Town by June '06. The Town has annual
street sweeping/ catch basin cleaning, and has an annual day of training for all DPW personnel on
SWPP concepts each year.
Wareham- The Town has made substantial investments of millions of dollars to sewer much of the
Onset and Independence Point areas. Additionally, progress has been made with fixing, or eliminating
failing septic systems throughout Town. Also, remediation of stormwater discharge problems has
occurred, including eliminating illicit connections in several parts of Town.
Bourne: With public education, the town has established a stormwater task force advisory committee.
This committee meets monthly to provide outreach, work on developing a Phase II by-law, developing
a management plan, producing an annual stormwater newsletter that goes out to all residences, and
producing programs for the local cable TV station. The Board of Health produces a video program in all
3rd grade classes each year. The task force meets with the Superintendent of the DPW twice yearly on
stormwater control progress. It also meets regularly with the Cape Cod Planning Commission, as part
of an inter- group of Cape Cod communities working on stormwater ('Project Storm'), and on low
impact development applications in town. It also works with the Coalition for Buzzards Bay. The task
force has set up a hotline for residents to file complaints. The town was part of the Buzzards Bay
Stormwater Outfall Mapping Project in the northern estuary area, and is using that data to identify
potential problems. The local Board of Health regularly samples the beaches. With IDDE, The
Buzzards Bay Outfall Mapping Project has been utilized in the Northern part of town, and AmeriCorps
112
-------
Inc. has funded storm drain mapping in areas not covered by this project. Two CPR grants have been
received to alleviate problems in Squeteague Harbor (Buzzards Bay) and Conservation Pond/ Hen's
Cove areas. The DPW has begun a program to inventory dry weather flowing outfalls, and sample
them for problems. It has displayed stormwater control posters all over town. With housekeeping, the
DPW cleaned 479 catch basins in 2005, removing 900 tons of debris. Street sweeping has been
performed annually on all roads.
Falmouth: The entire stormwater control effort has been hampered because of a personnel shortages
and funding difficulties in town. The public education and outreach efforts have not yet commenced.
Maps of the stormwater infrastructure drainage systems have progressed with GPS, and are on GIS.
The '06 report says that illicit connection detection has commenced, but no details of corrections are
evident. Housekeeping (street sweeping and catch basin cleaning) are undefined in the report.
It should be emphasized that in the process of reviewing various communities SWMP's and SWMP
Annual Plans (summarized above), there is no mention of The "Atlas of Stormwater Discharges in the
Buzzards Bay Watershed". This document is referenced throughout this report because of its potential
significance in controlling pathogen related sources of pollution. Many parts of the coastal- estuary
areas have been mapped, locating stormwater conveyances, catch basins, and discharge outfalls
going directly into estuaries/ embayment's, or tributaries that directly flow into these areas. Outfalls
have been ranked low, medium, high in priority for remediation. Communities, in concert with various
concerned organizations need to conduct a full- scale bacteria monitoring program to assess hotspot
problems, and then find/ remediate the sources. This would be an important part of carrying out the
required activities, by affected Towns, under the Phase II Stormwater Program, plus it would open the
door for the possibility of re-opening more of the currently closed or restricted shellfish areas.
In addition to the above, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection's proposed new
"Stormwater Management Regulations," that would establish a statewide general permit program
aimed at controlling the discharge of stormwater runoff from certain privately-owned sites containing
large impervious surfaces.
The proposed regulations would require private owners of land containing five or more acres of
impervious surfaces to apply for and obtain coverage under a general permit; implement nonstructural
best management practices (BMPs) for managing stormwater; install low impact development (LID)
techniques and structural stormwater BMPs at sites undergoing development or redevelopment; and
submit annual compliance certifications to the Department.
8.5 Failing Septic Systems
There is only a relatively small portion of the Buzzards Bay basin serviced by municipal sanitary sewer
systems, with a concentration in eastern Dartmouth, all of New Bedford, the extreme eastern and
southern Fairhaven, Mattapoisett Harbor, Wareham River and immediate surroundings, Marion Harbor
and a very small portion of Onset Bay. The rest of the area of the Buzzards Bay basin (80%, or more)
relies on on-site waste water systems such as septic systems. Septic system bacteria contributions to
the Buzzards Bay watershed may be reduced in the future through septic system maintenance and/or
replacement. Additionally, the implementation of Title 5, which requires inspection of private sewage
113
-------
disposal systems before property ownership may be transferred, building expansions, or changes in
use of properties, will aid in the discovery of poorly operating or failing systems. Because systems
which fail must be repaired or upgraded, it is expected that the bacteria load from septic systems will
be significantly reduced in the future. Regulatory and educational materials for septic system
installation, maintenance and alternative technologies are provided by the MassDEP on the worldwide
web at http://www.mass.aov/dep/brp/wwm/t5pubs.htm.
8.6Wastewater Treatment Plants
WWTP discharges are regulated under the NPDES program when the effluent is released to surface
waters. Each WWTP has an effluent limit included in its NPDES or groundwater permit. Some
NPDES permits are listed on the following website:
www.epa.gov/region1/npdes/permits_listing_ma.html. Groundwater permits are available at
http://www.mass.gov/dep/brp/gw/gwhome.htm.
8.7 Recreational Waters Use Management
Recreational waters receive pathogen inputs from swimmers and boats. To reduce swimmers'
contribution to pathogen impairment, shower facilities can be made available, and bathers should be
encouraged to shower prior to swimming. In addition, parents should check and change young
children's diapers when they are dirty. Options for controlling pathogen contamination from boats
include:
D petitioning the State for the designation of a No Discharge Area (NDA),
D supporting installation of pump-out facilities for boat sewage,
D educating boat owners on the proper operation and maintenance of marine
sanitation devices (MSDs), and
D encouraging marina owners to provide clean and safe onshore restrooms and
pump-out facilities.
The entire Buzzards Bay has already been established as a no discharge area (NDA). This area was
designated by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and approved by the EPA to provide protection by
Federal Law prohibiting the release of raw or treated sewage from vessels into navigable waters of the
U.S. The law is enforced by the Massachusetts Environmental Police. The MACZM and
Massachusetts Environmental Law Enforcement are actively pursuing an amendment to State
regulations allowing for the institution of fines up to $2000 for violations within a NDA (USEPA 2004a).
8.8 Funding/Community Resources
A complete list of funding sources for implementation of non-point source pollution is provided in
Section VII of the Massachusetts Nonpoint Source Management Plan Volume I (MassDEP 2000b)
available on line at http://www.mass.gov/dep/brp/wm/nonpoint.htm. This list includes specific
programs available for non-point source management and resources available for communities to
manage local growth and development. The State Revolving Fund (SRF) provides low interest loans
to communities for certain capital costs associated with building or improving wastewater treatment
facilities. In addition, many communities in Massachusetts sponsor low cost loans through the SRF for
homeowners to repair or upgrade failing septic systems. State monies are also available through the
114
-------
Massachusetts Office of coastal Management's Coastal Pollutant Remediation, Coastal Nonpoint
Source Pollution Control and Coastal Monitoring grant programs.
8.9 Mitigation Measures to Address Pathogen Pollution in Surface Water: A TMDL
Implementation Guidance Manual for Massachusetts
For a more complete discussion on ways to mitigate pathogen water pollution, see the "Mitigation
Measures to Address Pathogen Pollution in Surface Water: A TMDL Implementation Guidance Manual
for Massachusetts" accompanying this document.
115
-------
9.0 Monitoring Plan
The long term monitoring plan for the Buzzards Bay watershed includes several components:
1. continue with the current monitoring of the Buzzards Bay watershed (CBB, DMF and other
stakeholders),
2. Communities and other entities that discharge stormwater should use The "Atlas of
Stormwater Discharges in the Buzzards Bay Watershed", to identify medium and high
priority stormwater discharge outfalls and use this information for formulating a bacteria
sampling and prioritization plan to help guide remediation efforts.,
3. continue with MassDEP watershed five-year cycle monitoring,
4. monitor areas within the watershed where data are lacking or absent to determine if the
waterbody meets the use criteria,
5. monitor areas where BMPs and other control strategies have been implemented, or
discharges have been removed, to assess the effectiveness of the modification or
elimination,
6. assemble data collected by each monitoring entity to formulate a concise report where the
basin is assessed as a whole and an evaluation of BMPs can be made, and
7. add/remove/modify BMPs as needed based on monitoring results.
The monitoring plan is an ever changing approach that requires flexibility to add, change or delete
sampling locations, sampling frequency, methods and analysis. At the minimum, all monitoring should
be conducted with a focus on:
D capturing water quality conditions under varied weather conditions,
D establishing sampling locations in an effort to pin-point sources,
D researching new and proven technologies for separating human from animal bacteria
sources, and
D assessing efficacy of BMPs.
10.0 Reasonable Assurances
Reasonable assurances that the TMDL will be implemented include both application and
enforcement of current regulations, availability of financial incentives including low or no-interest
loans to communities for wastewater treatment facilities through the State Revolving Fund (SRF),
and the various local, state and federal programs for pollution control. Storm water NPDES permit
coverage is designed to address discharges from municipal owned storm water drainage systems.
Enforcement of regulations controlling non-point discharges includes local enforcement of the
state Wetlands Protection Act and Rivers Protection Act; Title 5 regulations for septic systems and
various local regulations including zoning regulations. Financial incentives include Federal monies
available under the CWA Section 319 NPS program and the CWA Section 604 and 104b
programs, which are provided as part of the Performance Partnership Agreement between
MassDEP and the EPA. Additional financial incentives include state income tax credits for Title 5
upgrades, and low interest loans for Title 5 septic system upgrades through municipalities
participating in this portion of the state revolving fund program.
116
-------
A brief summary of many of DEP's tools and regulatory programs to address common bacterial
sources is presented below.
10.1 Overarching Tools:
Massachusetts Clean Water Act: The MA Clean Water Act (M.G.L. Chapter 21, sections 26-53)
provides MassDEP with specific and broad authority to develop regulations to address both point
and non-point sources of pollution. There are numerous regulatory and financial programs,
including those identified in the preceding paragraph, that have been established to directly and
indirectly address pathogen impairments throughout the state. Several of them are briefly
described below. The MA Clean Water Act can be found at the following URL.
http://www. mass. gov/legis/laws/mgl/gl-21 -toe. htm
Surface Water Quality Standards (314 CMR 4.0): The MA Water Quality Standards (WQS) assign
designated uses and establish water quality criteria to meet those uses. Water body classifications
(Class A, B, and C, for freshwater and SA, SB, and SC for marine waters) are established to
protect each class of designated uses. In addition, bacteria criteria are established for each
individual classification. The MA Surface Water Quality Standards can be found at
http://www.mass.gov/dep/brp/wm/wqstds.htm
Ground Water Quality Standards (314 CMR 6.0): These standards consist of groundwater
classifications, which designate and assign the uses for various groundwaters of the
Commonwealth that must be maintained and protected. Like the surface water quality standards
the groundwater standards provide specific ground water quality criteria necessary to sustain the
designated uses and/or maintain existing groundwater quality. The MA Ground Water Quality
Standards can be found at http://www.mass.gov/dep/brp/gw/gwregs.htm
River Protection Act: In 1996 MA passed the Rivers Protection Act. The purposes of the Act were
to protect the private or public water supply; to protect the ground water; to provide flood control;
to prevent storm damage; to prevent pollution; to protect land containing shellfish; to protect
wildlife habitat; and to protect the fisheries. The provisions of the Act are implemented through the
Wetlands Protection Regulations, which establish up to a 200-foot setback from rivers in the
Commonwealth to control construction activity and protect the items listed above. Although this
Act does not directly reduce pathogen discharges it indirectly controls many sources of pathogens
close to water bodies. More information on the Rivers Protection Act can be found on DEPs web
site at http://www.mass.gov/dep/brp/ww/files/riveract.htm.
10.2 Additional Tools to Address Combined Sewer Overflows (CSO's)
CSO Program/Policy: Massachusetts, in concert with EPA Region 1, have established a detailed
CSO abatement program and policy. CSO discharges are regulated by the Commonwealth in
several ways. Like any discharge of pollutants, CSOs must have an NPDES/MA Surface Water
117
-------
Discharge Permit under federal and state regulations. Municipalities and districts seeking funding for
wastewater treatment, including CSO abatement, must comply with the facilities planning process at
310 CMR 41.00. Entities obtaining funding or exceeding specific thresholds must also comply with
the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) regulations at 301 CMR 11.00. Each of these
regulations contain substantive and procedural requirements. Because both MEPA and facilities
planning require the evaluation of alternatives, these processes are routinely coordinated.
All permits for a CSO discharge must comply with Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards
at 314 CMR 4.00. The water quality standards establish goals for waters of the Commonwealth, and
provide the basis for water quality-based effluent limitations in NPDES permits. Any discharge,
including CSO discharges, is allowed only if it meets the criteria and the antidegradation standard for
the receiving segment. EPA's 1994 CSO Control Policy revised some features of its 1989 version to
provide greater flexibility by allowing a minimal number of overflows, which are compatible with the
water quality goals of the Clean Water Act. DEP's 1995 regulatory revisions correspondingly
decreased reliance on partial use designation as the sole regulatory vehicle to support CSO
abatement plans1.
In all cases, NPDES/MA permits require the nine minimum controls necessary to meet technology-
based limitations as specified in the 1994 EPA Policy. The nine controls may be summarized as;
operate and maintain properly; maximize storage, minimize overflows, maximize flows to Publicly
Owned Treatment Works (POTW), prohibit dry weather CSO's, control solids and floatables, institute
pollution prevention programs, notify the public of impacts, and observe monitoring and reporting
requirements. The nine minimum controls may be supplemented with additional treatment
requirements, such as screening and disinfection, on a case-by-case basis. The Department's goal is
to eliminate adverse CSO impacts and attain the highest water quality achievable. Separation or
relocation of CSOs is required wherever it can be achieved based on an economic and technical
evaluation.
As untreated CSOs cause violations of water quality standards, and thus are in violation of
NPDES permits, all of the state's CSO permittees are under enforcement orders to either
eliminate the CSO or plan, design, and construct CSO abatement facilities. Each long-term control
plan must identify and achieve the highest feasible level of control. The process also requires the
permittee to comply with any approved TMDL.
Presently, there are 27 active CSO's in Buzzards Bay Watershed (down from 41 in 1989), all of
them concentrated in the City of New Bedford In the Lower Acushnet River and the Inner New
Bedford Harbor area. The City of New Bedford completed long-term CSO control plans in 1990,
and has been actively working since that time to carry out those plans.
DEP's 1990 CSO Policy was based on EPA's 1989 CSO Control Policy and established the goal of eliminating adverse impacts
from CSOs, using partial use designation where removal or relocation was not feasible. The three month design storm was identified as the
minimum technology-based effluent limitation, which would result in untreated overflows an average of four times a year. Abatement
measures to meet these minimum standards were necessary for a CSO discharge to be eligible for partial use designation. Presumably, all
CSOs exceeding this standard required downgrading to Class C or SC status. No partial use designations or downgrades to Class C were
actually made, but the process was perceived as administratively cumbersome.
118
-------
10.3 Additional Tools to Address Failed Septic Systems:
Septic System Regulations (Title 5): The MassDEP has regulations in place that require minimum
standards for the design of individual septic systems. Those regulations ensure, in part, protection
for nearby surface and groundwaters from bacterial contamination. The regulations also provide
minimum standards for replacing failed and inadequate systems. The Department has established
a mandatory requirement that all septic systems must be inspected and upgraded to meet Title 5
requirements at the time of sale or transfer of the each property.
10.4 Additional Tools to Address Stormwater:
Stormwater is regulated through both federal and state programs. Those programs include, but are not
limited to, the federal and state Phase I and Phase II NPDES Stormwater program, and, at the state
level, the Wetlands Protection Act MGL Chapter 130, Section 40, the state water quality standards,
and the various permitting programs previously identified.
Federal Phase 1 & 2 Stormwater Regulations: Existing Stormwater discharges are regulated under the
federal and state Phase 1 and Phase II Stormwater program. In MA there are two Phase 1
communities, Boston and Worcester. Both communities have been issued individual permits to
address storm water discharges. In addition, 237 communities in MA are covered by Phase II. Phase II
is intended to further reduce adverse impacts to water quality and aquatic habitat by instituting use
controls on the unregulated sources of Stormwater discharges that have the greatest likelihood of
causing continued environmental degradation including those from municipal separate storm sewer
systems (MS4s) and discharges from construction activity.
The Phase II Final Rule, published in the Federal Register on Decembers, 1999, requires permittees
to determine whether or not Stormwater discharges from any part of the MS4 contribute, either directly
or indirectly, to a 303(d) listed waterbody. Operators of regulated MS4s are required to design
Stormwater management programs to 1) reduce the discharge of pollutants to the "maximum extent
practicable" (MEP), 2) protect water quality, and 3) satisfy the appropriate water quality requirements of
the Clean Water Act. Implementation of the MEP standard typically requires the development and
implementation of BMPs and the achievement of measureable goals to satisfy each of the six minimum
control measures. Those measures include 1) public outreach and education, 2) public participation, 3)
illicit discharge detection and elimination, 4) construction site runoff control, 5) post-construction runoff
control, and 6) pollution prevention/good housekeeping. In addition, each permittee must determine if a
TMDL has been developed and approved for any water body into which an MS4 discharges. If a TMDL
has been approved then the permittee must comply with the TMDL including the application of BMPs
or other performance requirements. The permittee's must report annually on all control measures
currently being implemented or planned to be implemented to control pollutants of concern identified in
TMDLs. Finally, the Department has the authority to issue an individual permit to achieve water quality
objectives. Links to the MA Phase II permit and other Stormwater control guidance can be found at
http://www.mass.gov/dep/brp/stormwtr/phiihelp.htm
A full list of Phase II communities in MA can be found at
http://www.mass.gov/dep/brp/stormwtr/stormlis.htm
119
-------
In addition to the Phase I and II programs described above the Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection's proposed new "Stormwater Management Regulations," that would
establish a statewide general permit program aimed at controlling the discharge of stormwater runoff
from certain privately-owned sites containing large impervious surfaces.
The proposed regulations would require private owners of land containing five or more acres of
impervious surfaces to apply for and obtain coverage under a general permit; implement nonstructural
best management practices (BMPs) for managing stormwater; install low impact development (LID)
techniques and structural stormwater BMPs at sites undergoing development or redevelopment; and
submit annual compliance certifications to the Department. Any new construction will have to comply
with state stormwater standards and permits and with the antidegradation requirements of the state
water quality standards.
Where the Department has determined that stormwater runoff is causing or contributing to violations of
the Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards, the proposed regulations would allow MassDEP
to impose the same requirements on certain private owners of land with less than five acres of
impervious surfaces and require the owners of such land to design and implement the LID techniques
and stormwater BMPs needed to address these violations.
The DEP Wetlands regulations (310 CMR 10.0) direct issuing authorities to enforce the DEP
Stormwater Management Policy, place conditions on the quantity and quality of point source
discharges, and to control erosion and sedimentation. The Stormwater Management Policy was issued
under the authority of the 310 CMR 10.0. The policy and its accompanying Stormwater Performance
Standards apply to new and redevelopment projects where there may be an alteration to a wetland
resource area or within 100 feet of a wetland resource (buffer zone). The policy requires the application
of structural and/or non-structural BMPs to control suspended solids, which have associated co-
benefits for bacteria removal. A stormwater handbook was developed to promote consistent
interpretation of the Stormwater Management Policy and Performance Standards: Volume 1:
Stormwater Policy Handbook and Volume 2: Stormwater Technical Handbook can be found along with
the Stormwater Policy at http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/wastewater/stormwat.htm
In addition to the above, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection's proposed new
"Stormwater Management Regulations," that would establish a statewide general permit program
aimed at controlling the discharge of stormwater runoff from certain privately-owned sites containing
large impervious surfaces.
The proposed regulations would require private owners of land containing five or more acres of
impervious surfaces to apply for and obtain coverage under a general permit; implement nonstructural
best management practices (BMPs) for managing stormwater; install low impact development (LID)
techniques and structural stormwater BMPs at sites undergoing development or redevelopment; and
submit annual compliance certifications to the Department.
120
-------
10.5 Financial Tools
Nonpoint Source Control Program: DEP has established a non-point source program and grant
program to address non-point source pollution sources statewide. The Department has developed a
Nonpoint Source Management Plan that sets forth an integrated strategy and identifies important
programs to prevent, control, and reduce pollution from nonpoint sources and more importantly to
protect and restore the quality of waters in the Commonwealth. The Clean Water Act, Section 319,
specifies the contents of the management plan. The plan is an implementation strategy for BMPs with
attention given to funding sources and schedules. Statewide implementation of the Management Plan
is being accomplished through a wide variety of federal, state, local, and non-profit programs and
partnerships. It includes partnering with the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management on the
implementation of Section 6217 program. That program outlines both short and long term strategies to
address urban areas and stormwater, marinas and recreational boating, agriculture, forestry,
hydromodification, and wetland restoration and assessment. The CZM 6217 program also addresses
TMDLs and nitrogen sensitive embayment's and is crafted to reduce water quality impairments and
restore segments not meeting state standards.
In addition, the state is partnering with the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) to provide
implementation incentives through the national Farm Bill. As a result of this effort, NRCS now
prioritizes its Environmental Quality Incentive Program (EQIP) funds based on DEP's list of impaired
waters. The program also provides high priority points to those projects designed to address TMDL
recommendations. Over the last several years EQIP funds have been used throughout the
Commonwealth to address water quality goals through the application of structural and non-structural
BMPs.
MA, in conjunction with EPA, also provides a grant program to implement nonpoint source BMPs that
address water quality goals. The section 319 funding provided by EPA is used to apply needed
implementation measures and provide high priority points for projects that are designed to address
303d listed waters and to implement TMDLs. MassDEP has funded numerous projects through 319
that were designed to address stormwater and bacteria related impairments. On an average about
75% of all projects funded since 2002 were designed to address bacteria related impairments.
The 319 program also provides additional assistance in the form of guidance. The Department is in the
process of updating the Massachusetts' Nonpoint Source Management Manual that will provide
detailed guidance in the form of BMPs by landuse to address various water quality impairments and
associated pollutants.
Finally, it should be noted that the approach and process outlined for implementing this TMDL has
been previously demonstrated with documented success. A previous TMDL, which utilized this
approach was developed and approved by EPA for the Neponset River Watershed. The
recommendations outlined in that TMDL were similar to the current proposal. Since the time of
approval, MADEP worked closely with a local watershed group (Neponset River Watershed
Association) to develop a 319 project to implement the recommendations of the TMDL. The total
project cost was approximately $472,000 of which $283,000 was provided through federal 319 funds
and the additional 40% provided by the watershed association and two local communities.
121
-------
Other examples include the Little Harbor in Cohasset and the Shawsheen River. Similar TMDLs were
developed in these areas. In Little Harbor, the TMDL was used as the primary tool to obtain local
approval and funding to design and install sewers around Little Harbor and other additional areas of
Town impacted by sewerage contamination. Presently, the Town is seeking additional state funding to
construct the sewers. In the Shawsheen Watershed the TMDL was used to obtain a state grant to
identify and prioritize specific stormwater discharges for remediation. In addition, MassDEP has
received a grant to a conduct additional sampling and refine field and laboratory techniques that will
allow us to differentiate between human and non-human sources that will be useful statewide.
MassDEP and EPA Region 1 are also working on an compliance & enforcement strategy to address
the worst sources.
Additional information related to the non-point source program, including the Management Plan can be
found at http://www.mass.gov/dep/brp/wm/nonpoint.htm
State Revolving Fund: The State Revolving Fund (SRF) Program provides low interest loans to eligible
applicants for the abatement of water pollution problems across the Commonwealth. Since July 2002
the MassDEP has issued millions of dollars in loans for the planning and construction of CSO facilities
and to address stormwater pollution. Loans have also been distributed to municipal governments
statewide to upgrade and replace failed Title 5 systems. These programs all demonstrate the State's
commitment to assist local governments in implementing the TMDL recommendations. Additional
information about the SRF Program can be found at
http://www.mass.gov/dep/water/wastewater/wastewat.htm
Bacteria Source Tracking Program: Over the last several years MassDEP has hired new regional staff
and provided analytical capabilities in three regions (Northeast, Southeast, and West) to work with
communities to track, identify, and eliminate bacteria sources that contribute to water quality
impairments.
In summary, MassDEP's approach and existing programs set out a wide variety of tools both
MassDEP and communities can use to address pathogens, based on land use and the commonality of
pathogen sources (e.g., combined sewer overflows (CSOs), failing septic systems, storm water and
illicit connections, pet waste, etc.) Since there are only a few categories of sources of pathogens, the
necessary remedial actions to address these sources are well established. DEP's authority combined
with the programs identified above provide sufficient reasonable assurance that implementation of
remedial actions will take place.
122
-------
11.0 Public Participation
Two public meetings were held at 3 p.m. and 7pm. at the DEP-SERO, Lakeville on 8/10/2005 to
present the Bacteria TMDL and to collect public comments. The attendance list, public comments,
and the MassDEP responses are attached as Appendix B.
123
-------
References
Ayres Associates 1993. Onsite Sewage Disposal Systems Research in Florida. The Capacity of
Fine Sandy Soil for Septic Tank Effluent Treatment: A Field Investigation at an In-Situ
Lysimeter Facility in Florida.
BBPNEP 2002. Chapter 6: Pollution Remediation Projects in New Bedford. Buzzards Bay Project
National Estuary Program (BBPNEP). Available for download at
http://www.buzzardsbay.org/nbprobs.htm.
Carvalho- Souza, R. 2002. WRWA 2001 Data. Westport River Watershed Alliance. Email to Katie
O'Brien, MassDEP, Division of Watershed Management, July 25, 2002
Center for Watershed Protection, 1999. Watershed Protection Techniques. Vol. 3, No. 1.
City of New Bedford 2005. City of New Bedford Department of Public Works Waste Water Division.
Information from website, downloaded March 2005. http://www.ci.new-
bedford.ma.us/DPW/WASTEWAT/combins.htm
Costa, Joseph E. Executive Director Buzzards Bay Project National Estuary Program, Massachusetts
Office of Coastal Management. East Wareham MA. Personal Communication.
DMF 2002. Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries. Programs and Projects. Shellfish Sanitation
and Management. Information from website, downloaded March 2005.
http://www.mass.gov/dfwele/dmf/programsandprojects/shelsani.htm.
Labelle 2008. City of New Bedford, Department of Public Infrastructure, Water and Wastewater
Division. Monitoring Data from New Bedford Outer and Inner Harbor, Clarks Cove, and Buzzards
Bay. Ronald H. Labelle, Commissioner.
MACZM. 2003. Atlas of Stormwater Discharges in the Buzzards Bay Watershed, August 2003.
Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (MACZM), Buzzards Bay Project National
Estuaries Program. East Wareham, Massachusetts. Available for download at
http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm
MassDEP 2000a. 314 CMR 4.00: Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards. Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Waste Prevention. Available for download at
http://www.mass.gov/dep/bwp/iww/files/314cmr4.htm
MassDEP 2000b. Nonpoint Source Management Plan Volume I Strategic Summary. Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Waste Prevention. Available for download at
http://www.mass.gov/dep/brp/wm/nonpoint.htm
124
-------
MassDEP 2002a. Cape Cod Watershed Water Quality Assessment Report. Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water Management. Worcester,
Massachusetts. Available for download at http://www.mass.gov/dep/brp/wm/wqassess.htm
MassDEP 2002b. Final Total Maximum Daily Loads of Bacteria for Neponset River Basin.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Resource Protection, Division
of Watershed Management. Report MA73-01-2002 CN 121.0. Boston, Massachusetts.
Available for download at http://www.mass.gov/dep/brp/wm/tmdls.htm.
MassDEP 2003a. Massachusetts Year 2002 Integrated List of Waters. Part 2 - Final Listing of
Individual Categories of Waters. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau
of Resource Protection, Division of Watershed Management. Boston, Massachusetts. Available
for download at http://www.mass.gov/dep/brp/wm/tmdls.htm
MassDEP 2003b. Buzzards Bay Watershed 2000 Water Quality Assessment Report. Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water Management. Worcester,
Massachusetts. Available for download at http://www.mass.gov/dep/brp/wm/wqassess.htm
MassDEP 2006a. Massachusetts Year 2006 Integrated List of Waters. Part 2 - Final Listing of
Individual Categories of Waters. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau
of Resource Protection, Division of Watershed Management. Boston, Massachusetts. Available
for download at http://www.mass.gov/dep/brp/wm/tmdls.htm
MassGIS 2005. Office of Geographic and Environmental Information (MassGIS), Commonwealth of
Massachusetts Executive Office of Environmental Affairs. MassDEP 2002 Integrated List of
Waters (305(b)/303(d)) as of 2005; Land Use as of 1999; Town Boundaries as of 2002. Census
TIGER Roads as of 2003. Major Drainage Boundaries as of 2003. Designated Shellfish Growing
Areas as of July 2000. Downloaded January 2005. http://www.mass.gov/mgis/laylist.htm
MDC-CDM. 1997. Wachusett Stormwater Study. Massachusetts District Commission and Camp,
Dresser, and McKee, Inc.
Metcalf and Eddy 1991. Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, Reuse. Third Edition.
Metcalf and Eddy 1992. Casco Bay Storm Water Management Project.
Shepherd 2007. Personal communication with Joseph Shepherd of the Department of Environmental
Protection, Division of Wastewater Management, Southeast Regional office, Lakeville MA. His
information source: Vincinte Futado of the City of New Bedford.
USEPA 1983. Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program. Volume I. Final Report. Water
Planning Division. Washington, D.C. 159 pp.
USEPA 1986. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Bacteria - 1986. EPA 440/5-84-002.
USEPA. 1997. Urbanization of Streams: Studies of Hydrologic Impacts. EPA 841-R-97-009
125
-------
USEPA 1999. Regional Guidance on Submittal Requirements for Lake and Reservoir Nutrient TMDLs.
USEPA, New England Region. November 1999.
USEPA 2001. Protocol for Developing Pathogen TMDLs. EPA841-R-00-002
USEPA 2003. National Management Measures to control Nonpoint Source Pollution from Agriculture.
EPA 841-B-03-004. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/owow/nps/agmm/index.html
USEPA 2004a. No Discharge Areas in Massachusetts. Information from website, downloaded March
2005. http://www.epa.gov/region01/eco/nodiscrg/ma.html
USEPA 2004b. Monitoring and Assessing Water Quality. Information from website, downloaded
December 2004. http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/monitoring/volunteer/stream/vms511 .html
USEPA 2004c. Lower Charles River Illicit Discharge Detection & Elimination (IDDE) Protocol
Guidance for Consideration - November 2004 United States Environmental Protection Agency
Region I New England
USGS 2002. Measured and Simulated Runoff to the Lower Charles River, Massachusetts, October
199-September2000. 02-4129. United States Geological Survey. Northborough, Massachusetts.
126
-------
Appendix A
Atlas of Stormwater Discharges in the Buzzards Bay Watershed (MACZM 2003).
Highlight Maps Specifically Related to Bacteria Impaired Segments in This TMDL.
Also available for download at http://www.buzzardsbay.org/stormatlas.htm
127
-------
PRIORITY MAP #1
West port: Map
0 Untreated Catchbasin
Treated Catchbasin
Discharge Pipe
Z Raadcut
Stcmi'Aater Treatment
Flow Direction
LjkjK aid Ponds
Streams
so >:<» 1500 r«t
128
-------
Westport: Map 3
Untreated Catchbasin
Treated Caldiba-sh
Discharge Pi pe
Z Ftoadcut
Stormwater Treatment
Fliw Direction
Laksi and Ponds
Streams
129
-------
West port: Map 4
- -•
Untreated Catchbain
Treated Catchhasin
Discharge Pipe
Roadcut
Stomiwater TneitnHnt
Ffcw Direction
Lakes and Ponds
Rvers and Strains
130
-------
Westport: Map 6
9 Untreated Catehbasin
Treated Catchbasn
Discharge Pipe
Z Ftoadcut
4 Stormwater Treatrrsnt
" Ffcw Direction
Lakes and fands
Streams
131
-------
West port: Map 7
S Untreated Catchbain
9 Treated Catchbasin
Discharge Pipe
Z Roadcut
5tDimwater Treatment
Direction
Lakes and Ponds
Rivers and Streams
Lk^ ~-c nr :- ;..vr:; 31;:-:«r. *«"T
132
-------
West port: Map
';*g
1
z
A,
jtti
LEGEND
Ltitreated Catchbasi n
Treated Catchbasn
OsthargeRpe
Rosdcut ^
StornrA'atar Treat mert ™
Flow Eteidtion
Lakes and Ptonds
RJvers and Streams
133
-------
Westport: Map 9
134
-------
e Untreated CatdTbasin
Treated Catchbaan
DschargeRpe
Fbadot
Sorrmeter Treat rrent
A/ Rcw Direction
Lakes and Rnds
A/ Rversard 3reerrB
135
-------
Uhtreetedcatchbaan
e Treeted Gatdtean
D DschageRpe
z Fbadcut
3oim\fiterTreetrTHt
/V RowDrection
lakes axIRnds
A/ Rwsrsand Srearrs
L ™ppi^eredbyEL^rdsE^ Frqect Naiona BtLBiyRogram
. ^70 CraibaryHghjva/, E Vterehan MA02538
136
-------
LB3BND
e UttnededCatchbaan
e Treated CatdTbasin
D DsdiargeRpe
z Fbadot
% Sorrmater Treat rrat
/V RcwDrection
Lakes aid Rnds
A/ Rversard 3rearrB
1
rVapprq^edbyEL^idsE^ Frqect Naiona BtLBiyFtogrEtn
2870 OaibaryHigrwa/, E \A^ian MA02538
137
-------
e UttreetedGatchbaan
o Treated Gichbasn
D DschargeRpe
z Fbadot
Sorrmeter Treet rrert
A/ RoA/Drection
lakes aid Ftnds
A/ Ffeersard arearrs
IVbppr^H-edbyELzzandsEa/ Rqect Ndiorel BtLBiyFtogran
3370 QaibaryHigtwa/, E \Mretiem ^M02538
138
-------
LKBMD
UrtreetedCstdTbaan
Treated Catchbasin
D DschargeRpe
Fbadot
Soirmetff TreEt mmt
/V RowDrection
Lakes axIFtnds
Rversard 3rearrB
0 500 1000 1500 fet
,
L (Vbppi^eredbyELEandsBa/ Rqect Nations! BtiBiyFtogran
" ^70 Craibary Highjva/, E \A^i£m MA02538
139
-------
Untreeted Catcnbaan
Treated Catchbasin
DschargeRpe
Radcut
3orrrwater Tred merit
-A/ Row Direction
Lakes and Fbnds
Rvefsand3rearrB
Map Reared by Euzarcfe Bay Reject National Btuajy Rogam
2870 Q-anbary Highvra/, E \Mreiam MA 02538
140
-------
Urtreeted Cstchbaan
Treat edCatchtesn
D DschargeRpe
Z Ftedcut
3orrrwater Tred merit
/v Rcw Direct ion
Lakes and Fends
Rversard3rearrB
500 0 500 1000 1500
Map Repared b/BuzardsBa/ Reject Naticnal BuatyRogram
il 2870 Oata-ry Hic/wa/, E Wrehan MA 02538
141
-------
UrtreetedCatchbaan
o Treated CStchbaan
n DschargeRpe
Fbadot
SormABterTreetrrent
RcwDrecticn
lakes and Rnds
Rjersard arearrs
500 1000 1500 Feet
IVap R^)£red ty EuzzErds E&/ Roject hational Btuay Ff qgram
2370 CrenbaryHntMa/, E V\fr*em ^/IA02538
-------
Uhtreetedcachbaan
Treated CStchbaan
Fbadot
SormABterTreetrTHt
RcwDrection
Lakes aid Ftnds
-------
Urtreeted Cstchbaan
Treated Cstchbasin
DschargeRpe
Ftedcut
3orm/vata"Tredmat
RcwDrection
Lakes and Finds
A/ RversardStrearrB
Map prepared ty Buzsrds B=f/Rq sA National BtuaryRogram
2S70 Cranbary Highmj, E V\&-*an MA 02538
144
-------
0 Untreated Cstcnbaan
Treated Catchbasin
D DschargeRpe
Z Radcut w -^..P- E
Sorrrwater Treat merit
Row Direction
Lakes and Fends
A/ Rversand3rearrB
500 0 500 1000 1500
Mapprq^aredty BLZsrdsEBy Rqect Naiona Btuaty Rog~am
2870 Q-aterry HighMW, E V^dian, MA 02538
145
-------
IFPFMD
8 Untreated Cachbaan
8 Treated Catchbasin
D DschargeRpe
Z Fbadcut
$ 3orrrvvate'Trea:rrent
/\4 Rcw Direction
Lakes and Finds
RversandStrearrB
Map prq^ared by Bu^ards EEy Rqect National Btuaty Rcgram
2870 Q-srterry High™/, E Vterehem, MA 02538
146
-------
Untreeted Cstchbasin
Treated Catchbasin
Dscha~geRpe
Fbadcut w
3orrrwater Tred mat
Rcw Direction s
Lakes and Fbnds
Rwers and Streams
Map prepared b/ Buzsrds Eay Reject National Estuary Rcgram
2870 Cranberry HigrMa/, E \A&-eham MA 02538
-------
0 Untreeted Csitcnbaan
0 Treated Catchbesin
Q Dscha~geRpe
Z Ra±ut w ~*KF E
3orrrwater Tred mert
Rcw Direction
Lakes and Fends
Rve~sand3rearr6
500 0 500 1000 1500
Map prepared by BiEzards ray Frqect Nat lorol Btuary Froyam
2870 Cranberry HBvay, E Vtoeharn MA02538
-------
Urtreeted Cstcnbaan
Treated Catchbasin
aorrrwaeMrearrent
Rcw Direction
Lakes and Fords
/\S RversardStrearrB
Map prepared by Buzzards Bay Reject Nat ioral E£uay
2870 Crarteny Hi^w^, E Wareharn MA02538
'••'* - »?:*SM% -^. a
M ^»t*^r' *$&&r'L&'' "M
-------
0 Untreeted Catcrbaan
Treated Catchbasin
Q DschargeRpe
Z Fbadcut
3orrrwater Tred merit
Ro/vDirection
Lakes and Fends
Rversandarearrs
Map prepared by Buzzards Bsy Frqed Nat ioral Eduary Frc^am
f_| 2870 Crarterry H&va/, E Wareharn MA02538
150
-------
Untreeted Catchbaan
Treated Catchbaan
DschargeRpe
Radcut w ^n.f E
3orm/vater Tred ment
Row Direction
Lakes and Fends
Rvefsand3rearrB
500 1000 1500 fet
Map prepared by BLEzardsBayFrqea Naional Btuary Royam
2870 CraiBtry HUiAey, E VtenhEm MA 02538
-------
8 Untreeted Catchbaan
Treated Catchbesin
n DschargeRpe
Fbadcut
3orm/vata"Trea;mErt
Ro/v Direction
Lakes and Fbnds
R\«rsandStrearrs
500 1000 1500 Rri
Map prepared by BiEzards Bay Rqea Naional Huary Royam
i| 2870 CratiKtry Hirtww, E V\fereham MA 02538
-------
LB3BMD
§ Untreded Cstchbaan
§ Treated Catchbasin
Q DschargeRpe
Z Fbadcut
£ Sorrrwater Tred mat
/V Rcw Direct ion
Lakes and Fends
Fivers and 3 reams
Mappr^ared b/BuzzBrdsE&y Reject NEtional BtuatyRcgram
2870 Q-aterry HigtMa/, E\Mr!iiamMA02538
-------
0 Untreeted Catcnbaan
S Treated Cstchbasin
DschargeRpe
Z Radcut
3orrrwater Tred merit
RcwDirection
Lakes and Fords
Rva"sandStrearrB
Map prepared by Buzzards Bay R-qect Nat ioral Btuary Frcgram
2870 aartErry HicfiMy, E Wareharn IMA02538
00°°°
0 m
154
-------
Appendix B
Public Participation
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT PATHOGEN TMDL FOR THE BUZZARDS BAY
WATERSHED
Public Meeting Announcement Published in the Monitor 7/23/2005
Date of Public Meeting 8/10/2005
Location of Public Meeting DEP-SERO, Lakeville
Times of Public Meeting 3 P.M. and 7 P.M.
BUZZARDS BAY WATERSHED DRAFT PATHOGEN TMDL PUBLIC MEETING ATTENDEES
Date 8/10/2005 Time 3 PM
Name Organization
1. Ben Bryant Coalition for Buzzards Bay
2. A. Antoniello DPW Scituate
3. Jason Burtner CZM
4. Mike Hill EPA
5. Bill Fitzgerald DPW Franklin/Citizen Taunton
6. Cathal O'Brien DPW Water Taunton
7. Lawrence Perry Lakeville Health Agent
8. Newton Newman Lloyd Center Dartmouth
Date 8/10/2005 Time 7 P.M
Name Organization
1. Sara Grady NSRWA/Mass Bays
2. Steve Silva EPA
This appendix provides detailed responses to comments received during the public comment process.
MassDEP received many comments/questions that were of a general nature (i.e. related to terminology,
statewide programs, the TMDL development process and regulations, etc.) while others were watershed
specific. Responses to both are presented in the following sections.
General Comments:
1. Question: On the slide titled "components of a TMDL" what does "WLA" and "LA" stand for.
155
-------
Response: Waste load allocation (WLA) refers to pollutants discharged from pipes and channels that
require a discharge permit (point sources). Load allocation refers to pollutants entering waterbodies
through overland runoff (non point sources). A major difference between the two categories is the
greater legal and regulatory control generally available to address point sources while voluntary
cooperation added by incentives in some cases is the main vehicle for addressing non-point sources.
2. Question: What is the Septic System Program?
Response: Cities and Towns can establish a small revolving fund to help finance repairs and
necessary upgrades to septic systems. The initial funding is from the Commonwealth's State,
Revolving Fund Program (SRF). These programs generally offer reduced interest rate loans to
homeowners to conduct such improvements. Many communities have taken advantage of this effort
and on Cape Cod Barnstable County has proposed its own version of this aid. A discussion of the
septic system programs may be seen in the TMDL companion document "A TMDL Implementation
Guidance Manual for Massachusetts" under Section 3.2.
3. Question: What is the WQS for non-contact recreation in terms of bacteria?
Response: EPA does not have specific guidance for a bacteria criterion for secondary contact. The
agency recommended states use 5 times the swimming standard in the case of fecal coliform. Based
on EPA's recommendation Massachusetts adopted a class "C" standard of 1000 organisms per 100
ml. Class C waters are designated as a habitat for fish, other aquatic life and wildlife, and for
secondary contact recreation such as fishing and boating. In 2007 the State of Massachusetts revised
its standards for certain waters from fecal coliform to e-coli or enterococcus
4. Question: On the topic of DMA testing for bacterial source tracking what is MassDEP doing or
planning to do?
Response: DMA testing is a promising but as yet not fully reliable tool in distinguishing between
human and other sources of fecal bacteria. When perfected, this tool will be extremely valuable in
helping target sources of pathogens and remedial actions. At the same time, one needs to recognize
that even if the source of the bacteria is identified as non-human, any concentrations exceeding the
criteria still impair the use, such as swimming or shellfishing, associated with those criteria. MassDEP
is already working with our Wall Experiment Station to help develop reliable techniques to address this
issue. Once developed MassDEP will include those techniques into our sampling programs however
we hope local monitoring programs will also benefit from them.
5. Question: What is the current thought on e coli / entero bacteria survival and reproduction in the
environment, especially in wetlands ?
Response: There are reports that indicator bacteria can survive in sediment longer than they can in
water. This may be a result of being protected from predators. Also, there is some indication that
reproduction may occur in wetlands, but until wildlife sources can be ruled out through, for example, a
reliable DMA testing, this possibility needs to be treated with caution. Also, die off of indicator bacteria
tends to be more rapid in warm water than in cold.
156
-------
6.Question: For the implementation phase of TMDLs who will do the regular progress reporting and
who will pay for it?
Response: In most cases, MassDEP is relying on existing programs for TMDL implementation.
Reporting will also depend on the action being taken. Phase I and Phase II municipalities already do
regular reporting and provide annual status reports on their efforts. Any additional information can be
coupled with existing reporting requirements and monitoring results to determine the success and
failure of implementation measures. For non-Phase II municipalities it gets more difficult and
MassDEP may have to work directly with each community or possibly add communities with known
impairments to the phase II list. The TMDL does not require volunteer groups, watershed organizations
or towns to submit periodic reports - it is not mandatory. The MassDEP is relying on self interest and a
sense of duty for communities to move ahead with the needed controls facilitated by some state aid.
The MassDEP feels that the cooperative approach is the most desirable and effective but also believes
that we possess broad regulatory authority to require action if and when it is deemed appropriate. .
7. Question: How does the Phase II program and TMDL program coordinate with each other?
Response: The NPDES Stormwater Phase II General Permit Program became effective in
Massachusetts in March 2003. The permit requires the regulated entities to develop, implement and
enforce a stormwater management program (SWMP) that effectively reduces or prevents the
discharge of pollutants into receiving waters to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP). Stormwater
discharges must also comply with meeting state water quality standards. The Phase II permit uses a
best management practice framework and measurable goals to meet MEP and water quality
standards. A requirement of the permit is that if a TMDL has been approved for any water body into
which the small municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) discharges, the permittee must
determine whether the approved TMDL is for a pollutant likely to be found in stormwater discharges
from the MS4. If the TMDL includes a pollutant waste load allocation, best management practices
(BMPs) or other performance standards for stormwater discharges, the permittee must incorporate into
their SWMP the recommendations in the TMDL for limiting the pollutant contamination. The permittee
must assess whether the pollutant reduction required by the TMDL is being met by existing stormwater
management control measures in their SWMP or if additional control measures are necessary. As
TMDLs are developed and approved, permittees' stormwater management programs and annual
reports must include a description of the BMPs that will be used to control the pollutant(s) of concern,
to the maximum extent practicable. Annual reports filed by the permittee should highlight the status or
progress of control measures currently being implemented or plans for implementation in the future.
Records should be kept concerning assessments or inspections of the appropriate control measures
and how the pollutant reductions will be met.
8. Question: Will communities be liable for meeting water quality standards for bacteria at the point of
discharge?
Response: No. While this is the goal stated in the TMDL, compliance with the water quality standards
is judged by in-stream measurements. For instance, in an extreme case, it could be possible for a
community to meet this criterion in their storm drains and yet still be responsible for reducing the
157
-------
impacts of overland runoff if the in-stream concentrations of bacteria exceeded the water quality
standard. So no matter how the TMDL is expressed, compliance is measured by the concentrations in
the ambient water.
This approach is also consistent with current EPA guidance and regulations. As stated in the 2002
Wayland/Hanlon memorandum, "WQBELs for NPDES-regulated storm water discharges that
implement WLAs in TMDLs may be expressed in the form of best management practices (BMPs)
under specified circumstances. See 33 U.S.C. 1342(p)(3)(B)(iii); 40 C.F.R. 122.44(k)(2)&(3)"
(Wayland/Hanlon memo, page 2; See Attachment A. This memorandum goes on to state:
"...because storm water discharges are due to storm events that are highly variable in frequency and
duration and are not easily characterized, only in rare cases will it be feasible or appropriate to
establish numeric limits for municipal and small construction storm water discharges. The variability in
the system and minimal data generally available make it difficult to determine with precision or certainty
actual or projected loadings for individual dischargers or groups of dischargers. Therefore, EPA
believes that in these situations, permit limits typically can be expressed as BMPs, and that numeric
limits will be used only in rare instances" (Wayland, Hanlon memorandum, November 22, 2002, page
4).
The TMDL attempts to be clear on the expectation that an adaptive management approach utilizing
BMPs will be used to achieve WQS as stated in the Wayland/Hanlon memorandum: "If it is
determined that a BMP approach (including an iterative BMP approach) is appropriate to meet the
storm water component of the TMDL, EPA recommends that the TMDL reflect this." (Wayland, Hanlon
memorandum, page 5). Consistent with this, the Massachusetts' pathogen TMDLs state that an
iterative approach using an illicit connection detection and elimination program and utilization of non-
structural BMPs be used initially to meet WQS followed by structural BMPs where necessary. The
actual WLA and LA for storm water will still be expressed as both a concentration-based/WQS limit and
daily load which will be used to guide BMP implementation. The attainment of WQS, however, will be
assessed through ambient monitoring.
In storm water TMDLs, the issue of whether WQSs will be met is an ongoing issue and can never be
answered with 100% assurance. MassDEP believes that the BMP-based, iterative approach for
addressing pathogens is appropriate for storm water. Indeed, "the policy outlined in [the
Wayland/Hanlon] memorandum affirms the appropriateness of an iterative, adaptive management
BMP approach, whereby permits include effluent limits (e.g., a combination of structural and non-
structural BMPs) that address storm water discharges, implement mechanisms to evaluate the
performance of such controls, and make adjustments (i.e., more stringent controls or specific BMPs) as
necessary to protect water quality" (Wayland, Hanlon memorandum, page 5).
A more detailed discussion / explanation of this response can be found in Attachment C, a
memorandum titled "Establishing Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Wasteload Allocations (WLAs) for
Storm Water Sources and NPDES Permit Requirements Based on Those WLAs" by Robert H.
Wayland and James A. Hanlon of EPA (11/22/02) which is appended to this Response To Comments
Document.
9. Question: What are the regulatory hooks for this TMDL in regards to non-point sources?
158
-------
Response: In general, the MassDEP is pursuing a cooperative approach in addressing non-point
sources of contamination by bacteria. A total of 237 cities and towns in Massachusetts do have legal
requirements to implement best management practices under their general NPDES storm-water
permits. In addition, failing septic systems are required to be corrected once the local Board of Health
becomes aware of them and at the time of property transfer should required inspections reveal a
problem. Other activities, such as farming involving livestock, are the subject of cooperative control
efforts through such organizations as the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) which has
a long history of providing both technical advice and matching funds for instituting best management
practices on farms. While MassDEP has broad legal authority to address non-point source pollution
and enforcement tools available for use for cases of egregious neglect, it intends to fully pursue
cooperative efforts which it feels offer the most promise for improving water quality.
In addition to the above, the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection's proposed new
"Stormwater Management Regulations," that would establish a statewide general permit program
aimed at controlling the discharge of stormwater runoff from certain privately-owned sites containing
large impervious surfaces.
The proposed regulations would require private owners of land containing five or more acres of
impervious surfaces to apply for and obtain coverage under a general permit; implement nonstructural
best management practices (BMPs) for managing stormwater; install low impact development (LID)
techniques and structural stormwater BMPs at sites undergoing development or redevelopment; and
submit annual compliance certifications to the Department.
10. Question: Why is there little mention in the draft TMDL reports on incorporation of LID (Low
Impact Development) principles as a way through implementation to control Bacteria pollution?
Response: Part of the Statewide TMDL project was to produce an accompanying TMDL
implementation guidance document for all the TMDL reports, " Mitigation Measures to Address
Pathogen Pollution in Surface Waters: A TMDL Implementation Guidance Document for MA". There is
an entire section in that document (Section D.4) that discusses LID principles and TMDL
implementation in detail.
11. Question: What about flow issues and TMDL requirements?
Response: TMDLs must be developed for each "pollutant" causing water quality impairments.
Although "flow" can impact pollutant concentrations and loadings, flow is not a "pollutant" as defined in
federal regulations and is therefore not subject to TMDL development.
12. Question: Is there a way that the TMDL can be integrated with grants, and can the grants be
targeted at TMDL implementation?
Response: The 319 Grant program is a major funding program providing up to $2 million per year in
grants in MA. TMDL implementation is a high priority in that program. In fact, projects designed to
address TMDL requirements are given higher priority points during project evaluation.
159
-------
The 319 grant program RFP Includes this language: "Category 4a Waters: TMDL and draft TMDL
implementation projects - The 319 program prioritizes funding for projects that will implement
Massachusetts' Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) analyses. Many rivers, streams and water bodies
in the Commonwealth are impaired and thus do not meet Massachusetts' Surface Water Quality
Standards. The goal of the TMDL Program is to determine the likely cause(s) of those impairments and
develop an analysis (the TMDL) that lists those cause(s)."
Several comments were also directed towards the complications associated with applying for and
reporting that are required elements state grant programs. The MassDEP is sympathetic to the paper
work requirements of State and Federal grant programs. The MassDEP periodically reviews the body
of requirements to assess what streamlining may be possible. At the same time, the MassDEP
underscores that accountability for spending public funds continues to be an important and required
component of any grant program.
13. Question: How will implementation of the TMDL address the major problem of post- construction
run-off?
Response: It is anticipated that proper design and implementation of stormwater systems during
construction will address both pre and post-construction runoff issues and thus eliminate future
problems. Post-construction runoff is also one of the six minimum control measures that Phase II
communities are required to include in their stormwater management program in order to meet the
conditions of their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. In short, Phase II
communities are required to :
a. Develop and implement strategies which include structural and/or nonstructural best management
practices (BMPs);
b. Have an ordinance or other regulatory mechanism requiring the implementation of post-construction
runoff controls to the extent allowable under State or local law;
c. Ensure adequate long-term operation and maintenance controls;
d. Determine the appropriate best management practices (BMPs) and measurable goals for their
minimum control measure.
The general permit implementing the phase 2 requirements also contains requirements for permittees
that discharge into receiving waters with an approved TMDL. In summary, municipalities covered under
phase II are required to incorporate and implement measures and controls into their plans that are
consistent with an established TMDL and any conditions necessary for consistency with the
assumptions and requirements of the TMDL.
14. Question: How does a pollution prevention TMDL work?
Response: MassDEP recommends that the information contained in the pathogen TMDLs guide
management activities for all other waters throughout the watershed to help maintain and protect
existing water quality. For non-impaired waters, Massachusetts is proposing "pollution prevention
TMDLs" which are also known as "preventative TMDLs" consistent with CWA s. 303(d)(3). Pollution
prevention TMDLs encourage the Commonwealth, communities and citizens to maintain and protect
existing water quality. Moreover it is easier and less costly in the long term to prevent impairments
160
-------
rather than retrofit controls and best management practices to clean up pollution problems. The goal of
this approach is take a more proactive role to water quality management.
The analyses conducted for the pathogen impaired segments in this TMDL would apply to the non-
impaired segments, since the sources and their characteristics are equivalent. The waste load and/or
load allocation for each source and designated use would be the same as specified in the TMDL
documents. Therefore, the pollution prevention TMDLs would have identical waste load and load
allocations based on the sources present and the designated use of the waterbody segment.
The TMDLs may, in appropriate circumstances, also apply to segments that are listed for pathogen
impairment in subsequent Massachusetts CWA s. 303(d) Integrated List of Waters. For such
segments, this TMDL may apply if, after listing the waters for pathogen impairment and taking into
account all relevant comments submitted on the CWA s. 303(d) list, the Commonwealth determines
with EPA approval of the CWA s. 303(d) list that this TMDL should apply to future pathogen impaired
segments.
Pollution prevention best management practices form the backbone of stormwater management
strategies. Operation and maintenance should be an integral component of all stormwater
management programs. This applies equally well with the Phase II Program as well as TMDLs. A
detailed discussion of this subject and the BMPs involved can be found in the TMDL companion
document "Measures to Address Pathogen Pollution in Surface Waters: A TMDL Implementation
Guidance Document for Massachusetts" in Section 3.
15. Comment: The TMDL methodology uses concentrations based on water quality standards to
establish TMDL loads, not traditional "loads".
Response: Concentration-based limits are consistent with EPA regulations. Clean Water Act Section
130.2(i) states that "TMDLs can be expressed in terms of either mass per time, toxicity, or other
appropriate measure". The TMDL in this case is set at the water quality standard. Pathogen water
quality standards (which are expressed as concentrations) are based on human health, which is
different from many of the other pollutants. It is important to know immediately when monitoring is
conducted if the waterbody is safe for human use, without calculating a "load" by multiplying the
concentration by the flow - a complex function involving variable storm flow, dilution, proximity to
source, etc.
The goal to attain water quality standards at the point of discharge is conservative and thus protective,
and offers a practical means to identify and evaluate the effectiveness of control measures. In addition,
this approach establishes clear objectives that can be easily understood by the public and individuals
responsible for monitoring activities.
MassDEP believes that it is difficult to provide accurate quantitative loading estimates of indicator
bacteria contributions from the various sources because many of the sources are diffuse and
intermittent, and flow is highly variable. Thus, it is extremely difficult to monitor and accurately model.
bacteria are less accurate than a concentration-based approach and do not provide a way to quickly
161
-------
verify if you are achieving the TMDL. Regardless, MassDEP has included a daily load for each
segment in this TMDL in addition to the concentration-based approach.
16. Comment: There is concern with the "cookie-cutter" nature of the draft TMDL. Particularly the lack
of any determination about the causes and contributions to pathogen impairment for specific river and
stream segments.
Response: The draft TMDL, although generic in nature, provides a framework and foundation for
actions to address bacteria pollution statewide. The MassDEP feels the pathogen TMDL approach is
justified because of the commonality of sources affecting the impaired segments and the commonality
of best management practices used to abate and control those sources.
Many existing programs such as the Federally mandated stormwater program and combined sewer
overflow (CSO) Long-term Control Plans, once implemented, will dramatically reduce or eliminate
many sources of bacteria and serve as an important first step in an adaptive management approach to
eliminate sources. At the same time however MassDEP agrees that it will be important for not only the
state, but more importantly local monitoring programs to develop and incorporate source identification
and tracking programs to achieve long-term water quality goals.
It should also be noted that based on public input MassDEP has conducted additional research to try
to identify sources where information was available. This includes the addition of information
developed by the Buzzards Bay Project National Estuary Program (BBP) as presented in the ""Atlas of
Stormwater Discharges in the Buzzards Bay Watershed". Based on this additional information
MassDEP added additional tables and maps to help identify and prioritize important segments and
sources. Also, MassDEP revised Section 7 of this TMDL to include segment-by-segment daily load
allocations necessary to meet water quality standards. All of the above noted actions were intended to
provide additional guidance on potential sources and areas of concern and to help target future
remediation activities.
17. Comment: While Table 7-1 of each TMDL lists the Tasks that the agencies (MassDEP/EPA)
believe need to be achieved, it isn't clear exactly how these tasks line up with and address the eight
sources of impairment listed in Table 6-1. CZM recommends that the final TMDL be more specific and
couple the Implementation Plan tasks with the known or expected sources of contamination. This
would make the document more useful to a community
Response: All of the sources of impairments listed in Table 6-1 are addressed in either Table 7-1, the
text of Section 7, or both. Because Table 6-1 and 7-1 serve slightly different purposes it was not
intended that the tasks needed to align with and exactly address the eight sources of impairment.
18. Comment: While the text in sections 7.1-7.7 of each TMDL describe some actions that can
address the sources in Table 6-1, the issue of failing infrastructure is only mentioned in a sub-section
title and in the text, but not addressed in any detail.
Response: Failing infrastructure is a very broad term, and is addressed, in part in such discussions as
those on leaking sewer pipes, sanitary sewer overflows, and failed septic systems. It is outside of the
162
-------
scope of the TMDL documents to detail every possible type of infrastructure failure. Nonetheless,
additional information is provided in the TMDL companion document titled: "Measures to Address
Pathogen Pollution in Surface Waters: A TMDL Implementation Guidance Document for
Massachusetts."
19. Comment: There is a need for more specific information about what individual communities are
currently doing and how much more effort is required (e.g., how many more miles of pipe need to be
inspected for illegal connections in a specific community).
Response: MassDEP and the EPA recognize that the municipalities have done, and are continuing to
do, a tremendous amount of work to control bacterial contamination of surface waters. The TMDL
provides some examples of that overall effort. The TMDL however is not designed nor intended to
include an exhaustive listing of all the work required by each municipality to finalize this effort and
provide a status of that work. However, some of the programs, such as Phase II Storm water, require
such status reports, and those will be very valuable in assessing priorities and future work. Phase II
reports for each community are available through each City or Town and can be viewed at MassDEP.
20. Comment: There are no milestones to which individual communities should aim (e.g., all
stormwater lines upstream of known contamination inspected for illegal connections in five years). As
another example, Section 7.0 of each TMDL states that "The strategy includes a mandatory program
for implementing storm water BMPs and eliminating illicit sources" but it is not clear over what
timeframe a community should be acting.
Response: The timeframe for implementing corrective measures depends highly on the extent and
source of the problem within each community, as such, it would be impossible to identify individual
timelines within the TMDL. With that said however many timelines are established through the
implementation of existing programs. For instance, the Phase II stormwater program required all
communities to submit an application and plan in 2003. That plan must address the six minimum
control measures and establish regulatory mechanisms to implement those measures by 2008. Status
reports are developed annually to report their progress on achieving that goal. Actual implementation
however will likely take many years. A second example would be the control of combined sewer
overflows (CSO's). Most municipalities are already under enforcement orders by EPA and/or MassDEP
to develop and implement initial measures (commonly referred to as the Nine Minimum Controls
(NMCs) and long-term control plans to address the issue. Since CSO discharges are defined as a point
source under the Clean Water Act an NPDES permit must be jointly issued by EPA and MassDEP for
those discharges. The permit sets forth the requirements for implementation and assessment of the
EPA mandated NMCs and the requirement for developing a long-term CSO control strategy. Either the
permit or an enforcement order will typically contain the schedules for completing that work.
MassDEP recognizes that the addition of timelines in the TMDLs would appear to strengthen the
documents, however, the complexity of each source coupled with the many types of sources which
vary by municipality simply does not lend itself to the TMDL framework and therefore must be achieved
through other programmatic measures.
21. Comment: Under "Control Measures" does "Watershed Management" include NPDES permitting?
163
-------
Response: "Watershed Management" is a general term used to assess and address water quality
impacts associated with both point and nonpoint sources throughout an entire watershed. NPDES
permitting is a primary tool used to address point source pollution such as permitted discharges from
municipal wastewater treatment and industrial discharges. Stormwater is considered a point source if it
comes from a pipe or other discrete conveyance system. Sheet flow of stormwater however is
considered a nonpoint source. Additional tools used to address nonpoint sources include, but are not
limited to, local education, and the use of best management practices like those outlined in this report.
The Department also operates varies grant and loan programs to address both point and nonpoint
sources of pollution. Application of these tools is considered part of the watershed management
approach.
22. Comment: Absent from each report under "Who should read this document ?" are the government
agencies that provide planning, technical assistance, and funding to groups to remediate bacterial
problems.
Response: The introduction was edited to include these groups in a general sense. It is beyond the
scope of the TMDL to provide an exhaustive list of agencies that provide funding and support. Chapter
8.0 however provides a link to this information, which is provided in the Massachusetts Nonpoint
Source Strategy.
23. Comment: For coastal watersheds the section that describes funding sources should include grant
programs available through the Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management.
Response: Please refer to comment #22 above
24. Comment: Table ES-1 and the similar tables throughout the report do not list B (CSO) or as a
surface water classification - this classification and its associated loadings allocations are missing.
Although the footnote to the table refers to Long term CSO Control Plans, the relationship between the
TMDL, LTCP, and the B(CSO) water classification are unclear.
Response: The 1995 revisions to the MA Water Quality Standards created a B (CSO) water quality
category by establishing regulatory significance for the notation "CSO" shown in the "Other Restriction"
column at 314 CMR 4.06 for impacted segments. The B (CSO) designation was given, after public
review and comment, to those waters where total elimination of CSO's was not economically feasible
and could lead to substantial and widespread economic and social impact and the impacts from
remaining CSO discharges were minor. Although a high level of control must be achieved, Class B
standards may not be met during infrequent, large storm events.
The goal of the TMDL and the long-term control plan is to minimize impacts to the maximum extent
feasible, attain the highest water quality achievable, and to protect critical uses. Given this, the TMDL
establishes in Table ES-1 (as well as other tables) the goal of meeting class B standards in CSO
impacted waters but recognizes that this criteria cannot be met at all times and therefore defers to the
EPA and MassDEP approved long-term control CSO plan to define the infrequent occasions when the
criteria may not be met.
164
-------
25. Comment: The implementation of new bacteria water quality criteria into NPDES permits should
be determined during the permit writing process rather than by the TMDL process - and that should be
made clear in the TMDL document.
Response: MassDEP agrees that implementation of new bacteria water quality criteria should be
incorporated into the permitting process as well as the state Water Quality Standards. This is already
the case. The criteria are also being included in the TMDL because it is a required element of the
TMDL process. Readers / users of the bacteria TMDL reports should be aware that new water quality
standards were recently developed in 2007 and are included in this final TMDL.
26. Comment: Coastal resources are significantly impacted from the storm water run-off from Mass
Highway roads. This goes beyond the control of municipalities to upgrade and is often beyond the
capability of local groups to monitor. MHD (Massachusetts Highway Department (Mass Highway))
continues to evade storm water standards and it is thus our opinion that MHD deserves special
recognition, complete with implementation strategy to upgrade the drainage systems along its web of
asphalt.
Response: Mass Highway is included in the Storm water Phase II Program, and as such will be
responsible for completing the six minimum controls mandated by that program, i.e., public education
and outreach, public involvement and participation, illicit discharge detection and elimination,
construction site storm water runoff control, post construction storm water management, and good
housekeeping in operations.
27. Comment: The current 303d list of impaired waters - is it the 2002 or the 2004 list ?
Response: Since the draft of this report was produced, the final 2006 list was approved and
MassDEP is awaiting final EPA approval of the 2008 list. All of the pathogen TMDLs apply to the
current 2006 303d list and all future EPA approved 303d lists.
28. Comment: Does the NPDES nondelegated state status of Massachusetts affect the TMDLs in any
way?
Response: No. The MassDEP and EPA work closely together and the nondelegated status will not
affect the TMDLs. The EPA has not written any of the pathogen TMDLs but has helped fund them.
29. Comment: The TMDL report does not tell the watershed associations anything they didn't already
know.
Response: True. The MassDEP is taking a cooperative approach and by working together as a team
(federal, state, local, watershed groups) we can make progress in addressing bacterial problems -
especially storm water related bacterial problems. Establishment of the TMDL however provides higher
priority points in MassDEP funding programs to issue grants and loans for qualified projects to address
priority areas.
165
-------
30. Comment: What will the MassDEP do now for communities that they have not already been
doing ?
Response: Grants that can be used for implementation (such as the 319 grants) will be targeted
toward TMDL implementation. Also, the more TMDLs a state completes and gets approved by EPA the
more funding it will receive from EPA and thus the more TMDL implementation it can initiate.
31. Comment: The State Revolving Fund (SRF) should support municipalities with TMDLs and Phase
II status a lot more.
Response: As with any grant/loan program, there are some very competitive projects looking for funds
from the SRF. A lot of these are the traditional sewage treatment plants and sewering projects which
are very expensive. The SRF currently does allocate funds to storm water related projects as well and
additional priority points are awarded in the SRF program where a project addresses waters identified
on the state 303d list as well as where TMDLs have been established by either MassDEP or EPA..
32. Comment: Who will be doing the TMDL implementation ?
Response: Each pathogen TMDL report has a section on implementation which includes a table that
lists the various tasks and the responsible entity. Most of the implementation tasks will fall on the
authority of the municipalities. Probably two of the larger tasks in urban areas include implementing
storm water BMPs and eliminating illicit sources. The document "Mitigation Measures to Address
Pathogen Pollution in Surface Water: A TMDL Implementation Guidance Manual for Massachusetts"
was developed to support implementation of pathogen TMDLs. The MassDEP working with EPA and
other team partners shall make every reasonable effort to assure implementation of the TMDLs.
Watershed Specific Comments / Responses
33. Comment: Several watershed groups believe that active and effective implementation and
enforcement is essential to carry out the objectives in the pathogen TMDLs. They define effective
implementation as the MassDEP partnering with them and municipalities to identify funding
opportunities to develop stormwater management plans, implement Title 5 upgrades, and repair failing
sewer infrastructure. The groups define effective enforcement as active MassDEP application of Title 5
regulations and implementation of Stormwater Phase II permitting requirements for Phase II
municipalities.
Response: The MassDEP has every intention of assisting watershed groups and municipalities with
implementing the high priority aspects of the pathogen TMDLs, including identification of possible
funding sources. With respect to Title 5 regulations and the Phase II program requirements, the
MassDEP will continue to emphasize and assist entities with activities that lead to compliance with
those program requirements.
34. Comment: The MassDEP Division of Watershed Management (DWM) should network
implementation planning efforts in the coastal watersheds with the Coastal Zone Management's (CZM)
Coastal Remediation Grant Program and the EPA Coastal Nonpoint Source Grant Program. Also, the
166
-------
DWM should make the pathogen TMDL presentation to the Mass Bays Group, and network with them
in regards to coordinating implementation tasks.
Response: The MassDEP DWM has every intent to coordinate efforts wherever possible including
those identified by the commenter.
35. Comment: Why are specific segments or tributaries of watersheds addressed in the Draft TMDL
but not all of the segments ?
Response: In accordance with the EPA regulations governing TMDL requirements, only segments that
are included on the state's 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies (category 5 of the state Integrated List of
Waters) need to be included in any TMDL. It should be noted, however, that addressing other
segments which presently are not listed is appropriate as well.
36. Comment: When a TMDL is developed for waters impaired by both point and nonpoint sources,
and the WLA is based on an assumption that nonpoint source reductions will occur, EPA's 1991 TMDL
Guidance states that the TMDL should provide reasonable assurances that nonpoint source control
measures can achieve expected load reductions in order for the TMDL to
be approvable.
Response: Section 9.0, Reasonable Assurances, provides these assurances. This section has been
drastically expanded in the Final version of the Draft Pathogen TMDL reports. The revised section 9.0
describes all of the appropriate state programs and their enabling statutes and relevant regulations
which actively address nonpoint source pollution impacting waters of the Commonwealth. Many of
these programs involve municipalities as a first line of defense mechanism such as the Wetlands
Protection Act (which includes the Rivers Protection Act).This expanded section also covers grant
programs available to municipalities to control and abate nonpoint source pollution such as 319 grants,
604b grants, 104b(3) funds, 6217 coastal nonpoint source grants, low interest loans for septic system
upgrades, state revolving fund grants, and many others.
37. Comment: The Draft TMDLs indicate that for non-impaired waters the TMDL proposes "pollution
prevention BMPs". The term is not defined in any state regulation and the origin of the term is unclear.
Response: An explanation of pollution prevention BMPs can be found in the pathogen TMDL
companion document "Mitigation Measures to Address Pathogen Pollution in Surface Waters: A TMDL
Implementation Guidance Manual for Massachusetts". Section 3.1 of that manual describes pollution
prevention as one of the six control measures for minimizing stormwater contamination under the EPA
Phase I or II Stormwater Control Program. Control Measure #6, "Pollution Prevention / Good
Housekeeping" involves a number of activities such as maintenance of structural and nonstructural
stormwater controls, controls for reducing pollutants from roads, municipal yards and lots, street
sweeping and catch basin cleaning, and control of pet waste. Also the term "pollution prevention" can
include a far wider range of pollution control activities to prevent bacterial pollution at the source. For
instance, under Phase I and II, minimum control measures #4 and #5, construction site and post
construction site runoff controls, would encompass many pollution prevention type BMP measures.
Proper septic system maintenance and numerous agricultural land use measures can also be
167
-------
considered pollution prevention activities. Further information may be found in Sections 3.0, 4.0, and
5.0 in the Guidance Manual.
38. Comment: EPA regulations require that a TMDL include Load Allocations (LAs) which identify the
portion of the loading capacity attributed to existing and future nonpoint sources and to natural
background. Load allocations may range from reasonably accurate estimates to gross allotments (40
C.F.R. s.130.2(g)). Where possible, load allocations should be described separately for natural
background and nonpoint sources. The Draft TMDL makes no such allocation. Also, EPA regulations
require that a TMDL include Waste Load Allocations (WLAs) which identify the portion of the loading
capacity allocated to individual existing and future point sources. The Draft TMDL makes no such
allocation . Because it makes no estimate of the TMDL, it makes no WLA for point sources.
Response: This comment (and several others which addressed the same topic) relates to the
establishment and allocation of an acceptable pollutant load so that water quality standards can be met
and maintained. As touched upon elsewhere in this document, TMDLs can be expressed in a variety of
ways so long as they are rational. Section 7 has been expanded to include load allocations in addition
to the concentration based approach, however. MassDEP has chosen to use concentration as the
primary metric for bacteria TMDLs for several reasons. First, there is a numeric standard that can be
used. Second, and more important, bacteria, unlike some other pollutants, can increase with flow
rather than decrease. As such, the bacteria load applicable at low flow (7Q10) would be very stringent
if applied to higher flows. It is also constantly changing due to tidal action. In essence, this TMDL
recognizes that higher loads are likely at higher flows and therefore the emphasis is on meeting the in-
stream or embayment water quality rather than on meeting a load established for low flows as is done
for most other constituents. Hence the TMDL is based on concentration rather than loads of bacteria
expressed either as pounds or as daily loads. Again, in contrast to many other pollutants, higher flows
may not mean more dilution in the case of bacteria. This approach for bacteria still accepts that site
specific information can result in site specific control strategies that modify the general TMDL
framework presented provided that water quality standards for bacteria are achieved. Nonetheless,
MassDEP has included load allocations in the final TMDL based on the annual average precipitation
anticipated in the Buzzards Bay/Cape Cod area and an estimate of the average daily runoff based on
long-term precipitation records (see revised Section 7).
Watershed Specific Comments / Responses
1. Question: Why are there no lakes in the Buzzards Bay Watershed on the 303d list in light of the
fact that there have been several beach closings due to bacteria ?
Response: The MassDEP relies on information from local Boards of Health and the Commonwealth's
Department of Public Health for information on beach closures. This information is becoming more
timely and readily available with the institution of a state wide reporting system required and facilitated
by the passage of the National Beaches Act. This will permit much more recent information to be used
in the listing of impaired waters in the future. It should be noted that beaches subject to chronic
closures normally would be listed as impaired, but those reporting occasional closures in which bather
density is suspected as a possible cause may not be listed.
168
-------
2. CZM Comment
p. 51, Table 7-1, CZM was surprised to see that this table does not recognize the important role of the
Buzzards Bay Project National Estuary Program (BBP). The BBP is a technical assistance unit of CZM
whose mission is to implement the Buzzards Bay Comprehensive Conservation Management Plan.
We recommend the following changes to Table 7-1. Next to the task "Organize and implement; work
with stakeholders and local officials to identify remedial measures and potential funding sources" the
BBP and not the Coalition for Buzzards Bay (CBB) should be listed. The CBB is a citizens group
primarily focused on education and outreach. Likewise, next to the task "Write grant and loan funding
proposals," the BBP should be listed and not CBB. Furthermore, the tasks "Organization, contacts with
volunteer groups" and "Surface Water Monitoring" should include the BBP as a participating
organization.
Response: The draft TMDL incorrectly cited the Coalition for Buzzards Bay rather than the Buzzards
Bay Project. The changes have been made to Table 7-1 and text has been added to Section 7-1 to
correct this error.
3. Comment- It is noted that there are quite a few segments on the Western end of the Cape in
Falmouth and Bourne that are included in this report. Could you explain that?
Response- The MassDEP, beginning with the 2004 Integrated List of Impaired Waters, determined
that 14 segments on the Western end of the Cape in Falmouth and Bourne most appropriately fit within
the Buzzards Bay Watershed, as drainage from these segments discharges into Buzzards Bay. These
segments include: MA95-14, Cape Cod Canal; MA95-48 Eel Pond; MA95-47 Back River; MA95-15
Phinneys Harbor; MA95-16 Pocasset River; MA95-18; Pocasset Harbor MA95-17; Red Brook Harbor;
MA95-21 Herring Brook; MA95-46 Harbor Head; MA95-20 Wild Harbor; MA95-22 West Falmouth
Harbor; MA95-23 Great Sippewisset Creek; MA95-24 Little Sippewisset Marsh; MA95-25 Quissett
Harbor. These segments are now covered in the Buzzards Bay Bacteria TMDL Report rather than the
Cape Cod TMDL report
169
-------
Appendix C
EPA: Wayland Guidance
170
-------
I UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
/ WASH«TCN, D.C. 2WEC
mum
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Establishing Total Maximum Daily Laid (TMDL) Wasreload Allocations
(WLAs) for Stom Water Sa-virces and NPDES Permit Requirements Based on
those WLAs
FROM: Robert K. Wayland, HI, Director
Office of Wetlands. Oceans and Water-shad;
James A. Hanlon, D'jecter
Office of Wasiewater ManaEement •'' Of
V
TO: Water Division Director;
,-1 • n
^2 1 - .y
This i2SQOTaD±.iai djjifies eyeing EPA re:EuLatorf- reqiaren:*i:ts for. acd provides
Eui«iaace on, siiiblishing vr&iEload aDocatioti !,WLA») for stone, water discharge* in total
. daily load; ffkc-Ls) apprm^d-Bi esUb jsh-ed by EPA. It al=o ajddresse; tbs
of water qaalit^'-taied effl'aeat liiaits {WQBEL=} and conditons m NatonaJ
Polliiiaat Dischuge Eliomataa System iJN?DES) pencils based sa tte IXAi for swnn, water
aTEes it TMDLs. The key points pra=«E"ed 31 tii= maraoraaiini are as follows:
HPDES-ierjlated icccm water «di=chars es must be addiessed b,r the wasraload
aUocatioL component of a TMDL £ffl.40C.F.R. | ]3C.2(b.).
NPDES-TenUted nmm waar di=cltarges may not be addressed by the load
aUocatiot (LA) component of a TMDL See 43 C.F.R. 1 110.2 (g) & (h).
Storm water discharge; from imircei mat are coc currently subject toNPCES
oav be addressed by ibs load allocation compsasnt of a TMDL. See
It aiay be reasonable IB express allocations ftxr NPDES-regulaied itoirn water
discharges from multiple pa-id sources as a sitsle categor.cal wasteload allccarion
when data -mid information aoe in;u:f dent to assign each xmrti or O'UifiJ
WLAs. ^ei^OC.FR. § 13C.2(i). Incases where wasteload allocations
|M-hi.in
171
-------
are developed for categories of discharges. these catesor.es should be defined as
narrowly K available ifo[matsm aUows.
The WLAs and LAs are to be expressed ia numeric form in its TMDL. See 40
C.FH. § 13Q.2;h; & fi). EPA ejects TMDL authorities to niaie separate
allocations 10 NPDES- regulated swnc. water discharges £n lie form of WLAs)
and unregulated storm water (in the form of LAs j EPA recognizes that these
allocation: night be farrly mdnQSLtar/ because of diia Laitaiiaai and variibilirsr
in cte system.
NPEES permit coQdidaLi must be consistau wnfa the asBumprions and
recuireoiHKs of available WIAs, See4'3C.?,R. | ]22.44(d;(])(i'Li}il).
WQBELs for KPDES -regulated, storm waier discharges ftac m^le-mem WIAs in
Tl*fIDLs any be expressed, in the form, of be;: management practices (SMPsJ.
under specified circ-amstance-. See 33 U.S.C. Sl34;(pX3XB)(iu).40C.F.R.
§ ] 22 ,4-(k)(2)&(3x If BM?s dons adequately implemem the WTAs, then
additional c octrois are EOC
EPA expects thai most ft'QBELs forXPDES-regulated oi'jmcipai and small
constnctLoa stonn water dJsctarpE. will be in 'the form ef BMP-, aad thai
eiic kmits wLL be used onl in iaie instances.
Wines a noD-numeric water quality-based effluent limit is anpOi-sd. 'he parent's
admiai:tradve lecord. mcludiog the feet sheet when on-a is required, needs to
support that iba BMPs are expected IB bs sufficient to implement tie WLA IE the
TMEL. See4S C.FH. §| I24.S, 12i.9 * 124 IS.
T'ae X?E'ES pem± m'Jit ?.l50 spe-:it\r :ie moaitoiai nece;=,?j}- to det
:3mp2i?Ji-:9WL:heifIuent}ini::fliio2s" S«43 C.7F." 5 J22 4-^(:l. "ATiere effluent
limit; ar* =pe-:ified a; EMPi, ±e penmt iliould aj=a =pecif>- the mcnitcnng
T,1 :o aiseii if :he e\;cectied load reductions ^nnhuted to BMP
?je a Juered r'e g . BMP perfoncnice dacij.
The pencil should also piwide a mechanism to cuke adjustments 10 the required
BMP1; as necessary to ensure ihe:i adequate performance.
This memorandum is organized as follows:
;!). ResHJatsry basis for mckdiLS NPDES-resulated storm water discharges m
'XTAs in TMBLs,
(II). Qptior.= fa,j addressing storm water in TMBLs; and
172
-------
(III). Deienniatag effluent limits in KPDE S permits for swnu water discharges
consistem with the WLA
(I). Regulator? Basil for Including NTDES-rcgnlated Storm Water Discharges m WLAs
in TMDLs
As part of ±5 1?3" amendments to ±3 O.VA, Csrigres-s ?.dded Section 40Iip) :a the Act
:o cover discharges composed entirely of storm water. Section -C2{p:{2; of The Ac: requires
permit coverage for itscliarzes j.sso:i?.ted with industrial activity »ni discharges from Lirae and
medium muiiL:ipal separate itorja. sewer ST, items (M".-;,^e_ iysi?oi i?r,'bE a popMlanon OTST
25C.CCO or jy::emj sen-mz a populadon bemeea 10C.C-C3 aad I5-.COC. rc-pecuve!./. 7^e»5
isclmiH&s aia refarred w as Phass I MS4 diicijarge^.
IE addition, die Adidniiaator wi= directed w study and iiiue rerjlationi that denpate
stone, water discharges., othei thaa. it;A; Permits for disdizjges frsa: MS- >,
e'/er. 'shall recmre csatrsh ts reduce the disckugc of pollutants to ±e mjciucux extent
pracncabl* . . jad >iv± sthat provision; ?.s ue A±ainiiir?,Tor or the twte deterjiinss appropr-r-T*
fsrue canjo] of such pa^Lutants. ' See 33 U.S.C. 1 13-2;j;:"3>:E3i,±).
Storm water discharges that ue regulated under Phase I or Phase II of tha NPDES itorm
water progtatn are point sources that must be included -JL the WLA pomon of a TMDL. See -0
C.F..R, § 110.2 (h.). Storm water discharges tiiac lie noc currently subjeci to Phase I or Phase II of
the XPDES itonc. water program, are not required to obtain NPDES penaits. 31 U. S .C.
§I342(p)(l) & fp);'S). 'Therefore., for regulatory pupoiss, they are analogous to nonpoim
sources aad may be included in. the LA porton of a TMDL. See -^O C J.R. § 1 30.2(g).
(II). Options for Addressing Storm Water in TMDLs
Decisions about allocations of pollutant loads within a TMDL are driven by the quantity
and quality of existing aaa readily available water quality date . Tfae am.O'Unt of storm, water data
available for a TMDL var.es from location to location. Nevertheless. EPA ejects TMDL.
authorities wil] make separate aggregate allocations to N PDES-replated storm water discharges
173
-------
(ia ±a fora of WLAsJ. and unregulated storm water (a. the font, of LA-) . It may be reasonable
to quantify Ibe allocations through astmacas ecr extrapolations, teed either m, knowledge of Land
use pattern-; and associated literature values for pollutant loading; or on actual, albeit Leaded.
loading information. EPA reconciles that these allocations might be fairly rudimentary because
of data limitations.
EPA ?Jio recoccze; ±it tie ivJlable data ?.cd bformauon usualLy ira net detailed
enough to datennjue waste Io?.d alloci3:L02i foi }"?3E"j-tejjJa:e
-------
Under certain circumstances. BMPi are an appropriate fora: of effluent limits to control
poUiitaEts m atom: water. See 43 CFR |» 1 22 ,44(10(2) 4" (3). If it is determined thai a BMP
approach (including an iterative BMP approach) is appropriate to mast lie storm water
component of the TMDL,, EPA recommends that the TMDL reflect this.
EPA expects that tie >3?DES permitting authority will review the information provided
by the TMDL. see -0 CF.Jt § 122.44(d)(l)(viiKB}. and determine whether the effluent tan is
appropriately expressed using a BMP approach (including sn iteratve BMP approach) m a
numeric 1 mill Where BMPs are used, EPA recommends that the permit provide a mechanism to
require visa of expanded or leiter-tailored BMPs when monitoring demonstrates they are
necessary to implement the WLA and protect water quality.
Wlere the NPDES pendttinf authori^' allows for a choice of BMPs, a discusiiflQ of the
BM? ielecuoa and aisunipdoD: aeais IB ba xclndad unhe permit' = adn±L.:initLve record.
iadudmg the fact sheet when, one is required, 40 C.F.R. §§ 324.B. 12-, 9 & 12- IS. For general
permit:., this may be iaclnded in the =icrm water poDtticiE pie%-eMon plan required b>r the
pencit. Se§_40C.r,R. § 112.28, Permitting a-Jthor.tes may ie-p je the penaitiee to provide
supporting infbmunon. such as iom:' the permittee desigaad ns management plan to address the
WLA;";';.. See_-0 CF.H. § 122.2S. The KPDES permit must require tie moaitor.c.| necessan.* to
assize compliance with penult louiiations, alrhoueh the permirimi aiuhociiy has the di=creteu
vindsr EPA'j regulations to decide the frequency of such monitorjiE. See +3 CFR, § 122.44$).
EPA lacomaeQds that such pemuts riquire' collecting data ea the actjal psnoro32.ee of the
BMPs. These additional data may provide a basil for revised aaaagemeat measures. The
ita-nitorjiH data are lilely to have other use; as well. For example, the monitoring data might
indicate if it is necessary 10 adjust the BK?s. Any momtorjiE. for sterm water required as part of
the permit should be consistent with the state's overall assessment and mrautor.ni s
Tbe policy outlined in this meniaraadinn. affirms the appropriateness of aniteradve.
adaptive nian,»Heicent BM? approach, wherety permits include effluent limit: fe.g.. s
combination of iiracturiJ aid non-structjra] BMPs) chat aiireii stora water discharge;.
implement mechanisms to n'abate the performance of such controls, and male adjustments fie..
more stringent control; or specific BMPs) a-i necessary to piotsct water qoJiU1 Ttii approach is
funher juppoited ty the recent report fron the National Research Council i^NP.C), Jir-csj.nf At
TA.1DL Approach is Wawr Qitaln^ J/aia? CIMUI iJNational Academy Press. 2001). Tie NRC
import recommends an approach chat includes "adaptive implementation," lie., "a cyclical process
in which TMDL plans are periodically assessed for their achievement sf water quality standards"
, . and adjustments made as necessary. A1C Repsri at ES-5 .
Thi; memorandum discusses existing requirements of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and
codified in die TMDL andNPBES implementing regulations. Those CWA provisions and
regulations contain. legally bmding requirements. This document describes these requirements: it
does OH substitute for those provisions or regulations. The recommendations in this
are not binding, indeed, there day be other approaches that would le appropriate
175
-------
in pariioiSar situations. When EPA aiaies a TMDL oor permitting deciaoa, it wiH make each
decision on a case-by-case basis and will be guided by the applicable requirement: of the
and iapLeiasc.tc.B isplationE. lakinE into account cocnasac; ard iafoimacion presented n ifaat
urns by mwrescad ;psr»a=. regarding the appi-opnafeMis of applying ih.s=e recoomemdadoiiE to
ihe particuJar sif.ia.cion. EPA may clangs diii guidance ~JL tie fuiuie.
If you have any qiiSiiinas please feel free w contact a= or Linda Boommaa. Director of
ihe Water Permits DivisioL or Charles Sulfin, Direcior of the Asse&ameni and Watershed
Piotecnon Di^iiioti.
cc;
Waier •Qualiiy Branch Ckiefe
Region: 1 - 1C
Psroit Branch Chiefs
Resion: 1 - 1C
176
------- |