The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20250909 Eco-NOI Crocker Marstons Mills Bogs_42 Appendix B: Historical maps and aerial photographs Maps courtesy of Marstons Mills Historical Society Appendix B1: 1856 Map of Marstons Mills Appendix B2: 1900 USGS Topo Map Appendix B3: USGS HIstorical Air Photos 3 Appendix C: Site Information ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Big Coombs Cell 1 Winnies Cell 3 Swamp Cell 5 LaPointe M & M Cook House Cell 4 Run Bog Howes Lovell's Cove Retention Bog Cell 2 Reservoirs 1 & 2 Abandoned Bog Cell 6 Outlet Channel Cell 7 Legend ^Pumphouses 0 500 1,000250 Feet Appendix C1: Hamblin Bogs Restoration Project Area ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ 0 500 1,000250 Feet ± Muddy Pond Middle Lake Mystic Lake Legend ^Pumphouses Surveyed Culverts Flow Direction Appendix C2: Hamblin Bogs: flow direction, pumphouses, and culverts MarstonsMillsRiverMuddy Pond 0 500 1,000250 Feet± Appendix C3: MA DEP/USGS Hydrography 7 1 6857 5 5 101 69 47 70 5994 81 94 9075 93 91 88 615186 72 63 73 68 57 886474 589281 73 67 62 85 618 4 837472 66 645382 636 9 6 2 7 6 74 80 7 5 7760 78 64 81 7965 56 54 52 49 57 55 6053584793 89 9 1 74 80 637164 74 62 57 6459655666 6367 63 58 565253 5055 546755 6551 524758466059959794 96 92 90 8 4 71 63 776672 6974 66 5770 59 65 64 84 77 73 7 5 72657267736482 80 77 867693 887162 625359 56 7566 7066 666356 50 969 0 97 9 2 95 9475 70 6463625544 42 41 40 85 80 84838 0 85818280 72686863514752 47 5 0 49 96 939795 90 88 8984 807779 75737166 65 66 64 6 3 60 45 44 44 43 10198 9695929184 82 8 2 79 6563625958565450 48 47 46 464446 45 46 45 4342454442414 4 424143 429089 868381807776717068 65575556 55 55 53 55 52 4746 454443 4 2 4 2 4 1 93928584 8281686762616055 545049484648 45 46 45 454344 43454444434240 43 41 414041 40 9493949383828381 8281 818078 7777 72 7574757373 72 73 66 72 7172 70 72 6971 7071 70 706870676766666565 58 605859 58 58 5657 56 57555 5 5 3 5453 50495049484 64644454244434443444343 42 43 41 4341 434142 41 42414140414 0 41 40 99 6762615650 498783828 1 79 7 877 7674 72 7069 68636259575653 8 779 7571706961605075 81 7877 767569 6763 72 71666 561 6359 5150 676570 6 9 61 60 58 66 59575165 6463626 1 59 60 56 5553 56545191898886 8 5 75656 2 67637192 607360 6154989191 6153 8384 8179 7877 70656254535148 47949795 91 7880767267 60 5648 454442 46100 9981 79 6 6 626363 636156 5551 4848 46 4544434241 3938 37969191 83 8378 7 3 7 5 737570696763 6563606158 60 58 5755545252 51 49 48 46 45454544 444 4 42414242 41 42 41 42429697949494939389 9388 84838 0 80 817976 787676757473747271 717270 7 171 7069676665 6 4 64646464 6261 636160 59 605959 5858 595 7 5856575554 5556 48 53 4 9 51 50475049 5151 5 1 49 4548 49 5048 494547 4746454446 44454445 44 4443434243 43444 4 4 2 42414041 4 2 42 4 2 41 4040 4040 39 40 39102 10 2 102102 100101989999 96 9697 97 95 95 9596969694 95 93 94 94 929 2 91 90 93 92 92 9292 89888891 8887878 8 86868 7 8586 8384 8585 838583 84 8 4 82 84 83 838 0 818182 82 80 8080 8081 80 78 78 7778 7879 79 79 79 75 7778 77777477 7674 7674 7676 73 7473 73 73 73 73 73 7374747472 71 7 2 73737371 7272 72 697169 69 68 716970 70 707070 70 687066 68696 9 6969 676766 6767 68 6 7666866 68656765 6766656566646464 6464 656565 636 5 65 61 63 64 64 63 6363 62 64 6463 63 636 3 626363 58 616 2 6 1 6059 6060 60 60 5858 59 58 59 59 58 58 5 854 57 5858 57 57 555454565656 5 5525 4 55555553535454 535452 52 53 51 535249 51 5150 4947495050 48485049474847 46 47 46 434646 46 4646 46464 6 4646464646 4545 45 464644 434444 454545454545454544 4542 4343 434343 43 4344 44 44444444 4 4 4444444444444443 43 434242 4 3 43434343434343 43 43 434242 42 42424243414041 41 41 4142 42424241 4 141 4 2 4040 414141 4141 41 414141414141 4 1 4141 40 40 40404141 393939 39 394039 40 404039 4039 3939 3939 464646 46 45 45 44434340 40 0 500 1,000250 Feet± Legend 1ft Contours 19-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 90-100 100-110 110-120 Bog Boundaries Appendix C4: LiDAR with 1-ft contours ...®liver OLIVER. MassGIS's Online Mapping Tool _. "l• "• I I !, 1 . �.. � }'1 I � .. .. .. -I •om .. • ' .. -...• • .. I J f �, • • •.... 5 1 � o\u MtllO" R0,tcl .. \ I .. .,, .....'\ ,.,. '\ •c,,,. lw19rw,d COll$�rv.1rtoi, """ • -!" • ,. I • ti "•• iC•i : V 't " j •i .......... , ,"' ,l'.��· ,, P, .. �,9 .. . • I, ' I 'J �·'�· Rlv«ttotd . J I ·-'· '°:'Pll!tl) (llf,,,_41 O'l ,.11. ... _.... • • I \ { , • ... \ i • �... • ,/' . • ', � .. •••,..,'i, -<;. +';.i •� ., " ,0.0•6 �·'te>' • . /'> BARNSTABLE ... • � ........ \' �.. .... ,, .. �- • 'G. Erb. � ......... ��-. ,��UN�k ... c,:;c,.��...,;;,c .. ;:;a�• ;::J i3Con��vetion/Rea � M QAte., Of 011Cef El'l'Wonm91'1Ct!il Coonc$nAC£Cs ii (S)Cortm!riy Ptesetvt'tlonAct ac,Nei1i..wei1Htift*o.. .. �- C,>ffs,> ::l!!m!I : .... ,� Ccf111loc1Veinel� QtHSP Et&Mtod Hobl91S OfR9-eVW::lte OtH;$PN (1h..-ol� l.;;,tffSP Pr.orty Habbls OI Rwe � : :'·P«---\/offltl!PoQlS; j iJOlficUI fi!twlgend �Atef'SS � .. c:i-.- <lla!Trah » V ._. ..--------�� :,.·. r.a�ort��l'P()tts) 0 tJ/IHSP&i ffltll«:IH91bhtsotRwew.dfte 0 eiN'ESPPrio.-tyHoblets ot ftare SPecles 0 �---0 e'J�2COl'eHsil:«91 0 ��20.leolN#:,,Ji ·NI.Mdscepe Y !!214leinol Ot:icol ErwtonmenolCcncctnACEr 0 f'JAte�olOa:o!E�olCcnc:CfrtACE <• �sHstOO: CommiSSlcn Inventory (Pohis) • National Re9ister of Historic Places *Preservation Restriction Massachusetts Histonc: Landmark • fl'W81'1t0ti&d PfOl)lrtV ,::SP Estinated �tats of be Wlife 0 N-ESP Pricritv Hmtits of R.a'e SC,,8ties r!,!'SP ---0 _, .... ,_,_,• r-,-.,.- �e¥ of O'«IC,il erv,to-fflil'ltil CO'leern A<ECS �Jl'AI< 8ASED / RIVER BASED / WETlAAD BASED / FLOODPLAII< BAS!,O / TIOAI. BASED CONTOUR 8ASEO ,' POLiTICAl BOUNDARY / PROPERTY LINE BASED /OTHER / NOT OEFJNEO f':_W< of (MlQi -°""""'ACECS 0 Appendix C5: NHESP core and priority habitat near the project site Esri Community Maps Contributors, MassGIS, BuildingFootprintUSA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA | Marcel Belaval Hydrologist – EPA R1 Water Division Belaval.Marcel@EPA.gov Three Bays Bog UAS Survey, 7/16/2019 40ft Esri Community Maps Contributors, MassGIS, BuildingFootprintUSA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA | Marcel Belaval Hydrologist – EPA R1 Water Division Belaval.Marcel@EPA.gov Three Bays Bog UAS Survey, 7/16/2019 40ft Esri Community Maps Contributors, MassGIS, BuildingFootprintUSA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA | Marcel Belaval Hydrologist – EPA R1 Water Division Belaval.Marcel@EPA.gov Three Bays Bog UAS Survey, 7/16/2019 40ft Esri Community Maps Contributors, MassGIS, BuildingFootprintUSA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA | Marcel Belaval Hydrologist – EPA R1 Water Division Belaval.Marcel@EPA.gov Three Bays Bog UAS Survey, 7/16/2019 40ft Esri Community Maps Contributors, MassGIS, BuildingFootprintUSA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA | Marcel Belaval Hydrologist – EPA R1 Water Division Belaval.Marcel@EPA.gov Three Bays Bog UAS Survey, 7/16/2019 40ft Esri Community Maps Contributors, MassGIS, BuildingFootprintUSA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA | Marcel Belaval Hydrologist – EPA R1 Water Division Belaval.Marcel@EPA.gov Three Bays Bog UAS Survey, 7/16/2019 40ft Esri Community Maps Contributors, MassGIS, BuildingFootprintUSA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA | Marcel Belaval Hydrologist – EPA R1 Water Division Belaval.Marcel@EPA.gov Three Bays Bog UAS Survey, 7/16/2019 40ft Esri Community Maps Contributors, MassGIS, BuildingFootprintUSA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA | Marcel Belaval Hydrologist – EPA R1 Water Division Belaval.Marcel@EPA.gov Three Bays Bog UAS Survey, 7/16/2019 40ftEsri Community Maps Contributors, MassGIS, BuildingFootprintUSA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA | Marcel Belaval Hydrologist – EPA R1 Water Division Belaval.Marcel@EPA.gov Three Bays Bog UAS Survey, 7/16/2019 40ft Esri Community Maps Contributors, MassGIS, BuildingFootprintUSA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA | Marcel Belaval Hydrologist – EPA R1 Water Division Belaval.Marcel@EPA.gov Three Bays Bog UAS Survey, 7/16/2019 40ft Esri Community Maps Contributors, MassGIS, BuildingFootprintUSA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA | Marcel Belaval Hydrologist – EPA R1 Water Division Belaval.Marcel@EPA.gov Three Bays Bog UAS Survey, 7/16/2019 40ft Esri Community Maps Contributors, MassGIS, BuildingFootprintUSA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA | Marcel Belaval Hydrologist – EPA R1 Water Division Belaval.Marcel@EPA.gov Three Bays Bog UAS Survey, 7/16/2019 40ft Esri Community Maps Contributors, MassGIS, BuildingFootprintUSA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA | Marcel Belaval Hydrologist – EPA R1 Water Division Belaval.Marcel@EPA.gov Three Bays Bog UAS Survey, 7/16/2019 40ft Esri Community Maps Contributors, MassGIS, BuildingFootprintUSA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA | Marcel Belaval Hydrologist – EPA R1 Water Division Belaval.Marcel@EPA.gov Three Bays Bog UAS Survey, 7/16/2019 40ft Esri Community Maps Contributors, MassGIS, BuildingFootprintUSA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA | Marcel Belaval Hydrologist – EPA R1 Water Division Belaval.Marcel@EPA.gov Three Bays Bog UAS Survey, 7/16/2019 40ft Esri Community Maps Contributors, MassGIS, BuildingFootprintUSA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA | Marcel Belaval Hydrologist – EPA R1 Water Division Belaval.Marcel@EPA.gov Three Bays Bog UAS Survey, 7/16/2019 40ft Esri Community Maps Contributors, MassGIS, BuildingFootprintUSA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA | Marcel Belaval Hydrologist – EPA R1 Water Division Belaval.Marcel@EPA.gov Three Bays Bog UAS Survey, 7/16/2019 40ft Esri Community Maps Contributors, MassGIS, BuildingFootprintUSA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA | Marcel Belaval Hydrologist – EPA R1 Water Division Belaval.Marcel@EPA.gov Three Bays Bog UAS Survey, 7/16/2019 40ft Esri Community Maps Contributors, MassGIS, BuildingFootprintUSA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA | Marcel Belaval Hydrologist – EPA R1 Water Division Belaval.Marcel@EPA.gov Three Bays Bog UAS Survey, 7/16/2019 40ft Esri Community Maps Contributors, MassGIS, BuildingFootprintUSA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA | Marcel Belaval Hydrologist – EPA R1 Water Division Belaval.Marcel@EPA.gov Three Bays Bog UAS Survey, 7/16/2019 40ft Esri Community Maps Contributors, MassGIS, BuildingFootprintUSA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA | Marcel Belaval Hydrologist – EPA R1 Water Division Belaval.Marcel@EPA.gov Three Bays Bog UAS Survey, 7/16/2019 40ft Esri Community Maps Contributors, MassGIS, BuildingFootprintUSA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA | Marcel Belaval Hydrologist – EPA R1 Water Division Belaval.Marcel@EPA.gov Three Bays Bog UAS Survey, 7/16/2019 40ft Esri Community Maps Contributors, MassGIS, BuildingFootprintUSA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA | Marcel Belaval Hydrologist – EPA R1 Water Division Belaval.Marcel@EPA.gov Three Bays Bog UAS Survey, 7/16/2019 40ft Esri Community Maps Contributors, MassGIS, BuildingFootprintUSA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA | Marcel Belaval Hydrologist – EPA R1 Water Division Belaval.Marcel@EPA.gov Three Bays Bog UAS Survey, 7/16/2019 40ft Esri Community Maps Contributors, MassGIS, BuildingFootprintUSA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA | Marcel Belaval Hydrologist – EPA R1 Water Division Belaval.Marcel@EPA.gov Three Bays Bog UAS Survey, 7/16/2019 40ft Esri Community Maps Contributors, MassGIS, BuildingFootprintUSA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA | Marcel Belaval Hydrologist – EPA R1 Water Division Belaval.Marcel@EPA.gov Three Bays Bog UAS Survey, 7/16/2019 40ft Esri Community Maps Contributors, MassGIS, BuildingFootprintUSA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA | Marcel Belaval Hydrologist – EPA R1 Water Division Belaval.Marcel@EPA.gov Three Bays Bog UAS Survey, 7/16/2019 40ft Esri Community Maps Contributors, MassGIS, BuildingFootprintUSA, Esri, HERE, Garmin, SafeGraph, INCREMENT P, METI/NASA, USGS, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA | Marcel Belaval Hydrologist – EPA R1 Water Division Belaval.Marcel@EPA.gov Three Bays Bog UAS Survey, 7/16/2019 40ft Appendix C6: Thermal map for Cell 1 (Big Coombs) Ru 8og Legend ti Pumphouseo Appendix C7: Farmer notes with wet areas circled in green 9/27/21, 2:18 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/4ZKK5HUE2BFCTOFTKXY6WP2BVE/resources#migratory-birds 1/13 IPaC resource list This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat (collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be directly or indirectly aected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood and extent of eects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site-specic (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project-specic (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information. Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS oce(s) with jurisdiction in the dened project area. Please read the introduction to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section. Location Barnstable County, Massachusetts Local oce New England Ecological Services Field Oce  (603) 223-2541  (603) 223-0104 70 Commercial Street, Suite 300 Concord, NH 03301-5094 http://www.fws.gov/newengland U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service IPaC Appendix C8: USFWS IPaC data check 9/27/21, 2:18 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/4ZKK5HUE2BFCTOFTKXY6WP2BVE/resources#migratory-birds 2/13 Endangered species This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project level impacts. The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species. Additional areas of inuence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly aected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a sh population even if that sh does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water ow downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any potential eects to species, additional site-specic and project-specic information is often required. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local oce and a species list which fullls this requirement can only be obtained by requesting an o cial species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local eld oce directly. For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an o cial species list by doing the following: 1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE. 2. Click DEFINE PROJECT. 3. Log in (if directed to do so). 4. Provide a name and description for your project. 5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST. Listed species and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the sheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheries ). Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list. Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction. 1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more information. IPaC only shows species that are regulated by USFWS (see FAQ). 2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an o ce of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce. The following species are potentially aected by activities in this location: Mammals 1 2 NAME STATUS 9/27/21, 2:18 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/4ZKK5HUE2BFCTOFTKXY6WP2BVE/resources#migratory-birds 3/13 Insects Flowering Plants Critical habitats Potential eects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves. THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS AT THIS LOCATION. Migratory birds Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis Wherever found No critical habitat has been designated for this species. http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9045 Threatened NAME STATUS Monarch Buttery Danaus plexippus Wherever found No critical habitat has been designated for this species. http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9743 Candidate NAME STATUS American Chaseed Schwalbea americana Wherever found No critical habitat has been designated for this species. http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1286 Endangered Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act . Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below. 1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918. 2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. Additional information can be found using the following links: Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/ birds-of-conservation-concern.php 1 2 9/27/21, 2:18 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/4ZKK5HUE2BFCTOFTKXY6WP2BVE/resources#migratory-birds 4/13 The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may nd in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur o the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found below. For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area. Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/ conservation-measures.php Nationwide conservation measures for birds http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/nationwidestandardconservationmeasures.pdf NAME BREEDING SEASON (IF A BREEDING SEASON IS INDICATED FOR A BIRD ON YOUR LIST, THE BIRD MAY BREED IN YOUR PROJECT AREA SOMETIME WITHIN THE TIMEFRAME SPECIFIED, WHICH IS A VERY LIBERAL ESTIMATE OF THE DATES INSIDE WHICH THE BIRD BREEDS ACROSS ITS ENTIRE RANGE. "BREEDS ELSEWHERE" INDICATES THAT THE BIRD DOES NOT LIKELY BREED IN YOUR PROJECT AREA.) American Oystercatcher Haematopus palliatus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8935 Breeds Apr 15 to Aug 31 Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in oshore areas from certain types of development or activities. http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626 Breeds Oct 15 to Aug 31 9/27/21, 2:18 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/4ZKK5HUE2BFCTOFTKXY6WP2BVE/resources#migratory-birds 5/13 Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9399 Breeds May 15 to Oct 10 Blue-winged Warbler Vermivora pinus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA Breeds May 1 to Jun 30 Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds May 20 to Jul 31 Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa avipes This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9679 Breeds elsewhere Long-eared Owl asio otus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3631 Breeds Mar 1 to Jul 15 Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds May 1 to Jul 31 Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres morinella This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA Breeds elsewhere Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA Breeds elsewhere Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. http://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9480 Breeds elsewhere Willet Tringa semipalmata This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds Apr 20 to Aug 5 Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Breeds May 10 to Aug 31 9/27/21, 2:18 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/4ZKK5HUE2BFCTOFTKXY6WP2BVE/resources#migratory-birds 6/13 Probability of Presence Summary The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the FAQ "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting to interpret this report. Probability of Presence () Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey eort (see below) can be used to establish a level of condence in the presence score. One can have higher condence in the presence score if the corresponding survey eort is also high. How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps: 1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 0.25. 2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 (0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2. 3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical conversion so that all possible values fall between 0 and 10, inclusive. This is the probability of presence score. To see a bar's probability of presence score, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. Breeding Season () Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project area. Survey Eort () Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys. To see a bar's survey eort range, simply hover your mouse cursor over the bar. No Data () A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week. Survey Timeframe Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant information. The exception to this is areas o the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse. 9/27/21, 2:18 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/4ZKK5HUE2BFCTOFTKXY6WP2BVE/resources#migratory-birds 7/13 no data survey eort breeding season probability of presence SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC American Oystercatcher BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) Bald Eagle Non-BCC Vulnerable (This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in oshore areas from certain types of development or activities.) Black-billed Cuckoo BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) Blue-winged Warbler BCC - BCR (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA) 9/27/21, 2:18 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/4ZKK5HUE2BFCTOFTKXY6WP2BVE/resources#migratory-birds 8/13 Bobolink BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) Lesser Yellowlegs BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) Long-eared Owl BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) Prairie Warbler BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) Ruddy Turnstone BCC - BCR (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA) 9/27/21, 2:18 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/4ZKK5HUE2BFCTOFTKXY6WP2BVE/resources#migratory-birds 9/13 Rusty Blackbird BCC - BCR (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA) Short-billed Dowitcher BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) Willet BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) SPECIES JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Wood Thrush BCC Rangewide (CON) (This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska.) Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds. Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site. What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specied location? The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC)and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location. 9/27/21, 2:18 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/4ZKK5HUE2BFCTOFTKXY6WP2BVE/resources#migratory-birds 10/13 The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried and ltered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identied as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to oshore activities or development. Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the AKN Phenology Tool . What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specied location? The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets . Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link. How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, migrating or present year-round in my project area? To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-round), you may refer to the following resources: The Cornell Lab of Ornithology All About Birds Bird Guide, or (if you are unsuccessful in locating the bird of interest there), the Cornell Lab of Ornithology Neotropical Birds guide. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specied. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area. What are the levels of concern for migratory birds? Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern: 1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacic Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands); 2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and 3. "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in oshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. oshore energy development or longline shing). Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, eorts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics. Details about birds that are potentially aected by o shore projects For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area o the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also oers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results les underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage. 9/27/21, 2:18 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/4ZKK5HUE2BFCTOFTKXY6WP2BVE/resources#migratory-birds 11/13 Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring. What if I have eagles on my list? If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur. Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my speci ed location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey eort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey eort is the key component. If the survey eort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey eort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to con rm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be con rmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page. Facilities National Wildlife Refuge lands Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns. THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS AT THIS LOCATION. Fish hatcheries THERE ARE NO FISH HATCHERIES AT THIS LOCATION. 9/27/21, 2:18 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/4ZKK5HUE2BFCTOFTKXY6WP2BVE/resources#migratory-birds 12/13 Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes. For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District. Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine the actual extent of wetlands on site. This location overlaps the following wetlands: Data limitations The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identi ed based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classi cation established through image analysis. The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth veri cation work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems. Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or eld work. There may be occasional di erences in polygon boundaries or classi cations between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site. Data exclusions FRESHWATER EMERGENT WETLAND PEM1E FRESHWATER FORESTED/SHRUB WETLAND PSS1E PSS1Ed PFO1E FRESHWATER POND PUBHx OTHER Pf RIVERINE R5UBH R5UBFx R4SBC A full description for each wetland code can be found at the National Wetlands Inventory website 9/27/21, 2:18 PM IPaC: Explore Location resources https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/4ZKK5HUE2BFCTOFTKXY6WP2BVE/resources#migratory-birds 13/13 Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tubercid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery. Data precautions Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may dene and describe wetlands in a dierent manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this inventory, to dene the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities involving modi cations within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate federal, state, or local agencies concerning speci ed agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may aect such activities. 4 Appendix D: Cranberry Bog Restoration and Management: Nutrient Removal Pilot Update within the Hamblin Bog System, Town of Barnstable, MA (SMAST 2022) Coastal Systems Program. March 2022. Page 1 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Cranberry Bog Restoration and Management: Nutrient Removal Pilot Update within the Hamblin Bog System, Town of Barnstable, MA. UPDATED - Final Assessment and Quantification of the Nutrient Loading/Uptake through the Upper Marston s Mills River Bogs in Barnstable Dr. Brian L. Howes, Elizabeth Ells, Ph.D. Candidate, Amber Unruh, M.S. Lisabeth White, M.S. Coastal Systems Program School of Marine Science and Technology -UMD DRAFT FINAL June1, 2022 Coastal Systems Program. March 2022. Page 2 Overview: The Massachusetts Estuaries Project (MEP) Nitrogen Threshold Report for the Three Bays System indicated that the Marstons Mills River is one of the main collection points for freshwater and nitrogen (N) discharging from the Marstons Mills River sub-watershed to the headwaters of the Three Bays estuary. The MEP Watershed-Embayment Assessment and Modeling effort for the Three Bays estuary found that this large complex estuarine system is presently impaired by N enrichment from sources within its watershed and that the tidal flushing of bay waters was efficient. Restoration of this system will involve the reduction in the nitrogen load from the watershed to meet the Mass DEP/USEPA Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) restoration threshold for this estuary. After considerations over which potential site along the River would be suitable for restoration, the Upper Marstons Mills River cranberry bogs (also called Hamblin Bogs, after the late owner John Hamblin) was considered an ideal location. This site is located south of Bog Road and east of River Road. Nitrogen loading from Hamblin Bogs to the Marstons Mills River has been quantified, at a multitude of sites along the main and branching channels, weekly from 2018-2020 then bi-weekly from 2020-2021 to determine the inputs of highest load to the system. This site is up-gradient of the Three Bays Estuarine system and is an ideal location for pilot projects to restore natural processes for N attenuation that have been lost through man-made modifications (conversion of wetlands to cranberry bogs). By restoring natural ecological functions, nitrogen attenuation will be enhanced over present conditions, resulting in reduced N transport to the head of the Three Bays estuary. To ensure success in the implementation of a pilot project, the Barnstable Clean Water Coalition (BCWC) partnered with the Coastal Systems Group (CSP) to monitor the water flow and nutrient inputs/outputs throughout the Hamblin Bogs to accurately determine the present sources and sinks of N within the Hamblin Bogs system. Monitoring flow and nutrient levels across the system was to set a baseline for comparison with future restoration and supported the identification of areas presently exhibiting N attenuation and suggested areas where increased attenuation might be possible with habitat restoration. Naturally, cranberry bogs can attenuate up to 30% of the nitrogen load passing through them (MEP analysis), making them an important restoration tool. Critical to understanding the potential for enhanced natural attenuation in restored cranberry bogs is quantifying the uptake and release of nutrients throughout the current bog system. Presently, the Hamblin Bogs are fed by Middle Lake and Muddy Pond and form the headwaters of the Marstons Mill River, which runs through the center of the bog network, and finally discharges to the head of the Three Bays Estuary. Previous Work: In 2019, CSP scientists: a) determine freshwater flow volumes and directions within the Hamblin Bog system, b) conduct frequent open channel flow sampling to determine nutrient concentrations at multiple locations throughout the bog system, c) with the volumetric flow (a) and nutrient concentration data (b) quantify the baseline nutrient input and output N loads from the component bog cells, d) assess the speciation of nutrients throughout the bog system to clarify regions where transformations are occurring and where denitrification may be enhanced, e) provide recommendation for evaluating nitrogen removal by this bog system. The present effort covers monitoring conducted throughout 2020 and is the companion report to the one on the 2019 monitoring, previously submitted. For 2020 the monitoring followed mostly the same sampling locations and the same procedures used in 2019. However, in 2020, CSP scientists: a) removed station HB6 due to flow being confounded by recycling of irrigation water, b) added stations HB10, c) added continuous stage recorders to HB1, HB4, Coastal Systems Program. March 2022. Page 3 HB5, HB10, with a recorder temporarily at HB11 for capture release of harvest flood water, d) added a component bog cell, Box5, between HB10 and HB4, and e) performed hydrologic and land use analysis for groundwater flow and load inputs to the component bog cells. These changes were performed to further refine the annualized flow, nutrient load, and speciation of those nutrients throughout the component bog cells. Acknowledgements: The authors are thankful for the contributions of multiple individuals and organizations who have generously collaborated to make this baseline study possible. We would like to acknowledge the support and collaboration of the BCWC, John and Janet Hamblin, Scott Horsely and support from School for Marine Science and Technology (SMAST). We are also grateful for the sampling efforts of Chancery Perks, Betsy White, Amber Unruh, Elizabeth Ells, and our multitude of volunteers and field assistance by Lindsey Counsell. This field team’s on the ground attention to detail greatly contributed to our understanding of system function. The technical and analytical support that has been freely and graciously provided by Dale Goehringer, Sara Sampieri, Jennifer Benson, and others within the CSP, SMAST, University of Massachusetts Dartmouth. Figure 1. 2019-2020 sampling map. Station map (blue circles), with arrows indicating flow under “normal” conditions (i.e. no harvest or winter floods). Outlined in different colors are the five component cells of Hamblin Bogs, which are used to assess nitrogen attenuation within each box. The stars indicate the new sampling sites added to assess box model N sources. Coastal Systems Program. March 2022. Page 4 Methods Measurements of Stream Flow and Nutrient Concentrations Field data collection was initiated July 25, 2018, and continued through December 2020, with some archived samples collected through November 2021. The field effort was focused on weekly measurement of stream velocity for calculation of flow and stream sampling to determine nutrient concentrations. Pairing stream flow (m3/day) with sample nutrient concentration (mg/L) yields mass load of nutrients (kg/day) at each measurement location within the bog system. Stream velocities were measured approximately weekly using a Marsh McBirney electromagnetic flow meter. Water samples were collected in parallel with velocity measurements and analyzed for nutrients (nitrogen and phosphorus) at the Coastal Systems Analytical Facility. For sites without a continuous stage recorder (HB2, HB8, HB9 and the additional new sites), volumetric discharge (m3/d) and nutrient concentrations were interpolated between sampling dates to determine the approximate volumetric flow and nutrient concentrations on dates between sampling events. Coupling the flow and nutrient concentrations results in total nutrient load at critical junctures throughout the Upper Marstons Mills River Bogs. For sites with a continuously recording stage recorder (HB1, HB4, and HB5), the water depths were used to develop a stage-discharge relationship, therefore the analysis of loads throughout the bog system was based on average daily stage measurements. Use of continuous stage recorders provides daily flow measurements throughout the bog system. Thus, providing a more robust flow determination for assessing nutrient attenuation in the Hamblin Bogs. Bi-weekly sampling began in 2021 for HB1, HB4, HB5, HB9, HB9A, HB12, HB12A, HB13, HB13A, HB14, and HB14 after weekly sampling in 2020. HB 2 was sampled when flooded. Stream velocities at HB1, HB4, HB9, HB9A, and HB14 were measured in culverts with dimensions ranging from 2ft to 3.4ft in diameter. Stream velocities at HB2, HB4A, HB5, HB12, HB12A, HB13, HB13A, and HB14A were measured using open-channel flow methods in a natural stream channel. Nutrient assays performed on samples collected were conductivity, dissolved nutrients, TP, POC/N. These additional sites (see Figure 1 purple stars) were chosen based on previous 2019 data collection. Figure 1 indicated different Boxes to determine individual load contributions from each. Box1 and Box 2 had the highest levels of N with Box 1 only having 6% (422 kg/yr) N attenuation, while Box 2 has 14% (1258 kg/yr). It should be noted that cranberry bogs are engineered systems, where water is impeded and stored, released, and potentially recycled or lost through frost and summer irrigations. The installation of continuously recording vented calibrated water level gauges, installed at multiple sites to yield the level of water fluctuations throughout the bog channels would be necessary to determine changes in water movement throughout the system. These have been implemented at HB4, HB1, and HB5, yet use of rating curve was not possible at any site due to inaccuracies in flood and release timing. Use of traditional rating curves requires careful logging of weir board adjustments made to hold/release water. Under these circumstances, a multi-phase stage discharge relationship would need to be used. However, the high frequency of direct measurement of flow was sufficient to determine input/output and internal N transport. Table 1. Stations where parallel measurements of volumetric flow and nutrient concentrations were sampled within the Hamblin Bog System at nominal weekly intervals. If there was no flow at a station, then water samples were not collected. For example, HB1 had 103 flow measurements and 100 water samples collected out of 107 sampling events. Coastal Systems Program. March 2022. Page 5 Water samples were field filtered (0.2 µm) for dissolved nutrients into 60-mL acid-washed bottles with parallel whole water samples collected in 1-L acid washed brown HDPE bottles. Water quality samples were analyzed by the Coastal Systems Analytical Facility at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth School for Marine Science and Technology. All sample processing occurred within 24 hours of sample collection. Water samples were assayed for ammonium (NH 4 +) by indophenol/hypochlorite method, nitrate + nitrite (NO x -) by cadmium reduction on QuikChem8000 Lachat auto analyzer and dissolved organic nitrogen (DON) by persulfate digestion and total phosphorus (TP) with persulfate oxidation and determination of ortho-phosphate by molybdate/ascorbic acid method. Upon return to the laboratory the whole water sample was processed for particulate organic carbon and nitrogen and specific conductivity. Particulate carbon and nitrogen samples were filtered through pre-combusted 25mm Whatman glass fiber filters, dried at 65 ˚C, and combusted in a Perkin Elmer Series II CHN analyzer. Specific conductivity was determined using a calibrated temperature compensated probe with meter. Site Description: The present study area consists of approximately 100 acres of wetland, known as Hamblin Bogs. The bogs and pump houses within this study area, once entirely owned by John Hamblin, were sub-divided into functional components for analysis as seen in Figure 1. Additional sites,were included to surmise the sources of nitrate by measuring load and nutrient concentration in the individual channels of Box 1 and Box 2. Box 1 and Box 2 were chosen as it has the highest levels of nitrate flowing into the rest of the bogs. Surface water sources entering Hamblin Bogs are comprised of the Marstons Mills River and two small streams from Muddy Pond and Middle Lake. The Marstons Mills River enters the bog system at Coastal Systems Program. March 2022. Page 6 station HB10 and flows through stations HB4, HB9, HB9A, and HB1. The Marstons Mills River exits the bog system at station HB5. Along the main stem of the river between its point of entry (HB10) and where it exits (HB5), additional flow enters from several known water sources: 1) springs in the northern bog area (Big Coombs), 2) flood and irrigation water from M&M bogs, and 3) direct groundwater discharges. The small stream from Muddy Pond enters the system at station HB2, flows through LaPointe West Bogs, with most of the water passing through station HB8, entering the swamp, before combining with the main bog channel. The small stream from Middle Lake once entered at station HB3, which has a small holding area where water then flows to either the north or south side of Run Bog, before eventually joining with the main bog channel. Results and Discussion Water Flow Analysis: As an active flow-through bog system there is always significant water movement through the system in the River channels and as water is transferred around the various bog cells as required for agricultural practices. To effectively maintain the cranberries, water is transferred for frost protection, pesticide applications, summer irrigation, harvest floods (if wet harvest), and winter floods (to protect the vines from freezing. During The months of November 2020 and February 2021 the bogs were flooded which limited sampling and flow measurements. In addition, some uncertainty exists due to the pumping of water for irrigation (through a multitude on on-site pump houses) and flooding which complicates the determination of water volumes and associated nitrogen and phosphorus loads through the Hamblin Bogs system. Sampling within the main channel (Figure 2) was done at HB4A. In Box1, HB4 captures the surface water entering Box1 and HB9 captures all the water leaving. HB4A captures the water from HB4, HB12, HB12A, HB13, and HB13A. In Box2, HB9 flows to HB9A and captures the water, leaving BOX2, before it exits to HB1 and then the system permanently at HB5, through Box3. HB14, HB14A, and HB15A all flow into a small basin that flows outs to HB1. Water Quality Analysis: Nutrient samples collected at each site provide quantitative information on the nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations and how they vary throughout the system. The highest total nitrogen (TN) concentrations within Hamblin Bogs are typically found at HB10, with a range of 2.23 to 2.91 mg/L and HB4, with a range of 1.88 to 3.13 mg/L (Table 2). The TN concentrations along the Marstons Mills River stations (HB4, 6, 9, 1, and 5) decrease as the water flows toward HB5. The TN concentration at HB2, originating from Muddy Pond, is typically ~ 0.5 mg/L, except during November and December of 2018, when it reaches an average TN concentration of 0.8 mg/L, and February 2020 at 1.05 mg/L. The rise in this small pond coincides with nutrient release from the dense macrophyte community within the pond and likely explains the concentration rise in the Muddy Pond outflow. However, the rise in TN concentration during November and December 2019 was less in 2019 and there was no flow measured from August to December 2020. As the water passes from HB2 to HB8 the TN concentration remains nearly the same except in May to September of 2020 where the values were higher due to flow changes. Similar to HB2, the TN concentration at HB3, originating from Middle Lake, is quite low ranging from 0.2 to 0.7 mg/L at HB3N & 3S. The sites receiving surface water flows from ponds (HB2 and HB3) have the lowest TN concentration. This almost certainly result from nitrogen attenuation during passage through these ponds. Coastal Systems Program. March 2022. Page 7 The total nitrogen of sites along the main channel of the bog system, upper Marstons Mills River (HB4, 9, 1, and HB5), are typically dominated by dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN = NH4+ + NOx-), where sites HB10, 4, and HB9 always have greater than 60% DIN, averaging ~80% DIN throughout the year. At HB2 and HB3S, the total nitrogen is dominated by organic nitrogen (DON+PON). These waters derive from ponds and lakes, as the inorganic nitrogen is generally transformed to organic nitrogen by biological processes in the lakes and ponds. Similarly, since most of the water at HB8 comes from HB2, the total nitrogen consists of mostly organic nitrogen, except for October 2018 and 2019, where there was no flow at HB2 and very low flows at HB8, likely from groundwater inputs, resulting in DIN being the main nitrogen constituent. In October 2019, HB2 continued to have flow, thus the nitrogen at HB8 mostly consisted of organic nitrogen. Sites with high DIN represent areas where enhanced nitrogen removal is likely possible. In addition to nitrogen, it is important to assess the phosphorus concentration changes throughout Hamblin Bogs. The TP concentrations reveals that phosphorus concentrations increases from HB10 to HB9 as water passes through a different bog system and into HB4 where it travels through Box 1 to HB9. From HB9 to HB1 the phosphorus concentrations increase, a pattern in 2018, 2019, and 2020 (Table 4). The pond outfall has concentrations of total phosphorus ranging from 0.03 to 0.11 mg/L, with highest to lowest concentrations occurring in the following order: harvest, winter, September, and spring (2019 report). There was no 2020 data as this site was boarded but had leaks so an accurate concentration reading was not possible. Phosphorus concentrations at HB2 range from 0.02 to 0.04 mg/L. HB3 (S&N) has the lowest TP concentrations of all the sites at approximately 0.03 mg/L or lower, until August 2019 when concentrations rise, with highest TP concentrations measured in October 2019 at 0.12 and 0.16 mg/L which then lowers again from November 2019 until July 2020 within the initial range. Table 2. Total nitrogen concentrations (monthly) at all stations in the Hamblin Bogs System, in order from up-gradient station (HB10) to the most down gradient station (HB5). The most up-gradient station (HB10) changes to HB4 when the HB10 culvert is retrofitted in August 2020. Total nitrogen concentrations are represented as monthly averages. Coastal Systems Program. March 2022. Page 8 Table 3. Total nitrogen concentrations (monthly) at all additional stations in the Hamblin Bogs System. Table 4. Total phosphorus concentrations (monthly) at all stations in the Hamblin Bogs system, in order from up-gradient station (HB10) to the most down gradient station (HB5). The most up-gradient station (HB10) changes to HB4 when the HB10 culvert is retrofitted in August 2020. Total phosphorus Coastal Systems Program. March 2022. Page 9 concentrations are represented as monthly averages, and it appears that phosphorus pick-up in bog passage is most pronounced in spring and summer. Table 5. Total phosphorus concentrations (monthly) at all additional stations in the Hamblin Bogs System. Table 6. Total phosphorus loads at all stations in the Hamblin Bogs system, in order from up-gradient station (HB10) to the most down gradient station (HB5). The most up-gradient station (HB10) changes to HB4 when the HB10 culvert is retrofitted in August 2020. Coastal Systems Program. March 2022. Page 10 Table 7. Total phosphorus concentrations (monthly) at all additional stations in the Hamblin Bogs System. Coastal Systems Program. March 2022. Page 11 Nutrient Load Uptake Analysis: Nutrient concentrations and flows were paired to understand how the nutrient load (mass of nitrogen and phosphorus) varied from one box to the next as nutrients are taken up or released within the Hamblin Bogs system. The additional sites were included for Box1 and Box 2 to determine where the highest N is entering into the bogs. To identify the areas of greatest nutrient uptake/release, the system was divided into five functional units/boxes (Figure 1) as previously discussed in the 2019 report. Each of the boxes will be assessed using a box model with annualized inputs (stream, groundwater, and precipitation) and outputs (stream and evaporation). A balance of “salts” (e/g/ Specific Conductivity) was developed for each box to help confirm that all water inputs and outputs, were captured. Phosphorus concentrations and loads increase as water moves through the bogs. There was no attenuation of phosphorus on an annual basis in any component boxes (Table 4 and Table 5). Therefore, analysis of nitrogen attenuation will be the focus in these box models. Box 1 –HB4, HB9, Big Coombs Pump House, and M&M bogs Box 1 receives nutrient loads (flow and inputs), from an up-watershed bog through HB4, with additional inputs from groundwater and direct rainfall/dryfall. At the end of harvest flood (November) and winter flood (start of spring), water from Pond View bog and M&M bog is released, draining into Nursery Bog and then Reservoir 1 (see Figure 1). The loads from Box 1 exit through HB9 with some of the water being “recycled” during the summer and frost protection irrigations as it is pumped back up onto the bogs. There is a relatively insignificant amount of water loss through evaporation at HB9. Coastal Systems Program. March 2022. Page 12 Figure 2. Monthly water flow and total nitrogen load at stations HB4 (IN) and HB9 (OUT) from August 2018 to December 2020. The surface water input (HB4) and output (HB9), with associated TN loads, monthly from August 2018 to December 2020 is shown in Figure 2. There is a general increase in TN and surface flow from HB4 to HB9. In order to assess the likelihood of nitrogen attenuation within Box1, groundwater (GW), precipitation, and evaporation flows, salt load, and N load are included in the budget calculation. The water balances to 1%. The balance of water is very close because GW flow is determined by the difference of measured water inputs and outputs at HB4 and HB9. The salt balance is within 5% indicating that most water inputs and outputs were measured in Box1, therefore, N attenuation of 12% is representative for Box1 annual conditions (Table 8). The sum of all N load inputs (HB4 + GW + precip.) minus the sum of N load outputs (HB9) provides an estimate of 751 kg N attenuated per year in Box1 (Table 8). Coastal Systems Program. March 2022. Page 13 Table 8. Water and salt balance to 1% and 5%, respectively, with 12% nitrogen attenuation in Box1 based on annualized inputs and outputs in Box1. Pilot Project-BOX 1 Within the Hamblin Bog system, the highest levels of N travel from HB4 through BOX1 and into BOX2. The design constraints for a pilot restoration project prohibited the use of the main channels of the boxes (see Figure 1) so inflowing smaller channels were the optimal location. The overall goal of the project was to restore natural attenuation of N processes that have been lost through man-made modifications. Within BOX1 the sample locations that were added are HB12, HB12A, HB13, and HB13A. HB12A is closest to HB4A (Figure 1) and is the outflow for channels in the upper NE corner of the bog. At HB12 there is an outflow pipe from an unnamed water source that contributes to the load leading to the main channel that is captured at HB4A. Flows were variable based on high levels of vegetation at these sites. Data at HB13 and HB13A was collected until the flow was reduced due to flooding at the HB13A site. Box 2 –HB9, HB1, and Winnies Pump House Box 2 receives surface water and nutrient inputs through HB9, with additional water and nutrient inputs from groundwater and direct rainfall/dryfall. Virtually all of the water and nutrient outputs is measured at HB1, with a relatively insignificant amount of water loss through evaporation. Within box two, water is Coastal Systems Program. March 2022. Page 14 also “recycled”, meaning that through summer and frost protection irrigations, water in the small reservoir above HB1 is pumped back into Winnies bog for irrigation. Although not measured directly, it is possible that there is some nutrient uptake through this irrigation. Figure 3. Monthly water flow and total nitrogen load at stations HB9 (IN) and HB1 (OUT) from Aug 2018 to Dec 2020. Coastal Systems Program. March 2022. Page 15 Figure 3 shows the surface water input (HB9) and surface water output (HB1), with associated N loads at each site through each month. In general, the total N load and water flow increases between HB9 and HB1, except for in March, October of 2019 and again in March 2020 where there was little change in N load and again in August and September 2020. In Box2, GW inputs are assessed similar to Box1, the water inputs between HB9 and HB1 are used to estimate groundwater flow inputs, which is coupled with the average GW nitrogen concentration of 2.02 mg/L to estimate the GW nitrogen load input. The water balances to 0%. The balance of water is very close because GW flow is determined by the difference of measured water inputs and outputs at HB9 and HB1. The salt balance is within 2% indicating that most water inputs and outputs were measured in Box2. The sum of all N load inputs (HB9 + GW) minus the sum of N load outputs (HB1) provides an estimate of N attenuation of -7% (-481 kg/yr) is representative for Box2 annual conditions (Table 9). The negative attenuation could have been from the road construction being done during the sampling season that saw the road running parallel to the bog being completely redesigned. Table 9. Water and salt balance to 0% and 2 %, respectively, with -7% nitrogen attenuation in Box2 based on annualized inputs and outputs in Box2. Coastal Systems Program. March 2022. Page 16 Box1+Box2 Combined – HB4, HB1, Big Coombs Pump House, Winnies Pump House, and M&M bogs Box1 and Box2 combined is defined by the outer of perimeter of Box1 & Box2 (Figure 2). These two boxes are combined to provide information on N attenuation during the summer months, since HB9 was not sampled until October 2018. Box1 & Box2 receives surface water and nutrient inputs through HB4, with additional water and nutrient inputs from groundwater and direct rainfall/dryfall. Virtually all of the water and nutrient outputs are measured at HB1, with a relatively insignificant amount of water loss through evaporation. Within Box1 & Box2 water is also “recycled”, meaning that through summer and frost protection irrigations, water in the small reservoirs near Big Coombs and Winnies Pump Houses is pumped back up onto Big Coombs and Winnies bogs for irrigation, harvest, and winter flood. Although not measured directly, it is possible that there is some nutrient uptake through this irrigation of the bog surface. In Box1 & Box2, GW inputs are assessed in a similar manner as for Box1 and Box2, the water inputs between input (HB4) and output (HB1) are used to estimate groundwater flow inputs. Then applying the derived average GW nitrogen concentration of 2.02 mg/L, the GW nitrogen load input was determined. The sum of all N load inputs (HB4 + GW) minus the sum of N load outputs (HB1) provides an estimate of N attenuation in Box2 (Table 10). Table 10. Analysis of annual flow and load inputs in Box1 and Box2 combined. Box 3 –HB1, HB8, HB3 (S&N), Lovell’s Cove Pump House, and LaPointe East Pump House Box3 receives surface water and nutrient inputs through HB1, 8, and 3, with additional water and nutrient inputs from groundwater and direct rainfall/dryfall. Virtually all of the water and nutrient output is measured at HB5, with an insignificant amount of water loss through evaporation. Within Box3 water is also “recycled”, meaning that through summer and frost protection irrigations, water in the small channel near Lovell’s Cove Pump House is pumped back up onto Lovell’s Cove bogs for irrigation, harvest, and winter flood. Similarly, water in the channel near the LaPointe East Pump House is pumped onto Run Bogs, LaPointe, and Howes bogs. Water irrigated on LaPointe bogs is lost from Box3 into Box4, reentering Box3 through HB8. Although not measured directly, it is possible that there is some nutrient uptake through this irrigation of the bog surface. Coastal Systems Program. March 2022. Page 17 Figure 4. Monthly water flow and total nitrogen load at INPUT stations HB1, 3N, 3S, 8 and OUTPUT at station HB5 from August 2018 to December 2020. Coastal Systems Program. March 2022. Page 18 Figure4 shows the surface water inputs (HB1, 3N, 3S, and 8) and surface water output (HB5), with associated N loads at each site through each month. In Box3, GW inputs are assessed as for Box1 and Box2, the water inputs between sources (HB1, 3N, 3S, and HB8) and output (HB5) are used to estimate groundwater flow inputs. Then applying the derived average GW nitrogen concentration of 2.02 mg/L the GW nitrogen load input was determined. The sum of all N load inputs (HB1, 3N, 3S, HB8, + GW) minus the sum of N load outputs (HB5) provides an estimate of N attenuation of 6% (518kg/yr) is representative for Box3 annual conditions (Table 5). Site HB3N was discontinued in 2019 and HB3S stopped its data collection in August 2020 due to changes in bog use. HB8 has no data after July 2020 or from November through February 2019. The latter due to flooded or too low water levels that stopped sampling and velocity collection. Sampling of HB8 ceased after July 2020 as the water would seep through the boards and did not give an accurate velocity. This led to the water and salt balance not being as close to the other boxes. Missing inputs would be from the HB3S and the HB8 flows that could not be accounted for. Table 11. Water and salt balance to -14% and -12 %, respectively, with 6% nitrogen attenuation in Box3 based on annualized inputs and outputs in Box3. Box 4 –HB2, HB8, and LaPointe Pump House Box 4 receives most of the surface water and nutrient inputs through HB2, with three additional water and nutrient inputs: 1) groundwater, 2) direct rainfall/dryfall inputs, 3) irrigation water from Lapointe Pump House for the LaPointe bogs and potentially 4) from Howes bog which has very low and intermittent flow. Virtually all of the water and nutrient output is measured at HB8, with an insignificant amount of water loss through evaporation. Within Box4 water is also “recycled”, meaning that through summer and Coastal Systems Program. March 2022. Page 19 frost protection irrigations, water in the channel near LaPointe Pump House is pumped back up onto Run Bog, Howes, and LaPointe bogs for irrigation. Although not measured directly, it is possible that there is some nutrient uptake through this irrigation of the bog surface. Figure 5. Monthly water flow and total nitrogen load at stations HB2 (IN) and HB8 (OUT) from August 2018 to July 2020. Coastal Systems Program. March 2022. Page 20 Figure 5 shows the surface water input (HB2) and surface water output (HB8), with associated N loads at each site through each month, which need to be adjusted for groundwater to accurately calculate attenuation. In general, the total N load and water flow increases between HB2 and HB8. In Box4, GW inputs are assessed in the same manner as the other boxes. First, the groundwater flow inputs are estimated as the difference between HB2 and HB8 since the major water inputs have been measured directly (i.e., GW flow is 226 m3/day). Then applying the box specific derived average GW nitrogen concentration of 0.45 mg/L the GW nitrogen load input was determined. The GW nitrogen concentration is estimated at a time of year when there was no flow from HB2, but water was flowing out at HB8, such that all of the outflowing water was from groundwater discharge to Box4. This GW concentration is different from Box1- 3 because it was inferred through assessment of the surrounding watershed of Box4 the outflow measurements and is consistent with this small subwatershed having few contributing N sources. The sum of all N load inputs (HB2 + GW) minus the sum of N load outputs (HB8) provides an estimate of a negative N attenuation (N contributed by bog cell) of which is representative for Box4 annual conditions. Box3 and Box4 Combined – HB1, HB2, HB3S, HB3N, Lovell’s Cove Pump House, and LaPointe Pump House Box3 and Box4 combined is defined by the outer of perimeter of Box3 & Box4 (Figure 2). These two boxes are combined to provide information on N attenuation during only the summer months, since HB8 was not sampled until October and completed in July 2020. Box3 & Box4 receive surface water and nutrient inputs through HB1, HB2, and HB3S, with additional water and nutrient inputs from groundwater and direct rainfall/dryfall (HB3N not sampled in 2020). Virtually all of the water and nutrient outputs is measured at HB5, with an insignificant amount of water loss through evaporation. Within Box3 & Box4 water is also “recycled”, meaning that through summer and frost protection irrigations, water in the small reservoirs near Lovell’s Cove and LaPointe Pump Houses is pumped back up onto Lovell’s Cove, LaPointe, Run Bog, and Howes bogs for irrigation, harvest, and winter flood. Although not measured directly, it is likely that there is some nutrient uptake through this irrigation. In Box3 & Box4, GW inputs are assessed similar to the individual assessment for Box3 and Box4, the difference in water inputs (HB1, HB2, HB3S) and the output (HB5) are used to estimate groundwater flow inputs. Then applying the derived average GW nitrogen concentration of 2.02 mg/L the GW nitrogen load input was determined. The sum of all N load inputs (HB1, HB2, HB3N, HB3S + GW) minus the sum of N load outputs (HB5) provides an estimate of N attenuation (Table 12). Coastal Systems Program. March 2022. Page 21 Table 12. Analysis of annual flow and load inputs in Box3 and Box4 combined. Table 13. Analysis of annual flow and load inputs in Box3 and Box4 combined. Box5 –HB10 and HB4 Box5 receives surface water and associated nutrient inputs through HB10, with additional water and nutrient inputs from groundwater and direct rainfall/dryfall inputs. Virtually all of the water and nutrient output is measured at HB4, with an insignificant amount of water loss through evaporation. Within Box5 water is also “recycled”, meaning that through summer irrigations, water from the pump house on this section of bog is pumped back up onto the bogs for irrigation. Although not measured directly, it is possible that there is some nutrient uptake through this irrigation. Coastal Systems Program. March 2022. Page 22 Figure 6. Monthly water flow and total nitrogen load at stations HB2 (IN) and HB8 (OUT) from August 2018 to July 2020. Coastal Systems Program. March 2022. Page 23 Figure 6 shows the surface water input (HB10) and surface water output (HB4), with associated N loads through each month, which need to be adjusted for groundwater to accurately calculate attenuation. The total N load and water flow increases between HB10 and HB4 substantially, with an average of 221 m3/day measured flow through HB10 and at least 3,600 m3/day measured flow through HB4 which mirrors the same flows seen in 2019. This indicates that Box5 has significant GW inputs. The nitrogen attenuation of Box5 is determined using the modeled landuse flow for HB10, since there are only measured flows from 8/8/2019 to 9/16/2020. The groundwater flow inputs are estimated as the difference between HB10 (modeled) and HB4 (measured) since they are the only other identified water inputs in Box5. The approximate GW flow is 3,319 m3/day. Based on the landuse analysis, Box5 has a total nitrogen concentration of 2.65 mg/L. Therefore, the total nitrogen load from GW to Box5 is 6.92 kg/day. The sum of all N load inputs (HB10 + GW) minus the sum of N load outputs (HB4) provides an estimate of N attenuation of 5% (186 kg/yr). Table 14. Water and salt balance to 2% and 8 %, respectively, with 5% nitrogen attenuation in Box4 based on annualized inputs and outputs in Box5. Coastal Systems Program. March 2022. Page 24 Entire Hamblin Bogs System – HB2, HB3N, HB3N, HB4, and HB5 By assessing the inputs and outputs of the Hamblin Bogs system as a whole, the nitrogen attenuation of the entire system can be determined. This also helps confirm N attenuation of calculated for individual boxes. For instance, the sum of Harvest attenuation in Box1-5, should be nearly equal to the N attenuation of the entire Hamblin Bogs system if all flows and concentrations are accounted for. The Hamblin Bogs system receives surface water and nutrient inputs through HB2, HB3S, HB10 and HB4 with additional water and nutrient inputs from groundwater and direct rainfall/dryfall. Virtually all the water and nutrient outputs is measured at HB5, with an insignificant amount of water loss through evaporation. Within the Hamblin Bogs, water is also “recycled”, meaning that through summer and frost protection irrigations, water in the small reservoirs near all pump houses is pumped back up onto the respective bogs for irrigation, harvest, and winter flood. Although not measured directly, it is likely that there is some nutrient uptake through this irrigation of the vegetated bog surface. For the Hamblin Bogs system, GW inputs are assessed as the difference in water inputs (HB2, HB3S, and HB4) and the output (HB5) are used to estimate groundwater flow inputs. Then applying the derived average GW nitrogen concentration of 2.02 mg/L the GW nitrogen load input was determined. The sum of all N load inputs (HB2, HB3N, HB3S, HB4 + GW) minus the sum of N load outputs (HB5) provides an estimate of N attenuation (Table 15). In the case of Spring conditions, the N load cannot be determined due to the unknown amount of stream flow from Nursery Bog into the system (Table 15). Harvest conditions cannot be determined as HB10 was removed with HB3N and variable water levels in HB2 were captured. Table 15. Analysis of flow and load inputs in the entire Hamblin Bogs. The lower N attenuation in winter likely results from lower microbial activity at lower temperatures. Coastal Systems Program. March 2022. Page 25 Table 16. Water and salt balance to -17% and -952 %, respectively, with 17% nitrogen attenuation in Box4 based on annualized inputs and outputs in Box5. However, from the above table most of the N attenuation is during the warmer months when the receiving waters of the estuary are most sensitive to N inputs. In Table 16 Due to the lack of a good salt balance, this attenuation could contain significant error. If salt, were balanced then the N attenuation could be much lower. The N attenuation throughout the Hamblin Bogs system can be standardized by the total acreage. In Table 17, the N attenuation over each season is summarized to allow comparison of the standardized N attenuation by the functional units/boxes. With changing amounts of N attenuation over the seasons, the N attenuated per acre also varies significantly. Table 18 also reveals that assessing the Hamblin Bogs into four boxes has some error associated with the N attenuation of the entire Hamblin Bogs. Summer and Winter comparison of Box1+2+3+4 and Entire Hamblin Bogs have some error (around 10%). Interestingly, the entire Hamblin Bogs appears to be consistently attenuating N from August to April with 0.06 to 0.09 kg N/ac/d attenuated. Additionally, Box 2 and 3 appear to have the highest N attenuation per acre (except in Winter for Box 2). The Box1+2+3+4 and Entire Hamblin Bogs are not able to be compared in the winter as there is no data for HB10 so there is an inability to fully state the total contributed amount to HB4.In the Winter, Box 4 was unable to be quantified as the site was flooded. There is ND (no data) designation for Box 4 as HB8 was not recorded due to flooding. Coastal Systems Program. March 2022. Page 26 Table 17. Summary table of nitrogen attenuation in each box and the entire Hamblin Bogs system for 2019 to Harvest 2020. Nitrogen attenuation is standardized by area. In Table 17, for BOX 3 harvest there was no data for HB3N, HB3S, and HB8 so the accuracy of the total N attenuated was affected by the flows. This is also the case for the entire Hamblin Bogs calculation. HB2 HB3S, HB3N, and HB10 had either no flow or too much flow for an accurate velocity reading. Conclusions of Hamblin Bogs Stream Flow Assessment: Synthesis of the data collected during this 29-month preliminary assessment of the Hamblin Bogs system, while not yet an annual sampling, did capture late summer, fall (harvest), winter, and spring conditions for water flow and nitrogen loading. This preliminary synthesis was performed to allow decisions as to revisions to protocols and how to continue. While incomplete, the data to date does support some clear conclusions: 1. Removed HB8 sampling location. This sampling location is affected by the use of water during irrigation as it floods or goes dry periodically. There is also no control over the boards and the water that is allowed to seep through them. HB10 was removed as it was altered by the change in the culvert onto land that is owned by another bog owner. Also, all flow should have been captured through HB4. 2. During summer, harvest and winter, Box 1 receives surface water and nutrient inputs through HB4 with some additional groundwater discharge. However at the end of winter flood (start of spring), water from the Pond View and M&M bogs is released and is accounted for in the outflow (HB9), but was not measured directly. Therefore, attenuation during the flood release period cannot be determined as the inflow N load is only partially accounted for. However, it is clear that Box1 does have significant N attenuation during the other three periods, specifically 2018 into 2019 in the harvest and winter months at 1.6 and 1.0 kg N day-1, respectively and again in 2019 and 2020 with the harvest months having 3.0 and 3.1 kg N day-1. 3. In Box2, containing Winnies bogs and a small reservoir at the southern end of the box, shows significant N attenuation during harvest, winter, and spring seasons for 2019. Under high spring time flow conditions the bogs/small reservoir was attenuating nitrogen at approximately 17% N removal (6.05 kg N day-1), but in 2020 it dropped to 3% removal (1.0 kg N day-1). HB1 has incredibly high flow so the data for 2019 is confounded because generally high flow conditions result in less attenuation which is showcased in 2020. Summer attenuations less at 6% (2.0 kg N day-1) for 2019 and then increased to 20% (3.1 kg N day- 1). In comparison to the summer conditions harvest attenuation is higher while the winter is negligible with the frozen and flooded conditions. Note it is possible that attenuation during this brief high flow interval may be very low due to the limited contact time with the sediments. 4. Box3, receives multiple water and nutrient inputs, with two pump houses that move water around Box3 for irrigation, and pumping some water to Box4 for frost protection and summer irrigation. Box3 shows most attenuation during the harvest and winter flood periods, attenuating 21% (3.6 kg N day-1) and 27% Coastal Systems Program. March 2022. Page 27 (6.7 kg N day-1), respectively in 2019. Winter 2020 mirrors that of 2019 with attenuation at 22% (7.4 kg N day-1 ), but lower N attenuation at harvest as the only input accounted for was HB1. Whereas N attenuation is only 13% during high spring time flow conditions removing 4.9 kg N day-1 in 2019 and 23% (removing 7.7 kg N day-1) in 2020. N attenuation in the summer of 2019 is at 19% (5.1 kg N day-1) and 24% 3.1 (kg N day- 1). In the future, it will be important to closely observe flows that might be going from Box3 into Box4 via Howes bogs to LaPointe bogs culvert during flooded conditions. Additionally, it will be important to gather summertime measurements of irrigation water volume/nutrient concentrations from LaPointe East pumphouse onto LaPointe Bogs, resulting in a loss of water/nutrients from Box3 and an input of water/nutrients to Box4. Refining these flows and loads will increase the accuracy of N attenuation during the critical summer period. 5. Box4 has low volumetric inflow and outflow as HB2 and HB8 are variable due to flooding and release. Additionally, the nutrient concentrations in inflowing water to this box are lower than most other sites in the Hamblin Bogs system, likely due to nutrient attenuation occurring within Muddy Pond before water enters Hamblin Bogs. Groundwater nitrogen concentration within the box is also likely much lower due to a small relatively undeveloped surrounding subwatershed. Box4 shows no N attenuation -0.2 (releasing N) to 0.0 kg N day-1 removed during harvest, winter and spring time conditions in both 2019 and 2020 (2020 attenuation is negative with 0.0 kg N day-1). There was no Harvest data for 2020 as HB8 was no longer a sampling site in 2020 as of July. 6. Box 5 was added in August 2019 to obtain a complete picture of the high concentrations of NO x - entering HB4, but due to someone pulling the gauge out and work on the culvert there was not sufficient data to round out inputs to HB4. HB10 has data from August 2019 until May 2020 with the Summer and Harvest attenuating -0.2 and -0.6 (releasing N) 0.0 kg N day-1 in 2019 with no increased attenuation in 2020. 7. There are high concentrations of NO x - entering Hamblin Bogs at station HB4. Also, all stations down gradient, located along the main flow path (Marstons Mills River) have high nitrate concentrations (HB9, HB1, HB5) which were maintained through 2020. During the harvest and flood periods NO x - declines more than TN, likely because when the bogs are flooded, NO x - is being denitrified and converted to organic N forms. Denitrification may be enhanced through projects like the one discussed above so that sediment oxygen levels can be reduced. However, Managing or restoring the bogs to improve habitat can also enhance nitrogen removal with the proper design. 8. Comparison of summer versus winter N attenuation indicates that during the warmer months when the receiving waters of the estuary are most sensitive to N inputs that N attenuation is more than double during winter (39% vs 15%). Therefore, judgement of the effectiveness of enhanced N removal for a restoration should include seasonal assessments and evaluation relative to the seasonal sensitivity of the receiving estuarine waters. Recommendations for Continued Monitoring: There is potential for a significant increase in nitrogen removal throughout the Hamblin Bogs system at Box 1 and Box 2. Under this preliminary study there is notable N uptake which has been seen in the past 3 years. Therefore, moving forward monitoring should continue with significant improvements to the data collection within this system to more accurately quantify this N uptake, which can potentially be used by the Town of Barnstable to offset the need for wastewater infrastructure (sewers), provided that the increase in nitrogen retention can be quantified and scientifically justified to Mass DEP. The following recommendations are recommended for more accurate determination of baseline flows and N uptake within Coastal Systems Program. March 2022. Page 28 Hamblin Bogs that should be performed prior to any significant changes within the Hamblin Bogs system that would likely increase N attenuation: 1. It is critical to continue the monitoring to a full annual cycle and preferably enough to capture 2 of the critical summer seasons and to analyze the data gathered by the CSP team and continuous monitoring devices. Ensuring that the boards on some of the culverts are water-tight will further address unaccounted for flows and loads. Stage recorders could be useful at all culverts to ensure that all flows are captured. 2. As previously noted it would be important to invest in bog motor run time loggers/logging and sprinkler head flow determination. Irrigation flows are important to determine the rerouting of flow/load within the system and transfer to other bog units. The pumped flows act as recycled water (in the water budget) but might result in additional uptake of nitrogen as found in other systems 3. Construction is occurring between Box2 and Box 3 so monitoring of that will determine when large loads of nutrients are released as construction has been going on at the site. 4. If monitoring continues it will be important to capture the flood release flows and nutrient inputs from Pond View and M&M bogs to determine their individual input loads and determine if there is any N attenuation during this period. 5. The conversion of inactive cranberry bogs to modified wetlands will naturally allow for the increased attenuation of the N travelling through Hamblin Bogs. 5 Appendix E: Figures developed by Horsley Witten referenced in the Basis of Design Memo MW-1 MW-2 MW-3 MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 MW-8 SG-1 SG-2 SG-3 SG-4 SG-5 SG-6 SG-7 Path: H:\Projects\2022\22073 Marstons Mills Bogs\GIS\Originals\MM_Bogs_Monitoring_Locations\MM_Bogs_Monitoring_Locations.aprx Figure HW1 Monitoring Wells and Staff Gauges USGS Staff Gauge Monitoring Wells Staff Gauges Date: 5/17/2023Data Sources: Bureau of GeographicInformation (MassGIS), ESRI This map is for informational purposes andmay not be suitable for legal, engineering,or surveying purposes. Service Layer Credits: World Imagery: Maxar 0 625312.5 Feet I Marstons Mills River Bogs Barnstable, MA Figure HW2Property Line Survey Marstons Mills River Marstons Mills, Barnstable, MA Path: H:\Projects\2022\22073 Marstons Mills Bogs\GIS\Maps\Survey.mxd 42 41 40 39 4 5 4 4 4 3 4 2 43 MW-1 MW-2 MW-3 MW-4 MW-5 MW-6 MW-7 MW-8 SG-1 SG-2 SG-3 SG-4 SG-5 SG-6 SG-7 Path: H:\Projects\2022\22073 Marstons Mills Bogs\GIS\Originals\MM_Bogs_Monitoring_Locations\MM_Bogs_Monitoring_Locations.aprx Figure HW4 Water Table Contour Map - March 15, 2023 Water Table Contours (1 ft) Interpolated Water Table Contours USGS Staff Gauge Monitoring Wells Staff Gauges Date: 5/17/2023Data Sources: Bureau of GeographicInformation (MassGIS), ESRI This map is for informational purposes andmay not be suitable for legal, engineering,or surveying purposes. Service Layer Credits: World Imagery: Maxar 0 625312.5 Feet I Marstons Mills River Bogs Barnstable, MA 42.668 ft 42.004 ft 41.278 ft 38.544 ft 43.907 ft 41.902 ft 45.672 ft 45.872 ft 44.321 ft 41.934 ft 41.494 ft 42.181 ft 42.217 ft 41.693 ft 38.767 ft Datum: NAVD88 323359345857563555 365437 38535246474548394451495040 41 42 43 Path: H:\Projects\2022\22073 Marstons Mills Bogs\GIS\Maps\Vistas_regional model.mxd Figure HW5Model Domain and Area of Interest Stream boundary condition Cranberry Bogs (DEP) Modeled groundwater contours Model grid Municipal Boundary Date:5/16/2023Data Sources:Bureau of GeographicInformation (MassGIS), ESRI This map is for informational purposes andmay not be suitable for legal, engineering,or surveying purposes.Model result elevations are NGVD29 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community Marstons Mills RiverMarstons Mills, Barnstable, MA 0 1,000500 FeetI Text 65 45 40 35 20 15 10 5 5025 55 30 10 5 10 10 5 5 5 5 55 5 5 5 5 Modeled groundwater contours presented in 5-foot intervals in regional figure, 1-foot intervals in locus figure Area of interest Marstons Mills River 33 34 4 8 3536373839406341424362444546614760485958495750565554535251Path: H:\Projects\2022\22073 Marstons Mills Bogs\GIS\Maps\Vistas_ReverseParticleTracking.mxd Figure HW6Groundwater contributing area estimated from reverse particle tracking Stream boundary condition Cranberry Bogs (DEP) Ponds (DEP) Reverse particle tracking pathlines Modeled groundwater contours Model grid Municipal Boundary Date:5/9/2023Data Sources:Bureau of GeographicInformation (MassGIS), ESRI This map is for informational purposes andmay not be suitable for legal, engineering,or surveying purposes.Model result elevations are NGVD29 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community Marstons Mills RiverMarstons Mills, Barnstable, MA 0 1,000500 FeetI Race Ln., School St., Newtown Rd. Nitrogen Load per Acre: 27.6 Ridge Club, Harlow Rd., Mieggs-Backus Rd., Farmersville Rd. Nitrogen Load per Acre: 8.79 North of Race Ln., Great Hill Rd., Barnstable town line Nitrogen Load per Acre: 9.35 Cotuit Rd., Farmersville Rd., Luscombe Rd., Boardley Nitrogen Load per Acre: 5.63 South of Asa Meiggs Rd./ School St. Nitrogen Load per Acre: 4.01 Path: H:\Projects\2022\22073 Marstons Mills Bogs\GIS\Maps\Vistas_WatershedMVP.mxd Figure HW9Nitrogren source areas in groundwater contributing areas Nitrogen source areas (Watershed MVP) Cranberry Bogs (DEP) Ponds (DEP) Reverse particle tracking pathlines Municipal Boundary Date:5/17/2023Data Sources:Bureau of GeographicInformation (MassGIS), ESRI This map is for informational purposes andmay not be suitable for legal, engineering,or surveying purposes.Model result elevations are NGVD29 Service Layer Credits: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributorsSource: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community Marstons Mills RiverMarstons Mills, Barnstable, MA 0 1,000500 FeetI 222324252663272829303132333462353637386139604041594243584445574656555447535248515049Nitrogen Load (Kilograms per Acre): 27.6Nitrogen Load (Kilograms per Acre): 8.79 Nitrogen Load (Kilograms per Acre): 9.35 Nitrogen Load (Kilograms per Acre): 5.63 Nitrogen Load (Kilograms per Acre): 4.01 Path: H:\Projects\2022\22073 Marstons Mills Bogs\GIS\Maps\Vistas_PRB Intercept.mxd Figure 10Particle tracks intercepting proposed PRB at shallow depth Nitrogen source areas Stream boundary condition Cranberry Bogs (DEP) Ponds (DEP) All particle tracks Modeled groundwater contours Proposed PRBMunicipal Boundary Date:5/17/2023Data Sources:Bureau of GeographicInformation (MassGIS), ESRI This map is for informational purposes andmay not be suitable for legal, engineering,or surveying purposes.Model result elevations are NGVD29 Service Layer Credits: Source: Esri, Maxar, Earthstar Geographics, and the GIS User Community Marstons Mills RiverMarstons Mills, Barnstable, MA 0 1,000500 FeetI 1b North 4 West 1a East 3b West 3a North 3b North 1a North 5 West51 385049394840 41474642454344Particle Tracks Intercepted by PRB PRB 1a East PRB 1a North PRB 1b North PRB 3a North PRB 3a North/ PRB 4 West PRB 3b North PRB 3b North/ PRB4 West PRB 3b West PRB 4 West PRB 5 West 6 Appendix F: HydroCAD Report for the Marstons Mills River at the outlet of the project area. MMR_LongTC Printed 2/15/2023Prepared by HydroCAD SAMPLER 1-800-927-7246 www.hydrocad.net Page 1HydroCAD® 10.20-2g Sampler s/n S07044 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC This report was prepared with the free HydroCAD SAMPLER, which is licensed for evaluation and educational use ONLY. For actual design or modeling applications you MUST use a full version of HydroCAD which may be purchased at www.hydrocad.net. Full programs also include complete technical support,training materials, and additional features which are essential for actual design work. Project Notes Rainfall events imported from "EX_Bass_LongTC.hcp" MMR_LongTC Printed 2/15/2023Prepared by HydroCAD SAMPLER 1-800-927-7246 www.hydrocad.net Page 2HydroCAD® 10.20-2g Sampler s/n S07044 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC This report was prepared with the free HydroCAD SAMPLER, which is licensed for evaluation and educational use ONLY. For actual design or modeling applications you MUST use a full version of HydroCAD which may be purchased at www.hydrocad.net. Full programs also include complete technical support,training materials, and additional features which are essential for actual design work. Rainfall Events Listing Event# Event Name Storm Type Curve Mode Duration (hours) B/B Depth (inches) AMC 1 1_year Atlas14_Dist_PMP_CapeCod_1_year Default 24.00 1 2.92 2 2_year Atlas14_Dist_PMP_CapeCod_2_year Default 24.00 1 3.45 3 5-year Atlas14_Dist_PMP_CapeCod_5_year Default 24.00 1 4.31 4 10_year Atlas14_Dist_PMP_CapeCod_10_year Default 24.00 1 5.03 5 25_year Atlas14_Dist_PMP_CapeCod_25_year Default 24.00 1 6.01 6 50_year Atlas14_Dist_PMP_CapeCod_50_year Default 24.00 1 6.76 7 100_year Atlas14_Dist_PMP_CapeCod_100_year Default 24.00 1 7.53 8 200-year Atlas14_Dist_PMP_CapeCod_200_year Default 24.00 1 8.37 9 500_year Atlas14_Dist_PMP_CapeCod_500_year Default 24.00 1 9.55 Atlas14_Dist_PMP_CapeCod_1_year 1_year Rainfall=2.92"MMR_LongTC Printed 2/15/2023Prepared by HydroCAD SAMPLER 1-800-927-7246 www.hydrocad.net Page 3HydroCAD® 10.20-2g Sampler s/n S07044 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC This report was prepared with the free HydroCAD SAMPLER, which is licensed for evaluation and educational use ONLY. For actual design or modeling applications you MUST use a full version of HydroCAD which may be purchased at www.hydrocad.net. Full programs also include complete technical support,training materials, and additional features which are essential for actual design work. Summary for Link 2L: 1000 Inflow Area = 5,191.969 ac, 11.99% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.09" for 1_year event Inflow = 3.57 cfs @ 132.75 hrs, Volume= 40.665 af Primary = 3.57 cfs @ 132.75 hrs, Volume= 40.665 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-800.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Link 2L: 1000 Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 800750700650600550500450400350300250200150100500Flow (cfs)4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=5,191.969 ac 3.57 cfs3.57 cfs Atlas14_Dist_PMP_CapeCod_2_year 2_year Rainfall=3.45"MMR_LongTC Printed 2/15/2023Prepared by HydroCAD SAMPLER 1-800-927-7246 www.hydrocad.net Page 4HydroCAD® 10.20-2g Sampler s/n S07044 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC This report was prepared with the free HydroCAD SAMPLER, which is licensed for evaluation and educational use ONLY. For actual design or modeling applications you MUST use a full version of HydroCAD which may be purchased at www.hydrocad.net. Full programs also include complete technical support,training materials, and additional features which are essential for actual design work. Summary for Link 2L: 1000 Inflow Area = 5,191.969 ac, 11.99% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.21" for 2_year event Inflow = 7.97 cfs @ 132.74 hrs, Volume= 90.762 af Primary = 7.97 cfs @ 132.74 hrs, Volume= 90.762 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-800.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Link 2L: 1000 Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 800750700650600550500450400350300250200150100500Flow (cfs)8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=5,191.969 ac 7.97 cfs7.97 cfs Atlas14_Dist_PMP_CapeCod_5_year 5-year Rainfall=4.31"MMR_LongTC Printed 2/15/2023Prepared by HydroCAD SAMPLER 1-800-927-7246 www.hydrocad.net Page 5HydroCAD® 10.20-2g Sampler s/n S07044 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC This report was prepared with the free HydroCAD SAMPLER, which is licensed for evaluation and educational use ONLY. For actual design or modeling applications you MUST use a full version of HydroCAD which may be purchased at www.hydrocad.net. Full programs also include complete technical support,training materials, and additional features which are essential for actual design work. Summary for Link 2L: 1000 Inflow Area = 5,191.969 ac, 11.99% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.48" for 5-year event Inflow = 18.08 cfs @ 132.73 hrs, Volume= 205.745 af Primary = 18.08 cfs @ 132.73 hrs, Volume= 205.745 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-800.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Link 2L: 1000 Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 800750700650600550500450400350300250200150100500Flow (cfs)20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=5,191.969 ac 18.08 cfs18.08 cfs Atlas14_Dist_PMP_CapeCod_10_year 10_year Rainfall=5.03"MMR_LongTC Printed 2/15/2023Prepared by HydroCAD SAMPLER 1-800-927-7246 www.hydrocad.net Page 6HydroCAD® 10.20-2g Sampler s/n S07044 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC This report was prepared with the free HydroCAD SAMPLER, which is licensed for evaluation and educational use ONLY. For actual design or modeling applications you MUST use a full version of HydroCAD which may be purchased at www.hydrocad.net. Full programs also include complete technical support,training materials, and additional features which are essential for actual design work. Summary for Link 2L: 1000 Inflow Area = 5,191.969 ac, 11.99% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.76" for 10_year event Inflow = 28.89 cfs @ 132.75 hrs, Volume= 328.756 af Primary = 28.89 cfs @ 132.75 hrs, Volume= 328.756 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-800.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Link 2L: 1000 Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 800750700650600550500450400350300250200150100500Flow (cfs)32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Inflow Area=5,191.969 ac 28.89 cfs28.89 cfs Atlas14_Dist_PMP_CapeCod_25_year 25_year Rainfall=6.01"MMR_LongTC Printed 2/15/2023Prepared by HydroCAD SAMPLER 1-800-927-7246 www.hydrocad.net Page 7HydroCAD® 10.20-2g Sampler s/n S07044 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC This report was prepared with the free HydroCAD SAMPLER, which is licensed for evaluation and educational use ONLY. For actual design or modeling applications you MUST use a full version of HydroCAD which may be purchased at www.hydrocad.net. Full programs also include complete technical support,training materials, and additional features which are essential for actual design work. Summary for Link 2L: 1000 Inflow Area = 5,191.969 ac, 11.99% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.22" for 25_year event Inflow = 46.46 cfs @ 122.61 hrs, Volume= 528.034 af Primary = 46.46 cfs @ 122.61 hrs, Volume= 528.034 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-800.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Link 2L: 1000 Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 800750700650600550500450400350300250200150100500Flow (cfs)50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Inflow Area=5,191.969 ac 46.46 cfs46.46 cfs Atlas14_Dist_PMP_CapeCod_50_year 50_year Rainfall=6.76"MMR_LongTC Printed 2/15/2023Prepared by HydroCAD SAMPLER 1-800-927-7246 www.hydrocad.net Page 8HydroCAD® 10.20-2g Sampler s/n S07044 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC This report was prepared with the free HydroCAD SAMPLER, which is licensed for evaluation and educational use ONLY. For actual design or modeling applications you MUST use a full version of HydroCAD which may be purchased at www.hydrocad.net. Full programs also include complete technical support,training materials, and additional features which are essential for actual design work. Summary for Link 2L: 1000 Inflow Area = 5,191.969 ac, 11.99% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.62" for 50_year event Inflow = 61.74 cfs @ 122.61 hrs, Volume= 701.139 af Primary = 61.74 cfs @ 122.61 hrs, Volume= 701.139 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-800.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Link 2L: 1000 Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 800750700650600550500450400350300250200150100500Flow (cfs)65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Inflow Area=5,191.969 ac 61.74 cfs61.74 cfs Atlas14_Dist_PMP_CapeCod_100_year 100_year Rainfall=7.53"MMR_LongTC Printed 2/15/2023Prepared by HydroCAD SAMPLER 1-800-927-7246 www.hydrocad.net Page 9HydroCAD® 10.20-2g Sampler s/n S07044 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC This report was prepared with the free HydroCAD SAMPLER, which is licensed for evaluation and educational use ONLY. For actual design or modeling applications you MUST use a full version of HydroCAD which may be purchased at www.hydrocad.net. Full programs also include complete technical support,training materials, and additional features which are essential for actual design work. Summary for Link 2L: 1000 Inflow Area = 5,191.969 ac, 11.99% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.07" for 100_year event Inflow = 78.81 cfs @ 122.60 hrs, Volume= 894.387 af Primary = 78.81 cfs @ 122.60 hrs, Volume= 894.387 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-800.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Link 2L: 1000 Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 800750700650600550500450400350300250200150100500Flow (cfs)85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Inflow Area=5,191.969 ac 78.81 cfs78.81 cfs Atlas14_Dist_PMP_CapeCod_200_year 200-year Rainfall=8.37"MMR_LongTC Printed 2/15/2023Prepared by HydroCAD SAMPLER 1-800-927-7246 www.hydrocad.net Page 10HydroCAD® 10.20-2g Sampler s/n S07044 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC This report was prepared with the free HydroCAD SAMPLER, which is licensed for evaluation and educational use ONLY. For actual design or modeling applications you MUST use a full version of HydroCAD which may be purchased at www.hydrocad.net. Full programs also include complete technical support,training materials, and additional features which are essential for actual design work. Summary for Link 2L: 1000 Inflow Area = 5,191.969 ac, 11.99% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.59" for 200-year event Inflow = 98.79 cfs @ 122.59 hrs, Volume= 1,120.506 af Primary = 98.79 cfs @ 122.59 hrs, Volume= 1,120.506 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-800.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Link 2L: 1000 Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 800750700650600550500450400350300250200150100500Flow (cfs)110 105 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Inflow Area=5,191.969 ac 98.79 cfs98.79 cfs Atlas14_Dist_PMP_CapeCod_500_year 500_year Rainfall=9.55"MMR_LongTC Printed 2/15/2023Prepared by HydroCAD SAMPLER 1-800-927-7246 www.hydrocad.net Page 11HydroCAD® 10.20-2g Sampler s/n S07044 © 2022 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC This report was prepared with the free HydroCAD SAMPLER, which is licensed for evaluation and educational use ONLY. For actual design or modeling applications you MUST use a full version of HydroCAD which may be purchased at www.hydrocad.net. Full programs also include complete technical support,training materials, and additional features which are essential for actual design work. Summary for Link 2L: 1000 Inflow Area = 5,191.969 ac, 11.99% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.38" for 500_year event Inflow = 128.86 cfs @ 122.59 hrs, Volume= 1,460.757 af Primary = 128.86 cfs @ 122.59 hrs, Volume= 1,460.757 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-800.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Link 2L: 1000 Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 800750700650600550500450400350300250200150100500Flow (cfs)140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Inflow Area=5,191.969 ac 128.86 cfs128.86 cfs 6 Appendix G: Onsite Soil Investigation for Hamblin Bogs, Marstons Mills (USDA 2021) Natural Resources Conservation Service Wareham Field Office, 8 Thatcher Lane Ste2, Wareham, MA 02571 508-295-5151 ext. 2 | fax 855-596-7671 | www.ma.nrcs.usda.gov USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender. Date: 1/13/2021 Subject: Onsite soil investigation for Hamblin Bogs, Marston Mills, MA Background: The Hamblin Bogs in Marston Mills, MA are being investigated as potential sites to perform a wetland restoration. Collecting data on soil and hydrologic properties of the site will help identify the potential for successful restoration and will help in guide in such restoration planning. Participants: Maggie Payne, NRCS Resource Soil Scientist, Wareham, MA Casey Dannhauser, Special Projects Manager, Barnstable Clean Water Coalition Results/Discussion: The Hamblin Bogs consist of approximately 47 acres of cranberry bog mapped as 55A Freetown coarse sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes, sanded surface. Freetown soils are very poorly drained soils formed in greater than 50 inches (1.27 m) of organic material with a sandy surface consisting of sands applied to the soil surface as a part of the cranberry growing operation. See attached Cranberry Bed Soils of Massachusetts documents for more information on the typical soils of the area. In order to confirm the soil mapping of the bog, the area was traversed on foot and soils were investigated at nine points using a spade and a 16-foot (5 m) tile probe. Locations were recorded using a Garmin Montana 680t GPS (Figure 1). All locations investigated were consistent with the mapping in the soil survey, containing a sanded surface over deep organic soil material. Excavation with a tile spade showed the depth of the sanded surface layer to be approximately 20 inches (0.5 m), consisting of layered sand and organic soil material throughout. Beneath the sanded surface, the soil is saturated, moderately decomposed organic matter (ie peat). The peat layer ranged from 4 feet (1.2 m) to greater than 16 feet (5 m) in thickness. The maximum depth of measurement was 16 feet (5 m) due to the length of the tile probe so it is likely that there is significantly more depth of peat in these areas. The deepest areas of peat were in the northernmost bog sections and the central bog section just north of the ponded area (waypoints 005, 007, and 012). Shallower peat depths were found through the central, narrowed portions of bog (waypoints 010 and 013), though all areas contained organic soils. The ponded bog section and the woody wetland to the south (53A map unit) were not accessible at the time due to excessive surface water. The deep organic soils and significant amount of surface water throughout the bog sections is evidence that groundwater flow into this site is significant and consistent. Wetland hydrology already exists on most areas of this bog complex due to groundwater inputs. Recommendations: If a wetland restoration is planned for this site, a complete survey using Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) would be recommended to give a complete picture of peat depth across the bogs. NRCS would be able to provide this service for WRE (Wetland Reserve Easement) projects. Figure 1: Location of soil investigation points Submitted by Maggie Payne, Resource Soil Scientist, NRCS Cranberry Bed Soils of Massachusetts 1 | Page Dec-19 Soils used in the production of cranberries in Massachusetts are delineated in the Soil Survey based on the parent material and hydrologic conditions. These soils are designated as Farmland of Unique Importance in Massachusetts due to their unique characteristics and importance specific to cranberry agriculture. All cranberry beds consist of a surface layer of sandy fill material (Human Transported Material, or HTM) that is added to the soil surface during cranberry bed creation. The thickness of the sandy fill is variable; typically ranging from 10 to 20 inches. Thin layers of sand are added to the soil surface on a regular basis as a management practice, often creating a layered appearance in the soil (Figure 1). Below the sandy material is the buried soil on which the bed was constructed. The variation in these buried soil conditions is the basis for delineating cranberry bed soils. Many of the oldest cranberry beds were created in existing cedar swamps or other wetland areas that contain deep organic soils. Organic soils (classified as Histosols) are characterized by organic horizons, ranging from undecomposed peat to highly decomposed muck, that are more than 16 inches thick and contain more than 20 percent organic carbon by weight. In southeastern Massachusetts, thick organic soils formed in deep kettle holes that intercepted with the groundwater table and filled in with muck or peat over time. In cranberry beds, these organic soils are mapped as Swansea and Freetown soils. Swansea soils (60A) have an organic layer ranging from 16 to 51 inches thick under the sandy fill. Below the organic layer is glacially deposited sandy or silty mineral material. Freetown soils (55A) formed in thick (>51 inches) organic deposits. In many areas the muck or peat can be greater than 20 feet thick. Soils with less than 16 inches of organic material are classified as mineral soils. Rainberry soils (7A) are poorly drained sandy soils with less than 16 inches of organic material. Tihonet soils (23A) are mapped in areas where sand and gravel has been excavated to the level of the water table and cranberry beds were established at this elevation. Cranberry beds that were not constructed in wetland areas (many of the more recently constructed beds) do not intercept with the groundwater table. Some of these beds use a restrictive layer (natural or artificial) to perch the water above the underlying true water table (Endoaquents, 658A). Cranberry agriculture has occurred in Massachusetts for over 100 years. Some of the original cranberry beds are no longer in production, but the soils remain altered from past agricultural activity. Map units designated as “inactive” phases of Rainberry (701A), and Freetown and Swansea soils (704A) represent such areas. Figure 1: The typical layered appearance of the sanded surface of a cranberry bed soil (photo by Jim Turenne) Cranberry Bed Soils of Massachusetts 2 | Page Dec-19 Figure 2: Diagram of cranberry bed soil map units in Massachusetts occurring in sandy glacial parent materials with a true or apparent water table. Cranberry Bed Soils of Massachusetts 3 | Page Dec-19 Common soil map units mapped in cranberry beds in Massachusetts Soil Surveys Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Brief Description Common Resource and Design Concerns 7A Rainberry sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes, sanded surface Mineral soil formed in sandy deposits with less than 16 inches of organic material. • Seasonal High Water Table 23A Tihonet coarse sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes Areas that were formerly moderately well to excessively drained soils that have been excavated to the depth of the water table for mining sand and gravel and/or for cranberry bed construction. • Seasonal High Water Table 55A Freetown coarse sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes, sanded surface Very deep (>51 inches) organic soil consisting of muck and/or peat with 10 to 24 inches of sand on the soil surface. • Subsidence • Compaction • Low Soil Strength • Seasonal High Water Table 60A Swansea coarse sand, 0 to 2 percent slopes, sanded surface Shallow (16 to 51 inches) organic soil consisting of muck and/or peat with 10 to 24 inches of sand on the soil surface. • Subsidence • Compaction • Low Soil Strength • Seasonal High Water Table 658A Endoaquents, 0 to 3 percent slopes, sanded surface Mineral soil with an artificially perched water table created in an upland area. • Seasonal High Water Table 701A Rainberry coarse sand, 0 to 3 percent slopes, sanded surface, inactive Mineral soil formed in sandy deposits with less than 16 inches of organic material and a sanded surface. Previously managed for cranberry agriculture, but no longer in production*. • Seasonal High Water Table 704A Freetown and Swansea coarse sands, 0 to 3 percent slopes, sanded surface, inactive Organic soil (> 16 inches of peat) with 8 to 24 inches of sand on the soil surface. Previously managed for cranberry agriculture, but no longer in production*. • Subsidence • Compaction • Low Soil Strength • Seasonal High Water Table *Inactive cranberry bed soil map units were given this designation at the time of soil mapping (1990-2010) and may not indicate the current land use. Cranberry Bed Soils of Massachusetts 4 | Page Dec-19 Common resource concerns associated with cranberry bed soils Subsidence: Loss of volume and depth of organic soils due to oxidation caused by above normal microbial activity resulting from excessive water drainage, soil disturbance, or extended drought1. When natural drainage is altered on these Histosols, oxidation of organic matter in the soil can cause subsidence, resulting in an uneven soil surface, depressions, and ponding. Compaction/Soil Strength: Management-induced soil compaction at any level throughout the soil profile resulting in reduced plant productivity, biological activity, infiltration and aeration1. Histosols have low soil strength. The weight of the sand applied to the bog surface can cause compaction of the organic soil material, resulting in a decrease in the elevation of the soil surface over time and ponding in some cases. Care should be taken when applying sand to a bog surface and when siting locations for dikes. Lack of soil strength in thick organic soils such as Freetown and Swansea soils may cause failure if excess weight is applied to the surface through sanding, construction of dikes, or use of heavy machinery. Seasonal High Water Table: Ground water or a perched water table causing saturated conditions near the surface degrades water resources or restricts capability of land to support its intended use1. All cranberry bog soil map units have a seasonal high water table at or near the soil surface. On an active bog, water tables are maintained through bog management. Most bogs in Massachusetts have a naturally occurring water table at or near the soil surface that is artificially lowered through ditching and management. Areas mapped as Endoaquents (658A) are soils with a perched or artificially maintained high water table that, if not maintained, are likely to become a more well-drained soil. 1 National Resource Concern List and Planning Criteria, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), October 2019 7 Appendix H: RSI report regarding the GPR survey of Marstons Mills River Bogs July 19th, 2021 Mr. Nick Nelson, CERP, Regional Director Mr. Keith Kantack, Staff Geomorphologist Inter-Fluve, Inc. 220 Concord Avenue, 2nd Floor Cambridge, MA 02138 Via E-Mail:nnelson@interfluve.com , slipshutz@interfluve.com Subject: Final Report GPR Surveying of the Hamblin Bogs 299-71 Bog Road Marston Mills, MA Dear Nick and Sondra: In accordance with your authorization, Radar Solutions International (RSI) conducted a ground penetrating radar (GPR) survey in an approximately 32 acre area of the Hamblin Bogs, Marston Mills, Massachusetts. In all, RSI personnel conducted four days of GPR surveying, on April 28th, May 3rd, May 12th, and June 14th, 2021. On June 14th, several cores were also conducted to confirm our preliminary GPR interpretations. Due to safety concerns with high water, RSI fielded a two person team, and was joined on the first two days by a volunteer from one of Inter-fluve’s partners. The goal of the GPR survey was to identify the thicknesses of the overlying sand fill, added during the active operations of a cranberry farm, and the underlying peat native material. This information will be used by Inter-Fluve to help restore the river to its natural, pristine state, prior to the growing and harvesting of cranberries. RSI’s finalized survey results and interpretations are summarized below. Thank you for using RSI for this very important project. GPR METHODOLOGY RSI used a Sensors and Software Noggin 250 MHz GPR system for this survey. Given the nearly 100 percent saturated soil conditions, this antenna frequency helped achieve an investigative depth of over 16 feet below grade. Also, this newer GPR system enables effortless synchronization with RSI’s sub-cm GPS, which enabled RSI to focus exclusively on data collection, rather than setting up a survey grid. The other advantage of this system, is that it allows the real-time “stacking” of GPR signal, increasing the overall investigative depth of the GPR compared to older models. The GPR method operates by transmitting low-powered microwave energy into the ground using an ultra-wide band (UWB) transceiver antenna. The GPR signal is then reflected back to the antenna by materials with contrasting electrical impedance, which is primarily determined by dielectric and conductivity properties of the material, its magnetic permeability, and its physical 51 Riverview Avenue, Waltham, MA 02453-3819 (781) 736-0550 radar-solutions.com Appendix H: GPR Report from RSI properties. The greater the contrast in the real dielectric permittivity (RDP) of two materials, the greater the reflection amplitude. At this site, the highest-amplitude reflections occurred where there was a lithologic change, such as between the sand fill and native peat layers. Minor, internal reflections were also observed where there is a sudden change in water content, such as wetting fronts within the sand fill layer. It should be noted that reflections observed on GPR records are non-unique, meaning that a similar reflector can be caused by different objects, and that in order to map lithologic layers some means of ground-truthing, such as by using a borehole or test pit, must be conducted. The borehole/test pit calibration also provides a more accurate GPR signal velocity through the medium, especially, as that velocity varies with mineralogic and water content. Based on previous work at the Upper Coonamessett Bog in Falmouth, RSI assumed that the GPR signal velocity is approximately 0.262 ft/ns. A cross-section of the subsurface is generated wherever the antenna is moved. The horizontal scale on each GPR record is determined by the antenna speed as it is moved by the operator, but each scan is synchronized with a GGA string from the connected GPS, so each horizontal position is geo-referenced. The vertical scale of these radar “cross-sections” is determined by an input desired depth range, established by estimating the depth range over which real information is recorded, as a function of the GPR signal velocity, which was estimated to be an average 0.262 ft/ns over the investigative depth of the GPR. GPR lines did not have to be assembled into a 3D file, as their positions were already geo- referenced (See Figure 1). (For this survey RSI used the Massachusetts State Plane, NAD 83, Corrs 96, U.S. Survey Feet datum.) GPR cross-sections were interpreted using a proprietary program called Ekko Project (V5. R3), create by Sensors and Software, Inc. for their customers. Using this program, RSI was able to identify and “pick” layers attributed to the sand-peat interface, as well as the interface between the bottom of the peat and top of the native glacial/depositional material. Using this program, we were able to identify several other layers attributed to internal layering within each material/soil type. By “picking” the layering location as a function of GPS position and depth, and by having GPR lines spaced no more than 25 feet apart throughout the unflooded and wet sections of bog, RSI was able to create an ASCII file from each layer, from which contour maps of thicknesses and depths were constructed using another program called SURFER, created by Golden Software, Inc. All this information is presented below within the Results section, as well as attached as PDF maps. The PDF and Zipped AutoCAD DXF files were uploaded to Dropbox, as even these PDF maps were tens of megabytes in size. RESULTS Figure 1 shows the general investigative area, with the base map being comprised of an orthoimage, geo-referenced to Massachusetts State Plane (Mainland 2001), NAD 83, U.S. Survey Feet. The light blue lines are the location of GPR lines, as established continuously using a sub-cm GPS, while the red solid line shows Day 1 boundaries of GPR survey, and the green solid line shows the entire survey boundary. Figure 2 shows the contoured thickness of the sand fill layer exposed at ground surface. Figure 3A is a contour map showing depth to the bottom of layer likeliest to represent peat. We did, however, observe what appears to be an intermediary layer, between the bottom of the sand and bottom of the most pronounced reflector interpreted as the peat bottom, which we present as Figure 3B. This intermediary layer is shown as black contours, superimposed on the color-filled contours showing the depth to the bottom of the peat layer. Additionally, there often appeared a layer below the most pronounced reflector interpreted as the bottom of the peat, which is plotted on Figure 3C. Figure 4 shows the contoured thickness of the peat layer, assuming the probable 51 Riverview Avenue, Waltham, MA 02453-3819 (781) 736-0550 radar-solutions.com reflector corresponding to the bottom of the peat. All figures are represented at a scale of 1"=100'. Key results are highlighted below. • Figure 2 shows that the thickness of the sand fill layer is nominally in the 1.5 to 2.5 foot thickness range, with the thinnest at the edges where the drainage ditches are located, and thicken towards the middle of each section. We also observe a thickening of the sand at the berms (not shown). In the northern section, we observe some areas of thick sand, where sand fill is up to 3.5 feet in thickness. However, in the central portion of the southernmost section, sand fill thicknesses may be in excess of 4 to 5 feet. RSI personnel had trouble getting through this layer with a soil sampling core, due to its thickness and granular nature. • GPR data throughout the Hamblin Bogs consistently show that the peat layer is extremely thick, upwards of 16 feet in most locations. Figure 3A shows the depth to the most pronounced reflector probably representing the bottom of the peat. The depth to the peat is shallowest at the edges of each section, tapering from nearly zero feet in thickness, and typically deepening to over 16 feet within 30 to 50 feet from the edges. The northeastern portion of the southernmost section is where we observe the thinnest deposits of peat, where the peat is typically 3 to 5 feet at the edges and deepens to about 7 to 9 feet. Then approximately 200 feet from the northeastern edge, it thickens to 16+ feet. On the 4th day, RSI attempted to collect GPR data using a 25 foot depth range, and typically, the peat bottom where we surveyed with cross-lines, was in access of 21 feet, and in some areas, we did not even see the bottom of the peat. RSI’s deepest core noted 13 feet of peat before we lost the sample. • Also, when we observe the interpreted peat layer, we do not see one, homogenous layer. Rather, we observe a weak intermediary layer, which often is observed 1to 3 feet above the prominent reflector interpreted as peat bottom. The contour showing depth to the bottom of this intermediary layer is shown on Figure 3B. Based on our deepest core, we believe this intermediary layer has some sand within it, but we assume that this is from a natural depositional event, as it is well below the bottom of the sand fill layer. • In addition, we observe another reflector that is similar in shape and reflection characteristics, but is lower in amplitude and appears below the prominent, high-amplitude layer interpreted as peat bottom. The contour map showing the depth to this layer is presented in Figure 3C. We believe that this is another, perhaps more sandy, peat layer deposited below the thick peat layer. Because this reflector undulates and dips differently as the prominent peat layer, we believe it is another peat layer, rather than a multiple or reverberation from bottom of the primary peat layer. The depth to the bottom of this layer is likely in the 21 to 25+ range. • Figure 4 shows contoured thickness of the primary peat layer. In many instances, the peat thickness exceeds 14 to 15 feet, and, based on the additional GPR lines we added on the 4th day, is likely in excess of 16 to 18 feet in the central portions of each section. *** We appreciate the opportunity to conduct this work. Please do not hesitate to call should you have further questions and comments regarding this report. Again, thank you for your patience. Sincerely, RADAR SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL, Inc. Doria Kutrubes, M.Sc., P.G. President and Sr. Geophysicist 51 Riverview Avenue, Waltham, MA 02453-3819 (781) 736-0550 radar-solutions.com COORDINATE SYSTEM MASSACHUSETTS STATE PLANE NAD(83) US SURVEY FEET SCALE: 1 Inch = 100 Feet 100 Feet0100 Prepared for Inter-Fluve, Inc. JUNE 2021 FIGURE 1 AREA OF INVESTIGATION SOIL CLASSIFCATION USING GPR HAMBLIN BOGS 299-71 BOG ROAD MARSTONS MILLS, MASSACHUSETTS LEGEND Survey Boundaries Soil Probing Flags GPR Track COORDINATE SYSTEM MASSACHUSETTS STATE PLANE NAD(83) US SURVEY FEET SCALE: 1 Inch = 100 Feet 100 Feet0100 Prepared for Inter-Fluve, Inc. JUNE 2021 FIGURE 2 TOTAL SAND THICKNESS SOIL CLASSIFCATION USING GPR HAMBLIN BOGS 299-71 BOG ROAD MARSTONS MILLS, MASSACHUSETTS LEGEND Survey Boundaries Soil Probing Flags GPR Track Contour Showing Total Sand Thickness (Feet); Interval = 0.5 Feet 1.5 0.5111 1 1 1111 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1.51.5 1.51.51.51.51.51.51.5 1.5 1.51.51.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.51.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.51.51.51. 5 1.5 1 . 5 1.5 1.51.51.51. 51.51.5 1.5 1.51.51.5 1.51.51.51.51.51.51.51.51. 5 1.51.5 1.51.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.51.5 1.51.5 1. 51.51.51 . 5 1.51.51.51.5 1.5 1.5 1. 51.51.5 1.51.51.51.5 1.5 1.51.51.5 1 . 51.51.51.51 . 5 1.51.51.5 1.5 1 . 5 1.51.51.51.51.51.51.51.51.51.51.51.5 1.5 1.5 1. 5 1.5 1.51.5 1.5 2 2 2 22 2 22 22 2 22222222 22 22 22 2 2 2 2 2222222222 2 22 2 22 2 2 2 2 2 222 22 2 2 2 2222222222222222 22 22 222 22222222 2 222 2 222 2222 22 22 2 2222 2 2 . 5 2. 5 2.5 2.52.52.5 2. 52.52.52 . 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.52.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2. 5 2.5 2 . 5 2. 5 2 . 5 2. 5 2.52.52.52.52.52.52.52.52.52.5 2.52.5 2.52.52.52.5 2 . 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2. 5 2.52.5 2.52.5 2. 5 2. 5 2.5 2.5 3 3 33 3 3 3 33333 3 33 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 33 3 333 3 33 33 3 3 333 33 3 33. 5 3.53.5 3.5 3. 5 3. 5 3. 53.53.5 3. 5 3.53.53.5 3 . 5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.53.5 3.53.53. 53.5 3.5 3.5 4 4 4 4 4 4444444 4 4 4 4 4 4 44 444 4 44.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.54.5 4.54.54.54.5 4.5 4.54. 5 4. 5 4.54.54.5 5 55 5 5 5 55 5 5 555 50.00.51.01.52.02.53.03.54.04.55.0TOTAL SAND THICKNESS (FEET)