REPORT ON POLLUTION OF
THE MERRIMACK RIVER
AND CERTAIN TRIBUTARIES
part n- Stream Studies
Physical, Chemical and
Bacteriological
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ADMINISTRATION
Merrimack River Project -Northeast Region
Lawrence, Massachusetts
August 1966
-------
REPORT ON POLLUTION OF
THE MERRIMACK RIVER
AND CERTAIN TRIBUTARIES
PART II - STREAM STUDIES - PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL & BACTERIOLOGICAL
Herbert R. Pahren
Donald R. Smith
Myron 0. Knudson
Charles D. Larson
Howard S. Davis
U. S. Department of the Interior
Federal Water Pollution Control Administration
Northeast Region
Merrimack River Project
Lawrence, Massachusetts
August. 1966
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
INTRODUCTION f 1
ORGANIZATION OF PROJECT , 1
PERSONNEL 2
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 3
STUDY AREA
POPULATION , 5
CLIMATE , 6
SOURCES OF POLLUTION ,,,,., . 9
WATER USES t . . . , -.,,.. 18
PRESENT USES , f . . . 18
FUTURE USES ...» ,.,,.,.,. 2k
INCOME LOSS DUE TO POLLUTION 26
TIME OF STREAM TRAVEL , f 31
EFFECTS OF POLLUTION ON STREAM QUALITY 33
TEMPERATURE , , , 34
DISSOLVED OXYGEN 35
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND f 37
BACTERIA r i 39
BACTERIAL DECLINE 43
BACTERIA ON VEGETABLES 49
SALMONELLA 50
BACTERIA IN THE ESTUARY , . . . . 60
NITROGEN AND PHOSPHORUS , . . . 65
INDUSTRIAL WASTES 68
CHLORIDES f , 68
TRIBUTARIES T t t ..,.,... 70
OXYGEN BY PHOTOSYNTHESIS 76
SLUDGE DEPOSITS 78
- i -
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page No.
OXYGEN BALANCE STUDIES , 80
DISCUSSION OF EQUATIONS 81
PROCEDURE . 82
DISCUSSION OF OXYGEN SAG CURVES , . 89
INFLUENCE OF PARAMETER VARIATION 92
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RIVER AND BOTTLE kj 93
PROJECTED OXYGEN CONDITIONS 95
FUTURE WATER .QUALITY . . . , 105
EXISTING CLASSIFICATION FQR FUTURE USE 105
SELECTION OF PROPOSED 'REQUIREMENTS 106
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 110
INTRODUCTION ..,.'....,'... 110
STUDY AREA ....... Ill
POLLUTION SOURCES 112
WATER USES . , 115
EFFECTS OF POLLUTION ON WATER QUALITY 117
REFERENCES 124
APPENDICES '. 129
- 11 -
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No.
1
2
3
k
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Ik
Merrimack River Basin
Time of Travel Vs. Flow- -Franklin, N. H.
to Sewalls Falls Dam . *
Time of Travel Vs. Flow Sewalls Falls
Dam to Rt. 3 Bridge, Concord
Time of Travel Vs. Flow--Rt. 3 Bridge,
Concord to Hooksett Dam
Time of Travel Vs. Flow Hooksett Dam
to Amoskeag Dam
Time of Travel Vs. Flow- -Amoskeag Dam to
Nashua River
Time of Travel Vs. Flow- -Nashua River to
Concord River. . . . ,
Time of Travel Vs. Flow-rConcord River to
Lawrence . , ,
Time of Travel Vs. Flow Lawrence to
Little River
Time of Travel Vs. Flow- -Little River to
Newburyport
Time of Travel, Merrimack River Miles
116 to 73
Time of Travel, Merrimack River Miles
73 to 39
Time of Travel, Merrimack River Miles
39 to 29
Time of Travel, Merrimack River Miles
29 to 3
Follows Page Wo.
APPENDIX G
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
32
- iii -
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure No. Follows Page No.
15 Souhegan RiverTime of Travel Vs. Flow-
Wilton to Milford .............. 32
16 Souhegan River Time of Travel Vs. Flow
Milford to Mouth .............. 32
17 Time of Travel of Souhegan River ....... 32
18 Typical Dissolved Oxygen & BOD Patterns
in the Merrimack River ... ........ 36
19 Dissolved Oxygen in Merrimack River,
June, July, August & September 1964-1965 . . 36
20 Coliform Bacteria in New Hampshire Section
of Merrimack River 1965 .......... ^2
21 Coliform Bacteria in Merrimack River 1964 . . 42
22 Coliform Density Decline, Concord to
Manchester, Summer ............. 44
23 Coliform Density Decline, Manchester to
Nashua, Summer ... ............ 44
24 Coliform Density Decline, Nashua to Lowell,
Summer ................... 44
25 Coliform Density Decline, Lowell to
Lawrence, Summer .............. 44
26 Coliform Density Decline, Lawrence to
Haverhill, Summer .............. 44
27 Coliform Density Decline, Haverhill to
Newburyport, Summer ............. 44
28 Coliform Density Decline, Nashua to
Lowell, Fall ................ 44
- iv -
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure No. Follows Page No.
29 Coliform Density Decline, Nashua to
Lowell, Spring kk
30 Schematic of Salmonellae Isolation
Procedure 52
31 Location of Shellfish Flats Merrimack
River Estuary 60
32 Dye Dispersion Studies in Black Rock
Creek and Plum Island River 62
33 Dye Dispersion in Merrimack River
EstuarySeptember 15, 1964 ........ 64
34 Total Coliforms in Merrimack River
EstuaryHigh Tide 6k
35 Total Coliforms in Merrimack River
EstuaryLow Tide 6k
36 Chlorides in Merrimack River
August 25-28, 1964 70
37 Souhegan River & Beaver Brook Drainage
Basins 70
38 Concord River Basin 72
39 Spickett, Shawsheen, Little & Powwow
River Basins 74
ko Gross Oxygen Production Vs. Depth 78
4l Gross Oxygen Production Vs. Sunlight
Intensity August 7-12, 1965 78
42 Gross Oxygen Production Vs. Sunlight
Intensity August 19-27, 1965 78
- v -
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure No. Follows Page No.
1*3 Calculated Oxygen Sag Curves
August 196V1965 90
kk Influence of Parameter Variation 9^
^5 Merrimack River 1985 Design Conditions. . . . 102
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Major Communities in Merrimack River Basin . . .
Climatological Data
Estimated Characteristics of Sewage and
Industrial Wastes Discharged to Merrimack
River and Tributaries Within Study Area ....
1966 Income Loss Due to Pollution
Fecal Coliform Density Decline
Comparison of Seasonal Coliform Density Decline
Comparison of Total Coliform Density Decline . .
Most Frequent Salmonella Isolations, 1964 . . .
Salmonella Organisms
Coliform Values in Black Rock Creek
Observed Alpha Values for the Merrimack River,
August 1964-65
Average Depth, Area and Volume of Merrimack
River Benthal Deposits
Observed p Values in the Merrimack River,
August 1964-65
Time of Travel for Survey Period
Page No.
6
8
12
27
44
45
47
48
51
52
54
62
63
67
69
77
79
79
83
85
- Vll -
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table No. Page No.
21 Summary of River Parameters, August 1964-1965. . 90
22 Ratio of Bottle and River Deoxygenation
Coefficients ..... 94
23 River Reaches Used for Projections 96
24 Summary of River Design Parameters, August 1985 98
25 Tributary Parameters 101
26 Existing and Potential Water Uses in
Merrimack River 10?
27 Constituents Considered for Water Quality
Objectives 109
- viii -
-------
INTRODUCTION
In accordance with the written request to the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare from the Honorable Endicott Peabody, former
Governor of Massachusetts, dated February 12, 1963, and on the basis of
reports, surveys or studies, the Secretary of Health, Education, and
Welfare, on September 23, 1963, called a conference under the provisions
of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 466 et seq.) in
the matter of pollution of the interstate waters of the Merrimack and
Nashua Rivers and their tributaries (Massachusetts - New Hampshire)
and the intrastate portions of those waters within the State of Massachu-
setts. The conference was held February 11, 1964, in Faneuil Hall, Boston,
Massachusetts. Pollution sources and the effects of their discharges on
water quality were described at the conference*-1'.
ORGANIZATION OF PROJECT
In February 1964, the U. S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare established the Merrimack River Project to carry out a study
in the Merrimack River Basin. The basic objectives were twofold:
1. Evaluation of the adequacy of the pollution abatement measures
proposed for the Merrimack River within Massachusetts.
2. Development of adequate data on the water quality of the Merrimack
River and its tributaries. Waters in both New Hampshire and
Massachusetts were to be studied.
- 1 -
-------
Headquarters for the Project were established at the Lawrence
Experiment Station of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Lawrence,
Massachusetts. The Project became operational July 1, 1964.
During the first year of operation efforts were concentrated
primarily in the Massachusetts section of the Merrimack River. Second
year studies were mainly of the New Hampshire sections involving suspected
interstate pollution, and of the Nashua River.
Prior to initiation of the field studies, a meeting was held
among representatives of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health,
the R. A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center and Project personnel concerned
with the approach to be used to evaluate the adequacy of the Massachusetts
pollution abatement program. It was agreed to use the basic approach
(2)
used by Camp, Dresser and McKee, Consulting Engineersv but with more
emphasis on certain variables considered to be weak. In addition, gaps
in water quality information, such as the biological condition of the
river, were to be filled.
PERSONNEL
Staff members available for all or a major portion of the study
included:
- 2 -
-------
Herbert R. Pahren Charles D. Larson
Project Director Chief, Field Operations
Warren H. Oldaker Myron 0. Knudson
Chief, Laboratory Services Sanitary Engineer
Donald R. Smith Howard S. Davis
Sanitary Engineer Microbiologist
Alexis A. Burgum Patricia M. Akroosh
Chemist Secretary
The following staff members assisted during a portion of
the time:
Fil D. Barrozo Irene A. McGravey
Chemist Chemist
David A. Roussel Michael J. Twomey
Engineering Aide Engineering Aide
Thomas H. Vanderspurt Carl L. Eidam, Jr.
Physical Science Aide Engineering Aide
Anthony J. Razza Eva M. Taper
Engineering Aide Clerk-Stenographer
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Valuable assistance was rendered by a number of agencies,
industries, and individuals during the study. Special acknowledgement
for important contributions must go to the following:
Massachusetts Department of Public Health, especially Dr. Alfred
L. Frechette, Mr. Worthen H. Taylor and Mr. Barnet L. Rosenthal for the
use of the office and laboratory space at the Lawrence Experiment Station,
and for other supporting services.
New Hampshire Water Pollution Commission
- 3 -
-------
New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission
Massachusetts Department of Natural Resources, Division of
Marine Fisheries
City of Lowell, Massachusetts, Water Treatment Plant personnel
City of Lawrence, Massachusetts, Water Treatment Plant personnel
Public Service Company of New Hampshire
Avco Corporation, Research and Advanced Development Division
U. S. Department of Interior, Water Resources Division
Communicable Disease Center, U. S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare
Raritan Bay Project, U. S. Department of the Interior
R. A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center, U. S. Department of
the Interior
-------
STUDY AREA
The Merrimack River Basin, located in central New England,
extends from the White Mountains in New Hampshire southward into north-
eastern Massachusetts. River flow is in a southerly direction through
New Hampshire. Upon entering Massachusetts, the Merrimack River turns
abruptly east for a distance of about 45 miles and empties into the
Atlantic Ocean at Newburyport, Massachusetts. The lower 22 miles of the
river are tidal. Lands drained by the Merrimack River consist of 5,010
square miles, of which 3,800 square miles are in New Hampshire and 1,210
square miles lie in Massachusetts. A map of the Merrimack River Basin is
shown in Figure 1, located in Appendix G.
Principle streams under study by the Merrimack River
Project included the main-stem of the Merrimack River from Franklin,
New Hampshire, to the mouth at Newburyport, Massachusetts; the Pemigewaseet
Kiver; the Souhegan River; and the Nashua and North Nashua Rivers. Tribu-
taries flowing into these streams were also studied.
POPULATION
The I960 population within the Merrimack Kiver Basin is estimated
to be 1,072,000, of which 747,000 are in Massachusetts and 325,000 are in
New Hampshire. The population centers, for the most part, are located
along the Merrimack Kiver itself. Twelve localities, listed in Table 1,
having a population of more than 25,000 account for 53 percent of the
- 5 -
-------
total basin population.
TABLE 1
MAJOR COMMUNITIES IN MSRRIMACK RIVER BASIN
Community Population-1960
New Hampshire Manchester 88,232
Nashua 39,096
Concord 28,991
Massachusetts Lowell 92,107
Lawrence 70,933
Haverhill 46,346
Framingham 44,526
Fitchburg 43,021
Natick 28,831
Methuen 28,114
Leominster 27,929
Lexington 27,691
CLIMATE
Climatic conditions in the Merrimack River Basin vary with the
elevation and location relative to the coast. The southeastern part of
the watershed near Newburyport, Massachusetts, because of its proximity to
the Atlantic Ocean, does not undergo the extremes of temperature and
depth of snow of the sections in New Hampshire at higher elevations.
Frequent but generally short periods of heavy precipitation are common
in the basin.
- 6 -
-------
Precipitation is distributed fairly uniformly throughout the
year, as may be seen in Table 2. Two locations, Franklin, New Hampshire,
and Lowell, Massachusetts, were selected as typical of the area.
'._ 5 ."r "... " ..'''T
Franklin is located at the confluence of the Pemigewasset and Winnepesaukee
:L ^r'.^ **
Rivers; Lowell is located on the Merrimack River. Precipitation records
for 1964, when much of the work of the Merrimack River Project was
carried out, are presented along with the normal values for each month.
Average monthly temperatures are also listed for these two communities.
- 7 -
-------
TABLE 2
CLIMATOLOOICAI4 DATA
Precipitation. Inches
FranHUn. N.H.
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Normal
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
J*
3
30
.67
.23
vr
.<*
,68
.65
99
.82
.99
.03
,U2
196U
5.31
1.61
3-83
2.55
1,15
1.59
245
3,62
0.55
1.79
^53
3.52
Lowell. Mass.
Normal
U.02
3.16
U.22
3.69
3.31
3-36
3. *a
3-52
3.71
3.16
IK 13
3.60
196tf
h
3
3
3
0
1
2
2
2
2
2
k
.06
.65
.51
.03
.76
.29
.57
.17
.05
.78
.83
.17
Temperature, °F
Franklin, N.H.
Normal
20
22
31
1*3
55
65
70
67
60
U8
37
2k
9
.2
.3
.8
.7
.1
.2
9
.2
-9
,U
.5
1964
22.5
22.2
33.7
^3.5
60.1
66.2
71.2
63-9
57.9
U8.U
37.7
23.5
Lowell, Mass.
Normal
26.7
27.9
36.1
U7.5
59-1
68.1
73.6
71.6
63.8
53.2
U2.0
30.0
196U
28.7
26.9
37.5
1+6.2
61.6
67.7
72.6
66.2
61.7
51.8
k2.k
30.0
Annua; In ,19 32.20 ^3.3^ 32.87 ^5-7 ^5-9
50.0
- 8 -
-------
SOURCES OF POLLUTION
Sewage and industrial wastes contain a variety of obnoxious
components which can damage water quality and restrict its use. Oxygen-
demanding materials can limit or destroy fish, fish food organisms, and
other desirable aquatic life by removing dissolved oxygen from the river.
Greasy substances can form objectionable surface scums, settleable solids
can create sludge deposits and suspended materials can make once attrac-
tive waters appear turbid.
Industrial wastes may also contain additional objectionable
chemicals and toxic substances that can kill aquatic ^life, taint fish
flesh, or promote slime growths in the receiving waters. Heat from in-
dustrial processes or steam-electric generating plants can magnify the
adverse effects of other tfecomposing wastes and, if excessive, can injure
or kill fish and other aquatic life.
Sewage contains astronomical numbers of intestinal bacteria
which were released in man's excretions. Some of these, such as the
Salmonella bacteria, may be pathogens which can reinfect man with a
variety of diseases.
The 5-day biochemical oxygen demand test of sewage and indust-
rial wastes measures the potential of these materials to reduce the
dissolved oxygen content of the river waters. The coliform bacteria
content of raw and treated sewage indicates the density of sewage-
associated bacteria, which may include disease-producing pathogens, dis-
- 9 -
-------
charged to the river. Oxygen-demanding loads are expressed as popu-
lation equivalents (PE) of 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), and
the bacterial loads are expressed as bacterial population equivalents
(.BPE) of total coliform bacteria. Each PE or BPE unit represents the
average amount of oxygen demand or coliform bacteria normally contained
in sewage contributed by one person in one day. (One PE equals one-sixth
pound per day of 5-day BOD, and one BPE equals about 250 billion coliform
bacteria per day).
The amount of such pollutional components in sewage that can
be removed by sewage treatment works depends upon the type and capacity
of the plants and the skill of the operators. Types of sewage treatment
plants in this area are generally identified as primary or secondary -
with or without chlorination.
Primary treatment plants, which consist essentially of settling
tanks and sludge digesters, can remove mpst of the scum and settleable
solids, about one-third of the oxygen-demanding materials and approxi-
mately 50 per cent of the bacteria. Secondary plants consist of
biological treatment units, such as trickling filters, activated sludge
or oxidatior lagoons. Such plants can remove about 90-95 per cent of
the BOD, suspended solids and coliform bacteria. Chlorination facilities
for disinfection of properly treated sewage plant effluents can destroy
more than 99 per cent of the sewage bacteria. To accomplish these
reductions, however, treatment facilities must be properly designed
and skillfully operated.
- 10 -
-------
Estimates have been made of the waste discharges to the
Merrimack River study area. These estimates, based primarily on surveys
taken by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health, the New Hampshire
Wat*r Pollution Commission and the National Council for Stream Improve-
ment (of the Pulp, Paper, and Paperboard Industries) are summarized
in Table 3«
Total discharges of municipal and industrial wastes to the
Merrimack River alone exceed 120 million gallons per day. This volume
is exclusive of industrial cooling water.
- 11 -
-------
TABLE 3
ESTIMATED CHARACTERISTICS OF SEWAGE AND INDUSTRIAL WASTES
DISCHARGED TO MERRIMACK RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES WITHIN STUDY AREA
SOURCE
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Franconia Paper Corp.,
Lincoln*
Franklin
Boscawen
Brezner Tanning Corp.,
Boscawen
Concord (Penacook Village)
Penacook Fibre Co., Penacook
Concord
Pembroke
Allenstown
Hooksett
French Bros. Beef Co., Hooksett
State Industrial School
Manchester
M. Schwer Realty Co., Manchester
Granite State Packing Co.,
Manchester
MKM Knitting Mills Inc.,
Manchester
Manchester Hosiery Mills,
Manchester
Seal Tanning Co., Manchester
Stephens Spinning Co.,
Manchester
Waumbec Mills Inc., Manchester
Foster Grant Co., Manchester
Merrimack (Reeds Ferry Village)
RIVER
DISCHARGED TO
Pemigewasset
East Branch
Winnipesaukee
Contoocook
TREATMENT AND
WASTE REDUCTION MEASURES
Noneexcept that bark is
burned
None
None
POPULATION EQUIVALENTS DISCHARGED
BACTERIAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS OXYGEN DEMAND
Contoocook
Merrimack
Contoocook
Merrimack
Merrimack
Merrimack
Merrimack
Merrimack
Merrimack
Merrimack
Merrimack
Merrimack
Merrimack
Merrimack
Merrimack
Merrimack
Merrimack
Merrimack
Merrimack
None
None
Wastes recirculated
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
None
4,500
400
2,000
24,000
1,800
1,250
1,000
300
72,500
200
200,000
4,500
400
2,500
50,000
230
24,000
1,800
1,250
1,000
380
300
72,500
650
19,000
400
10
8,000
400
700
110
200
400,000
4,500
400
1,500
32,000
200
24,000
1,800
1,250
1,000
1,080
300
72,500
6,500
46,000
4,000
50
5,000
4,000
7,200
15,000
200
*Also discharges materials that cause a color problem in receiving stream.
-------
TABLE 3 (Continued)
ESTIMATED CHARACTERISTICS OF SEWAGE AND INDUSTRIAL WASTES
DISCHARGED TO MERRIMACK RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES WITHIN STUDY AREA
RIVER
TREATMENT AND
POPULATION EQUIVALENTS DISCHARGED
1
»-
VjJ
1
SOURCE
Merzdmack
Merrtmack Leather Co.,
Merrimack
New England Pole and Wood
Treating Corp., Merrimack
Wilton^
Hillsborough Mills, Wilton
Milford
Granite State Tanning Co.,
Nashua
Sanders Associates, Nashua*
Johns-Manville Co., Nashua
Nashua
Hampshire Chem. Co., Nashua
Hudson
Deny
Salem
DISCHARGED TO
Merrimack
Souhegan
Merrimack
Souhegan
Souhegan
Souhegan
Nashua
Nashua
Nashua
Merrimack
Merrimack
Merrimack
Beaver Brook
Spicket
WASTE REDUCTION MEASURES BACTERIAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS
None
None
Phenol recovery
None
None
None
Settling
None
Settling
Partly raw, partly primary,
partly secondary
Ammonia recovery, lagoon
None
Secondary
Secondary with Cl2
200
1,000
3,000
28,500
600
40
10
200
12,000
1,000
7,000
3,000
12,000
850
350
28,200
600
600
150
OXYGEN DEMAND
200
7,500
1,000
3,500
3,000
16,500
1,200
220
30,300
600
400
100
TOTAL NEW HAMPSHIRE
141,300
454,280
693,000
*Plating baths periodically dumped. Probably contain copper and cyanide.
-------
TABLE 3 (Continued)
ESTIMATED CHARACTERISTICS OF SEWAGE AND INDUSTRIAL WASTES
DISCHARGED TO MERRIMACK RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES WITHIN STUDY AREA
SOURCE
MASSACHUSETTS
Gushing Academy
State Hospital, Gardner
Weyerhaeuser Paper Co.,
Fitchburg
Fitchburg Paper Co.,
Fitchburg
Simonds Saw and Steel Co.,
Fitchburg
Falulah Paper Co.,
Fitchburg
Fitchburg
Mead Corp., Leominster
Foster Grant Co.,
Leominster
Leominster
Atlantic Union College,
Lancaster
Lancaster
Blackstone Mills, Inc.,
Clinton
Clinton
Girls Industrial School
Ayer
Shirley
Hollingsworth and Vose Co.,
Groton
RIVER
DISCHARGED TO
TREATMENT AND
WASTE REDUCTION MEASURES
POPULATION EQUIVALENTS DISCHARGED
BACTERIAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS OXTGEN DEMAND
Phillips Brk. Secondary with C12
Whitman Secondary with C12
North Nashua Savealls, wastes recircu-
lated, starch sub-
stitution, settling
North Nashua Savealls, wastes recircu-
lated, retention aids
North Nashua None
3
16
North Nashua
North Nashua
North Nashua
North Nashua
North Nashua
North Nashua
Nashua
South Nashua
South Nashua
Nashua
Nashua
Nashua
Nashua
Wastes recirculated, chemi-
cal precipitation,
vacuum filtration of
sludge
Inadequate secondary
Starch substitution,
wastes recirculated
Lagoon
Partly secondary, partly raw
Partly primary, partly
secondary
None
None
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
None
Settling, wastes recircu-
lated
18,900
3,000
210
150
1,300
15
375
100
45
80
184,600
108,200
115,400
20,700
30,300
16,600
5,200
210
150
1,560
18
750
100
1,470
30
80
39,650
37,060
5,800
27,940
19,500
5,700
2,500
12,140
280
150
150
1,040
18
500
100
6,650
Supplemental Data: Borden Chemical Co., Leominster, Massachusetts, having no
treatment measures, discharges suspended solids population equivalents
of 2,000 and oxygen demand population equivalents of 11,000 to the
North Nashua River.
-------
TABLE 3 (Continued)
ESTIMATED CHARACTERISTICS OF SEWAGE AND INDUSTRIAL WASTES
DISCHARGED TO MERRIMACK RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES WITHIN STUDY AREA
SOURCE
Groton Leather Board Co.,
Groton
Groton School
St. Regis Paper Co.,
Pepperell
Pepperell
Southwell Combing Co.,
CheLnsford*
H. E. Fletcher Co.,
CheLnsford
Gilet Wool Scouring Corp.,
Chelmsford**
J. P. Stevens & Co., Dracut
Dracut
Chemical Mfg. Co., Ashland
General Electric Co.,
Ashland
Marlborough
Roxbury Carpet Co.,
.Framingham***
Westborough
Hudson Combing Co., Hudson
Hudson
Maynard
Mass. Reformatory
Concord
Billerica House of Correction
Billerica
No. Billerica Co., Billerica
RIVER
DISCHARGED TO
Nashua
Nashua
Nashua
Nashua
Merrimack
Merrimack
Stony Brook
Beaver Brook
Beaver Brook
Sudbury
Sudbury
Sudbury
Sudbury
Assabet
Assabet
Assabet
Assabet
Assabet
Concord
Concord
Concord
Concord
TREATMENT AND
WASTE REDUCTION MEASURES BACTERIAL
Settling, wastes recircu-
lated
Secondary
Savealls, wastes recircu-
lated
None
Grease recovery
None
None
None
None
Neutralization, sand filter
Neutralization, settling,
C12, alkaline C12 of CN
Secondary with C12
None
Inadequate secondary
Settling & lagoons
Inadequate secondary with
C12
Inadequate secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary with C12
Partly raw, partly second-
ary with C12
None
POPULATION EQUIVALENTS DISCHARGED
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
5,880
OXYGEN DEMAND
2,120
8
200
VHV
1,000
130
300
70
510
40
180
4
320
10
64,700
200
30,800
2,940
13,600
1,000
150
900
1,760
1,000
1,080
1,020
50
225
50
400
10
16,200
200
22,100
150
19,700
850
1,000
500
600
2,900
950
720
680
50
225
35
375
1,410
5,530
*Also discharges 2,380 pounds of grease per day.
**Also discharges 3,120 pounds of grease per day.
***Periodic dumping of dye.
-------
TABLE 3
-------
TABLE 3 (Continued)
ESTIMATED CHARACTERISTICS OF SEWAGE AND INDUSTRIAL WASTES
DISCHARGED TO MERRIMACK RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES WITHIN STUDY AREA
RIVER
TREATMENT AND
POPULATION EQUIVALENTS DISCHARGED
SOURCE
Merrimack Paper Co., Lawrence
Lawrence Wool Scouring Co.,
Lawrence*
Loom Weave Corp., Lawrence
Lawrence
Western Electric Co.,
North Andover
North Andover
Methuen
Continental Can Co.,
Haverhill
Hoyt & Worthen Tanning Corp.,
Haverhill
Cowan & Shain Inc., Haverhill
C. F. Jameson Co., Haverhill
Haverhill
Groveland
Amesbury Fibre Corp.,
Amesbury
Merrimack Hat Co., Amesbury
Amesbury Metal Products Co.,
Amesbury
Amesbury
Newburyport
Salisbury
TOTAL MASSACHUSETTS
TOTAL NEW HAMPSHIRE
TOTAL BOTH STATES
DISCHARGED TO
Merrimack
Merrimack
Merrimack
Merrimack
Merrimack
Merrimack
Merrimack
Merrimack
Merrimack
Merrimack
Merrimack
Merrimack
Merrimack
Merrimack
Merrimack
Merrimack
Powwow
Merrimack
Merrimack
WASTE REDUCTION MEASURES
Wastes re circulated
Grease recovery
None
None
Primary, neutralization
None
None
Savealls, wastes recircu-
lated
Grease and oil recovery
None
None
None
None
Wastes recirculated, save-
alls
None
None
None
Primary with Cly
Inadequate primary
BACTERIAL
_
__
70,000
9,000
17,000
__
44,000
1,000
7,200
140
1,250
274,897
141.300
416,197
SUSPENDED SOLIDS
5,100
13,500
440
149,000
400
18,800
18,000
77,000
7,000
10
60
71,000
1,000
6,820
235
14,000
7,700
1,100
1,198,465
454.280
1,652,745
OXYGEN DEMAND
4,400
9,180
1,760
120,000
135
13,600
23,800
47,000
4,400
790
60
50,000
1,000
3,530
1,120
11,000
10,000
1,620
729,490
693.000
1,422,490
*Also discharges 860 pounds of grease per day.
-------
WATER USES
PRESENT USES
Municipal Use
At present there are two cities, Lowell and Lawrence, that
are using the Merrimack River as a source of municipal water supply.
Since 1963 the river has been the principal source of water supply for
approximately 65,000 persons in the City of Lowell, Massachusetts.
Lowell's water intake is located eleven miles below Nashua, New Hampshire,
and seven miles below the New Hampshire-Massachusetts state line.
Lawrence, Massachusetts, which has been using the Merrimack as a source
since 1893, ia presently supplying water to 90,000 people in Lawrence and
neighboring Methuen. The water intake is located nine miles downstream
from Lowell.
As populations rapidly increase in many of the cities and
towns along the Merrimack River, additional municipalities may need to
use this convenient source of water supply. Chelmsford, Tyngsboro,
Andover, North Andover, Tewksbury and West Newbury, Massachusetts, have
already been mentioned as potential users of the Merrimack, not to
mention Concord, Manchester and Nashua, New Hampshire.
In addition, several tributaries are now being used. Billerica,
Massachusetts, uses the Concord River as its source of municipal water
supply, having completed a new water treatment plant for this purpose in
1955. Nashua, New Hampshire, utilizes part of the flow of the Souhegan
River, and Concord, New Hampshire, obtains water from the Soucook River.
- 18 -
-------
Additional use of tributaries is being considered by several cities and
towns. These include Burlington, Massachusetts, (the Shawsheen River)
and Concord, New Hampshire, (the Contoocook River).
Industrial Use
In 1954 approximately 185 million gallons of water per day
were taken from the Merrimack River for industrial use in the major
industrial centers of Manchester, New Hampshire, and Lowell, Lawrence
and Haverhill, Massachusetts(3). Another 2? million gallons per day
were taken from the North Nashua River by Fitchburg industries. Since
then industrial water us has probably been reduced because a number of
the major water-using industries have moved out of the basin.
About half of the industrial water use in 1954 was for cooling
purposes, which requires no processing. Some industries do use Merrimack
River water for processing, but the water quality is not satisfactory
and sand filters are needed to precondition it. Feeder streams are also
used for industrial water supplies. Nashua River water is used for
industrial processing in a number of instances. Where preconditioning is
necessary, facilities ranging from sand filters to ion exchange processes
are used.
The Merrimack River is used for hydroelectric power to a
large extent. On the Merrimack below Franklin, New Hampshire, there are
five utility plants and thirteen privately-owned industrial developments,
with total capacities of 28,670 and 22,320 kilowatts, respectively^.
- 19 .
-------
Theoe 18 plants utilize 177 feet of a total fall of 254 feet. Canal
systems at Lowell and Lawrence, Massachusetts, divide the use of water
among several plants at each location. On weekends, the Merrimack River
flow below several of the dams is drastically reduced as a result of
"stacking" practices. This two-day reduction in flow seriously affects
the capacity of the river to assimilate wastes during July, August and
September.
Agricultural Use
Merrimack River water is used for irrigation of truck crops
from Franklin, New Hampshire, to below Haverhill, Massachusetts. Between
Manchester, New Hampshire, and the state line, there are several hundred
acres of truck crops along the banks of the Merrimack River.
Fish and Wildlife Use
According to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, parts of the
Merrimack River in New Hampshire possess an outstanding fishery. However,
there is public aversion to using fish caught from the river for food
because of the raw sewage emptied into the river. Consequently, any
fishing done there is merely for sport. Fabulous potential exists for
the fishing that may materialize if the pollution is cleaned up. Rainbow
and brook trout are planted in approximately 155 New Hampshire rivers and
brooks that are tributary to the Merrimack River, excluding tributaries of
Lake Winnipesaukee.
- 20 -
-------
The Mcrrimack River, between the Nashua River and the state
line, contains the following fish species in large numbers: yellow
perch, red-breasted sunfish, pumpkinaeed, large-mouthed bass, eastern
chain pickerel, northern yellow bullhead, northern common bullhead,
eastern golden shiner, eastern common shiner, fallfish, long-nosed dace,
eastern black-nosed dace and eastern common sucker.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has estimated that sport
fishermen spent over $1,000,000 in total expenses while fishing in the
Merrimack River estuary in 1964^). The value of an industry of this
magnitude to the cities and towns in the vicinity of the Merrimack
River estuary is obviously tremendous. However, the polluted condition
of the river prevents this revenue source from reaching its maximum
benefit to the local communities. This sport industry is primarily
dependent upon striped bass, mackerel and blackback flounder fisheries
and offshore ground fishery. Commercial value of the estuary is also
severely reduced due to pollution. Since 1926 the shellfish beds in the
estuary of the Merrimack River have been closed to harvest. In certain
small sections shellfish can be taken and treated in the shellfish
depuration plant at Newburyport. Due to gross pollution, largely as the
result of sewage discharged to the river by neighboring communities, the
commercial value of the soft shell clam was only $14,000 of a potential
$1,000,000 harvest in 1964^.
Prior to construction of the dams on the lower Merrimack,
hundreds of thousands of anadromous fish were caught annually in the
Merrimack River. The most important species included salmon, shad, ml*-
- 21 -
-------
wives and smelt. The Merrimack River, once famous for its salmon run,
hasn't seen a salmon in almost fifty years. Their disappearance is
attributed mainly to dams and pollution.
According to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the present
shad run into the Merrimack is small, because the only area available for
spawning, the lower section of the river, is heavily polluted. Even
though the fish can ascend the fishway in the Essex Dam at Lawrence, they
can only proceed upstream to the Pawtucket Dam at Lowell, which is
completely impassable. The number of shad annually ascending the Lawrence
fishway is from 1,500 to 3,000 fish. Fishing for shad in the lower river
is sporadic, and in some years there is none at all. In I960 no fish
were reported taken.
Because of the polluted conditions in the Nashua River, it is
not used for fishing, although it is populated by various types of coarse
fish in the lower section.
The tidal marsh and mud flat complex in the Newburyport-Amesbury
area is a large important waterfowl area. Another important waterfowl
area is the Nashua River Basin, particularly in the Lancaster-Bolton,
Massachusetts, region.
Recreational Use
Water-oriented recreational activity has been increasing
rapidly on a national scale, especially near centers of population.
However, a similar increase has not been possible in the Merrimack
River Basin because of its polluted condition. The U. S. National
- 22 -
-------
Park Service in 1954 estimated that tangible benefits of 15 million
dollars could be added annually to the economy of an unpolluted Merri-
mack River Basin by visitor usage(3). Highly significant intangible
benefits would also be involved. No doubt the benefits would be even
greater today as a result of the increased pressure for recreation.
The Merrimack River is used for boating and water skiing above
Manchester, Lowell and Lawrence, and in the tidewater near its mouth.
Ski clubs have been formed by people with this mutual interest, and ski
jumps are provided for members. For the past several years, the Eastern
Stock Outboard Boat Racing Championships have been held in the Merrimack
River above Lowell. Other races have taken place in Haverhill and Lowell
since the mid-1950's, indicating the popularity of the river for boating.
In the Nashua River, there is a small amount of boating in the reservoir
above Pepperell; the Concord River is utilized for this purpose in Billerica
and Concord.
For several years, Lowell provided a public bathing beach and
a change house along the Merrimack, upstream of the city. This facility
was closed in 1965 due to pollution. No other public bathing facilities
exist on the Merrimack River at this time, although the City of Concord,
New Hampshire, has considered converting the present Sewells Falls power
generating station and surrounding land to a recreational area.
Swimming takes place to a limited degree at several other points
on the river, notably at Hooksett and Manchester, New Hampshire, and
Tyngaboro,- Lowell, Lawrence and Newburyport, Massachusetts.
- 23 -
-------
FUTURE USES
Municipal Use
As the population of the river basin increases, more and more
communities will be needing a water supply of sufficient volume. Such
sources will not be available at "remote locations" due to their scarcity,
irregular flow, and development cost. The most logical source becomes
the Merrimack River, which is already used as a water supply by Lowell
and Lawrence, and under consideration by nine other communities.
After waste treatment plants are in operation, benefits to the
communities using the river for a water supply would include reduced
taste and odor problems, a water that has a greater microbiological
safety factor, and reduced costs of water plant operation. For the
cities of Lowell and Lawrence, it is estimated that a minimum yearly
savings in chemicals of $8,300 could be realized if adequate pollution
abatement facilities were in operation.
Industrial Use
With adequate waste treatment, the cities along the river would
offer several reasons for attracting new industry. These would include
a bountiful source of good quality water and adequate recreation facilities
for employees. Savings to the industries would result from reduced pre-
conditioning, corrosion, scale and operating costs.
Agricultural Use
Following construction of adequate waste treatment facilities
- 2k -
-------
irrigation water would have a lower bacterial density, resulting in a
reduced health hazard.
Fish and Wildlife Use
The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service has indicated that it
would be economically feasible to reintroduce salmon and other anadromous
fishes to the Merrimack River. Indications are that the number of fish-
ermen in the United States spend $10.00 per fishing trip, and that their
numbers will triple between I960 and 2000. The main stem of the Merrimack
River could support an additional 290,000 man-days of fishing per year.
Proper control of pollution would bring full realisation of the
true fish and wildlife potential of the streams. The entire Merrimack
Basin lies within easy reach of highly-populated urban areas. By the
year 2000, approximately 3,000,000 of the projected New England popula-
tion of 1? million people will fish. An estimated 800,000 hunters will
live in the area by this date. The Merrimack River would provide many
additional fishing and hunting sites for these people.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has estimated that the annual
harvest of soft shell clams is only one-twentieth of what it could be if
pollution was adequately removed from the river. The yearly commercial
value of soft shell clams could be $300,000 to $1,000,000.
Recreational Use
Perhaps the most significant advantage from adequate treatment
- 25 -
-------
would be in the area of recreation. The Northeastern states have 25 per
cent of the population of the country but only 4 per cent of its recrea-
tional acreage. Providing reasonable access to the out-of-doors for
large concentrations of population will became one of the Northeast's
central problems in the next forty years. At the center of concern will
be the day and week-end needs of metropolitan residents. With some 10.5
million people within an easy day's drive of the Merrimack River, and
an additional 6.5 million expected by the year 2000, the need is easily
recognised.
Recent statistics indicate that 41 per cent of the population
prefers water-based recreational activities, and it is conservatively
estimated that it spends $8.00 per person per day for food, lodging,
transportation and miscellaneous items.
The opportunity for boating, swimming and other water related
sports would be one benefit of a clean Merrimack River. The many visitors
attracted to the region for recreational purposes would be adding millions
of dollars to the local economy. However, it has been found in other
areas of the United States that, in terms of dollar volume, the increase
in county revenues that flows from a rise in value of taxable property
is the most important result of the coming of recreation^ '.
INCOME LOSS DUE TO POLLUTION
For the Merrimack River Basin, the total minimum lost monetary
value of potential resources is estimated to be $37,000,000 for the year
- 26 -
-------
1966. Although this value is for the entire valley, the major loss
occurs on the main stem of the Merrimack and Nashua Rivers. The break-
down of lost resources is shown in Table 4.
TABLE 4
1966 INCOME LOSS DUE TO POLLUTION
INCOME SOURCE INCOME LOST1966
Commercial Values of Estuary $ 300,000
Recreation Visitor Income ' 21,300,000
Increased Property Value 9,100,000
Increased Tax Revenues 5,500,000
Miscellaneous 800,000
Total Income Loss $37,000,000
The estimate of loss of the commercial value of the estuary
was obtained from Commonwealth of Massachusetts studies^), it was
estimated that "...approximately $300,000 worth of clams could be
harvested annually...and that...the total value could well exceed $500,000
and might approach $1,000,000 annually." The 1964 harvest was estimated
at $14,000.
For 1952 the New England-New York Inter-Agency Committee
report'3' estimated that the "...total visitor use of the resources
within the basin would approximate 2,800,000 annually...an increase of
1,000,000 over present use. The additional use could be expected to
- 27 -
-------
increase total spending in connection with recreation to about $60,000,000,
an increase of $15,000,000 over present estimated expenditures." Using
the estimated $15,000,000 and applying a rate of 3 per cent increase per
year during the period 1952 to 1966, the value is estimated to be
$21,300,000 for 1966.
From experiences in other parts of the country'"', it was
found that the increased land value and associated tax revenue was one
of the most significant local benefits of added recreational opportunities.
In order to evaluate the recreational benefit, it was estimated that the
total effective recreational land immediately benefitted would equal the
area immediately abutting the Merrimack and Nashua Rivers. The selection
of this area is based upon its presence in an area lacking recreational
facilities, closeness to large metropolitan populations, and present
severity of pollution. In addition to the above mentioned area, additional
recreational use would be made available on the Pemigewasset, Souhegan and
a number of other rivers and streams in the basin. The total river
mileage of the Merrimack and Nashua Rivers is 173 miles. Total river
bank footage available is, thus, 1,830,600 feet. A minimum value increase
of $50 per foot is assumed. In comparison, current lake front property
on Lake Winnipesaukee is estimated at $1,200 to $2,200 per foot of lake
frontage. Total increase in value is, then, estimated to be $91,400,000.
It is further estimated that developments constructed on the land would
equal the increased land value, making the total increased value
$182,600,000* This value was pro-rated over a 20 year period, so that
each year would have a value of $9,100,000.
- 28 -
-------
In order to determine the tax revenue available from the
recreational use, property tax was considered only. The current rate
of tax revenue in the basin is approximately $30 per $1,000 per year,
or 3 per cent. Lost tax revenue on the value of land and buildings amounts
to $5,500,000 per year.
Miscellaneous benefits could be realized from such items as
reduced water treatment costs for both municipalities and industries,
reduced operating expenses for domestic and industrial appliances using
water, and reduced laundering costs. These are estimated at $800,000
per year-
The total figure is considered to be a minimum value, and a
detailed economic survey would include many additional factors such as:
1. the use of the shllfish market factor, which considers the
value added in preparing the shellfish for purchase by the
consumer (about five times the $300,000 to $1,000,000 received
by the diggers),
2. a more recent projection of recreational visitor use, since
recreational use has increased about 125 per cent since 1952,
and is expected to triple by the year 2000,
3. an evaluation of increased values for those lands not directly
on the river banks, and a value that is higher and more reason-
able than the $50 per foot used, and
^- an estimation of construction cost and increased value of
buildings on lands probably would be nearer to 3 times the
land value instead of being the same.
- 29 -
-------
It is estimated that such a survey would indicate a loss in the range
of 60 to 70 million dollars a year instead of 37 million.
The value of recreation to the local area can be measured
by another indicator. It has been estimated(7) that "if the community
can attract a couple of dozen tourists a day throughout the year, it
could be economically comparable to acquiring a new manufacturing
industry with an annual payroll of $100,000."
When one considers that pollution conservatively costs the
local communities in the Merrimack Basin 37 million dollars a year, then
a pollution abatement program costing 100, 150 or even 200 million
dollars that can be repaid in less than 6 years, is not prohibitive
even on a local basis. The construction of such facilities is not
only necessary to protect the health and welfare of the public, but
mandatory from an economic viewpoint.
- 30 -
-------
TIME OF STREAM TRAVEL
Rhodaminc B dye and a fluorometer with a continuous flow cell
were used to determine the time of stream travel of the Merrimack River
and selected tributaries. When added, a homogeneous mass of dye was
found in the vertical plane of the Merrimack River, indicating that it
was well mixed. In the horizontal plane, the center of the river channel
gave the most consistent results.
Average daily flow in the various reaches of the river was
determined from the U. S. Geological Survey gaping station records and
records maintained by the Public Service Company of Mew Hampshire at
various power facilities.
Time of travel was calculated from the time required for the
peak concentration of dye to pass each key point and from the average
daily river flow between points. Data were obtained from the same
section of the river at various flows. The results were plotted on
log-log graph paper. In the tidal section of the Merrimack River. the
net forward velocity of the dye was used.
The time of travel relationship to flow for the Merrimack
River from Franklin, New Hampshire, to Newburyport, Massachusetts, appears
in Figures 2 through 10. Figures 11 through IU give the rraph of time
of travel versus river mile from Franklin to Newburyport. Time of travel
graphs for the Souhegan River are presented in Figures 15, 16 and 1?.
This family of curves represents the range of flows for which time of
travel results were obtained.
- 31 -
-------
The following is an example of the use of the curves. To
determine the time of travel at 1,000 cfs from river mile 54.55, Nashua,
New Hampshire, to the Lowell water intake, river mile 43.47, use Figure
12. The time value at river mile 54*55 of 2.15 days is subtracted froa
the time value at river mile 43.47 of 4*25 days, yielding the tia* of
travel of 2.10 days at 1,000 cfs from Nashua to the Lowell water intake.
- 32 -
-------
ion
V)
0 1.0
TIME OF TRAVEL,
2 i
i
«
^^M
m^m
X
^^M
^
<
\
X.
'N,
X^
^x
s^
^x
Example :
The time of travel from
Fran Win, to Seualls Falls
Dam at 1000 C.FS. is 2.05 days.
100 ,000 10,000
FLOW.C.F.S.
ME R RIM AC K RIVER
TIME OF TRAVEL VS. FLOW- FRANKUN,N.H. TO SEWALLS FALLS DAM
FIGURE 2
-------
10.0
(O
a_
i
ae.
u.
o
UJ
1.0
O.I
100
1,000
FLOW,C.F.S.
10,000
MERRIMACK RIVER
TIME OF TRAVEL VS. FLOW - SEWALLS FALLS DAM TO RT. 3 BRIDGE, CONCORD
FIGURE 3
-------
10.0
ui
5
u.
o
UJ
F
0.1
100
\
\
N
\
1,000
FLOW,C.F.S.
10,000
MERRIMACK RIVER
TIME OF TRAVEL VS. FLOW- RT.3 BRIDGE, CONCORD TO HOOKSETT DAM
FIGURE 4
-------
10.0
1
oc
I-
u. 10
o
UJ
0.1
IOO
\
\
\
\
1,000
FLOW.C.F.S.
10,000
MERRIMACK RIVER
TIME OF TRAVEL VS. FLOW- HOOKSETT DAM TO AMOSKEAG DAM
FIGURE 5
-------
10.0
<
U.
O
UJ
0.1
100
1,000
FLOW.C.F.S.
10,000
MERRIMACK RIVER
TIME OF TRAVEL VS. FLOW" AMOSKEA6 DAM TO NASHUA RIVER
FIGURE 6
-------
10.0
CO
I
UJ
I
fe
UJ
1.0
O.I
100
1,000
FUOW C.F.S.
10.000
MERRIMACK RIVER
TIME OF TRAVEL VS. FLOW - NASHUA RIVER TO CONCORD RIVER
FIGURE 7
-------
10.0 _..
t/>
_f
UJ
DC
I-
Ul
p
1.0
0.1
too
X
\
1,000
FLOW.C.F.S.
\
10,000
MERRIMACK RIVER
TIME OF TRAVEL VS. FLOW- CONCORD RIVER TO LAWRENCE
FIGURE 8
-------
10.0
V)
UJ
i
1.0
O.I
100
ipoo
FLOW-C.F.S.
IO.OOO
MERRIMACK RIVER
TIME OF TRAVEL VS. FLOW - LAWRENCE TO LITTLE RIVER
FIGURE 9
-------
10.0
to
i
UJ
2 1.0
o.t
100
1,000
FLOW,Cf.S.
KXOOO
MERRIMACK RIVER
TIME OF TRAVEL VS. FLOW - LITTLE RIVER TO NEWBURYPORT
FIGURE 10
-------
co
K)O
90-
ao-
7.0-
6.0-
o 50H
UJ
5
h 4.0-
3.0-
o
2.0-
1.0-
z
u.
I
115
110
CO
_l
CO
I,
UJ <
CO Q
Ul
o
o
coo
£'8
< AMOSKEAG DAM
o
95 90 85
MILES ABOVE MOUTH OF MERRIMACK RIVER
80
i
75
TIME OF TRAVEL
MERRIMACK RIVER MILES II6T073
-------
70
65
60 55 50 45
MILES ABOVE MOUTH OF MERRIMACK RIVER
40
35
TIME OF TRAVEL
MERRIMACK RIVER MILES 73 TO 39
-------
36
37
36
35 34 33 32 31
MILES ABOVE MOUTH OF MERR1MACK RIVER
I
30
29
28
TIME OF TRAVEL
MERRIMACK RIVER MILES 39 TO 29
-------
X
(9
30 28
26
22
20
18 16 14 12 10 8 6
MILES ABOVE MOUTH OFMERRIMACK RIVER
0
TIME OF TRAVEL
MERRIMACK RIVER MILES 29 TO 3
-------
I
_J
LJ
2 '-o -
u.
o
UJ
2
H
O.I _
\
\
\
\
\
S
\
\
\
N
\
\
\
^
100 ,OOO IO.OOO
FLOV^CRS.
SOUHEGAN RIVER- TIME OF TRAVEL VS. FLOW - WILTON TO MILFORD
FIGURE 15
-------
IO.O
UI
I
U.
O
UI
1.0
O.I
\
100
1.000
FLOW.C.F.S.
10,000
SOUHE6AN RIVER- TIME OF TRAVEL VS. FLOW- MILFORO TO MOUTH
FIGURE 16
-------
FLOWS AS RECORDED AT THE
MERRIMACK,N.H.,GAOE STATION
17
16
I
15
i
14
13
i
10
12 II 10 9 8 7
MILES ABOVE MOUTH OF SOUHEGAN RIVER
i
6
i
4
i
3
i
2
TIME OF TRAVEL OF SOUHEGAN RIVER
-------
EFFECTS OF POLLUTION ON STREAM QUALITY
For the purposes of this study, the evaluation of stream
quality was based primarily on a "sanitary water analysis", i.e.
temperature, dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand, and coliform
bacteria. A limited nutrient (phosphorus and nitrogen) sampling program
and a very limited industrial waste program was conducted.
Three of the factors of stream pollutiontemperature, dissolved
oxygen (DO) and biochemical oxygen demand (BOD)are all interrelated.
As organic matter having a BOD is added to the river by sewage and
industrial discharges, bacteria begin to act upon the organic matter
and convert it to cell material and carbon dioxide. By this natural
process the organic matter is removed from the stream. During this
decomposition of waste material, the dissolved oxygen of the river
is utilized. If the BOD is sufficiently high, the DO may be lowered
to the point that it cannot support fish and other aquatic life. Most
water pollution control agencies have adopted a value of 5.0 ppm of
dissolved oxygen as the minimum level necessary to maintain the maximum
potential warm water sport fish population. When the DO is at or near
zero, anaerobic decomposition may occur. Such decomposition often
results in gasification, producing carbon dioxide, methane and hydrogen
sulfide. The most noticeable results are "rotten egg" odors, black
water and discoloration of paint on nearby structures.
In the relationship of BOD stabilization and DO concentration,
- 33 -
-------
temperature plays an important role. An increase in temperature has
two effects: (l) the organic material is stabilized at a faster rate
and, therefore, the dissolved oxygen is utilized at a higher rate; and
(2) the saturation value for dissolved oxygen is reduced, thereby
decreasing the amount of oxygen that a stream can dissolve.
Nitrogen and phosphorus are two nutrients important to
aquatic plant growth. Although several other nutrients are essential
for growth, they are generally required in minute amounts. Concentrations
of nitrogen and phosphorus are often, used to indicate potential algal
growths.
For each variable, water quality data obtained during 1964-65
are discussed below. A list of sample station codes, river miles and
descriptions are given in Appendix A. Temperature, DO and BOD data are
summarized in Appendix B and coliform data in Appendix C.
TEMPERATURE
Temperature values ranged from a low of -1°C at several stations
during January, February and March of 1965 to a high value of 30° below
the Public Service Company of New Hampshire power plant at Bow, New
Hampshire. Excluding the estuary, very little temperature variations were
noted during consecutive sampling days at any one station. In general,
there was no significant variation between sample stations in a particular
reach. Minimum, maximum and average values are reported in Appendix B
for significant sampling periods. During the concentrated summer
-34 -
-------
sampling period of 1964, the temperature average for the 19 non-estuary
samples was 21.9°C. For the summer of 1965, the 30 stations sampled
averaged 23.9°C. This difference can be attributed mainly to a lower
flow at the time of sampling in 1965. For the combined values of the
two years the temperature averaged 23°C.
There was only one major source of thermal pollution noticed
in the study, that being the Public Service Company of New Hampshire
power plant at Bow, New Hampshire. This effluent raised the temperature
an average of 3°C just below the outfall. Any expansion of this plant
or construction of new facilities in the Merrimack River Basin should
provide for the cooling of the waste discharges.
There were no significant temperature differences observed
between the Merrimack River and its major tributaries.
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
Maximum, average and minimum dissolved oxygen values of the
Merrimack River obtained during significant sampling periods are
summarized in Appendix B. The maximum value occurring in the Merrimack
River was 12.9 ppm (92 per cent of saturation) and was recorded during
the period of high river flow in April, 1965. During the low flow
summer months, the maximum value was 9.7 ppm. In August of 196/4.,
the river was devoid of dissolved oxygen at stations HN-1.0 and HN-2.0
below Haverhill, Massachusetts,
Most of the stations displayed a dally fluctuation in DO
values. The primary cause of this cyclic fluctuation was the use of
-35 -
-------
oxygen by aquatic plants at night and the production of oxygen by
photosynthesis during the day. A typical dissolved oxygen pattern
is shown in Figure 18. Photosynthesis can be retarded during the
daytime if the amount of solar radiation reaching the algae is signifi-
cantly reduced by cloud cover. This effect is apparent on Wednesday,
August 11, in the figure. Daily variations in the cycle can be attribu-
ted to variations in solar radiation plus variations in river flow and
waste load.
The ice cover on the Herrimack River during the winter season
did not result in low dissolved oxygen concentrations. Apparently
the turbulence of the water as the river was diverted through the canals
and factories and the occasional open stretches of water enabled
sufficient reaeration to occur to prevent low dissolved oxygen values.
Dissolved oxygen results in the Herrimack River during June,
July, August and September of 1964 and 1965 are summarized in Figure 19.
Only 17 of the 43 sample points had an average value in excess of 5.0
ppm of dissolved oxygen. None of the minimum values was greater than
5.0 ppm.
Between Concord and Manchester, New Hampshire, the dissolved
oxygen was moderately depressed by the waste loads from the communities
and industries of Concord, Pembroke, Allenstown and Hooksett, New
Hampshire. In this section the minimum values varied between 3*9 and
5.0 ppm. Average values were near or above 5*0 ppm.
After receiving the domestic and industrial wastes of Manchester,
New Hampshire, the river became grossly polluted. Additional waste loads
-36 -
-------
STATION 'MM- 4.0
D.O. SAMPLE "^
BOD SAMPLE - -_ - .*-. -.
IN GENERAL-DARKNESS 2100to 0430
AV6.D.O. - 4.69 ppm
AVG. TEMP. = 24.4 C
AVG. 800= 3.15 ppm
RUN NO.
i z. a
AUG. 6
AUG.7
AUG.8
AUG. 9
DATE, 1964
AUG.I3
TYPICAL DISSOLVED OXYGEN 8 BOD PATTERNS IN THE MERRIMACK RIVER
-------
CONCORD
5
4
3
2
g-'J
UJ
o
AVERA0E D.0.~»
MINIMlfM DO.-*.
DCSIMAILE MINIMUM -y
1
1
1.
HOOKSETT
96
88
T
MANCHCITER
"
Q
UJ
7-
6
0
Q5
N.H.-MASS.
NASHUA STATE LINE
LOWELL
LAWRENCE
TT
DESIRABLE MINIMUM
HAVERHIU.
7
-6
-5
4
3
I
- I
-0
4-
3
2
H
o
i
56
i~ i
52
44
40
24
20
16
12
Merrimack River Miles
DISSOLVED OXYGEN IN MERRIMACK RIVER
JUNE , JULY,AUGUST ft SEPTEMBER 1964-1965
-------
of Nashua and Hudson, New Hampshire, and the greater Lowell, Lawrence,
and Haverhill regions succeeded in preventing the river from ever recov-
ering in this reach. Averages in this seventy-two mile section varied
from a high of 5.11 ppm of dissolved oxygen to a low of 0.88 ppm.
Minimum values were less than 2.0 ppm at all stations except one, and
zero dissolved oxygen values were found at two points.
A depletion in the oxygen supply of a river will reduce or
eliminate aquatic life which serves as food for fish. The biological
(ft}
stream studies conducted on the Merriraack Riverv ' showed that these
benthic organisms, sensitive in their responses to pollution, were
totally absent in the lower fifty-seven miles of the Merrimack River.
In only four very short reaches of the entire Merrimack River, less
than 15 miles out of a total of 115, did the river recover enough from
its despoiled condition to permit a small number of sensitive organisms
to exist.
BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
The biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) of the Merrimack River
is summarized in Appendix B. Very little variation was observed
between the maximum and minimum values at a given station, as shown in
Figure 18. The maximum value present in the Merrimack River was 11.2
ppm below Lawrence, Massachusetts; the minimum value was 0.7 ppm,
occurring above Hooksett, New Hampshire. The most polluted reach of
the Merrimack River, as indicated by BOD analysis, was between Lawrence
and Haverhill. In this reach, the average BOD was 6.73, 7.63 and 8.54 ppm
- 37 -
-------
at ths three stations.
"Long-term" BOD analyses were conducted at several stations.
These data, found in Appendix B, were used to determine the rate of
BOD stabilisation and the degree of second stage BOD. From Manchester,
New Hampshire, to below Haverhill, Massachusetts, the second stage BOD
was found to be significant.
In August of 1964 there were 28,800 pounds of BOD per day
crossing the state line from New Hampshire into Massachusetts, exclu-
sive of the 2,600 pounds per day added by Massachusetts by way of the
Nashua River. This is equivalent to the discharge of raw sewage from
a city of 169,000 people. When the BOD remaining from New Hampshire
reaches Lowell, Massachusetts, it equals the total domestic and industrial
wastes discharged by the Lowell regional communities to the river.
In 1965 the contribution of each New Hampshire community and
the Nashua River to the BOD crossing the state line is shown below:
Manchester 52 per cent
Nashua-Hudson 23 per cent
Nashua River 17 per cent
Concord 4 per cent
Other k per cent
The Nashua River portion at the state line is actually contributed
by Massachusetts and represents the residual wastes of that discharged
to the Nashua River before the river crosses into New Hampshire.
-38-
-------
BACTERIA
In the early part of this century typhoid fever epidemics
were commonplace in many cities which used surface streams as sources
of supply and provided little or no water treatment. These epidemics
have been brought under control, largely by modern treatment methods.
The fear of pathogenic bacteria in the water has decreased to the
point that one city official commented recently that there was no public
health significance to the discharging of raw sewage to the Merrimack
River. In determining the bacterial pollution of a river, the pathogenic
organisms are usually not isolated and identified because of the time
involved in carrying the test to completion. Very few samples could
be analyzed if these tests were used to determine bacterial pollution
of a river.
In order to get a more comprehensive view of the bacterial
pollution, indicator organisms are used. Coliform bacteria are indica-
tors most commonly used in stream studies because they are common to
the intestinal tract of man and of other warm blooded animals and can
be identified with relative ease. Two types of coliform tests are commonly
usedfecal coliform and total coliform. The fecal coliform test is a
measure of fecal coliforms from warm-blooded animals, including man,
whereas the total coliform test may include fecal coliforms as well as
certain other bacteria, such as organisms from the soil. It should
be noted, however, that in addition to being indicator organisms, cer-
tain serotypes of-Escherichia coli. a fecal coliform, could also be
pathogenic^). Hinton and MacGregor reported^10), "there seems little
- 39 -
-------
doubt that infections due to pathogenic rogroups of E, coli constitute
an important fraction of those cases of (astro-enteritis in childhood
whose etiology can be specifically defined. The threat of epedemic
enteritis, in highly susceptible populations, Bay well be significantly
decreased by the appreciation of the importance and epidemiology of
E± coli infections."
Geldreich, et. al.'11' determined the colifom bacteria in
human feces, using the completed most probable number (MPN) test and
reported an average of 1.95 billion/capita/day. Raw sewage from large
cities commonly has a confirmed MPN of 15 to 30 million per 100 ml in
the summer and 5 to 10 million per 100 ml in winter'12). On this
basis and assuming 100 gallons/capita/day of wastewater flow, there
are 57 to 114 billion coliform bacteria per capita in raw sewage in
summer and 19 to 38 billion/capita/day in winter.
Two methods are used to quantitatively measure coliform
bacteria. The multiple-tube decimal dilution (MPN) method, mentioned
above, was used during the 1964 studies of the Merrimack River and
occasionally during 1965. The membrane filter (MF) method was used
during the majority of the 1965 samplings. The method used is recorded
with the results in Appendix C. When results of the MPN and MF tests
on Merrimack River water were compared, it was found that the MF gave
values that were on the average 48 per cent of the total coliform MPN
and 57 per cent of the fecal coliform MPN.
The. continuing increase in water recreation and the parallel
increase in the volume of wastes discharged from our cities is resulting
- 40 -
-------
in the direct exposure of increasingly large numbers of persons to the
hazards of ingesting pathogenic organisms. The 40 million or more
water sportsmen in the United States have no protective barrier comparable
to the water treatment plant between themselves and the pathogenic organ-
isms in the water in which they swim, ski, fish, boat and hunt. Few
of them know that the water is contaminated or realize the hazards of
accidental or intentional ingestion of surface waters. Many still
believe in the ancient adage that a river purifies itself every seven
miles, although Salmonella bacteria have been found as far as 75 miles
downstream from the nearest outfall^ *'.
In addition to the increase in coliform bacteria in raw
sewage due to their multiplication, there may be a similar increase in
the receiving stream. A maximum coliform density may occur about one
half day below the point of discharge as a result of this "after-
growth". This increase occurred in the Lowell to Lawrence reach of
the Merrimack River.
To determine coliform densities in the Merrimack River
several intensive studies were undertaken during the summer months of
1964 and 1965. These intensive studies were supplemented by shorter
sampling periods during the other seasons of the year. Data for both
years are summarized in Appendix C.
As shown in Figure 20, raw sewage discharged at Concord,
Manchester and Nashua, New Hampshire, resulted in a large increase
in coliform bacteria. The Merrimack River had an average coliform
density (MF) of 249,000 per 100 ml and an average fecal coliform
- 41 -
-------
density of 18,600 per 100 ml below Manchester during the summer months.
As shown in Figure 21, during the summer the discharges at
Nashua, New Hampshire, and Lowell, Lawrence and Haverhill, Massachusettes,
produced excessive coliform densities. Just below the state line the
total and fecal coliform values were 67,000 and 14,600 MPN per 100 ml,
respectively. At the Lowell water intake the total coliform density
averaged 15,100 MPN per 100 ml and the fecal coliform density averaged
2,500 MPN per 100 ml.
The river had the highest coliform density in the Lawrence
to Haverhill reach. The average total coliform density was 1,910,000
MPN per 100 ml and the average fecal coliform density was 213,000 MPN
per 100 ml below Lawrence. At this station a maximum value of 9,200,000
MPN per 100 ml was obtained for the total coliform density and a maximum
of 542,000 MPN per 100 ml for the fecal coliform density.
Several limited studies were conducted during the fall of
1964 and 1965. The results of the studies are summarized in Appendix
C. Figure 20 shows the river condition in 1965. Colder river water,
being more favorable to the survival of bacteria, is the main reason
for the densities being greater than those of the summer period. At
the Lowell water intake, the total coliforms were 27,900 per 100 ml and
the fecal coliforms averaged 6,900 per 100 ml. Bacteria reaching
Massachusetts from New Hampshire discharges during this period were
considerably higher than the desirable minimum densities of coliform
bacteria. The months of September, October and November were the
periods of the highest coliform densities in the Merrimack River.
- 42 -
-------
COLIFORM BACTERIA IN NEW HAMPSHIRE SECTION OF MERRIMACK RIVER - 1965
100,000
o
o
w 10,000
oc.
o
o
u
1,000
o
c
X
N
o
100
CONCORD
MERRIMACK
NASHUA
OCTOBER-NOVEMBER 1966
^ X
IBER 1966 -,
^. - ^ x. ^^
SUPPLEMENTAL DATA
99
90
85
80 78 70
M«rrimock Rlv»r Mil*
69
60
99
90
49
-------
COLIFORM BACTERIA IN MERRIMACK RIVER - 1964
NASHUA
LOWELL
LAWRENCE
HAVERHILL
AMESBURY
1,000,000
o
o
100,000
V)
UJ
o
K.
o
It
_J
o
o
10,000
n
5
TO
m
1,0001
55
50
45
40
35 30 25
Mtrrlmock Riv«r Mil*
20
15
10
-------
Very short studies were conducted during the winter and spring
months of the year. Data obtained indicated that the coliform densities
in the Merrimack River during these periods were generally greater than
those during the summer months but not as high as during the fall of
the year.1
BACTERIAL DECLINE
As indicated previously, the coliform density is used as a
bacterial index of safety for waters, on the assumption that the number
of infectious organisms decline in proportion to the reduction in the
count of coliform bacteria. In a natural body of water, an initial
rise in bacterial count (after growth) followed by a decline (die-off)
is often found. Rates of bacterial decline can be obtained from the
initial decline phase after the peak count has been reached by plotting
coliform densities against time of flow. The three major causes of this
decline are predators, settling and an unfavorable environment.
Figures 22 through 29 were prepared to show the bacterial
decline in the Merrimack River. The per cent of coliform density remaining
after various daily intervals for the concentrated summer sampling
periods is summarized in Table 5 for the total coliform data and Table 6
for the fecal coliform data. Considerable variation was found in the
various reaches of the Merrimack River. Hoskins'1^ reported that there
1 Supplemental data were obtained in October and November, 1966,
from Concord, New Hampshire, to Lowell, Massachusetts. These data are
shown in Figure 20. Coliform densities far in excess of those found
during the summer were obtained.
-43 -
-------
TABLE 5
TOTAL COLIFORM DENSITY DECLINE
Slimmer
MERRIMACK RIVER
Concord to Pembroke
Pembroke to Hooksett
Hooksett to Manchester
Manchester to Merrimack
Merrimack to Nashua
Nashua to Lowell
Lowell to Lawrence
Lawrence to Haverhill
Haverhill to Amesbury
Amesbury to Newburyport
DATE
Aug 65
Aug 65
Aug 65
Aug 65
Aug 65
Aug 65
Aug 6k
Aug 6k
Aug 6k
Aug 6k
MINIMUM
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
TOTAL COLIFORM DENSITY
% Remaining After
Daily Intervals
1 Day
31.0
37.7
1*0.0
1.5
55.0
11.0
lU.O
Ik.k
62.1
29-5
1.5
29.6
62.1
2 Days
9.8
16.1
___
1.2
2.0
kO.Q
8.8
1.2
13.0
4o.o
3 Days
6.5
o.u
o.k
3.k
6.5
- kk -
-------
JULY 27 -AUGUST 3, 1965
TOTAL COLIFORM
FECAL COUFORM
RIVER MILE
80.60
234
TIME OF TRAVEL,DAYS
COLIFORM DENSITY DECLINE
CONCORD TO MANCHESTER
SUMMER
FIGURE 22
-------
AUGUST 6-12, 1965
TOTAL COLIFORM "
FECAL COLIFORM
o
o
(0
z
LJ
Q
cr
O
u_
li
o
o
71.07
RIVER MILE
61.18
I , 2
TIME OF TRAVEL .DAYS
COLIFORM DENSITY DECLINE
MANCHESTER TO NASHUA
SUMMER
FIGURE 23
-------
O
O
LU
Q
ec
O
u.
Hi
O
O
AUGUST, 6-12 1965
TOTAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
UJ
or
UJ
UJ
52.72
49.82
43.47
TIME OF TRAVEL, DAYS
COLIFORM DENSITY DECLINE
NASHUA TO LOWELL
SUMMER
FIGURE 24
-------
5
101
o
o
CO
z
UJ
o
2
C£
O
U.
O
O
,os
10
AUGUST 11-14,1964
TOTAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
UJ
UJ
o
z
UJ
IT
I
I
RIVER MILE
3745
I
23 90
31.60
2381
TIME OF TRAVEL,DAYS
COLIFORM DENSITY DECLINE
LOWELL TO LAWRENCE
SUMMER
FIGURE 25
-------
10'
AUGUST 25-27, l»«4
TOTAL COLIFORM
FCCAL COLIFORM
10
O
O
(O
z
Ul
O
IT
O
u.
O
O
5
10'
io- I
-------
10
10
o
o
en
z
UJ
o
o
u.
3
10
AUGUST 23-28 l§64
TOTAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
I
oc
to
m
I
oe
o
a.
a:
OD
2
10
15.40
0
RIVER MILE
632
2.94
2 3
TIME OF TRAVEL .DAYS
COLIFORM DENSITY DECLINE
HAVERHILLTO NEWBURYPORT
SUMMER
FIGURE 27
-------
6
10
5
10*
o
o
4,
10
CO
z
LJ
O
or
o
O
o
3.
10
2
10'
SEPTEMBER 29*30,1965
TOTAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
hi
I
z-,
CO
Ul
CQ
RIVER MILES
M.35
I
48.76
i
43.47
I 2
TIME OF TRAVEL, DAYS
COLIFORM DENSITY DECLINE
NASHUA TO LOWELL
FALL
FIGURE 28
-------
10
o
o
5
>- 10-
H
co
z
UJ
o
cr
o
O
o
4
10"
10
54.55
MAY 11-19, 1965
TOTAL COLIFORM
FECAL COLIFORM
UJ
UJ
cc
u
Ul
9
o
RIVER MILES
43.82
44.73
-i 1 '
0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
TIME OF TRAVEL,DAYS
COLIFORM DENSITY DECLINE
NASHUA TO LOWELL
SPRING
40.60
1.0
\2
FIGURE 29
-------
TABLE 6
FECAL COLIFORM DENSITY DECLINE
Summer
MERRIMACK RIVER
Concord to Pembroke
Pembroke to Hooksett
Hooksett to Manchester
Manchester to Merrimack
Merrimack to Nashua
Nashua to Lowell
Lowell to Lawrence
Lawrence to Haverhill
Haver hi 11 to Amesbury
Amesbury to Newburyport
DATE
Aug 65
Aug 65
Aug 65
Aug 65
Aug 65
Aug 65
Aug 6k
Aug 6k
Aug 6k
Aug 6k
MINIMUM
AVERAGE
MAXIMUM
FECAL COLIFORM DENSITY
% Remaining After
Dai^-y Intervals
1 Day
30.0
U4.8
40.5
1.6
54.5
8.0
12.7
23.9
26.3
77.4
1.6
32.0
77.4
2 Days
9-1
16.4
0.6
1.7
8.6
60.9
0.6
16.2
60.9
3 Days
6.9
0.2
...
0.2
3.6
6.9
- 45 -
-------
was an increase in the rate of decline with increased coliform densities.
The data reported here substantiates his findings. Other factors that
affect the decline rate are mentioned above. Comparing Tables 5 and 6,
it is seen that there is very little difference in the rate of decline
for either total or fecal colifonns. The only exception occurs in the
tidal area below Haverhill. In this reach, the "fresh water" portion
of the estuary from Haverhill to Amesbury has a fecal coliform decline
rate that is one-third that of the total coliforms. However, in the
"brackish water" portion, from Amesbury to Newburyport, the trend is
reversed; the fecal coliform decline rate is three times that of the
total rate.
Table 7 compares the coliform density decline rates found
between Nashua, New Hampshire, and Lowell, Massachusetts, during the
spring, summer and fall months. The highest rate of decline, or lowest
per cent remaining, occurs in May when the river flow is highest. The
lowest rate is found during the lowest flow in September. Data obtained
during the winter were not adequate to obtain a decline rate.
The values obtained for total coliform density decline rate
are compared to values compiled by Kittrell and Furfari^)^ as shown
in Table 8. Values observed in the Merriraack River appear to be
consistent with those reported by others.
Attempts have been made to assess the responsibility for
pollution of the Merrimack River at key locations. Camp reported'^)
that in 1935, two-thirds of the bacteria over the shellfish beds in the
Merrimack River Estuary was attributed to the three downriver communities
- 46 -
-------
TABLE 7
COMPARISON OF SEASONAL COLIFORM DENSITY DECLINE
Merrimack River, Nashua to Lowell
Coliform Density
% Remaining After Daily Intervals
1 Day
2 Days
TOTAL COLIFORMS
May 1965
August 1965
September 1965
FECAL COLIFORMS
May 1965
August 1965
September 1965
8.5
11.0
18.7
3^.2
8.0
15.2
1.2
3-5
0.6
2.5
-------
TABLE 8
COMPARISON OF TOTAL COLIFORM DENSITY DECLINE
RIVER
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Mi^Bl*^*^^^^^^^
Merrimack
Missouri
Ohio River
Tennessee (Knoxville)
Tennessee (Chattanooga)
Sacramento
Cumberland
Merrimack
Ohio
Merrimack
SEASON
Summer
Summer
Summer
Summer
Summer
Summer
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
TOTAL COLIFORM DENSITY
% Remaining After Daily Intervals
1 Day
^^^^^^^^^MHa
29.6
50
14-26
35
25
17
3.6
18.7
25-40
8.5
2 Days
^^^HM^^B"
13.0
30
4-12
12
7.4
4.8
1.3
3.5
12-21
3 Days
^^^^^H
3.4
__»
4 Days
M^Mi^^H^^^B^^BMHM^BH
13
0.6-2.2
2.3
0.95
4.5-8.5
- 48 -
-------
of Amesbury, Newburyport and Salisbury; Haverhill, Lawrence and Lowell
were responsible for 29 per cent of the total.
Using the coliform density decline curves, an estimate was
made of the coliforms reaching the Route 1 bridge in Newburyport from
upstream communities. The contributions in August 1964 were: Amesbury
31.4 per cent, Haverhill Region 17.1 per cent, Lawrence Region 51.4
per cent and the remaining upstream communities 0.1 per cent.
Another area of interest is the New Hampshire-Massachusetts
state line. The July-August 1965 studies indicated that Nashua and
Hudson, New Hampshire, were responsible for 9&-3 per cent, Merrimack
0.6 per cent and Manchester 1.1 per cent of the coliform bacteria at
the state line. With the colder water temperature and longer survival
time for the bacteria discharged upstream in November 1965, the propor-
tion changed considerably. Under these circumstances about half the
bacteria at the state line resulted from Nashua-Hudson discharges,
about one-fourth from Manchester, one-sixth from discharges reaching
the Merrimack River in the Merrimack, New Hampshire, area, and less
than 1 per cent from discharges above Manchester, New Hampshire.
BACTERIA ON VEGETABLES
Water pumps were observed at many farms using the Merrimack
River water for crop irrigation. Since high coliform densities were
obtained for the river water, vegetables irrigated with this water
were checked for the presence of fecal coliforms. For comparison,
vegetables were obtained from farms that did not use Merrimack River
- 49 -
-------
water for irrigation.
The vegetables were purchased from roadside farm stands, as
would an ordinary consumer, and placed into bags by the stand operator.
Once the vegetables were in the laboratory they were handled with care
to prevent contamination and were washed with sterile, buffered distilled
water. The washings were tested for the presence of fecal coliforms.
The results are shown in Table 9.
It should be noted that only those vegetables were tested
that ordinarily are eaten without cooking. A significantly greater
number of fecal coliforms were present on vegetables grown on those
farms that used Merrimack River water for irrigation than on vegetables
which were not.
SALMONELLA
While coliform densities indicate the magnitude of fecal
pollution which may contain disease-producing organisms, detection of
pathogenic Salmonella bacteria is positive proof that these organisms
are actually present.
Salmonellosis, the disease caused by various species of
salmonella bacteria, includes typhoid fever, gastroenteritis and diarrhea.
There are more than 900 known serological types of Salmonella. During
1964 there were over 21,000 Salmonella isolations from humans in the
United States and 57 known deaths resulting from Salmonellosis.
Table 10 lists the ten most common Salmonella serotypes, clinical
disease cases and carriers in the United States during 196^ ^)-
- 50 -
-------
TABLE 9
BACTERIA ON VEGETABLES
VEGETABLES IRRIGATED WITH MERRIMACK RIVER WATER
FARM A
FARM B
VEGETABLE
1. Cucumber
2. Cucumber
3. 6 carrots
k. Bunch leaf lettuce
5. Head lettuce
6. Bunch radishes
7. 2 tomatoes
8. 1 pint strawberries
9. Cucumber
10. Cucumber
11. Head lettuce
12. Bunch radishes
FECAL COLIFORM
PRESENT
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
VEGETABLES NOT IRRIGATED WITH MERRIMACK RIVER WATER
FARM C
FARM D
1. 2 tomatoes
2. Bunch radishes with greens
3. Head lettuce
k. 2 tomatoes
5. Cucumber
No
Yes
No
No
No
- 51 -
-------
RANK
TABLE 10
MOST FREQUENT SALMONELLA ISOLATIONS,
(16)
SEROTYPE
NUMBER
PERCENT
TOTAL (all serotypes)
FOUND IN
MERRIMACK
RIVER BASIN
1.
2.
3.
k.
5.
6.
7-
8.
9-
10.
S.
S.
. s.
S.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
typhimurlum &
typhimuriton v. cop.
derby
heidelberg
infantis
newport
enteritidis
typhi
saint-paul
oranienburg
S. montevideo
TOTAL
5,862
2,360
1,717
1,523
1,036
801
703
61*5
550
52^
15,721
27.8
11.2
8.1
7.2
*.9
3.8
3.3
3.1
2.6
2.5
7^.5
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
21,113 100.0
- 52 -
-------
TETRATHIONATE
ENRICHMENT BROTH
CUT OFF LOWER HALF
OF SWAB
41.5 C for 24 hr«.
SWAB
SELECTIVE PLATES
INCUBATE AT 41.9% FOR 24 HOURS
BRILLIANT GREEN
A6AR
SALMONELLA-SHIGELLA BISMUTH SULFITE
AOAR AGAR
SUSPICIOUS COLONIES GO TO
TSI AGAR SLANTS-35°C FOR 24 HOURS
ATYPICAL SALMONELLA REACTION | (ALKALINE SLANT, acid butt ; with or without H.S)
UREA AGAR
(rod color)
DISCARD
E
S I M AGAR (motllity and H S production)
TRYPTONE BROTH (indol tost)
AGGLUTINATION TEST WITH POLY "0" ANTISERUM
GRAM STAIN
SCHEMATIC OF SALMONELLAE ISOLATION PROCEDURE
FIGURE 30
-------
The ever present danger of such infectious water-tome
diseases was dramatically illustrated in May 1965 when 18,000 residents
of Riverside, California, were suddenly afflicted with acute gastro-
enteritis. Three died and 200 were hospitalized. It was shown that
the outbreak was caused by Salmonella typhimurium which was transmitted
through the municipal water supply'17).
To demonstrate the presence of Salmonella in Merrimack River
waters, gauze swabs were suspended in the flowing waters at key locations.
After about five days the swabs were removed and tested for the presence
of Salmonella. The procedure for growing and isolating the Salmonellae
was a modification of the method used by Spino(l^). A schematic
diagram of the steps used is shown in Figure 30. After suspected
colonies were obtained, confirmation and identification of the serotype
was performed by the Communicable Disease Center in Atlanta, Georgia.
Results, showing the type of Salmonella isolated and corresponding
coliform density, are presented in Table 11.
Enteric pathogens of the genus Salmonella were consistently
recovered from the Merrimack River both in New Hampshire and Massachusetts,
indicating that ingestion of any water from the Merrimack River is a
definite health hazard. Salmonella organisms were isolated during each
test made at the Lowell and Lawrence, Massachusetts, water intakes.
Altogether, twenty-one serotypes were recovered from fifty-four isolations.
These disease organisms were found in river water having a total coliform
density (MF) as low as 180 per 100 ml.
A test of the Newburyport, Massachusetts, sewage treatment
- 53 -
-------
VJl
TABLE 11
SALMONELLA ORGANISMS
MPN
MF
RIVER
STATION DESCRIPTION MILE
FC -3 . 0 Merr imack R . at 97 . 83
Sewalls Falls Dam
CH-1.0 Merr imack R. at 86.80
Garvin's Falls Dam
HM-1 . 7 Merrimack R . 75 .85
DATE
WITHDRAWN
7-1U-65
10-18-65
10-27-65
11- 8-65
11-29-65
12-20-65
9-27-65
11- 8-65
11-29-65
12-20-65
SALMONELLA
PRESENT
Not detected
Not detected
S. typhimurium
Not detected
S. typhimurium
S. oranieriburg
S. enteritidis
S. newington
S . infant is
S. infantis
S. heidelberg
TOTAL
COLIFORM
^90
900
790
4,900
2,000
FECAL
COLIFORM
1*90
700
790
3,300
2,000
-_-
TOTAL
COLIFORM
200
180
830
300
700
1,170
5,700
800
600
FECAL
COLIFORM
1*40
180
830
300
590
1,170
5,700
800
1*0
S. infantis
HM-1.8 Merr imack R.
75.75
11- 8-65 S. heidelberg
1,090
700
590
590
-------
TABLE 11 (Continued)
SALMONELLA ORGANISMS
MPN
MF
VJl
vn
RIVER
STATION DESCRIPTION MILE
HM-2.7 Merrimack R. at 73-57
Amoskeag Ski Dock
MN-2.0 Merrimack R. at 68.05
Goff s Falls
NL-2.0 Merrimack R. at U8.76
DATE
WITHDRAWN
7-1^-65
9-27-65
10-18-65
10-27-65
7-1U-65
10-18-65
10-27-65
7-1^-65
SALMONELLA TOTAL FECAL TOTAL
PRESENT COLIFORM COLIFORM COLIFORM
Not detected
S. cubana 320
S.
S.
S.
S.
S.
S.
S.
S.
heidelberg - 380
reading 1,300 1,300 9^2
tennessee
infantis
heidelberg
heidelberg U,000
typhimurium 16,000 16,000 3,500
muenster
FECAL
COLIFORM
320
380
9^2
1,100
3,500
___
Lowell Boat Club,
Foot of Lakeview
Ave.
-------
TABLE 11 (Continued)
SALMONELLA ORGANISMS
MPN
MF
RIVER DATE
STATION DESCRIPTION MILE WITHDRAWN
NL-2.5 Merrimack R. at 1*8.15 10-18-65
Robinson's Landing
10-27-65
11- 8-65
NL-4.0 Merrimack R. at k$.k7 6-2U-65
Lowell Water Intake
7-1^-65
9-27-65
10-18-65
10-27-65
11- 8-65
SALMONELLA TOTAL FECAL
PRESENT COUFORM COLIFORM
S.
S.
S.
S.
S.
S.
S.
S.
S.
S.
S.
S.
new brunswick -
infant is
heidelberg 2,lKX> 2,400
st. paul 9,200 9,200
blockley
typhimurium
newport
muenster
typhimurium
heidelberg
new brunswick 3,U80 1,090
st. paul 3,b80 1,720
TOTAL
COLIFORM
1,790
1,590
2,920
1,000
370
5^0
700
FECAL
COLIFORM
1,790
1,590
2,920
___
100
370
5i*0
520
S. typhimurium
-------
TABLE 11 (Continued)
SALMONELLA ORGANISMS
MPN
MF
STATION
LL-7.0
HN-1.0
DESCRIPTION
Merrimack R. at
Lawrence Water
Intake
Merrimack R. at
Haverhill River-
side Airport
RIVER
MILE
29.81
15.^0
DATE
WITHDRAWN
6-2*1-65
7-1U-65
9-27-65
10-18-65
10-27-65
11- 8-65
11-29-65
SALMONELLA
PRESENT
s.
S.
S.
S.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
oranieriburg
newport
bareilly
newport
infantis
montevideo
binza
typhiraurium
heidelberg
heidelberg
infantis
hartford
senftenburg
TOTAL
COLIFORM
3,U80
1*90
22,000
FECAL
COLIFORM
2,1+00
U90
22,000
TOTAL
COLIFORM
1,000
1,700
800
koo
5,000
FECAL
COLIFORM
200
1,200
800
310
5,000
-------
TABLE 11 (Continued)
SALMONELLA ORGANISMS
MPN
MF
RIVER
STATION DESCRIPTION MILE
So-9.0 Souhegan R. at 0.8
Everett Turnpike
(Fast flow)
i
VJl
CO
' 80-9.0 Souhegan R. below 0.8
Everett Turnpike
(slow flow)
NN-2.2 N. Nashua R. at 3.1
Ponakin Mill Bridge
(36.6 ffii. above
mouth of Nashua R.)
DATE
WITHDRAWN
7-1U-65
9-27-65
10-27-65
11-29-65
12-20-65
12-20-65
11- 8-65
11-29-65
12-20-65
SALMONELLA
PRESENT
Not detected
Not detected
Not detected
Not detected
Not detected
Not detected
Not detected
S. new brunswick
S. montevideo
TOTAL
COLIFORM
«*
50
5,1*20
___
1,700
3**, 800
FECAL
COLIFORM
50
3,1*80
___
1,700
3**, 800
TOTAL
COLIFORM
«»
< 100
8
2,1*00
120
120
1,300
9,600
1*2,000
FECAL
COLIFORM
« *
10
8
2,1^00
120
< 10
1,300
9,600
16,500
-------
TABLE 11 (Continued)
SALMONELLA ORGANISMS
MPN
MF
STATION DESCRIPTION
SN-1.5
i L.E.S.
vn
South Branch
Nashua River at
Thayer Bridge
mi. above mouth of
Nashua R.)
Sewer on North Side
of Lawrence Experi-
ment Station
f
Effluent from
Newburyport Sewage
Treatment Plant
RIVER
MILE
1.0
2.23
DATE
WITHDRAWN
11-29-65
12-20-65
SALMONELLA
PRESENT
S. livingstone
S. typhimurium
S. typhimurium-
var. Copenhagen
S. blockley
TOTAL FECAL TOTAL FECAL
COLIFORM COLIFORM COLIFORM COLIFORM
160,000 160,000 337,000 337,000
90,000 1U,000
6-2^-65 S. cubana
S. Chester
S. oranienburg
Intermittent chlorination during six days swab was in effluent channel, including last 2 1/2 hours.
Coliforms (MPN) ranged from 16,000,000 total and 3,U80,000 fecal per 100 ml when raw sewage was being
discharged from the plant to k^O total and Uo fecal per 100 ml at time swab was removed.
-------
plant effluent taken during intermittent chlorination indicated that
this method of disinfection was not effective in killing the pathogens
present.
Salmonellae were consistently found just below the New Hampshire-
Massachusetts state line even when the level of coliforms was relatively
low. Thus, waters flowing into Massachusetts from New Hampshire endanger
the health of persons in Massachusetts.
BACTERIA IN THE ESTUARY
In this section of the report, the estuary is considered
to be that portion of the Merrimack River below the railroad bridge,
Station HN-6.0, at river mile 2.94. Bacterial densities in this area
are effected by the bacterial load of the Merrimack River and the
bacterial discharge from the Newburyport sewage treatment plant.
The distance from the lighthouse on Plum Island to the rail-
road bridge is 2.94 miles, and the widest point is 1.8 miles at mean
high water. The range between mean high water and mean low water is
eight feet. At mean low tide the surface area of the estuary is
decreased to 53 per cent of its high tide area. This results in a high
rate of flushing and dilution.
Over 4,000 acres of salt marsh drain into the estuary; and
747 acres of intertidal area are available for shellfish harvest.
Figure 31 shows the location of the shellfish beds and relative produc-
tivity of each. The Division of Marine Fisheries, Commonwealth of
Massachusetts, found that an acre of shellfish beds in this area contains
- 60 -
-------
SOFT SHELL CLAM RESOURCES
Bushels/ocre i
0-50
50-100
over 100
data from Moss. Dept. of
Natural Resources
EXCELLENT
o
LOCATION OF SHELLFISH FLATS MERRIMACK RIVER ESTUARY
-------
an average of 100 bushels of legal-size clams.
Dispersion studies were carried out using Rhodamine B dye
to determine the flow characteristics of the estuary and the direction
that waste discharges containing bacteria would travel. It was found
that sewage discharged at Amesbury would reach the shellfish beds in
the estuary on the outgoing tide. Dye releases in Plum Island River
indicated that Pine Island Creek is the point from which water flows
north through Plum Island River to the Merrimack River and south through
Plum Island River to the Parker River. Coliform bacteria data presented
in Table 12 confirm that Pine Island Creek is the division of north-
south flow in the Pine Island River. In Black Rock Creek, releases
of dye indicated that the effluent from the Salisbury Beach septic
tank would be carried over the shellfish beds. A graphic presentation
of the dye releases in Plum Island River and Black Rock Creek is
shown in Figure 32.
In Black Rock Creek the coliform densities were very high.
A significant number of these coliforms enter the Merrimack River
estuary. These data are presented in Table 13. Without additional
treatment, or, preferably, complete removal of waste discharges from
the estuary, the productive shellfish beds at the mouth of Black
Rock Creek can not be opened for harvest of shellfish for human consump-
tion.
Near the end of the summer of 1964, the City of Newburyport
completed construction of a primary sewage treatment plant. The
effluent from this plant is spread over the shellfish growing areas
- 61 -
-------
TABLE 12
COLIFORM VALUES IN PLUM ISLAND RIVER
STATION
R-6A
R-6B
R-6C
R-6D
R-6E
R-6F
R-6G
R-6H
R-6I
R-6J
TOTAL COLIFORMS
MPN per 100 ml
10/5/6U 10/6/6U
220
130
220
2,UOO
230
790
110
20
< 20
< 20
130 .
70
80
230
80
k 90
UO
< 20
< 20
20
FECAL COLIFORMS
MPN per 100 ml
10/5/64 10/6/6U
80
<20
50
230
20
170
< 20
20
<20
<20
<20
<20
- 20
80
< 20
80
20
<20
<20
<20
Station Latitude and Longitude are found in Appendix A, page A-12.
- 62 -
-------
September 16,1964-High Slack Tide
BLACK ROCK CREEK
September 10,1964-Prior to Low Slack Tide
PLUM ISLAND RIVER
October 13,1964-Low Slack Tide
October 5,1964- High Slack Tide
Point of Dye Release
> Direction of Dye Movement
DYE DISPERSION STUDIES
IN BLACK ROCK CREEK
AND PLUM ISLAND RIVER
FIGURE 32
-------
TABLE 13
COLIFQRM VALUES IN BLACK ROCK CREEK
J\xly, 1965
STATION
R-4A
R-4AA
R-4BB
R-4CC
R-4DD
JULY 12, 1965
LOW TIDE
+ HOURS
+ 4:20
+ 5:40
+ 4:15
+ 5:35
+ 4:10
+ 5:30
+ 4:05
+ 5:25
--
MF COLIFORM
/100 ml
TOTAL
<100
<100
<100
<100
500
300
4,000
300
FECAL
<10
<10
10
20
210
70
600
70
--
JULY 15, 1965
HIGH TIDE
+ HOURS
* 0:57
» 2:27
+ 0:52
+ 2:24
+ 0:47
+ 2:22
+ 0:42
+ 2:17
-
MF COLIFORM
/100 ml
TOTAL
20
80
lUO
>8,000
>10,000
>12,000
25,000
>50,000
FECAL
< 4
28
112
>2,800
>8,000
>5,000
> 5,000
>10,000
JULY 22, 1965
HIGH TIDE
+ HOURS
+ 2:50
+ 3:35
+ 4:50
+ 2:45
+ 3:30
+ 4:45
+ 2:45
+ 3:25
+ ^:35
+ 2:40
+ 3:25
* ^:35
+ 2:40
+ 3:25
* 4:30
MF COLIFORM
/100 ml
TOTAL
2,000
4,000
3,600
8,800
9,100
75,000
65,000
95,000
230,000
136,000
250,000
> 300,000
14,500,000
19,000,000
23,000,000
FECAL
360
900
700
2,360
3,070
13,200
13,700
28,100
> 50, 000
64,400
> 50, 000
> 50, 000
1,490,000
1,240,000
1,500,000
U)
Station Latitude and Longitude are found in Appendix A, page A-12.
-------
during each tidal cycle, as shown by dye releases. Figure 33 shows
the path taken on the outgoing tide by the dye released at the treat-
ment plant effluent. When the tide began to flood, nearly all the
estuary was covered by the dye.
At three different times, September 15-16, 1964, October
19-20, 1964, and June 8 and 10, 1965, bacterial analyses were made
of the Merrinack River estuary. Each time the Newburyport sewage
treatment plant was either not operating properly or the sewage was
bypassing the treatment plant. The sampling station locations are
given in Appendix A, page A-12, and the bacterial densities are found
in Appendix C. As expected, the variation in coliform values through-
out the estuary was considerable. However, when comparing stations,
those with high values were consistently high. The total coliform
values obtained at low tide were averaged for each station. The same
was done for high tide values. Using these coliform results and the
dye dispersion results, an estimate of the lines of equal coliform
density was plotted, as shown in Figures 34 and 35.
Levels of contamination used to classify waters over shell-
fish growing areas in Massachusetts are:
DEGREE OF CONTAMINATION OF OVERLAYING WATER
0-70 per 100 ml - clean
71-700 per 100 ml - moderately contaminated
over 700 per 100 ml - grossly contaminated
-64-
-------
Dye path 9/15/64
High Slack to Low Slack
SALISBURY
BEACH
Sewag
Plant
effluent
Wood-
bridge
Island
UJ
o
o
\
m
DYE DISPERSION IN MERRIMACK RIVER ESTUARY - 9/15/64
-------
HIGH TIDE DATA FOR SEPT. 1964, OCT. 1964 AND JUNE 1965
DENSITY LINES IN 1000 COLIFORMS /100ml
BASED ON COLIFORM.DYE DISPERSIONS, AND CURRENT DATA
SALISBURY
BEACH ?
Treatment '."
Plant
Ul
o
o
TOTAL COLIFORMS IN MERRIMACK RIVER ESTUARY - HIGH TIDE
-------
c
;o
m
OJ
Ul
LOW TIDE DATA FOR SEPT. 1964, OCT. 1964 AND JUNE 1965
DENSITY LINES IN 1000 COLIFORM /100ml BASED ON
COL1FORM.DYE Dl SPERSION, AND CURRENT DATA.
- MEAN LOW TIDE WATERLINE
SALISBURY
BEACH
Sewage
Treatment
Plant
UJ
o
o
o
TOTAL COLIFORMS IN MERRIMACK RIVER ESTUARY - LOW TIDE
-------
When these standards were applied to the Merrimack River
estuary high tide data, as shown in Figure 34, it was found that most
of the area was grossly contaminated, only a small area of the Salisbury
flats being moderately contaminated. A very small area in Plum
Island River can be considered moderately contaminated during low tide,
as shown in Figure 35. The data also show that the effluent from the
Newburyport sewage treatment plant has a significant effect on the
bacterial densities in the estuary when the plant is not operating
properly.
NITROGEN AND PHOSPHORUS
With proper environmental conditions, a nuisance can be
created in a stream by large growths of algae or other aquatic vege-
tation. Aquatic plants can become so thick that they are esthetically
displeasing and render the stream unfit for many water uses. At times
the algal growths are killed and decay within or along the banks of
the river, causing very unpleasant odors. Dense growths of algae may
not only have a direct effect on water uses of a river, but may also
reduce the dissolved oxygen to levels that are below the minimum required
by aquatic life.
Oxygen is generated by the algae when there is sunlight, but,
in the absence of sunlight, algal respiration depresses the oxygen
levels to low values. This may occur not only at night but also on
cloudy days.
Algae and other aquatic plants tend to develop in slow moving
- 65 -
-------
streams when the concentrations of key nutrients that are required for
growth are present in sufficient amounts. Among the nutrients, nitrogen
and phosphorus play dominant roles.
Nitrogen, in the forms of ammonia, organic and nitrate, is
added to the Merrimack Hirer by domestic and industrial wastes. A
major source of nitrogen was the Hampshire Chemical Go., at Nashua,
New Hampshire. Occasional releases of ammonia from this facility hare
occurred over the past years. However, corrective measures have been
taken by the company to prevent further additions to the river.
Values for nitrogen compounds in the Merrimack River were
0.4 to 3.5 mg/1 for ammonia, 0.43 to 5.58 mg/1 for organic nitrogen,
and 0.00 to 0.8 mg/1 for nitrate. All values reported are as nitrogen.
Appendix B contains a summary of observed data. Considerable fluctua-
tions are found in the values, resulting from uptake and release of the
nutrients as stream life fluctuates. Values for September 14-16, 1965,
are indicative of the general trend of nitrogen expected in the Merri-
mack River. Values above Concord are 0.47 mg/1 of ammonia, which
increases to 0.57 mg/1 below the city. Below Manchester, ammonia
increases to 1.10 mg/1, reaching a value of 1.73 mg/1 below Nashua.
A similar trend is present in most of the other data, indicating the
increase to the nutrient load by each city.
Values of ammonia, albuminoid and nitrate nitrogen from June
to November for the years 1887 through 1908 are summarised and
compared to the data of 1964-1965 in Table 14. Albuminoid nitrogen is
included in the organic nitrogen test used in 1964 and 1965 and is the
- 66 -
-------
major portion of the reported value. In the Merrimack River drainage
basin, population increased from 640,000 in 1900 to 1,072,000 in I960,
an increase of 6? per cent. During this same time period, the amnonia
concentration had increased by 1,900 per cent, albuminoid or organic
nitrogen by 1,200 per cent, and nitrate by 2,ADO per cent.
TABLE 14
COMPARISON OF NITROGEN VALUES
NITROGEN as N
ALBUMINOID
TEARS STATION AMMONIA OR ORGANIC NITRATE
1887-1908 Above Lowell 0.04 0.15 0.02
1887-1908 Above Lawrence 0.10 0.19 0.02
1964-1965 NL-2.0, 3-0, and 4.0 0.8 1.92 0.5
1964-1965 LL-7.0 0.9
Average orthophosphate values of the Merrimack River are
shown in Appendix B. Individual values varied from 0.04 to 2.17
as phosphate. Phosphate values also showed a trend towards increasing
levels below each city, with Concord, Manchester and Nashua each contrib-
uting significant amounts of phosphate to the waters entering Massachu-
setts.
The phosphate content of several tributaries are suomarised
in Appendix £. Values for these tributaries ranged from a high of
33.9 mg/1 to a low of 0.03 mgA of total phosphate as PO^, with the
average concentration 1.88 mg/1. Except for the extremely high values,
the tributary phosphate values were of the same order of magnitude
-67 -
-------
as those observed in the Merrimack River.
The Merrimack River and tributary values for both phosphate
and nitrogen were in considerable excess of the minimum needed to pro-
duce growths of nuisance algae. These high values are an indication
of the need for nutrient removal facilities in the Merrimack River
Basin*
INDUSTRIAL WASTES
Industrial waste data, presented in Table 3 were based
primarily upon information provided by the states of New Hampshire
and Massachusetts. A limited number of industrial waste studies were
conducted to obtain supplementary information where necessary. These
data are shown in Appendix D. Industries surveyed and the areas of
interest were Hampshire Chemical Corporation, Nashua, New Hampshire-
ammonia; New England Pole and Wood Treating Corporation* Merrimack,
New Hampshirephenol and BOD; Foster Grant Company, Manchester, New
HampshireBOD; and French Bros. Beef Company, Hooksett, New Hampshire-
BOD and solids.
Following the industrial effluent sampling and a discussion
of findings with industrial officials, the Hampshire Chemical Corpora-
tion and the New England Pole and Wood Treating Corporation took steps
to substantially reduce their wastes to the Merrimack River.
CHLORIDES
Chloride determinations were carried out on the Merrimack
- 68-
-------
River from Haverhill to Newburyport. Table 15 and Figure 36 show
the high tide, low tide and an average of the high and low tide values
at each sampling point. The chloride samples at different depths
indicated that there was good vertical mixing of the salt and fresh
water in the tidal section of the river. This is consistent with the
findings of the dye dispersion studies.
TABLE 15
CHLORIDE RESULTS FOR MERRIMACK RIVER
AUGUST 25--28, 1964
STA-
TION
HN-1.0
HN-2.0
HN-3.0
HN-4.0
HN-5.0
HN-6.0
RIVER
MILE
15.40
13.47
10.36
6.92
5.50
2.94
HIGH TIDE. PPM
MAX.
22
35
500
10,000
14,000
17,000
AVG.
21
26
220
6,400
11,000
16,700
MIN.
20
22
35
1,400
9,000
16,000
LOW
MAX.
20
25
20
120
400
4,000
TIDE, PPM
AVG.
20
20
20
66
195
2,500
MIN.
20
20
20
30
40
500
AVERAGE
PPM
20
23
120
3,230
5,600
9,600
Solubility of oxygen in water is affected by the chloride
content of the water. The solubility of oxygen in 25°C water containing
no chlorides is 8.38 ppra, while at 5,000 ppm chlorides, the solubility
of oxygen is reduced by 5.0 per cent to 7.96 ppm in water of the same
temperature.
- 69 -
-------
TRIBUTARIES
Souhegan River
The Souhegan River rises in Massachusetts and flows northeast
through Greenville, New Hampshire, to Wilton, where it is joined by
Stony Brook. From Wilton it travels in an easterly direction through
Milford, Amherst and Merrimack, New Hampshire, before entering the
Merrimack River, as shown in Figure 37. The watershed area is 171
square miles. Wilton, Milford and Merrimack, minor industrial centers,
are the major waste sources to the river. Their waste loads are listed
in Table 3.
Time of travel studies were conducted on the Souhegan River
from Wilton to the mouth. The resulting time of travel graph is shown
in Figure 17. Appendix E summarises the sanitary data obtained on the
Souhegan River. Sampling station descriptions are given in the Appendix,
page A-13-
Pollution from the Souhegan River communities upstream of
Merrimack, New Hampshire, has a minor effect on the Merrimack River
during the summer low flow period. Under conditions of cooler weather
and higher river flows, the Souhegan River bacterial load may affect
the Merrimack River. Severely polluted sections of the Souhegan River
exist below Wilton and Milford. From a biological standpoint, the
Souhegan River is moderately polluted from Wilton to the confluence
with the Merrimack River^8).
The Souhegan River is presently used for bathing and fishing
throughout most of its length. The coliform values observed are in
- 70 -
-------
10
5-
Ul
O
<
_UJ
{£'
-------
&mmr MANCHESTER
AMHERST
MILFORD
WILTON GK
0WINDHAM
GREENVILLE
NEW HAMPSHIRE
MASSACHUSETTS
SOUHEGAN RIVER 8 BEAVER BROOK
DRAINAGE BASINS
20 Sompl* Station Location
0 SCALE IN MILES 5
-------
excess of recommended bathing standards. At river mile 8.1, the city
of Nashua has installed a pumping station in order to use the Souhegan
River as a water supply.
The state of New Hampshire has adopted a limit of 1,000
coliforms per 100 ml for drinking water that receives treatment. How-
ever, the average coliforra value of 12,800 found at that point (Station
So-8.0) greatly exceeds this standard.
Nashua River
The Nashua River is the most severely polluted tributary of
the Merrimack River. Appendix E summarizes the data obtained in order
to evaluate the effect of Nashua River pollution on the Merrimack
River. Part V of this report discusses the Nashua River more
completely. The Nashua River was very low in dissolved oxygen, high
in BOD and indicative of bacterial pollution. A significant pollution
load is contributed to the Merrimack River by discharges to the Nashua
River, upstream of the city of Nashua, New Hampshire.
Beaver Brook
Beaver Brook begins at the outlet of Beaver Lake in Derry,
New Hampshire, and flows south for about 25 miles to join the Merrimack
River at Lowell, Massachusetts (Figure 37). The watershed area is 114
square miles; and the basin has a very high recreational usage.
The low dissolved oxygen concentrations and high coliform
values indicate th,at the brook is still polluted even after the newly
- 71 -
-------
constructed sewage lagoon at Deny, New Hampshire. High phosphate
and coliform values near the mouth of Beaver Brook were caused by
sewage discharges within Massachusetts. A summary of the data is
given in Appendix E.
Concord River Basin
The Concord River has a watershed of 407 square miles and
lies entirely within Massachusetts (Figure 38). The Sudbury River,
with a drainage area of 163 square miles, originates in Westhorough,
Massachusetts. It flows easterly to Framingham, and then northerly to
Concord, where it meets the Assabet River, forming the Concord River.
The Assabet River also rises in Westborough, flows northerly to Hudson
and then northeasterly to Concord, draining an area of 177 square
miles. The Concord River flows northerly to the Merrimack River at
Lowell, and drains an additional 67 square miles.
The Assabet River is severely polluted below Westborough.
The remaining portion of the river is indicative of moderate pollution
with noticeable reductions in stream quality below Hudson and Maynard.
High bacteria and BOD values were found near the Saxonville
area of Franingham, on the Sudbury River. A tributary to the Sudbury,
Hop Brook, in the vicinity of the historic Wayside Inn, was the most
polluted tributary aoqxLed in the Concord River watershed. Coliform
values in excess of one adllion per 100 ml, dissolved oxygen values of
O.6 vgA* BOD values of 40.0 ag/l and total phosphate values of 30
mg/I. were found. Hop Brook receives the discharge from the Marlborough
-72-
-------
NEW HAMPSHIRE
MASSACHUSETTS
ffS&DRACUT
CONCORD RIVER BASIN
*-. Sample Station Location
3.O
t.o
SCALE IN MILES
BILLERlCAt
B.O,
3.0
i.o
BEDFORD
MAYNARD /Si
9.B
'B.O
HUDSON $&
7.0
.o
'8.0
MARLBOROUGH
'4.1
"I.O
4.0
1.3
1.0 -4 WESTBOROUGH
o..-l||
B.0>
t.O
1.8
'I.O
FRAMINGHA
NATICK
^ HOPKINGTON,
FIGURE 38
-------
sewage treatment plant.
Except for high phosphate concentrations, the Concord River
was relatively unpolluted until it reached Billerica, where sewage and
industrial wastes increased the coliform values and severely depressed
the dissolved oxygen. When the Concord River reaches the Merrimack it
has a significant impact on the Merrimack River water quality, due to
the increased coliform values and depressed oxygen content of the
water. The high content of nutrients in the Concord River results in
growths of aquatic vegetation which may be a nuisance at times and
cause taste and odor problems in the Billerica water supply.
Spicket River
The Spicket River originates in Island Pond in Salem, New
Hampshire, and flows southerly to the New Hampshire-Massachusetts
state line. Here it is joined by Policy Brook and flows southeasterly
through Lawrence, Massachusetts, to the Merrimack River, as shown in
Figure 39.
Excessive coliform densities were found in the New Hampshire
portion of the river. As additional sewer outfalls are picked up by
the new Salem, New Hampshire, sewage treatment plant, these densities
should be reduced. Policy Brook had dissolved oxygen values at or
near zero, and high BOD total phosphate and coliform values. This
condition is due to raw discharges not yet connected to the treatment
plant. Below the state line in Methuen, Massachusetts, the river has
very high bacteria, phosphate and BOD values, while the dissolved
oxygen is very low. This station includes wastes from Massachusetts
- 73 -
-------
discharges. Water quality data of the Spicket River are summarized in
Appendix E.
Shawsheen River
Originating in Bedford, Massachusetts, the Shawsheen River
flows northeasterly to meet the Merrimack River in Lawrence (Figure 39).
The river is moderately polluted below Bedford and becomes more severely
polluted with waste discharges as it flows through Andover. Laboratory
data are summarized in Appendix E.
Little River
The Little River originates in Plaistow, New Hampshire, and
flows in a general southerly direction until it meets the Merrimack
River in Haverhill, Massachusetts. Only one area appeared to be seriously
polluted, that being just above the state line where the total coliforms
increased from 2,250 to 78,600 per 100 ml. The Little River Basin is
shown in Figure 39; the data collected are given in Appendix E.
Powwow River
As shown in Figure 39, the Powwow River originates in Kingston,
New Hampshire, and flows southeasterly to Amesbury, Massachusetts, where
it meets the Merrimack River. The Town of Amesbury, Massachusetts,
appears to be the only significant source of waste to the river. Samp-
ling data are given in Appendix E.
- 74 -
-------
ft KINGSTON
N.H.
ISLAND
POND
1.0
1.0
-1.0
£.0
3.0
4.0
MERRIM
kAMESBURY V
>-9.0
B.O
3.01
/
4.0
METHUEN
MASS.
4.0.
HAVERHILL
N
t
LAWRENCE
.0
©S NORTH ANDOVER
ANDOVER
$%*3 WILMINGTON
BEDF
SPICKETT, SHAWSHEEN, LITTLE
8 POWWOW RIVER BASINS
2.0 Sample Station Locations
FIGURE 39
-------
Other Tributaries
Coliform samples were measured at several other tributaries
at various times during 1964 and 1965. These included the Contoocook,
Piscataquog, Soucook and Suncook. The sample data and station locations
are given in Appendix E. The bacterial data indicated that none of the
rivers appeared to have a significant affect on the Herrimack River.
-75 -
-------
OXYGEN BY PHOTOSYNTHESIS
In calculating the oxygen profiles for the Merrimack River,
an expanded form of the Streeter-Phelps'^l) equations was used. The
equations include the addition of BOD by bottom deposits, removal of
BOD by settling, and the production of dissolved oxygen by photosynthe-
sis. The equations used in this report were developed by Camp*22',
but Dobbins'^3) has developed equations in approximately the same
form.
The rate of production of dissolved oxygen by photosynthesis
is designated alpha, a, and was evaluated by the use of the light and
dark bottle technique. The measurements are carried out in the euphotic
zone, which is delimited by the vertical range of light effective in
photosynthesis. Many factors, such as color, turbidity and the absorp-
tive effect of water itself serve to quench light, thus, essentially
determining the euphotic zone. The Merrimack River has a euphotic
zone of about seven feet.
The loss of oxygen in the dark bottle represents planktonic
respiration and oxygen used for bacterial metabolism. The change in
oxygen concentration in the light bottle represents the net result of
photosynthesis, respiration and bacterial metabolism (BOD). There-
fore, the gross production of oxygen by algae is equal to the algebraic
difference between the final light and dark bottle oxygen concentrations.
These studies were carried out concurrently with the intensive
summer sampling periods at nine locations in the Merrimack River from
- 76 -
-------
Manchester, New Hampshire, to below Haverhill, Massachusetts. Values
were obtained at three depths at each location. The data obtained were
plotted as oxygen production per day versus depth in the river (see
Figure 40 for an example), resulting in a parabolic curve very closely
resembling those of Hull'24). To obtain an alpha value, a in ppm per
day, for each reach, the area over the curve was divided by the hydraulic
depth of the reach.
The alpha value on cloudy days was found to be much lower
than the alpha for sunny days. Records from the U. S. Weather Bureau
indicate that the sun was shining only 60 per cent of the time during
the sampling period in 1964. During the summer of 1965, a recording
pyrheliometer was used at Lawrence, Massachusetts, to measure sunlight
intensity. In turn, this was graphically related to gross photosyn-
thetic oxygen production (see Figures 41 and 42).
The resulting alpha values are summarized in Table 16.
TABLE 16
OBSERVED ALPHA VALUES FOR THE MERRIMACK RIVER
AUGUST 1964 - 65
REACH ALPHA, ppm/day
Manchester to Nashua, 1965 2.0
Nashua to Lowell, 1965 1.7
Nashua to Lowell, 1964 2.0
Lowell to Lawrence, 1964 0.8
Lawrence to Haverhill, 1964 1.0
Haverhill to Newburyport, 1964 1.7
- 77 -
-------
SLUDGE DEPOSITS
In order to estimate the amount of solid material that has
settled in the Merrimack River and its effect on the oxygen resources
of the river, samples of these benthic deposits were obtained at
numerous locations from Manchester, New Hampshire, to NeWburyport,
Massachusetts. These samples were analyzed for per cent moisture,
total and volatile solids and specific gravity. The oxygen demand of
this material was determined by both the Winkler BOD method and the
Warburg procedure. From physical measurement of the river and labora-
tory analyses of the sludge, it was possible to calculate the oxygen
demand of the benthal deposits, or "pft, in ppm per day.
The average depth, area and volume of sludge in the Merrimack
River during 1964 and 1965 are given in Table 17. If all the sludge
in the river between Manchester and Newburyport were evenly distributed
along the river bed, it would be slightly more than 3/8 of an inch deep.
In addition, a plant study was carried out that determined
the oxygen demand under conditions similar to those encountered in
the stream'^*', and a value for the term p was calculated by using the
results of this study. A representative value of p was selected for
each reach based upon the two methods. Selection was influenced by
field observations of the area, and the relationship of p with the
observed oxygen sag calculations. A summary of the selected p values
for each reach is given in Table 18.
- 78 -
-------
AREA-12.
"********>*******
AUGUST (3-12,
1234
GROSS OXYGEN , PPM
GROSS OXYGEN PRODUCTION VS. DEPTH
FIGURE 40
-------
/DAY
GROSS OXYGEN PRODUCTION- PP
0 0.1 0.2 Q3 Q4 2 0.5 O.6
SUNLIGHT INTENSITY- GM-CAL/CM/WTT
t
Min of sUnligHt
GROSS OXYGEN PRODUCTION VS. SUNLIGHT INTENSITY
FIGURE 41
-------
STATION! NL-2.Q
STATION NL- 4.C
1.0
1.2
O.2 0.4 0.6 O8
SUNLIGHT INTENSITY-GM-CAL/CM?
x
Min of sunlight
GROSS OXYGEN PRODUCTION VS. SUNLIGHT INTENSITY
FIGURE 42
-------
TABLE 1?
AVERAGE DEPTH, AREA AND VOLUME OF
MERRIMACK RIVER BENTHAL DEPOSITS
LOCATION
Manchester to Nashua
Nashua to Lowell
Lowell to Lawrence
Lawrence to Haverhlll
Haverhill to Newburyport
TOTAL
AVERAGE
SLUDGE
DEPTH
(ft.)
0.021
0.021
0.251
0.029
0.022
SLUDGE AREA
(ft*)
38,600,000
18,000,000
31,300,000
35,500,000
3^7, 600, 000
SLUDGE
VOLUME
(ft3)
800,000
Uoo,ooo
7,900,000
1,000,000
7,800,000
0.036 1*71,000,000 16,900,000
TABLE 18
OBSERVED p VALUES IN THE MERRIMACK RIVER
AUGUST 196V65
REACH
Manchester to Nashua, 1965
Nashua to Lowell, 1965
Nashua to Lowell, 196U
Lowell to Lawrence, 196U
Lawrence to Haverhill, 196*1
Haverhill to Newburyport,
p. ppm/day
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.2
0.9
- 79 -
-------
OXYGEN BALANCE STUDIES
When organic material is deposited into a body of water, a
natural process of decomposition begins. Bacteria begin to attack
and alter the material; during this alteration dissolved oxygen is
consumed. Often, this will result in a noticeable decrease in the
dissolved oxygen content in a stream below a source of waste, followed
by an increasing oxygen concentration still farther downstream. This
is commonly called the "oxygen sag." By obtaining dissolved oxygen
samples at various points downstream from a waste source, the oxygen
sag curve may be drawn. Several methods are available to mathemati-
cally describe this curve. These methods are based upon adding the
sources of oxygen (reaeration and photosynthesis) and subtracting the
uses of oxygen (biochemical oxygen demand, sludge deposits, etc.)
with respect to time. Once the mathematical model is solved and the
river parameters are known for existing conditions, certain parameters
can be altered to reflect a new set of conditions, such as increased
waste loads or the installation of sewage treatment plants, and a new
oxygen sag curve can be calculated to reflect these new conditions.
Concentrated studies described earlier were conducted in
August 1964 and July-August 1965 from Concord, New Hampshire, to
Newburyport, Massachusetts. During these studies data were obtained
to enable the evaluation of all river parameters during the same time
period.
- 80 -
-------
DISCUSSION OF EQUATIONS
Two oxygen sag equations were used in calculating the Merrimack
River parameters. The equation that was used most often was the "Camp
,,(22)
equation which states:
10
-10
-kpt
where
a
2.3(k1+k3)
kpt kpt
(1-10 * ) + (Da) 10
(1)
La =
P =
a
The
= the oxygen deficit at some downstream station b in ppm,
= the oxygen deficit at some upstream station a in ppm,
the ultimate BOD load at station a in ppm,
the rate of addition of BOD to the overlying water from
the bottom deposits in ppm per day,
the gross production of oxygen by photosynthesis in
ppm per day,
the deoxygenation constant per day,
the atmospheric reaeration constant per day,
the rate of settling out of BOD to the bottom deposits
per day.
BOD reduction equation using Camp's approach is
10
(2)
- 81 -
-------
The Camp equation is basically the same as the familiar
Streeter-Phelps equation:
-kxt
10 -10
-kot
(Da) 10 * (3)
when kg, a, and p are negligible. The BOD reduction equation is then
given:
-kgt
1-b =
-------
benthal deposits in the Merrimack River, as described in the section
on sludge deposits. Table 17 lists the selected p values for the
various reaches. Time of stream travel for the various reaches and
intermediate points of the river was determined at various flows,
as described in the section on time of stream travel. Table 19 sum-
marizes the time of travel for the period of intensive sampling.
TABLE 19
TIME OF TRAVEL FOR SURVEY PERIOD
YEAR
1965
1965
1965
1965
196U
196^
196U
196U
REACH
CH
HM
UN
NL
NL
LL
LH
HN
RIVER
FROM
90.23
80.60
71.07
5^.55
5^.55
37.^5
26.U5
18.85
MILES
TO
80.60
73. lU
5^.55
1*3. **7
1*3.1*7
28.99
18.85
2.9!*
AVG FLOW
CFS
650
680
770
770
1125
1200
2200
2200
TIME
DAYS
3.05
3.8**
2.32
2.1*3
1.90
2.73
0.89
1*.20
VELOCITY
MILES /DAY
3.16
1.9^
7.12
4.56
5.83
3.10
8.91*
3.79
CH = Concord to Hooksett, HM = Hooksett to Manchester, MN = Manchester
to Nashua, NL = Nashua to Lowell, LL = Lowell to Lawrence, LH = Lawrence
to Haverhill and HN = Haverhill to Newburyport.
- 83 -
-------
Using the deoxygenation constant, the BOD5 value found was
converted to the ultimate BOD value, L, and the loadings from major
pollution sources were calculated using population and industrial
loading data from consulting engineer reports. The rate of BOD
*
settling out, kg, was then determined by solving equation 2. Initial
and final oxygen deficits, Da and DQ, were determined from stream data,
and k£ was calculated from equation 1, resulting in a kg that was
generally negative or of very low positive value. Considering the
low dissolved oxygen levels and physical characteristics of the Herri-
mack River, such k2 results were not considered representative.
Consequently, an analysis was made of the various parameters to deter-
mine whether or not any were in error. By stochastically selecting
values for the variables over a wide range and solving the equations
by trial-and-error, an oxygen sag curve was obtained that conformed
to the observed field data.
Consideration was first made of a. By selecting values for
a as low as zero, it was determined that although a contributed a
significant portion of the oxygen added to the river during the field
survey, this portion was not enough to mathematically yield negative
kg values. In addition, the a values found on the Herrimack River
were comparable to those found by others '*'.
The benthal effect was considered next. It was found that
by increasing p to values between 10 and 50 ppm/day, a positive kg
could be obtained. Such values of p were not probable, however.
Evaluation of the bottle deoxygenation constant, kj, was made from
- 84 -
-------
long term BOD data. BOD determinations were made at 2, 3, 4, 5, 7
and 10 day intervals, and the results were calculated by one or more
of the following methods: graphical fitting of curvev*6;^ method of
moments(27)^ daily difference^2**), and rapid ratio method(29)_
When more than one method was used, as was common, the results
were compared and a representative value was selected. Table 20 shows
the selected bottle k^ values found during August of 1964 and 1965 for
the selected river reaches.
TABLE 20
BOTTLE DEOXYGENATION CONSTANTS
REACH
CH
HM
MN
NL
NL
LL
LH
HN
It was found that by increasing the quantity (kjH^), or
the effective BOD removal term, reasonable k2 values which used the
previously observed a and p values could be obtained. By leaving
k^ equal to that found by long term BOD analysis and increasing only
- 85 -
YEAR
1965
1965
1965
1965
1964
1964
1964
1964
k^ per day
0.05
0.05
0.09
0.04
0.03
0.045
0.05
0.07
-------
reasonable values of kg were obtained with ko, values in the range
of 0.1 to 1.0 per day. A k^ value in this range would result in a
ratio of k^ to k^ of twenty or more and should yield tremendous sludge
deposits in the river. Since these great sludge areas were not in
evidence even after several years of drought conditions, it was obvious
that the "bottle k-" values of 0.03 and 0.07 were not representative
of the "river k^", and that a new approach was required.
In the revised method of analysis, the a and p values that
were previously determined were considered valid and were used in the
calculations. The bottle k^ values were used to compute initial
ultimate BOD loadings from waste sources and to compute river ultimate
BOD, L, values from the 5-day BOD values. Using a plot of L versus
time of flow, a combined (k^+ko) term was calculated. Since any
number could be selected for kj, and then a k^ determined from
(kj+ko = C), the respective values of kj and ko could not be analyzed
without using equation 1. By means of trial-and-error analysis and
the previously determined a and p, it was possible, to determine values
for k^ ko and kg that would duplicate the observed field conditions.
Although this method can" produce more than one set of "reasonable"
values for. k^, kg and ko, none of the sets of such "reasonable" values
produced any wide variations in the parameters. An example would be
the set of parameters shown below.
-86 -
-------
VALUE OF OXYGEN DEFICIT D AT TIME T =
k., k? ko SUM OF
* 0.5 day 1.0 day 2.0 days DIFFERENCES
Field
Data
0.140
0.140
0.140
0.110
0.120
0.130
0.200
0.200
0.200
3.97
4.00
4.01
4.02
3.91
3.98
3.96
3.91
2.90
2.96
2.93
2.82
0.16
0.09
0.13
In this example, the parameter selected would be ko = 0.120 per day,
provided that the values of k^ and kg had been similarly tested. As
shown in the example, the quantity of k^+ko was not kept constant, but
was varied slightly to produce a better fitting curve. When the final
kj-4c~ total was used to recalculate equation 2, very little change
was noticed.
The above discussion on solving the Camp equations also applies
to the Streeter-Phelps equations 3 and 4, with two exceptions: a and p
are included in kg, and the kj is a combination of Camp's kj+kg. Of
course, the fitting of the curve by trial-and-error is greatly simpli-
fied when there are only two unknowns.
Due to tidal action in the reach HN, special methods were
employed. Data had to be collected as near low or high slack tides
as possible. Values near low slack tide were averaged for use in the
equations, as recommended by Camp for design purposes' ^. Equation
1 was modified to define:
- 87 -
-------
, fe*
(10 - 10 )
and equation 2 was modified to define:
where
10
JI NL
? ~\l ^*
10
2.
(5)
(7)
where
x
U
e
(8)
distance from station a, miles,
temporal mean velocity of the flowing stream, miles/day,
turbulent transport coefficient, square miles/day, and is
defined by the relationship:
S = SQ - 10
e
(9)
-------
where
S = the salinity or chloride concentration at mile x upstream
from Station b,
SQ= the salinity or chloride concentration at the downstream
Station b.
The average chloride values shown in Table 15 were used to
calculate the turbulent transport coefficient. This coefficient was
found to be about 5.0 square miles/day from equation 9. Over the
entire reach from Haverhill to Newburyport, Massachusetts, U was found
to be 3*79 miles/day.
By means of trial-and-error procedures and the previously
determined values for a, p, e and U, it was possible to determine values
for kj, k~ and k_ that would duplicate the observed field conditions.
Table 21 summarizes the values found for all parameters, and
Figure 43 compares the calculated oxygen sag curves to the observed
data.
DISCUSSION OF OXYGEN SAG CURVES
Average dissolved oxygen values obtained during the intensive
field surveys and the oxygen sag curves obtained from parameters based
on the field data are shown in Figure 43* In most reaches a good cor-
I
relation between observed and calculated data was found. Typical oxygen
sag curves are found below Concord, Hooksett-AUenstown-Pembroke,
Manchester, Nashua, Lowell and Haverhill.
- 89 -
-------
TABLE 21
SUMMARY OF HIVER PARAMETERS
AUGUST 1964-1965
REACH
CH
HM
MN
NL
LL
LH
EN
RIVER
MILES
90.23
to
80.60
80.60
to
73.11*
71*07
to
5^.55
5^.55
to
1*3.1*7
37.1*5
to
28.99
26.1*5
to
18.85
18.85
to
2.9!*
YEAR
1965
1965
1965
1965
1961*
1961*
1961*
1961*
FLOW
CFS
650
670
770
770
1125
1200
2200
2200
TIME
DAYS
3.05
3.8U
2.32
2.1*3
1.90
2.73
0.89
1*.20
TEMP
°C
23
&
21*
2U
2U
2U
22
22
22
21
BOTTLE
^1
PER DAY
0.05
0.05
0.09
o.oi*
0.03
0.0l*5
0.05
0.07
La
PPM
5.16
1*.12
10.01
16.25
21.82
13.72
18.53
18.11
D
PPM
3.1*8
2.33
l*.88
3.53
3-77
5.67
5.87
7.08
METHOD
Streeter
-Phelps
Streeter
-Phelps
Streeter
-Phelps
Camp
Camp
Camp
Camp
Camp
Camp
V
PER DAY
0.220
0.115
0.300
0.260
0.130
0.095
0.161
0.175
0.175
*a
PER DAY
0.270
0.105
0.1*00
0.190
0.210
0.230
0.160
0.220
O.lUO .
>
V
^
PER DAY
--
--
_-
o.oi*o
0.11*0
o.oi*o
0.010
0.010
0.000
3
PPM
PER DAY
-._
-_
__
2.00
1.70
2.00
0.80
1.00
1.70
P
PPM
PER DAY
*«.
-_
»«.
0.50
0.50
1.00
0.50
0.20
0.90
-------
10-
CALCULATED OXYGEN SAG CURVES
AUGUST 1964-1965
FIELD CONDITONS 1964 o
1965
CALCULATED CURVE I96|
I96§ ,
OXYGEN SATURATION LEVEL
HOOKSETT
ALLENSTOWN
CONCORD PEMBROKE MANCHESTER
n n n
NASHUA
n
LOWELL
n
LAWRENCE NAVERNILL
n
O.
QL
*
yj
o
>-
x
o
o
UJ
>
-J
O
CO
CO
o
8-
6-
4-
2-
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
3O
20
10
MILES ABOVE MOUTH OF MERRIMACK RIVER
-------
The Lawrence to Haverhill section of the Merrimack River
was the only reach of the seven that did not reach the bottom of the
sag before the next major waste load entered.
The oxygen sag curves presented in this section reflect only
those conditions found during the intensive sampling periods of August
1964 and 1965. They do not reflect the lowest oxygen values ever
observed in the Merrimack River nor do they reflect the lowest values
found during the intensive survey. For example, at Station HN-6.0
at the Newburyport, Massachusetts, railroad bridge, the most seaward
station, the average dissolved oxygen during the intensive period was
5.06 ppm, but the range was 1.7 to 8.4 ppm. Minimum values of zero
were observed at two stations below Haverhill. Of course, these
minimum values were far below the dissolved oxygen levels required
for aquatic life and would have deleterious effects on these organisms.
During the year, due to many varying natural events, the values of
the parameters kj, k2, k^, a and p can be expected to vary significantly.
For example, values of a may be found that range from negative (algae
respiration exceeding the photosynthetlc production of oxygen) to
positive values that can produce oxygen concentrations above saturation
levels.
These parameters may be used to aid in predicting the oxygen
balance relationships under altered conditions, provided that the
values have been selected to reflect the environmental conditions.
- 91 -
-------
INFLUENCE OF PARAMETER VARIATION
A detailed evaluation of the data between Manchester, New
Hampshire, and Nashua, New Hampshire, was made to determine the signif-
icance of the terms kg, ti and p in the Camp equation. These three
parameters were not in the Streeter-Phelps equation.
a =
L« -
10
-10
-Jut
*
2.3
(1-10
10
(1)
Using the previously determined field condition parameters of
a
10.01 ppm
D = k.88 ppm
= 0.26 per day, kg = 0.19 per day, kg = 0.0^ per day
a = 2.00 ppm per day p = 0.5 ppm per day
evaluation was made by calculating D. at selected times t under various
conditions as stated below:
Condition 1. All parameters as given above,
2. k = 0.00,
3. p = 0.00,
k. _a = 0.00,
5. ji = 0.00 and p = 0.00,
6. ^ = 0.00, p = 0.00 and k = o.OO.
-------
Two distinct groupings are evident in Figure 44. The first,
conditions 1, 2 and 3, is that situation where a = 2.00 ppm per day;
and the second, conditions 4, 5 and 6, is the situation where a has
been reduced to 0.00 ppm per day. Conditions 2 and 6, where k-j =0.00
per day, show that a change of ko has only a minor effect on the oxygen
sag curve. The same is true for p. The curves for conditions 3 and 5,
where p = 0.00 ppm per day, are similar to the curves for conditions
1 and 4, respectively. Obviously, in this reach, as in the other
reaches of the Merrimack River analyzed, the resulting field values
of-p and ko have a minor effect on the oxygen-sag equation given by
Camp.
The phot©synthetic production of oxygen, a, does have a
highly significant effect. In the above example with t = 2.0 days
and a = 2.00 ppm per day, the a accounts for an additional 2.6? ppm
of dissolved oxygen. This represents 54 per cent of the DO value
of 4.93.
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RIVER AND BOTTLE kj
Since it was found that the rate of removal of BOD in the
river was not equal to that occurring in the bottle, k. for the river
was found by use of the Camp equation. A comparison of the river and
bottle kj's revealed that a relatively close ratio existed between
the two. This is demonstrated in Table 22.
- 93 -
-------
TABLE 22
RATIO OF BOTTLE AMD RIVER DEOXTGENATION COEFFICIENTS
REACH BOTTLE k, RIVER k, RATIO
MN
NL (1965)
NL (19&0
LL
LH
HN
0.09
0.0k
0.03
0.0^5
0.05
0.07
0.26
0.13
0.095
0.161
0.175
0.175
.35
31
.32
.28
.29
.1*0
An average of the six reaches indicates a ratio of bottle k-^ to river
k, of 1:3. The decimal range is 0.12, and if the estuary reach HN is
not considered, the range is only 0.07.
-------
5.501
Q.
0.
liJ
x
o
o
LU
O
0)
CO
5.00-
4.50
4.00
3.50-
3.0CT
2.50
2.00-
1.50
\
\
\
/
/ 4
v y
% ^
V
1.0 2.0
Time, Days
3.0
r2.3(k|fkJ[lo"
-------
PROJECTED OXYGEN CONDITIONS
For convenience in design calculations, the river reaches
used in 1964-65 field surveys were redefined as extending downstream
from the point of discharge of one proposed sewage treatment plant
to the next proposed discharge. Continuous calculations were then
possible.
Since concentrated sampling was not conducted in the reaches
from Franklin to Penacook, New Hampshire, reach FP, and from Penacook
to Concord, New Hampshire, reach PC, no river parameters were calcu-
lated. However, the reaches were considered to be similar in nature
and received a waste similar in composition to that found in reach
CH. Parameters of reach CH were, therefore, adopted for reaches FP
and PC.
The reference to the proposed Hooksett sewage treatment
plant includes the combined discharges of separate treatment plants
at Hooksett, Allenstown and Pembroke, New Hampshire, while the Concord
sewage is discharged from two plants, one in Penacook and the other
in Concord. All the other proposed treatment plants would receive
sewage from the metropolitan areas of Manchester, Nashua, Lowell,
Lawrence and Haverhill. The nine river reaches used in calculations
are defined in Table 23.
General Design Parameters
Selection of design flows in the river reaches was based
upon the 10 per cent occurrence of the average seven day August flow
- 95 -
-------
TABLE 23
RIVER REACHES USED FOR PROJECTIONS
REACH
FP
PC
CH
HM
MN
NL
LL
LH
m
LOCATION
Franklin
to
. Penacook
to
Concord
to
Hooksett
to
Manchester
to
Nashua
to
Lowell
to
Lawrence
to
Haverhill
to
Newburyport
RIVER
MILES
115.70
to
100.31
to
89.13
to
80.20
to
68.53
to
53-33
to
36.1k
to
25.56
to
17.39
to
2.9^
LENGTH,
MILES
15.39
11.18
8.93
11.67
15.20
16.59
11.18
8.17
Ik. 45
FLOW,
CFS
595
720
7^0
760
830
950
1,000
1,000
1,000
TIME
OF TRAVEL
BAYS
2.1*0
1.05
2.65
3-70
2.20
3.15
3-26
2.31
6.59
.96-
-------
in the Merrimack River and tributaries. The flow values selected
for each reach are given in Table 23. Once the flows were selected,
Figures 11 through 14 were referred to, and the time of stream travel
for the appropriate river miles within each reach was determined.
Table 23 summarizes the total time of flow for each reach.
The year 1985 was selected as the design year for the follow-
ing reasons:
1. A twenty-year life expectancy of sewage treatment plant
equipment.
2. Availability of reliable population growth predictions.
3. Ample time for the stabilization of conditions in the
river following the changes produced by sewage treatment
plants.
Design temperature values of 24°C above Concord, New Hampshire,
and 25°C below were selected, based upon recorded field temperatures
in August of 1964 and 1965.
Photosynthetic Oxygen Production and Benthal Demand
For design purposes, the a value, or photosynthetic oxygen
production rate, was selected to reflect the minimum production that
could be reasonably expected in August. The values selected are shown
in Table 24 and reflect conditions on a dark cloudy day. Selection
of such values was based on light-and-dark bottle studies of 1964
and 19&5j using the observed cloudy day values. With large algae
populations present, it would not be unreasonable to expect a negative
- 97 -
-------
TABLE 2k
SUMMARY OF RIVER DESIGN PARAMETERS
AUGUST 1985
REACH
FP
PC
CH
HM
MN
NL
LL
LH
HN
RIVER
MILES
115.70
to
100.31
100.31
to
89.13
89.13
to
80.20
80.20
to
68.53
68.53
to
53.33
53.33
to
36.71*
36.71*
to
25.56
25.56
to
17.39
17.39
to
FLOW
CFS
595
720
7UO
760
830
950
1,000
1,000
1,000
TIME
DAYS
2.1*0
1.05
2.65
3.70
2.20
3.15
3.26
2.31
6.59
TEMP
°C
*
2h
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
La
PPM
3.12
2.96
2.88
2.11*
3.86
3.57
5.93
7.1*1
5.36
Da
PPM
2.13
1.33
1.35
0.92
1.1*5
1.80
1.70
2.29
2.01
METHOD
Streeter
-Phelps
Streeter
-Phelps
Streeter
-Phelps
Streeter
-Phelps
Canp
Caap
Canp
Camp
Camp
PER DAY
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.090
0.120
0.080
0.080
0.100
0.100
V
PER DAY
0.250
0.250
0.250
0.100
0.180
0.170
0.170
0.230
0.150
"3
PER DAY
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
0.010
a
PPM
PER DAY
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.1*0
0.10
P
PPM
PER DAY
0.20
0.30
0.30
0.10
0.50
-------
a, i. e., the respiration on dark days could exceed the oxygen produced.
Values for the oxygen demand from the benthal deposits, p, are shown in
Table 24 and were selected as being the most reasonable value to be
expected. Consideration was given to the removal of settleable solids
by the sewage treatment plants, thereby, greatly reducing the p value
from that found in 1964 and 1965.
River Constantsk^, ^ anc^ ^3
Selection of the design values for the deoxygenation constant
was based upon the type and characteristics of the waste being treated
and the river characteristics of each reach. For example, the higher
the degree of waste treatment, the lower would be the k^ of the receiving
water, since the more easily oxidizable organic matter would be removed
first. Values of the river reaeration constant k£ found in 1964 and
1965 were used as a basis for selection of the design values.
A minimum value of 0.01 was selected for k^, the BOD settling
rate, as being representative of conditions after sewage treatment
plants are in operation. Adequate treatment should remove most of
the BOD, with the result that very little BOD will settle out below
the treatment plant. A summary of all design k values is given in
Table 24.
Initial BOD Load and Deficit
The intial BOD loads below the treatment plants were computed
by adding the residual loads above the plant to that discharged. If
- 99 -
-------
any major tributary entered the river, the BOD load from this source
was also considered.
Values for the residual load were determined from the calcu-
lations for the upstream reach in all cases except for Franklin, New
Hampshire, where ultimate BOD values for the Winnipesaukee and Pemige-
wasset Rivers were assumed to be 3.00 ppm. Projected population data
from available engineering reports were used to determine the 1985
sewage treatment plant loads. Industrial loadings were assumed to have
a growth commensurate with that of the populations. Tributary stream
loadings were based upon past sampling data and consideration of future
waste treatment, where applicable, with a minimum background ultimate
BOD value of 2.00 ppm being used for "clean streams". The treatment
plant flow was based upon the average daily design flow for 1985.
Bottle k^ values determined from 1964 and 1965 data were used to
compute the ultimate BOD values. Design river flow and La values
are shown in Table 24, while flows and ultimate BOD values, L, for
the tributaries are listed in Table 25.
Oxygen deficit values were determined in a manner similar
to that used for the BOD loads. All tributary streams were considered
to have the same temperature as that of the Merrimack River. An oxygen
saturation value of 85 per cent was used for all "clean water" streams,
and sewage treatment plants were assumed to have an effluent dissolved
oxygen value of 1.00 ppm. Calculations from the previous reach yielded
the deficit value for the Merrimack River prior to receiving the
effluent. At Franklin, New Hampshire, the Merrimack River, after
- 100 -
-------
TABLE 25
TRIBUTARY PARAMETERS
ASSUMED
TRIBUTARY
Pemigewasset R. plus
Winnipesaukee R.
Miscellaneous
Miscellaneous
Contoocook R.
Miscellaneous
Soucook R.
Miscellaneous
Suncook R.
Miscellaneous
Piscataquog R.
Souhegan R.
Souhegan R.
Nashua R.
Concord R.
LOCATION OF
DISCHARGE
Franklin
Franklin
Penacook
Penacook
Concord
Hooksett
Hooksett
Hooksett
Manchester
Manchester
Manchester
Nashua
Nashua
Lowell
FLOW
CFS
580
15
10
110
5
5
5
10
5
15
10
5
90
50
L
PPM
3.00
2.00
2.00
IK 00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
3.50
3.50
5.00
6.50
D
PPM
1.70
1.28
1.26
1.26
1.26
1.26
1.26
1.26
2.93
2.93
3-38
2.93
PER CENT
SATURATION
85
80
85
85
85
85
85
85
65
65
60
65
- 101 -
-------
mixing, was considered to be at 75 per cent of saturation. Table 24
shows the initial deficits, Da, used on the Merrimack River, while
Table 25 lists the deficits assumed at the mouth of the tributaries.
Estuary Analysis
Estuary analysis was conducted using equations 5, 6, 7 and
8, which were discussed in the analysis of river parameters of 1964-
1965. Values of t and U were obtained from time of flow information.
An e value of 3.0 square miles per day was used.
Design Calculations
The reaches from Manchester to Newburyport were analyzed
by means of the Camp equations, 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8. The four reaches
above Manchester, FP, PC, CH and HM, were analyzed by the Streeter-
Phelps equations, 3 and 4.
Due to the additional benefits derived from secondary treat-
ment plants and to the future water usage that can be expected in the
Merrimack River Valley, a minimum of secondary treatment was assumed
for all sewage treatment plants. For purposes of design calculations
the efficiency of treatment plants was assumed to be 85 per cent re-
moval of the influent BOD.
With the parameters of Table 24 established for design condi-
tions, calculation began at Franklin, New Hampshire, with the selected
background values and proceeded downstream reach by reach. Figure 45
presents the 1985 design oxygen sag curves from Franklin to Newburyport,
- 102 -
-------
MERRIMACK RIVER
1985 DESIGN CONDITIONS
a
0.
a. 6
ui
Q
III
_l
o
w
E
o
SATURATION LEVEL
75% SATURATION LEVEL
-8
-6
MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE LEVEL
TIME OF TRAVEL- DAYS
10 15
I I I --1 1 L 1 L
20
.1
25
If .74
RIVER MILES
-------
Massachusetts, as determined by the Streeter-Phelps equations above
Manchester, New Hampshire, and the Camp equations below. Whenever
the calculated ultimate BOD level dropped below the minimum background
value of 2.00 ppm, the minimum value of 2.00 ppm was used as the back-
ground figure for the next sewage treatment plant.
Two additional lines are shown in the graph. The first line
emphasizes the 5.00 ppm value of dissolved oxygen, a value that most
water pollution control agencies have adopted as the minimum DO that
is adequate to maintain the maximum potential warm water sport fish
population. Both Massachusetts and New Hampshire have adopted 5
ppm as one of the minimum standards of quality for Class C waters.
One of the definitions of Class C water is: "suitable habitat for...
common food and game fishes indigenous to the region." The second
line denotes the 75 per cent of the saturation value for dissolved
oxygen at the design temperature. A minimum value of 75 per cent of
saturation has been adopted by Massachusetts and New Hampshire as a
requirement for Class B waters. This standard states in part:
"...suitable for bathing and recreation, irrigation and agricultural
uses...good fish habitat...good esthetic value. Acceptable for public
water supply with filtration and disinfection." It is apparent from
Figure 45 that this condition of Class B water can be met from the
confluence of the Pemigewasset and Winnipesaukee Rivers at Franklin,
New Hampshire, to the Lawrence, Massachusetts, sewage treatment plant.
Below Lawrence and Haverhill, the dissolved oxygen would drop to 73
per cent of saturation. However, this value would not be low enough
- 103 -
-------
to prevent any of the above stated uses, as established by the two
states, for Class B water.
A comparison of the dissolved oxygen levels observed in 1964-
65, Figure 43, with the 1985 design conditions shows the obvious improve-
ment when treatment is initiated.
- 104 -
-------
FUTURE WATER QUALITY
EXISTING CLASSIFICATION FOR FUTURE USE
Up to this time, New Hampshire has failed to classify the
Merrimack River for its future highest use. However, the state is
expected to classify the Merrimack River by June 30, 1967, as provided
in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended.
On April 28, 1964, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and
the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission estab-
lished the future highest use classification of the Merrimack River
in Massachusetts. It was agreed that Class C water would exist from
the New Hampshire-Massachusetts state line to the Pawtucketville Dam
in Lowell. Class C from Pawtucketville Dam to Rocks Village Bridge
below Haverhill was established with a modification of dissolved
oxygen to four parts per million. It was further agreed that Class
B would be set from the Rocks Village Bridge to the mouth of the
Merrimack River at the Atlantic Ocean. Charts showing the classifi-
cation system are presented in Appendix F.
Water that is Class C is not suited for use as a public
water supply, for general irrigation of crops or for bathing.
However, these uses exist now in the area and will probably increase.
Lowell and Lawrence use the Merrimack River in its present condition
as a public water supply; Lowell only recently closed a bathing beach
on the river. A number of farmers use Merriraack River water to irri-
gate truck crops used for consumption without cooking. Therefore,
- 105 -
-------
if the Merrimack River is not classified higher than Class C, the
part thus classified would be unsuitable for existing uses.
SELECTION OF PROPOSED REQUIREMENTS
When establishing requirements for any body of water, there
are three major considerations:
1. Requirements should provide for future population,
expansion of industrial capacity, addition of new indust-
ries, and other reasonable and legitimate uses.
2. Requirements should provide for maximum beneficial use
of the body of water and should not hinder economic
growth.
3. Requirements should be subject to reasonable, equitable,
forceful, consistent and persistent enforcement.
Both existing and future uses for the Merrimack River are
given in Table 26 for each reach of the river. The uses are defined
below.
Municipal Water River water could be used as an adequate
water supply with filtration and disinfection.
Industrial Water River water could be used by most indust-
ries for processing and cooling without pre-treatment and by almost all
industries when treated.
Recreation River water use for recreation is divided into
two catagories. Whole body contact use would include swimming and
water skiing, while limited body contact use would include fishing,
- 106 -
-------
TABLE 26
EXISTING AND POTENTIAL WATER USES IN MERRIMACK RIVER
\
\^
\. si
RIVER \.
REACH \
^W
\
Franklin
to
Penacook
to
Concord
to
Hooksett
to
Manchester
to
Nashua
to
Lowell
to
Lawrence
to
Haverhill
to
Newburyport
to
Atlantic Ocean
£
0)
a
o
CS
0
0
0
X
X
0
$
*^l
1 fm
to O
Ldustrial Wate
-ocessing & Co
H P*
X
X
0
X
X
X
a
(creation Who
>dy Contact
«fi
0
X
X
X
X
X
X
a
5
(creation -Lia
»dy Contact
rX
««
0
0
0
X
0
X
X
0
X
X
0)
H
3
H
to
0
0
X
X
0
0
X
0
0
X
ithetics
-------
boating and picnicking. Neither catagory would be impaired.
Fish and Wildlife Fishes indigenous to the region would
have a good habitat in which to grow and spawn. Wildlife, including
waterfowl, would have no unnatural impediments.
Esthetics The river should not present an objectionable
sight or odor that would reduce property values below their potential,
nor create unpleasant conditions for persons using the river or walking
or sitting along the banks.
Agricultural River water could be used for agricultural
purposes without endangering the health of the consumer nor the quality
of the agricultural product.
Wastewater Assimilation The river should be able to dilute
and transport adequately treated effluents of waste treatment facilities
without impairing other legitimate water uses.
The water quality requirements for each water use (Table 27)
were determined. Then, the water quality criteria necessary to protect
every reasonable present and future water use for each reach was
selected. In order to decrease the biochemical oxygen demand and
bacteria in the wastes to be discharged to the Merrimack River, to
provide an effluent more esthetically acceptable to the public, and
to assure multiple use of the river in the future, it will be necessary
to provide secondary waste treatment or the equivalent, with disinfec-
tion, for all waste discharges. The objectives which, when achieved,
would assure the availability of the river for the desired uses are
contained in the part of the report on recommendations'^ '.
- 108 -
-------
TABLE 2?
CONSTITUENTS CONSIDERED FOR WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES
\
>^
N. §8
^^v JH H^
^V^ ȣ
^^^
^^^
^V^
^V^
CONSTITUENT X.
Coliform Bacteria
Turbidity *
Color (True)
Odor
Temperature
Oil
Floating Solids and Debris
Bottom Deposits
PH
Dissolved Oxygen
BOD
Ammonia Nitrogen
Nitrogen (Total)
Phenol-like Substances
Phosphates (Total)
9>
.p
CO
*^
rH
at
Municip
x
x
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
i
i
0)
CK)
j^
rH bO
at H
H «H
Industr
Process
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
\
t
1
js
(0
&
rH
CO
H
Industr
Cooling
X
X
X
0)
H
?3g
| 42
1 O
ft CO
0 -P
H e
1"
0) O
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
V
-p
g
^J
1 -p
1 O
C at
O -P
H d
-P 0
CO O
0)
o "a
tt) O
P«? P")
X
X
X
X
X
X
0)
H
^^1
^3
rH
H
^g
d
a
at
ca
H
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CO
0
Estheti
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
rH
oJ
£j
3
-p
1
H
X
X
X
X
X
0)
-p ca
O tt) bD
^4 h
G H al
0 X!
H >> 0
-P H ca
at a) TH
Assimil
Adequat
Waste D
X
X
X
X
- 109 -
-------
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
INTRODUCTION
In accordance with the written request to the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare from the Honorable Endicott Peabody,
former Governor of Massachusetts, dated February 12, 1963, and on the
basis of reports, surveys or studies, the Secretary of Health, Education,
and Welfare, on September 23, 1963, called a conference under the
provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 466
et seq.) in the matter of pollution of the interstate waters of the
Herrimack and Nashua Rivers and their tributaries (Massachusetts -
New Hampshire) and the intrastate portions of those waters within the
»
State of Massachusetts. The conference was held February 11, 1964,
in Faneuil Hall, Boston, Massachusetts. Pollution sources and the
effects of their discharges on water quality were described at the
conference'*'.
In February 1964 the U. S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare established the Merrimack River Project to study the
Merrimack River Basin. The basic objectives were twofold:
1. Evaluation of the adequacy of the pollution abatement measures
proposed for the Merrimack River within Massachusetts.
2. Development of adequate data on the water quality of the
Merrimack River and its tributaries. Waters in both New
Hampshire and Massachusetts were to be studied.
Headquarters for the Project were established at the Lawrence
Experiment Station of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Lawrence,
- 110 -
-------
Massachusetts. The Project became operational July 1, 1964*
During the first year of operation efforts were concentrated
primarily in the Massachusetts section of the Merrimack River. Second
year studies were mainly of the New Hampshire sections involving sus-
pected interstate pollution, and of the Nashua River.
Prior to initiation of the field studies, a meeting was held
among representatives of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health,
the R. A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center and Project personnel con-
cerned with the approach to be used to evaluate the adequacy of the
Massachusetts pollution abatement program. It was agreed to use the
(2)
basic approach used by Camp, Dresser and McKee, Consulting Engineersv ,
but with more emphasis on certain variables considered to be weak.
In addition, gaps in water quality information, such as the biological
condition of the river, were to be filled.
STUDY AREA
The Merrimack River Basin lies in central New England and
extends from the White Mountains in New Hampshire southward into
northeastern Massachusetts. Through New Hampshire, the river flows
in a southerly direction for a distance of about 45 miles upon entering
Massachusetts. It then empties into the Atlantic Ocean at Newburyport,
Massachusetts. The lower twenty-two miles of the river are tidal.
Lands drained by the Merrimack River consist of 5,010 square miles,
of which 3,800 square miles are in New Hampshire, while 1,210 square
miles lie in Massachusetts.
- Ill-
-------
The I960 population within the Merrimack River Basin is
estimated to be 1,072,000, of which 747,000 are in Massachusetts and
325,000 are in New Hampshire. For the most part, the population centers
are located along the Merrimack River.
Precipitation is distributed fairly uniformly throughout
the year, and frequent but generally short periods of heavy precipitation
are common in the basin. The southeastern part of the watershed, because
of its proximity to the Atlantic Ocean, does not undergo the extremes
of temperature and depth of snow found in New Hampshire at the higher
elevations.
POLLUTION SOURCES
The Merrimack River is polluted by the discharge of raw
and partially treated municipal and industrial wastes for most of
its length in New Hampshire and Massachusetts. Every day more than
].?0,000,000 gallons of v.aste water flow into the Herrimack River.
The river is polluted bacteriologically, physically and chemically.
This polluted condition, which has been recognized since the turn of
the century'1°', will become progressively worse unless effective
action is taken immediately.
Coliform bacteria, equivalent to those in the raw sewage
from 416,000 persons, are discharged to the Merrimack River Basin.
Thirty-four per cent of the bacteria are discharged in New Hampshire,
the remaining 66 per cent in Massachusetts. These equivalents are
discharged by the New Hampshire communities of Allenstown, Boscawen,
- 112 -
-------
Concord, Derry, Franklin, Hooksett, Hudson, Manchester, Merrimack,
Milford, Nashua, Pembroke, Salem and Wilton, and the Massachusetts
communities of Amesbury, Andover, Ayer, Billerica, Clinton, Concord,
Dracut, Fitchburg, Groton, Groveland, Haverhill, Lancaster, Lawrence,
Leominster, Lowell, Marlborough, Maynard, Methuen, Newburyport, North
Andover, Pepperell, Salisbury, Shirley and Westborough.
The suspended solids in the discharges to the study area
are equivalent to those in the raw sewage of 1,653,000 persons.
Seventy-two per cent of those solids originate in Massachusetts.
Major sources of suspended solids in New Hampshire are the communities
of Concord, Franklin, Manchester, Milford and Nashua, and the industries
of Brezner Tanning Corp., Boscawen; Franconia Paper Corp., Lincoln;
Granite State Packing Co., Manchester; Granite State Tanning Co.,
Nashua; Hillsborough Mills, Wilton; Merrimack Leather Co., Merrimack;
and Seal Tanning Co., Manchester. Massachusetts sources are the
communities of Amesbury, Andover, Fitchburg, Haverhill, Lawrence,
Leominster, Lowell, Methuen, Newburyport and North Andover, and the
industries of Amesbury Fibre Corp., Amesbury; Commodore Foods, Inc.,
Lowell; Continental Can Co., Haverhill; Falulah Paper Co,, Fitchburg;
Foster Grant Co., Leominster; Fitchburg Paper Co., Fitchburg; Gilet
Wool Scouring Corp., Chelmsford; Groton Leatherboard Co., Groton;
H. E. Fletcher Co., Chelmsford; Hoyt & Worthen Tanning Corp., Haverhill;
Jean-Allen Products Co., Lowell; Lawrence Wool Scouring Co., Lawrence;
Lowell Rendering Co., Billerica; Mead Corp., Lawrence; Mead Corp.,
Leominster; Merrimack Paper Co., Lawrence; Oxford Paper Co., Lawrence;
- 113 -
-------
Southwell Combing Co., Chelmsford; St. Regis Paper Co., Pepperell;
and Weyerhauser Paper Co., Fitchburg.
Sewage and industrial wastes presently discharged in the
basin have an estimated biochemical oxygen demand equivalent to that
in the untreated sewage of 1,422,000 persons, of which 693,000 popula-
tion equivalents are discharged in New Hampshire. The following
communities and industries are the major contributors of this material
to the study area. In New Hampshire the communities are Concord,
Franklin, Manchester, Milford and Nashua, and the industries are
Foster Grant Co., Manchester; Franconia Paper Corp., Lincoln; Granite
State Tanning Co., Nashua; Hillsborough Mills, Wilton; Merrimack
Leather Co., Merrimack; MKM Knitting Mills, Inc., Manchester; M.
Schwer Realty Co., Manchester; Seal Tanning Co., Manchester; Stephen
Spinning Co., Manchester; and Waumbec Mills, Inc., Manchester. In
Massachusetts the communities are Amesbury, Andover, Fitchburg, Haver-
hill, Lawrence, Leominster, Lowell, Methuen, Newburyport, North Andover
and Westborough, and the industries are Amesbury Fibre Corp., Amesbury;
Commodore Foods, Inc., Lowell; Continental Can Co., Fitchburg; Falulah
Paper Co., Fitchburg; Fitchburg Paper Co., Fitchburg; Foster Grant Co.,
Leominster; Gilet Wool Scouring Corp., Chelmsford; Groton Leather-
board Co., Groton; Hollingsworth & Vose Co., Groton; Hoyt and Worthen
Tanning Corp., Haverhill; Lawrence Wool Scouring Co., Lawrence; Lowell
Rendering Co., Billerica; Mead Corp., Lawrence; Mead Corp., Leominster;
Merrimack Paper Co., Lawrence; No. Billerica Co., Billerica; Oxford
- 114 -
-------
Paper Co., Lawrence; Simonds Saw and Steel Co., Fitchburg; Southwell
Combing Co., C helms ford; St. Regis Paper Co., Pepperell; Suffolk
Knitting Co., Lowell; Vertipile, Inc., Lowell; and Weyerhauaer Paper
Co., Fitchburg.
Discharges, other than bacteria, suspended solids or oxygen
demanding material, include color producing waste discharges by the
Franconia Paper Corp., Lincoln, New Hampshire; plating wastes probably
containing copper and cyanide by The Sanders Associates, Nashua, New
Hampshire; 2,380 pounds of grease per day by the Southwell Combing
Co., Chelmsford, Massachusetts; 3,120 pounds of grease per day by the
Gilet Wool Scouring Corp., Chelmsford, Massachusetts; periodic dumping
of dye by the Roxbury Carpet Co., Framingham, Massachusetts; and 860
pounds of grease per day by the Lawrence Wool Scouring Co., Lawrence,
Massachusetts.
WATER USES
The Merrimack River is the municipal water supply for Lowell
and Lawrence, Massachusetts. As the population in the basin multiplies,
an increasing number of communities will be turning to the Merrimack
River to meet their water needs. Construction and efficient operation
of well designed sewage treatment plants will ensure adequate water
quality to enable the municipalities and industries to utilize this
abundant and inexpensive source of water.
Extensive use of the Merrimack River water is presently
being made by the basin's industries. This use is limited mainly
- 115 -
-------
to flow-through applications, cooling water, power generation and
waste transport, with very little consumptive use. Sand filters and
other treatment methods are often employed by industries to pre-
condition the water. It would not be unreasonable to expect an increase
in industrial development once the basin communities can offer improved
water quality to both management and employees for process water and
recreational use.
Merrimack River water is used for irrigation of truck crops
along most of its banks, with a concentration of farms occurring
between Manchester, New Hampshire, and Lawrence, Massachusetts. Follow-
ing construction of adequate waste treatment facilities, irrigation
water would have a lower bacterial density, resulting in a reduced
health hazard.
Recreational use of the main stem Merrimack River is severely
restricted due to its polluted condition. Fishing is limited by an
environment unsuitable for game fish common to the area and by public
abhorrence to fishing in waters polluted with raw sewage and other
waste materials. Proper control of this pollution would enable 10.5
million people within a day's drive of the river and thousands in the
rest of the country to fully utilize the tremendous fish, wildlife and
recreational potential of the Merrimack River Basin.
For the basin area, a minimum estimate of the potential
resources lost due to pollution is $37,000,000 for the year 1964.
- 116 -
-------
The income lost from various sources is:
Commercial Shellfish $ 300,000
Recreation Visitor Income 21,300,000
Increased Property Value 9,100,000
Increased Tax Revenue 5,500,000
Miscellaneous 800.000
$ 37,000,000
A more complete and detailed survey would probably indicate an annual
loss in the range of 60 to 70 million dollars, or an additional income
of sixty-five dollars per year for every man, woman and child in the
basin.
EFFECTS OF POLLUTION ON WATER QUALITY
Concentrated water quality studies in the Merrimack River
Basin were conducted during July and August of 1964 and 1965. Other
supplemental studies were made throughout the year. Pollution of
the Merrimack River and its tributaries was evaluated on the basis
of coliform bacteria, dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand,
and temperature. Time of travel data was obtained from Rhodamine B
dye studies.
The temperature of the Merrimack River during the summer
months averaged 23°C. There was only one significant source of heat
pollution, that being the Public Service Company of New Hampshire's
power generating facilities at Bow, New Hampshire. A temperature
increase of 3°C was apparent below the discharge area. Any expansion
of this plant, or construction of new facilities in the basin, should
provide for cooling of the waste discharges, thereby preventing excessive
- 117 -
-------
temperature build ups.
Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) crossing the state line
from New Hampshire into Massachusetts amounted to 28,800 pounds per
day during August 1965. This is equivalent to the discharge of raw
sewage from a city of 169,000 persons.
Substantial amounts of BOD are discharged by the industries
and communities of Concord, Manchester and Nashua, New Hampshire,
and Lowell, Lawrence and Haverhill, Massachusetts, causing serious
reduction in the dissolved oxygen content of the Merrimack River
during the summer months. In June, July, August and September of
1964 and 1965, more than half of the points sampled had an average
dissolved oxygen content of less than 5.0 ppm. A value of 5.0 ppra
is considered by most state water pollution control agencies to be
the minimum value to be maintained in order to provide for the maximum
potential warm water sport fish population. It is also one of the
requirements for Class C water, as established by the New England
Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission.
A depletion of the oxygen resource of a river will reduce
or eliminate aquatic life which serves as food for fishes. The biolog-
ical study of the Merrimack River* ' shows that those benthic organisms
sensitive in their response to pollution were absent in the lower
fifty-seven miles of the Merrimack River. In only four extremely
short portions of the river, consisting of less than fifteen miles
out of the total river mileage of 115, did the river recover enough
from its despoiled condition to permit a small number of sensitive
- 118 -
-------
organisms to exist.
With the exception of a short section of the river below
Hooksett, New Hampshire, bacterial pollution presents a health hazard
for all full body contact recreation, such as swimming and water skiing,
from Franklin, New Hampshire, to Newburyport, Massachusetts. Below
Manchester and Nashua, New Hampshire, and Lowell, Lawrence and Haverhill,
Massachusetts, coliform densities in excess of 1,000,000 per 100 ml
were not uncommon, being found as high as 9,200,000 per 100 ml.
Recommended limits of coliform densities for water contact sports range
from 50 to 5,000 per 100 ml in various states.
Nashua and Hudson, New Hampshire, contributed over 98 per
cent of the coliform bacteria crossing the New Hampshire-Massachusetts
state line during warm, low flow periods of the year. However, with
colder water temperatures and increased flows in the autumn, the
Nashua-Hudson portion at the state line was reduced to 50 per cent;
Manchester, New Hampshire, was responsible for 25 per cent of the
total. The discharge of raw sewage to the study area is a health
hazard to the residents in the downstream communities as well as to
the local population.
Vegetables that are ordinarily eaten without cooking are
irrigated at several truck farms with water from the Merrimack River.
Fecal coliforms were present on vegetables grown from farms irriga-
ting with Merrimack River water in a significantly greater number of
cases than on vegetables that were not irrigated with the river
water.
- 119-
-------
While coliform bacteria densities indicate the magnitude
of potential disease-producing organisms, detection of pathogenic
Salmonella bacteria is positive proof of the presence of such
organisms. Typhoid fever, gastroenteritis and diarrhea are but a
few of the many diseases of man caused by these bacteria. Salmonella
were consistently recovered from the Merrimack River in both New
Hampshire and Massachusetts, indicating that ingestion of untreated
Merrimack River water is a definite health hazard. Salmonella
organisms were isolated during each test made at the Lowell and
Lawrence water intakes. These disease producing organisms were
isolated from river water having a total coliform density as low
as 1ST per 100 ml.
There are two major contributors of coliform bacteria
to the estuary: the communities upstream of Newburyport and the
two communities of Newburyport and Salisbury. Of the bacteria
originating from upstream communities and reaching the estuary,
51.A per cent emanated from the Lawrence region, 17.1 per cent
from the Haverhill region and 31 »4 per cent from the Amesbury re-
gion. Discharges into the estuary from existing treatment facili-
ties in Newburyport and Salisbury significantly increase the bacteri-
al densities near the shellfish growing areas. If the potential
one million dollar shellfish harvest is to be a reality, the dis-
charge of sewage in the greater Lawrence, Haverhill and Amesbury
areas will need constantly and efficiently operating disinfection
facilities. In addition, the communities of Newburyport and Salis-
bury will need to discharge their wastes, adequately treated, to
- 120 -
-------
the Atlantic Ocean instead of to the estuary.
Phosphate and nitrogen concentrations in the Merrimack
River are far in excess of the amount needed to produce nuisance
algal blooms. In order to reduce taste and odor problems with
municipal water supplies taken from the river and to improve the
esthetic quality of the water, the concentration of these nutrients
should be reduced.
Severe to moderate pollution exists on several tributaries
of the Merrimack River. These include the Souhegan River near
Wilton and Milford, New Hampshire; Beaver Brook near Derry, New Hamp-
shire, and Lowell, Massachusetts; the Assabet River below Westborough,
Hudson and Maynard, Massachusetts; Hop Brook (a Sudbury River
tributary) below Marlborough, Massachusetts; the Concord River below
Billerica and in Lowell, Massachusetts; the Spicket River in Salem,
New Hampshire, and Methuen and Lawrence, Massachusetts; the Shawsheen
River below Bedford and in Andover, Massachusetts; and the Powwow
River below Amesbury, Massachusetts.
Gross oxygen production from photosynthesis in the Merrimack
River was between 0.8 and 2.0 ppm per day during the summers of 1964
and 1965. These values were obtained by the use of light and dark
bottle tests between Manchester, New Hampshire, and Newburyport,
Massachusetts. The rate of oxygen production on cloudy days was
found to be approximately one-tenth the value found on sunny days.
In the sixty-seven mile reach of the Merrimack River
between Manchester and Newburyport, there are approximately 16,900,000
- 121 -
-------
cubic feet of settled solid material, 7,900,000 of which are located
between Lowell and Lawrence, and 7,800,000 between Haverhill and
Newburyporb. The oxygen demand of these benthal deposits in the
overflowing waters ranged from 0.2 to 1.0 ppm per day.
Oxygen balance studies were carried out, and the variables
affecting the oxygen sag curves were obtained for each of six reaches
below Manchester, New Hampshire. These variables were adjusted to
reflect the future conditions in 1985 when a secondary waste treatment
program for the Merrimack River would be in effect. Dissolved
oxygen calculations for the 1985 conditions indicated that oxygen
levels of 75 per cent of saturation (Class B water as established
by the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission)
can be met from Franklin, New Hampshire, to Lawrence, Massachusetts,
and from Amesbury, Massachusetts, to the Atlantic Ocean.
Existing and potential future water uses in the Merrimack
River indicate that the river will be used for a variety of purposes.
Consideration was given to water quality limits for various consti-
tuents that would affect the suitability of the stream for each
water use. In order to decrease the biochemical oxygen demand and
bacteria in the wastes to be discharged to the Merrimack River, to
provide an effluent more esthetically acceptable to the public,
to assure the existing and future desired uses of the river by the
public and to protect the health and welfare of the public, it will
be necessary to provide secondary waste treatment or equivalent,
with disinfection, for all waste discharges. If the recommendations
- 122 -
-------
of this report (Part I Summary, Conclusions and Recommendations,
reference 30) are followed, water quality of sufficient purity to accom-
modate the various water uses will be attained.
- 123 -
-------
REFERENCES
1. Conference in the Matter of Pollution of the Interstate and
Massachusetts Intrastate Waters of the Merrimack and Nashua
Rivers, U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare,
Washington 25, D. C., February 11,
f
2. Report on Pollution Control for the Merrimack River, Camp,
Dresser and McKee, Consulting Engineers, Boston, Massachusetts,
December 1963.
3- Report of the New England-New York Inter -Agency Committee,
Part 2, Chapter XV, Merrimack River Basin, 1955-
k. Merrimack River Basin, Planning Status Report, Water Resource
Appraisals for Hydroelectric Licensing, Federal Power Commission,
Washington, D. C., 1965.
5. A Study of the Marine Resources of the Merrimack River Estuary,
Massachusetts Department of Natural Resources, June 1965.
6. Economic Studies of Outdoor Recreation, Report to the Outdoor
Recreation Resources Review Commission, Washington, D. C., 1962.
7. Clement, Harry, Your Community Can Profit From the Tourist Business,
Office of Area Development, U. S. Department of Commerce,
Washington, D. C., 1957.
- 12k -
-------
8. Report on Pollution of the Merrimack River and Certain Tribu-
tariesPart IIIStream StudiesBiological, U. S. Department
of the Interior, Merrimack River Project, Lawrence, Massachu-
setts, August 1966.
9. Breed, R. S., Murray, E. G. D., and Smith, N. R., Sergey's
Manual of Determinative Bacteriology, Seventh Edition, P. 337,
Williams and Wilkins Company, 1957.
10. Hinton, N. A. and MacGregor, R. R., A Study of Infections due
to Pathogenic Serogroups of Escherichia Coli, the Canadian
Medical Association Journal, 79, 359, September 1, 1958.
11. Geldreich, E. E., Bordner, R. H., Hubb, C. B., Clark, H. F.
and Kabler, P. W., Type and Distribution of Coliform Bacteria in
the Feces of Warm Blooded Animals, JWPCF, 34, 3, 295, March 1962,
12. KLttrell, F. W. and Furfari, S. A., Observations of Coliform
Bacteria in Streams, JWPCF, 35, 11, 1363, November 1963.
13. Report on Pollution of the Interstate Waters of the Red River
of the North, U. S. Department of the Interior, R. A. Taft
Sanitary Engineering Center, Cincinnati, Ohio.
14. Hoskins, J. K., Quantitative Studies of Bacterial Pollution and
Natural Purification in the Ohio and Illinois Rivers, Trans.
American Society of Civil Engineers, 89, 1365, 1925.
- 125 -
-------
15. Camp, T. R., Report on the Disposal of Sewage in the Merrimack
River Valley, Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1947.
16. Salmonella Surveillance Report, Annual Summary-1964, Communi-
cable Disease Center, U. S. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, Atlanta, Georgia.
17. Morbidity and Mortality Report for Week Ending June 5, 1965,
Communicable Disease Center, U. S. Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare, Atlanta, Georgia.
18. Spino, D. F., Personal Communication, R. A. Taft Sanitary
Engineering Center, U. S. Department of the Interior, Cincinnati,
Ohio.
19. Report of the State Board of Health on the Sanitary Condition
of the Merrimack River, Boston, Massachusetts, 1909.
20. Report on Pollution of the Merrimack River and Certain Tribu-
tariesPart VNashua River, U. S. Department of the Interior,
Merrimack River Project, Lawrence, Massachusetts, August, 1966.
21. Streeter, H. W. and Phelps, E. B., Public Health Bulletin 146,
U. S. Public Health Service, Washington, D. C., 1925.
22. Camp, T. R., Water and its Impurities, Reinhold Publishing Co.,
New York, 1963.
- 126 -
-------
23. Dobbins, W. E., BOD and Oxygen Relationships in Streams,
Journal of Sanitary Engineering Division, ASCE, June 1964,
December 1964, and February 1965.
24. Hull, C. H. J., Oxygenation of Baltimore Harbor by Planktonic
Algae, Journal WPCF, 35, 5, 600, May 1963.
25. Report on Pollution of the Merrimack River and Certain Tribu-
tariesPart IVPilot Plant Study of Benthal Oxygen Demand,
U. S. Department of the Interior, Merrimack River Project,
Lawrence, Massachusetts, August 1966.
26. Thomas, H. A., Graphical Determination of BOD Curve Constants,
Water and Sewage Works, 97, 3, March 1950.
27. Moore, E. W., Thomas, H. A. and Snow, W. B., Simplified
Method for Analysis of BOD Data, Sewage and Industrial Wastes,
22, 10, 1950.
28. Tsivoglou, E. C., Oxygen Relationships in Streams Technical
Report W-58-2, page 151, R. A. Taft Sanitary Engineering Center
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1958.
29. Sheehy, J. P., Rapid Methods for Solving First-Order Equations,
Journal Water Pollution Control Federation, 32, 646, June I960.
- 127 -
-------
30. Report on Pollution of the Merrimack River and Certain Tribu-
tariesPart ISummary, Conclusions and Recommendations, U. S.
Department of the Interior, Merrimack River Project, Lawrence,
Massachusetts, August 1966.
- 128 -
-------
APPENDICES
- 129 -
-------
APPENDIX A
REFERENCE POINTS FOR MERRIMACK RIVER
RIVER STATIONS FC-0.0 to CH-0.0
RIVER MILES 115-70 to 90.23
STATION MILE
FC-0.0 115.70 Confluence of Pemigewasset & Winnepesaukee
0.1 115.53 Proposed Franklin STP outfall
0.2
0.3 11H.70 USGS Gauging Station
O.lf
0.5
0.6
0.7 111.55 Cross Brook
0.8
0.9
FC-1.0 109.20 Glines Bk.
1.1
1.2 108.65
1.3
l.U 105.17 Tannery Bk.
1.5 105.13
1.6 105.07 Boscawen Bridge
1.7
1.8
1.9 100.89 Penacook Bridge
FC-2.0 100.71 Contoocook R. (South mouth)
2.1
2.2 100.31 Proposed Penacook STP outfall
2.3
2.U
2.5
2.6 98.78 Sewells Falls Road Bridge
2.7
2.8
2.9
FC-3.0 97.83 Sewells Falls Dam
3.1
3-2
3.3 9^.3^ B & M R. R. Bridge, East Concord
3.U 9^.21 I 93 Bridge
3.5
3.6
3.7 91.60 Route U-202 bridge
3.8
3-9
CH-0.0 90.23 Route 3 bridge
- A-l -
-------
RIVER STATIONS CH-0.0 to HM-1.0
RIVER MILES 90.23 to 78.22
STATION MILE
CH-0.0 90.23 Route 3 bridge
0.1
0.2
0.3 89.13 Proposed Concord STP Outfall
O.k
O.k
0.6 87.83 Bow Junction
0.7 87.61 Turkey River
0.8
0.9
CH-1.0 86.80 Garvins Falls Dam
1.1 86.50 Power lines
1.2
1.3 85.80 Soucook R.
l.U
1.5 85.15 Meetinghouse Bk.
1.6
1.7 8H.OO Public Service Co. Power Station
1.8 83.80
1.9 83.68 Bow Bog Bk.
CH-2.0 83.32
2.1 83.30 Sewer Outfall, Pembroke
2.2 82.90 Suncook R.
2.3
2.k
2.5
2.6
2.7 81.81 N. end of Island
2.8
2.9 81.20 Launch site, Hooksett
HM-0.0 81.05 Hooksett Dam
0.1
0.2 80.60 Hooksett Bridge
0.3 80.20 Est. proposed Hooksett STP outfall
O.U 80.15 Brickyard Bk.
0.5
0.6 79.2*f Unnamed Bk., above Peters Brook, east bank
0.7
0.8 78.50 Unnamed Bk., above Peters Brook, west bank
0.9
HM-1.0 78.22 Peters Bk.
- A-2 -
-------
RIVER STATIONS HM-1.0 to MN-2.0
RIVER MILES 78.22 to 68.05
STATION MILE
HM-1.0 78.22 Peters Bk.
1.1
1.2 77.^0 Dalton Bk.
1.3
l.U 76.79 Messer Bk.
1.5
1.6 76.37 Power Lines
1.7 75.85
1.8 75.75
1-9
HM-2.0 7^.90 Milestone Bk.
2.1
2.2
2.3 7^.17 Center of WGIR Radio towers
2i5
2.6 73.70 Black Bk.
2.7 73.57 Launch site (Ski Club)
2.8
2.9 73.20 Amoskeag Bridge
MN-0.0 73.1** Amoskeag Dam
0.1
0.2
0.3
o!5
0.6
0.7
0.8 71.30 Piscataquog R.
0.9
MN-1.0 71.07 Queen City Bridge
1.1 71.00
1.2
1.3 69.85 Bowman Bk.
1^5
1.6 69.C4 USGS Gauging Station
1.7 68.90 1-93 bridge
1.8
1.9 68,53 Proposed Manchester STP outfall
MN-2.0 68.05 Goffs Falls, B&M R. R. Bridge
- A-3 -
-------
RIVER STATIONS
RIVER MILES
MN-2.0 to NL-1.0
68.05 to 52.72
STATION
MILE
MN-2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
MN-3.0
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
MN-4.0
4*.2
4 ^
4 4
4^5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
NL-O.O
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
NL-1.0
68.05
67.70
67.06
66.30
65.11
64.20
63.00
62.89
62.35
6l.6o
61.55
61.18
60.71
60.36
59-35
59-20
58.65
58.10
57.65
56.84
56.43
55.75
55.06
55.00
54.80
54.55
54.25
54.16
53.80
53.65
53.62
53.50
53.33
53.17
52.81
52.72
Goffs Falls B&M R. R. bridge
Cohas Bk.
Little Cohas Bk.
Sebbins Bk.
Colby Bk.
200 yds. above power lines
Power lines
Souhegan River
Litchf ield Town Hall
Noticook Bk. (Thorntons Ferry)
Nesenkeag Bk.
N. end of Islands
First point below Falls
Little Nesenkeag Bk.
Rodonis Farm, Litchfield, N. H.
Pennichuck Bk.
Second power line above Nashua R,
First power line above Nashua R.
Nashua R.
Route 111, Hudson-Nashua Bridge
Outfall
Outfall
First power lines below Nashua R.
Salmon Bk.
Nashua STP Outfall
Second power lines below Nashua R.
- A-4 -
-------
RIVER STATIONS NL-1.0 to NL-5.0
RIVER MILES 52.72 to 40.75
STATION MILE
NL-1.0 52.72 Second power lines below Nashua R.
1.1
1.2
1.3 51.98
1.4
1.5 51.53
1.6 51.06 Spit Bk.
1.7 ^9.82 N. H.-Mass. state line
1.8 49.39
1.9 49.10 Limit Bk.- Musquash Bk.
NL-2.0 48.76 Foot of Lakeview Aye.,
2.1 48.74
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5 48.15 Robinson's picnic grounds
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9 47.43 Bridge Meadow Bk.
NL-3.0 47.35 Tyngsboro Bridge
3.1
3.2 46.66 Lawrence Bk.
3-3
3.4 46.20
3-5 45.75 0.3 miles above Tyngs Island
3.6 45.45 NW tip Tyngs Island
3.7 44.73 SB tip Tyngs Island
3.8
3.9 44.05 Scarlet Brook
NL-4.0 43.47 Lowell Water Intake, Deep Bk.
4.1 43.16 Stony Bk.
4.2 42.90
4.3 42.66 Pipe discharge, Lowell Water Treatment Plant
4.4 42.22
4.5 42.07 Boat launch
4.6 41.57 Black Bk.
4.7 41.10 Beach house
4.8 41.00 Clay Pit Bk.
4.9 40.90
NL-5.0 40'.75 Lowell Boat Club
- A-5 -
-------
RIVER STATIONS NL-5.0 to LL-3.0
RIVER MILES 1*0.75 to 35.00
STATION MILE
NL-5.0 *K). 75 Lowell Boat Club
5.1 1*0.70 Pawtucket Canal
5.2 to.65 Dam N. Shore
5.3 1*0.60 Dam Mid-Point
5.1* 1*0.56 Dam S. Shore
5.5
5-6 39.80 Beaver Brook
5.7
5.8
5.9 39-00
LL-0.0 38.75 Concord R.
0.1 38.53 USGS Gauging Station wire
0.2 38.1*9 Route 38-110 Bridge (Hunt Falls bridge)
0.3 38.1*8 USGS Gauging Station structure
0.1*
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
LL-1.0 37.1*5
1.1
1.2
1.3
l.l*
1.5 36.83 Outfall
1.6 36.79
1.7 36.71* Proposed Lowell STP outfall
1.8
1.9
LL-2.0 36.53
2.1 36.36 Richardson Bk.
2.2
2.3
2.1*- 35.97 Trull Brook
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8 35.57 Nickel Mine Bk.
2.9
LL-3.0 35-00 Power lines
- A-6 -
-------
RIVER STATIONS LL-3.0 to LL-7.0
RIVER MILES 35.00 to 29.81
STATION MILE
LL-3.0 35.00 Power lines
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.^
3.5
3.6 3^.39 Essex-Middlesex County line
3.7
3.8
3.9 33.93
LL-U.O 33.90 Foot of Wheeler St., Methuen, Mass,
U.I
k.2
U.5 33-20 S. end Pine Island
U.6 33.03 Fish Bk.
k.7
U. 8 32.82 N. end Pine Island
M
LL-5.0 32.37 Merrimack Park Drive-in, Methuen
5.1 32.30 Sawyer Brook
5.2
5.3
5.1*
5.5 31.92 Mill Pond, Bartlett Bk.
5.6
5.7
5.8
5.9 31.70
LL-6.0 31.60 1-93 Bridge
6.1
6.2 31. 1^
6.3
6.U
6.5 30.65 Marina
6.6
6.7
6.8 30.05 Power lines
6.9
LL-7.0 2°«.8l Lawrence Water Intake
- A-7 -
-------
RIVER STATIONS LL-7.0 to LH-2.0
RIVER MILES 29.8l to 23.1*3
STATION
LL-7.0 29.81 Lawrence Water Intake
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.14
7.5 29.1*9
7.6 -
7.7 29.20 Launch Area, Riley Park, Lawrence
7.8
7.9 29.03 Lawrence Floats
LL-8.0 28.99 Essex Dam
8.1
8.2
8.3
8.1*
8.5
8.6 28.20 So. Union St. Bridge
8.7
8.8 27.85 Spickett R.
8.9
LH-0.0 27.1*6 I 1*95 Bridge
O.L 27.1*5 Shawsheen R.
0.2
0.3 27.15 Cochichewick R., Sutton Pond
0.1* 27.11
0.5 27.07
0.6 27.02 Lawrence Incinerator
0.7
0.8 26.81 County Training School
0.9
LH-1.0 26.1*5
1.1 25.93
1.2 25.56 Proposed Lawrence STP outfall
1.3 25.35 Western Electric outfall
1.1*
1.5 2l*.86
1.6 2l*.l*l*
1.7 2l*.32
1.8 2l*.00
1.9 23.53 Power lines
LH-2.0 23.1*3
- A-8 -
-------
RIVER STATIONS LH-2.0 to HN-2.0
RIVER MILES 23.^3 to 13^7
STATION MILE
LH-2.0 23.^3
2.1 23.35 I ^95 Bridge
2.2 22.78 S. end Kimball Island
2.3 22.83 Bare Meadow Bk.
2.k 22.02
2.5 21.85 Creek Bk.
2.6 21.25 I ^95 Bridge
2.7 20.95 N. end Kimball Island
2.8 20.77
2.9 20.55
LH-3.0 20.20 Foot of Maxwell St. Haverhill, Mass.
3.1 20.15
3.2
3.3
3.1* 19.62 Moody School
3.5
3.6
3.7 19.12 Greenleaf Bridge
3.8 19.08 R. R. bridge
3.9
HN-0.0 18.85 Little R.
0.1 18.51 Main St. Bridge, Route 125
0.2 17.75 Buoy 65
0.3 17.^8 Buoy 63
0.^ 17.39 Proposed Haverhill STP Outfall
0.5 16.79 Buoy 6l
0.6 16.kO Buoy 60
0.7 16.23 Buoy 58
0.8 16.03 Buoy 57
0.9 15.70 Grovelahd Br., Route 113
HN-1.0 15.^0 Boat dock, Haverhill Riverside Airport
1.1
1.2 15.00
1.3
l.U lU.71*- Buoy 55
1.5 lU.55 Bast Meadow R.
1.6 lU.30 Buoy 53
1.7
1.8 13.82 Buoy 51
1.9
HN-2.0 13.^7 Buoy k$ near Pleasant St., West Newbury, Mass
- A-9 -
-------
RIVER STATIONS HN-2.0 to HN-6.0
RIVER MILES 13.1*7 to 2.9k
STATION MILE
HN-2.0 13.1*7 Buoy 1*9 near Pleasant St., West Newbury, Mass.
2.1 12.98 Buoy 1*7
2.2
2.3 12.28 Buoy 1*5
2.U 12.21
2.5 11.96 Buoy 1*1*
^2.6 11.80 Rocks Village Bridge
2.7 11.50 Buoy 1*3
2.8 '11.13 Buoy 1*1
2.9 10.63 Buoy 39
HN-3.0 10.36 Buoy 37, proposed STP outfall, Merrimacport, Mass,
3.1 10.10 Cobbler Bk., Buoy 35
3.2 9-70 Power lines
3.3 9-37 Buoy 33
3.1* 8.80 Indian River, Buoy 32
3.5 8.11 Buoy 30
3.6 7.80 Artichoke R.
3.7 7.76 Buoy 29
3.8 7.28 Buoy 28
3.9 7.13 Proposed STP outfall, Amesbury
HN-lf.O 6.92 Foot of Martin Rd., Amesbury
4.1
1*.2
1*.3 6.1*0 Powwow R,
l*.l*
1*.5 6.20 Buoy 26
1*.6
1*.7 5.96 Buoy 2l* and 25
1*.8
1*.9 5.56 Buoy 21
HN-5.0 5.50 1-95 Bridge
5.1 5.19 Chain-of-Rocks Bridge
5.2
5.3 ^-85 Buoy 19
5.1* 1*.70 Buoy 17
5.5
5.6 1*.15 Buoy 16A
5.7
1 5.8 3.^0 Buoy 16
5.9
HN-6.0 2.9!* B&M R. R. Bridge
- A-10 -
-------
RIVER STATIONS HN-6.0 to HN-8.0
RIVER MILES 2.9^ to 0.00
STATION MILE
HN-6.0 2.9^ B&M R. R. Bridge
6.1 2.91 Route 1 Bridge
6.2
6.3 2.70 Buoy
6.5
6.6
6.7 2.39 Buoy lk
6.8
6.9 2.28 American Yacht Club
HN-7.0 2.23 STP outfall, Newburyport, Mass.
7.1 2.15 Buoy 13A
7.2 ~ 2.06 North Pier
7.3 1.91 Buoy 12A
J.k :, 1.79 Buoy 13
7.5
7.6 1.03 Buoy 11 and 12
7.7 0.55 Buoy 9A
7.8 Q.h6 Black Rock Or.
7.9 0.15 Buoy 10
HN-8.0 0.00 90° north of Coast Guard Lighthouse
- A-ll -
-------
APPENDIX A
MERRIMACK RIVER ESTUARY
DATA FROM C&GS MAP #213
STATION
R-LA
R-1B
R-2AA
R-2A
R-2B
R-2C
R-2D
R-2E
R-3AA
R-3A
R-3B
R-3C
R-3D
R-3E
R-3F
R-l+DD
R-l+CC
R-l+BB
R-l+AA
R-l+A
R-l+B
R-l+C
R-5A
R-6A
R-6B
R-6C
R-6D
R-6E
R-6P
R-6G
R-6H
R-6I
R-6J
TC-1
TC-2
LATITUDE
1+8' If8"
1+2° 1+8' 37"
02"
"
1+2° 1+9
1+2° 1+8 ' 50
1+2° 1+8' 1+V
1+2° 1+8' 37"
48' 32"
21"
1+2° 1+9' 19"
1+2° U9' 07"
42° US' 57"
1+2° 1*8'
1*8'
35"
16"
57"
1+2° 50' 02"
1+2° 50' 00"
42° 1+9' 5V'
1*2° 1+9' 1+6"
1+2° 1+9' 23"
1+2° 1+9' 05"
1+2° 1+8' 1+6"
1+2° 1+9' 07"
1+2° 1+8' 5V
1+2° 1+8' 1+6"
1+2° 1+8' 25"
1+2° 1+8' 00"
1+2° 1+7 ' 51"
1+2° 1+7' 3V
1+2° 1+7' 03"
1+2° 1+6' 38"
1+2° 1+6' 27"
1+2° 1+6' 0V
1+2° 1+9- 37"
1+2° 1+9' 51"
LONGITUDE
70° 51' 35"
70° 51'
70° 51' 11"
70° 51' 10"
70° 51' 09"
° ' "
° 51' 09"
51' 08"
70° 51' 10"
70° 50' 20"
70° 50' 19"
70° 50' 19"
70° 50' 19"
70° 50' 18"
70° 50' 25"
70° 50' 18"
70° 1+9' 12"
70° 1+9' 15"
70° 1+9' 19"
70° 1+9' 36"
70° lf9» J|2"
70° 1+9' 1+8"
70° 1+9' 52"
70° 1+9' 19"
70° 1+9' 21"
70° 1+9' 39"
70° 1*9- k7"
70° 1+9' 1+7"
70° 1+9' 19"
70° 1+8' 1+9"
70° 1+8' 1+7"
70° 1+8' 58"
70° 1+8' 57"
70° 1+8' 09"
70° 52' 33"
70° 52' 08"
- A-12 -
-------
APPENDIX A
RIVER MILES OF SELECTED TRIBUTARIES
SAMPLE
STATION
RIVER
MILE
LOCATION
Souhegan River (confluence with Merrimack River 62.33 - 0.00)
28.6 Rte. 31 Bridge, Greenville
So-1.0 21.4 Rte. 31 - 101 Bridge, Wilton
SB 20.2 - 1.4 Stony Brook at Rte. 31 Bridge, Wilton
So-2.0 20.2 Confluence with Stony Brook, Wilton
So-3.0 18.2 North Purgatory Road Bridge, Milford
So-3.5 15.6 Confluence with Tucker Brook, Milford
So-3.8 14.8
13-3 Rte. 13 - 101 Bridge, Milford
So-5.0 11.8 Riverside Cemetery, Milford
So-6.0 10.6 Ponemah Bridge, Amherst
So-7.0 8.4 Honey Pot Pond Bridge, Amherst
6.8 Amherst-Merrimack Town Line
So-8.0 6.5 Severns Bridge, Merrimack
So-8,6 3.1 Turkey Hill Bridge, Merrimack
1.3 USCG Gaging Station, Merrimack
So-9.0 0.7 Everett Turnpike Bridge, Merrimack
0.3 Rte. 3 Bridge, Merrimack
0.0 Confluence with Merrimack River
Beaver Brook (confluence with Merrimack River 39.80 - 0.00)
BB-1.0
BB-2.0
BB-3.0
BB-4.0
BB-5.0
BB-6.0
23.6
22.2
15.1
6.6
4.2
3.9
1.2
0.0
Fordway Street bridge, Derry
Cemetery Road bridge, Derry
Rte. 128 bridge, Pelham
Willow Street Bridge, Pelham
N. H. - Mass. State Line
Dirt farm road, Dracut
Phineas Street bridge, Lowell
Confluence with Merrimack River
- A-13 -
-------
APPENDIX A (Continued)
SAMPLE RIVER
STATION MILE LOCATION
Concord River (confluence with Merrimack River 38.73 - 0.0)
15-H Confluence of Assabet and Sudbury Rivers,
Concord
C-1.0 lU.7 Monument Street Bridge, Concord
C-2.0 13.7 Confluence with Saw Mill Brook, Concord
C-3.0 12.2 Near Davis Hill, Concord
C-5.0- 10.9 Rte. 25 bridge, Bedford-Carlisle
C-6.0 8.8 Rte. k bridge, Billerica
C-7-0 5.9 Rte. 3A bridge, Billerica
C-8.0 2.5 I U95 bridge, Lowell
C-9.0 0.8 Rogers Street bridge, Lowell
0»0 Confluence with Merrimack River
Assabet River (confluence with Concord River 15.** - O.O)
A-0.5 26.8 Maynard Street bridge, Westborough
26. U Sewage treatment plant, Westborough
A-1.0 26.0 Rte. 9 bridge, Westborough
253 Sewage treatment plant, Shrewsbury
A-2.0 2U.9 Rte. 135 bridge, Westborough
A-3.0 23.6 Brigham Street bridge, Northborough
A-3.5 22.8 East Main Street bridge, Northborough
A-U.O 22.0 Allen Street bridge, Northborough
A-l*.5 20.8 Robin Hill Road bridge, Marlborbugh
A-5.0 16.6 Park footbridge, Hudson
A-6.0 Ik.2 Cox Street bridge, Hudson
14.0 Sewage treatment plant, Hudson
A-7.0 12.9 Gleasondale bridge, Hudson
A-8.0 10.9 Boon Road bridge, Stow
A-9.0 7.2 Rte. 27 bridge, Maynard
6.2 Sewage treatment plant, Maynard
A-9.5 h.2 Rte. 62 bridge, West Concord
A-9.8 2.2 Rte. 2 bridge, Concord
0.0 Confluence with Sudbury River
Origin of the Concord River
-------
APPENDIX A (Continued)
SAMPLE RIVER
STATION MILE LOCATION
Sudbury River (Confluence with Concord River 15.U - O.O)
Su-1.0 15-5 Central Street bridge, Framingham, Mass.
Su-1.5 15.0 Concord Street bridge, Framingham
Su-2.0 1^.8 Danforth Street bridge, Framingham
Su-3.0 13.0 Potter Road bridge, Framingham-Wayland
9.6 Hop Brook, Wayland
Su-9.8 0.6 Concord Academy bridge, Concord
0.0 Confluence with Assabet River. Origin of
Concord River
Hop Brook (Confluence with Sudbury River 9.6 - 0.0)
HB-1.0 9.6 Rte. 20 bridge, Marlborough
HB-2.0 8.5 Old Boston Post Road bridge, Sudbury
HB-3.0 2.1 Rte. 20 bridge, Sudbury
0.0 Confluence with Sudbury River
Spicket River (Confluence with Merrimack River 27.85 - 0.0)
Sp-1.0 12.2 Widow Harris Brook, Salem, New Hampshire
Sp-2.0 10.9 Bridge Street bridge, Salem
Sp-3.0 7.5 Rte. 28 bridge, Salem
6.k N. H. - Mass. State Line
6.1 Policy Brook, Methuen, Mass.
Sp-4.0 6.0 Hampshire Road bridge, Methuen
Sp-5.0 3.5 Lowell Street bridge, Methuen
Sp-6.0 0.2 Canal Street bridge, Lawrence
0»0 Confluence with Merrimack River
Policy Brook (Confluence with Spicket River 6.1 - 0.0)
PB-2.0 2.8 Rte. 28 bridge, Salem, New Hampshire
PB-3.0 1.6 Policy Road bridge, Salem
0.0 Confluence with Spicket River
- A-15 -
-------
APPENDIX A (Continued)
SAMPLE
STATION
RIVER
MILE
LOCATION
Shawsheen River (Confluence with the Merrimack River 27.U5-0.0)
Sh-1.0
Sh-2.0
Sh-3.0
Sh-U.O
Sh-5.0
Sh-6.0
Sh-7.0
Sh-8.0
Sh-9.0
Sh-10.0
Sh-11.0
Sh-12.0
Little River
L-1.0
L-2.0
L-3.0
L-3.5
L-U.O
Powwow River
P-1.0
P-2.0
P-3.0
20.0
18.1
16.7
13.8
12.0
10.8
7.6
5.6
U.U
3.5
2.5
0.3
0.0
(Confluence
7.0
5.7
U.U
U.3
3.1
1.1
0.0
(Confluence
7.7
7.2
U.5
U.I
3.8
0.7
0.0
Route 62 bridge, Bedford
Lowell Street bridge, Bedford
Route 3A bridge, Billerica
Route 129, Billerica-Wilmington
Main Street bridge, Tewksbury
Lowe Street bridge, Tewksbury
Ballardvalle bridge, Andover
Reservation Road bridge, Andover
Route 28 bridge, Andover
Kenilworth Street bridge, Andover
Route llU bridge, North Andover
Sutton Street culvert, Lawrence
Confluence with Merrimack River
with Merrimack River 18. 85-0.0)
North Main Street bridge, Plaistow
Bridge 0.1 mile below Seaver Brook, Plaistow
Route 121 bridge, Plaistow
N. H.-Mass. State Line
Rosemount Street brfdge, Haverhill
R.R. Bridge near St. James Cemetery, Haverhill
Confluence with Merrimack River
with Merrimack River 6.UO-0.0)
N. H.-Mass. State Line
Newton Road bridge, Amesbury
N. H.-Mass. State Line
New bridge off Whitehall Road, South Hampton
N. H.-Mass. State Line
Route 110 bridge, Amesbury
Confluence with Merrimack River
- A-16 -
-------
APPENDIX B (Continued)
TEMPERATURE, DISSOLVED OXYGEN, AND BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
MERRIMACK RIVER
STATION
TEMPERATURE °C
« *
C W) X
O -H > d
& & < s
8-l*-61* thru 8-7-6U
MN-4.0
NL-1.0
NL-2.0
NL-3.0
33 21 22.2 24
3k 19 21.7 23
3^ 21 21.9 23
32 20 21.8 23
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
ppm
*
C M H
& % 4 i
3^ 3.8 5.02 6.9
31* 2.9 1*.93 6.9
3^ 3.^ 1*.99 8.0
31* 3.1 5.08 6.9
BODt ppm
d w> *
O -H > a)
s a < s
9 U.o 5.56 7.2
9 2.2 5.00 7.0
9 3.8 U.l*7 5.0
9 2.1* 1*.53 7.2
8-11-6U thru 8-14-61*
NL-U.O
LL-1.0
LL-2.0
LL-3.0
LL-1*.0
LL-5.0
LL-6.0
LL-7.0
18 20 21.U 22
36 20 21.6 22
36 21 21.7 23
36 21 21.7 22
36 2021.823
36 21 21.9 23
36 21 21.9 23
36 21 21.9 22
18 3.2 1*.06 5.3
36 1.5 3.20 1*.9
36 1.3 2.82 1*.9
36 1.1 2.62 1*.3
36 1.2 2.08 3.2
36 0.9 2.12 3.8
36 1.5 2.1*5 3.5
36 0.8 2.26 3.0
6 2.0 3.13 ^.6
6 5.0 5.57 6.3
6 k.6 5.00 5.3
6 3.6 l*.l*8 5.7
6 3.0 3.88 5.6
6 2.7 3.17 U.3
6 2.9 3.07 3.H
6 2.1* 3.07 3.9
8-25-61* thru 8-28-61*
LH-1.0
LH-2.0
LH-3.0
HN-1.0
HN-2.0
HN-3.0
HN-1*.0
HN-5.0
HN-6.0
12 20 21.9 23
12 20 21.8 23
12 20 21.8 23
30 20 22.2 23
30 21 22.2 23
30 21 22.0 23
20 18 21.1 23
16 17 20.0 23
16 ll* 18.1 22
12 2.6 3.33 ^.0
12 1.0 2.28 3.2
12 0.6 1.9^ 3.7
30 0.0 0.96 2.3
30 0.0 0.88 2.5
30 0".2 1.55 3.2
20 1.0 2.1*7 5.0
16 1.0 3.55 6.9
16 1.7 5.06 8.1*
12 6.0 7.63 11.3
12 6.7 8.5U 11.0
12 1*.6 6.73 8.0
7 ^.0 6.36 8.7
7 1*.7 6.61* 7.7
7 3.3 6.13 8.0
7 1.5 ^.71 7.0
7 1.0 3.61* 6.7
7 1.0 2.66 1*.3
LL-1.0
LL-2.0
LL-3.0
LL-U.O
LL-5.0
LL-6.0
LL-7.0
2 18 19
2 19 19
2 18 19
2 19 19
2 18 19
2 19 19
2 19 19
2 3.3 -- 3.6
2 3.7 3.7
2 1.9 2.0
2 2.1* 2.6
2 2.2 2.2
2 1.9 2.1
2 1.2 1.1*
1 3.7
1 3.7
1 1^.2
1 l*.o
1 3.1
^^ ^x ^*
1 2.9
1 2.7
- B-l -
-------
APPENDIX B (Continued)
TEMPERATURE, DISSOLVED OXYGEN, AND BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
MERRIMACK RIVER
STATION
TEMPERATURE °C
&
UD
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
ppm
W)
J>
£0
4
10-17-64 thru 10-18-64
LL-1.0
LL-2.0
LL-3.0
LL-4.0
LL-5.0
LL-6.0
LL-7.0
3 12 12.7 13
3 '12 12.7 13
3 12 12.7 13
3 13 13.0 13
3 12 12.7 13
3 12 12.3 13
3 12 12.7 13
3 4.5 4.97 5.2
3 3.7 4.70 5.3
3 3.8 4.07 4.2
3 3.6 4.23 4.7
3 3.5 3.63 3.8
3 4.2 4.57 5.0
3 4.2 4.50 4.9
3 6.5 7.10 7.5
3 5.7 7.23 9-6
3 3.8 5.77 6.0
3 3.6 5.77 5-9
3 3.5 4.13 4.5
3 4.2 3.83 4.1
3 4.2 3.57 3.6
1-19-65 thru 4-1-65
FC-3.0
CH-1.0
HM-0.2
MN-0.0
MN-2.0
NL-0.0
NL-2.0
NL-4.0
LL-1.0
LL-4.0
LL-7.0
LH-2.0
HN-0.9
HN-2.6
HN-6.1
3 -1 -0.3 0
3 -1 -0.3 0
3 0 0.3 1
3 0 0.7 1
3 0 0.7 1
3 -1 0.0 1
6 -1 0.7 0
8 0 1.5 4
5 -1 -0.8 0
5 -1 -0.9 0
4 -1 -0.5 0
3 -1 0.3 2
4 -1 1.0 4
4 -1 1.2 4
3 -1 0.3 2
3 8.8 10.90 12.7
3 8.8 10.77 12.6
3 10.1 11.33 12.5
3 8.6 10.77 12.3
3 9-9 11.23 12.5
3 10.4 11.27 12.3
6 8.3 9.83 11.2
8 7-9 9.46 11.2
5 8.5 10.18 11.7
5 8.5 9.98 11.1
4 8.3 9.78 11.5
3 11.5 12.10 12.9
4 11.3 11.98 12.9
4 10.9 11.38 12.5
3 9.5 10.50 12.2
3 1.2 3.77 6.9
3 2.4 4.33 6.8
3 2.4 3.10 3.6
3 2.0 2.6o 3.2
3 4.2 5.40 6.4
3 2.0 4.17 6.1
6 3.5 4.10 5.2
8 2.0 3.45 4.2
4 3.6 5.45 , 5.0
5 3.4 4.08 4.8
4 3.3 3.55 4.0
2 5.4 7.4
3 5.0 5.70 7.0
3 4.1 5.90 7.0
2 5.0 8.0
6-21-65 thru 6-23-65
FC-3.3
CH-0.0
CH-1.0
HM-0.2
HM-2.9
MN-2.0
MN-3.3
MN-4.0
NL-3.0
NL-3.1!
NL-4.0
6 19 21.4 23
6 19 21.4 23
6 19 21.7 24
6 21 22.4 24
6 21 22.4 24
8 21 22.0 23
8 21 22.4 23
8 21 22.4 24
8 22 23.0 25
4 23 23.5 26
8 22 23.4 25
6 4.4 5.13 5.8
6 4.7 5.20 6.0
6 3.7 4.30 5.2
6 4.3 4.63 5.3
6 3.6 4.23 5.0
8 4.2 4.71 5.4
8 4.2 4.58 4.9
8 4.0 4.55 5.3
8 3.1 3.85 4.7
4 3.3 4.20 6.4
8 3.6 4.30 5.2
6 0.9 1.58 2.2 '
6 1.8 2.08 2.3
6 1.2 1.60 2.2
6 1.3 1.70 2.2
6 1.7 1.83 2.0
8 2.2 3.49 5.0
8 2.4 2.86 3.6
8 2.2 2.66 3.3
8 2.2 2.70 3.1
4 1.9 2.60 2.9
8 2.3 3.09 3.7
- B-2 -
-------
APPENDIX B (Continued)
TEMPERATURE, DISSOLVED OXYGEN, AND BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
MERRIMACK RIVER
STATION
TEMPERATURE °C
o a IP |
& s < s
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
ppm
C H) K
O uH > eg
*&+ S «£> S
\
BOIU ppm
C bO X
£ £ 4 1
7-27-65 thru 8-3-65
FC-3.3
CH-0.0
CH-0.6
CH-1.0
CH-1.1
CH-1.7
CH-2.1
CH-2.2
CH-2.9
HM-0.2
HM-0.6
HM-1.0
HM-I.I*
HM-1.8
HM-2.3
HM-2.9
26 20 22.5 25
26 20 22.9 26
26 20 22.9 26
26 20 22.9 25
5 23 23.2 2l*
25 22 23.2 26
10 23 26.2 30
17 23 2l*.l* 26
25 22 23.6 26
25 22 23.8 25
25 22 23.6 26
26 22 23.8 26
26 22 23.6 25
26 22 23.6 25
26 22 23.6 25
26 22 23.5 25
25 k.2 5.2k 6.5
26 k.6 5.20 6.2
26 l*.i* 5.16 5.9
25 3.9 U.83 5.6
5 k.3 ^-SU 5.1
25 l*.l* 5.99 7.8
16 i*.8 6.28 8.5
10 1*.5 5.87 7*k
25 5.0 6.1*2 9.3
25 if. 6 6.20 7.6
26 i*.l* 6.00 7.6
25 1*.2 6.07 8.2
26 k.2 5.77 7.3
26 l*.l* 5.63 7.U
26 it. 7 5.93 7.9
25 l*.l 5.89 7.9
13 0.9 1.18 1.7
13 0.7 1.29 1.8
13 1.0 1.62 2.0
13 1.0 1.28 1.8
__
13 1.0 1.51* 2.5
9 1.2 1.71 2.1*
1* 1.1 1.1*0 1.6
13 1.0 1.72 2.7
13 l.l 1.58 2.3
13 1.0 1.1*2 2.0
13 1.0 1.1*9 2.3
13 0.8 1.28 2.0
13 1.0 1.26 1.8
13 0.9 1.52 2.8
13 1.0 1.31 2.0
8-6-65 thru 8-13-65
MN-0.0
MN-2.0
MN-2.6
MN-3.3
MN-U.O
MN-U.7
NL-1.0
NL-1.7
NL-2.0
NL-3.0
NL-3.5
NL-lt.O
26 22 23.9 26
26 22 2U.2 26
26 22 2k.2 27
26 22 2h.k 27
26 22 2k. k 27
26 22 2k. 3 27
26 22 2k.3 26
26 23 2U.3 27
26 23 2k. 3 26
26 23 2k.3 26
26 23 2k. 3 27
26 22 2k.5 28
26 k.Q 5.67 6.9
26 i.k 3.73 5.0
26 2.1 3.19 5-0
25 1.9 ^.00 6.7
26 2.6 k.69 7.5
26 3.0 5.29 Q.k
26 2.2 k.67 6.7
26 2.3 k.39 7.8
26 2.5 5.10 9.3
26 2.8 5.26 9.0
26 2.k 5.73 9-7
26 3.2 5.53 9-3
13 1.1 2.03 2.9
13 2.6 3.65 U.5
13 2.1 3.3k k.$
13 l.l* 2.73 k.O
13 2.3 3.15 k.O
13 2.2 3.32 k.k
13 3.0 k.32 5.9
13 3.0 U.6l 9.8
13 2.U l*.8o 7.7
13 3.2 1*.35 5.5
13 3.9 5.00 6.2
13 3-8 l*.52 5.U
- B-3 -
-------
APPENDIX B (Continued)
TEMPERATURE, DISSOLVED OXYGEN, AND BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND
MERRIMACK RIVER
STATION
TEMPERATURE °C
C HO X
& S <£ 1
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
ppm
C hO X
& ti 4 1
BOD ppm
C W> K
tg si 4 1
9-15-65 thru 9-16-65
FC-3.3
CH-1.0
MN-0.0
MN-2.0
MN-2.6
MN-if.o
MN-U.7
NL-1.0
NL-1.7
NL-2.0
NL-3.0
NL-3.5
NL-if.O
2 18 18
3 17 17.7 18
6 18 19.3 20
6 18 19.2 20
if 18 18.8 19
k 18 19.0 20
if 18 18.2 19
if 18 18.0 18
if 18 18.0 18
if 18 18.0 18
6 18 18.2 19
if 18 18.0 18
6 18 18.5 20
2 3.6 - 3-9
3 2.8 3.37 3.7
6 2.1* 2.92 3.7
6 2.3 2.55 3.0
If 1.7 2.25 2.7
if 1.6 2.28 3.0
if 1.7 2.12 2.6
if 1.1 1.50 1.9
if 1.1 1.65 2.1
if 1.0 1.38 2.0
6 1.2 1.32 1.7
if 0.8 1.08 1.1*
6 0.8 1.25 1.6
__ __ __ __
2 1.3 2. if
2 if. 2 if.6
2 2.5 2.5
__ __ __ __
2 1.8 2.0
2 2.2 3.2
-_ __ __ __
l.if 2.0
__ __ __ __
__ __ __ -_
2 1.1 1.2
- B-U -
-------
APPENDIX B (Continued)
LONG TERM BOD RESULTS
All values in ppm
STATION
FC-3.3
CH-0.6
HM-2.9
MN-2.0
MN-3.3
MN-i*.o
NL-1.0
NL-2.0
NL-3.0
LL-1.0
LL-1*.0
LL-7.0
LH-2.0
HN-1.0
DATES SAMPLED
Y/*o-*y/o:?
7/27-28/65
7/28-29/65
7/27-28/65
7/28-29/65
8/6-7/65
8/11-12/6$
8/6-7/65
8/11-12/65
8/l*-5/61*
8/l*-5/61*
8/l*-5/61*
9/17-18/65
8/6-7/65
8/11-12/65
8/11-12/61*
8/12-13/61*
8/13-ll*M
8/26/6U
8/26/61*
DAYS OF INCUBATION
2
0.1*
0.6
0.6
1.0
0.6.
0,7
2.2
2.2
1.3
1.5
1.5
2.0
2.5
0.6
2.0
2.0
2.2
1.5
1.1*
3.0
3.0
3
0.6
0.8
1.0
1.3
0.8
1.1
2.3
2.1*
1.5
1.7
1.5
3.0
2.0
1.0
2.5
2.1
M
1.8
1.7
3.7
l*.5
1*
0.9
0.9
1.2
l.l*
1.1
1.3
3.2
3.2
2.6
1.9
1.5
3.3
3.0
5
1.0
1.2
1.1*
1.9
1.3
1.7
3.7
3.1*
2.8
2.3
3.3
l*.0
i*.o
1.8
l*.2
3.6
5.9
3-1
3.2
6.2
6.2
7
1.1*
1.1*
2.5
2.1*
2.0
2.2
5.9
l*.l*
l*.6
2.5
U.8
5.8
5.2
2.5
3.0
U.5
7.8
5.5
1*.7
8.3
8.1*
10
3.0
3.1*
3.6
3.2
2.1*
2.8
7.0
5.6
6.0
1*.6
7.5
9-5
6.2
5.2
t*.6
8.8
13.7
10.8
7.5
9-7
ll*.0
15
_._
:::
12.8
17.5
8.8
25.6
10.0
10.3
22.0
19-7
.
- B-5 -
-------
APPENDIX B (Continued)
NITROGEN AND PHOSPHATE RESULTS
MERRIMACK RIVER
STATION
MN-1*.0
NL-1.0
NL-2.0
NL-1*.0
LL-1.0
LL-7.0
DATE
8/l*/61*-8/7/61*
NITROGEN
AMMONIA
mg/1 as N
No . Avg .
1 0.1*
5 0.1*
5 0.9
8/ll/61*-8/ll*/6l*
3 1.1
3 1.0
3 0.9
NL-1.6
_ML-1.7
FC-3.3
CH-1.0
MN-0.0
MN-2.0
NL-3.0
9/22/6U-9/23/61* ,.
9/1U-16/65
1* 0.1*
1* 0.5
3 .1*7
3 .57
3 1.10
3 1.1*0
3 1.73
ORGANIC
mg/1 as N
No . Avg .
-
3 .81*
3 ^75
3 3.26
3 3.36
3 2.38
NITRATE
mg/1 as N
No . Avg .
1 0.6
1 0.8
1 0.7
3 .3
3 .3
3 .2
3 .3
3 .5
ORTHO
PHOSPHATE
mg/1 as
No. Avg.
1 0.1*
1 0.1*
1 0.5
--_
_-
3 .09
3 .15
3 .20
3 .81*
3 .31*
f NL-1.7
1 10/7/65
1 1 3.5
... | . ...|
FC-1.9
FC-3.3
CH-1.0
HM-0.2
HM-1.7
MN-2.0
MN-4.0
NL-3.0
11/30/65-12/2/65
1 .21*
1 .21
1 .16
1 .21
1 .10
1 .16
1 .09
1 .18
1 .1*5
1 .1*3
1 .63
1 .63
1 .ft
1 .81
1 .90
1 .ft
1 .16
1 .11
1 .10
1 .03
1 .11*
1 .06
1 .12
1 .16
3 .03
3 .02
3 .03
3 .03
3 .03
3 .10
3 .08
3 -19
- B-6 -
-------
APPENDIX C
SUMMARY OF COLIFORM DATA
SUMMER MONTHS
MERRIMACK RIVER
STATION *
f
TIME OF
TRAVEL,
DAYS
NO. OF
SAMPLES
TOTAL COLIFORMS/100 ml
MIN AVG MAX
FECAL COLIFORMS/100 ml
MIN AVG MAX
8-4-64 through 8-7-64 Method: MPN
MN-4.0
NL-1.0
NL-2.0
NL-3.0
--
0.0
0.7
0.9
17
17
16
17
17,200 81,600 160,000
23,000 108,000 172,000
17,200 67,000 160,000
10,900 > 58, 900 > 160, 000
1,100 18,600 92,000
2,000 39,300 160,000
2,000 14, 600 27,800
2,300 >21,300 > 160, 000
8-11-64 through 8-14-64 Method: MPN
NL-4.0 <
LL-1.0
LL-2.0
LL-3.0
LL-4.0
LL-5.0
LL-6.0
LL-7.0
__
0.0
0.2
0.6
0.9
1.6
2.0
2.5
10
18
9
9
9
9
9
9
7,000 . 15,100 34,800
79>000 394,000 1,600,000
130,000 4o6,ooo 920,000
^9,000 228,000 920,000
14,100 79,100 160,000
3,300 29,400 92,000
4,900 10,900 24,000
1,700 5,370 17,200
200 2,500 4,900
4,900 87,400 348,000
33,000 59,200 109,000
8,000 24,400 63,000
2,300 11,800 54,200
500 3,200 7,900
200 1,540 3,480
<200 < 530 3,300
0
8-25-64 through 8-27-64 Method: MPN
LH-1.0
LH-2.0
LH-3.0
0.1
0.2
0.7
12
12
12
490,000 1,910,000 9,200,000
460,000 1,670,000 3,480,000
79,000 605,000 1,600,000
40,000 213,000 542,000
70,000 154,000 490,000
23,000 83,200 130,000
-------
APPENDIX C (Continued)
SUMMER MONTHS
STATION
TIME OF
TRAVEL,
DAYS
NO. OF
SAMPLES
TOTAL COLIFORMS/100 ml
MIN AVG MAX
FECAL COLIFORMS/100 ml
'MIN AVG MAX
8-25-64 through 8-28-64 Method: MPN
HN-1.0
HN-2.0
HN-3.0
HN-4.0
HN-5.0
HN-6.0
0.0
0.4
1.3
2.3
2.7
3.5
7
7
7
7
7
7
23,000 188,000 542,000
46,000 238,000 920,000
79,000 160,000 221,000
4,600 141,000 348,000
4,600 69,000 172,000
490 41,500 160,000
< 2,000 <22,100 49,000
2,000 21,000 1*9,000
< 2 < 9,700 33,000
< 200 < 1,700 2,300
< 200 < 1,930 3,300
50 1,590 5,420
I
o
I
ro
i
6-21-65 through 6-23-65 Method: MF
FC-3.3
CH-0.0
CH-1.0
HM-0.2
HM-2.9
MN-2.0
MN-3.3
MN-4.0
NL-3.0
NL-3.4
NL-4.0
_
--
--
--
--
--
-_
--
--
--
6
6
6
6
6
8
8
8
8
U
8
900 1,750 3,600
^,000 9,500 15,000
4,000 5,500 7,000
1,600 2,240 2,600
750 1,330 2,100
11,000 42,200 74,000
6,000 15,200 24,000
6,500 8,360 12,600
3,800 8,040 24,000
4,000 2,600 3,200
1,000 10,700 54,000
110 315 570
400 1,300 3,600
600 870 1,480
260 385 510
95 260 576
1,200 6,080 22,400
400 950 2,170
100 920 3,060
400 680 1,040
70 240 340
84 270 990
-------
APPENDIX c (Continued)
SUMMER MOUTHS
STATION
TIME OF
TRAVEL,
DAIS
NO. OF
SAMPLES
TOTAL COLIFORMS/100 ml
MIN AVG MAX
FECAL COLIFORMS/100 ml
MIN AVG MAX
7-27-65 through 8-3-65 Method: MF
FC-3.3
CH-0.0
CH-0.6
CH-1.0
CH-1.7
CH-2.1
CH-2.2
CH-2.9
HM-0.2
HM-0.6
HM-1.0'
HM-1.4
HM-1.8
HM-2.3
HM-2.9
__
0.0
0.6
0.8
1.7
2.0
2.1
2.9
3.0
3.7
4.2
5.0
5.5
6.1*
6.8
2k
26
26
25
25
18
8
25
25
25
26
26
26
26
26
< 400 < 1,730 4,600
7,500 16,100 28,200
11,000 26,300 57,000
2,800 6,350 15,000
1,200 4,020 10,600
< 200 < 2,880 7,000
3,600 4,720 5,600
800 2,130 4,000
1,000 2,060 3,600
500 1,370 3,200
300 854 1,450
76 505 1,000
100 272 700
300 1,590 3,800
1,100 2,660 5,200
< 10 < 459 2,500
< 50 < 2,650 > 10,000
1,100 4,560 9,800
260 1,400 4,000
80 6?0 2,200
-------
APPENDIX C (Continued)
SUMMER MONTHS
STATION
TIME OF
TBAVEL,
DAYS
NO. OF
SAMPLES
TOTAL COLIFORMS/100 ml
MIN AVG MAX
FECAL COLIFORMS/100 ml
MIN AVG MAX
8-6-65 through 8-12-65 Method: MF
MN-0.0
MN-2.0
MN-2.6
MN-3.3
MN-4.0
MN-4.7
NL-1.0
NL-1.7
NL-2.0
NL-3.0
NL-3.5
NL-4.0
__
OA
0.7
1.3
1.8
2.2
0.0
0.6
0.8
1.1
1.5
2.1
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
26
25
26
26
26
700 3,960 7,900
50,000 249,000 560,000
9,000 31»000 82,000
2,700 4,730 11,000
i,4oo 4,88o 12,600
1,900 3,950 6,200
10,000 1*8,700 84,000
12,000 30,300 53,000
6,000 15,000 31,000
3,500 11,100 20,000
200 2,780 5,700
200 1,390 4,000
20 703 3,140
1,000 18,600 42,000
600 3,960 15,000
80 604 1,580
100 > 391 > 2,000
100 711 1,460
5,800 > 15,100 > 60,000
900 3,520 10,650
530 1,740 6,000
220 799 2,330
140 361 980
20 129 370
o
I
I
-------
APPENDIX C (Continued)
SUMMARY OF COLIFORM DATA
WINTER, SPRING AND FALL MONTHS
MERRIMACK RIVER
STATION
TIME OF
TRAVEL,
DAYS
NO. OF
SAMPLES
TOTAL COLIFORMS/100 ml
MIN AVG MAX
FECAL COLIFORMS/100 ml
MIN AVG MAX
1-19 through 4-1-65 Method: MPN
FC-3.0
CH-1.0
HM-0.2
HM-2.9
MN-2.0
NL-0.0
NL-2.0
NL-3.0
NL-4.0
LL-1.0
LL-4.0
LL-7.0
LH-2.0
HN-0.9
HN-2.6
HN-6.1
___
___
___
--_
___
__.
__-
___
! /
__.
__
___
___
___
_«...
3
3
3
3
3
3
6
1
8
5
5
5
3
U
i*
3
1,300 1,560 1,700
7,900 20,000 3!+, 800
U,910 8,600 13,000
5,^20 6,680 9,200
70,000 103,000 130,000
17,200 48,000 92,000
7,900 26,700 92,000
13,000
7,900 27,500 5^,200
U9,ooo 85,000 109,000
2^,000 32,200 5^,200
13,000 U3,200 92,000
20,000 59,300 109,000
7,900 30,700 79,000
22,000 58,200 109,000
3^,800 U7,700 5^,200
200 566 1,300
2,200 3,^70 U,900
4,900 4,900 4,900
1,720 2,900 3,500
13,000 17,700 23,000
4,900 12,300 2,400
4,900 11,000 2,400
4,900
1,100 5,680 14,100
13,000 17,000 21,000
2,200 17,200 34,800
3,300 7,820 13,000
< 200 <14,100 31,000
3,300 7,580 11,000
400 12,800 33,000
10,900 23,200 34,800
o
I
VJ1
I
-------
APPENDIX C (Continued)
WINTER, SPRING AND FALL MONTHS
STATION
TIME OF
TRAVEL,
DAYS
NO. OF
SAMPLES
TOTAL COLIFORMS/100 ml
MEN AVG MAX
FECAL COLIFOBMS/100 ml
MIN AVG MAX
5-11 through 19, 1965 Method: MPN
FC-0.1
FC-0.3
FC-0.7
FC-1.2
FC-1.6
FC-1.9
FC-3.0
FC-3.3
FC-3.7
CH-0.0
CH-0.6
CH-1.0
CH-1.5
CH-1.7
CH-2.2
CH-2.9
HM-0.2
HM-0.6
HM-1.0
HM-1.4
HM-1.8
HM-2.3
HM-2.9
MN-1.0
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.9
1.1
1.4
1.5
0.0
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.1
1.2
1.1*
1.5
1.6
1.7
0.0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2,000 2,000 2,000
2,300 2,800 3,300
2,700 3,650 4,600
1,700 3,300 4,900
2,200 2,250 2,300
1,300 4,600 7,900
1,700 1,950 2,200
2,600 2,950 3,300
2,200 2,400 2,600
22,000 27,500 33,000
33,000 41,000 49,000
17,000 43,500 70,000
5,000 8,000 11,000
3,300 10,000 17,200
7,000 7,450 7,900
4,900 9,000 13,000
4,900 6,400 7,900
4,900 9,000 13,000
3,300 3,300 3,300
4,600 10,900 17,200
4,900 9,000 13,000
2,300 3,600 4,900
1,700 2,000 2,300
23,000 150,000 278,000
<2,000 <1,500 2,000
500 1,400 2,300
200 750 1,300
200 500 800
200 200 200
<200 <400 700
200 350 500
200 350 500
400 450 500
2,000 7,500 13,000
4,000 5,000 6,000
4,000 4,500 5,000
<2,000 <1,500 2,000
200 800 1,400
500 600 700
200 500 800
800 1,050 1,300
2,300 2,300 2,300
700 750 800
800 950 1,100
200 200 200
200 350 500
500 500 500
21,000 22,000 23,000
I
o
o\
-------
APPENDIX C (Continued)
WINTER, SPRING AND FALL MONTHS
STATION
TIME OF
TRAVEL,
DAYS
NO. OF
SAMPLES
TOTAL COLIFORMS/100 ml
MIN AVG MAX
FECAL COLIFORMS/100 ml
MIN AVG MAX
5-11 through 19, 1965 Method: MPN (Continued)
MN-1.3
MN-1.7
MN-2.0
MN-2.5
MN-2.7
MN-2.8
MN-3.U
MN-i*.0
MN-1*.U
MN-1*.5
NL-0.0
NL-1.0
NL-1.6
NL-1.7
NL-2.0
NL-3.0
NL-3.2
NL-3.7
NL-4.0
NL-1*.7
NL-5.3
LL-1.0
LL-2.0
LL-3.0
LL-1*.0
LL-5.0
.0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
O.U
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.0
0.1
'0.3
0.1*
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
80,000 80,000 80,000
50,000 60,000 70,000
20,000 1*5,000 70,000
50,000 270,000 1*90,000
20,000 29,500 1*9,000
1*,000 26,500 1*9,000
17,000 25,000 33,000
2,000 17,500 33,000
9,000 21,000 33,000
13,000 1*1,500 70,000
130,000 865,000 1,600,000
8,000 69,000 130,000
22,000 65,500 109,000
8,000 69,000 130,000
7,000
23,000 23,000 23,000
23,000 36,000 1*9,000
3,1*00 13,700 21*, 000
1*,900 19,850 31*, 800
1*,900 13,500 22,100
l*,900 l*,900 i*,900
2U,000 92,000 160,000
17,000 88,500 160,000
26,000 59,000 92,000
23,000 > 100, ooo > 160, ooo
2,300 18,500 3**,800
< 20,000 <30,000 50,000
< 20, 000 <15,000 20,000
< 20, 000 <15,000 20,000
< 20, 000 <30,000 50,000
1*,000 <7,000 20,000
2,000 7,500 13,000
5,000 5,000 5,000
2,000 12,500 23,000
<2,000 <1*,500 8,000
2,000 3,500 5,000
< 20, 000 <276,000 51*2,000
1*, 000 1*,500 5,000
2,000 12,000 22,000
<2,000 O,500 8,000
<2,000
5,000 6,500 8,000
<2,000 <3,000 5,000
1,1*00 2,350 3,300
200 6,500 13,000
200 3,500 7,000
700 1,500 2,300
7,900 10,500 13,000
2,000 6,500 10,900
10,900 11,500 12,000
5,000 11,100 17,200
2,300 5,100 7,900
o
I
-------
APPENDIX C (Continued)
WINTER, SPRING AND FALL MONTHS
STATION
TIME OF
TRAVEL,
DAYS
NO. OF
SAMPLES
TOTAL COLIFORMS/100 ml
MIN AVG MAX
FECAL COLIFORMS/100 ml
MIN AVG MAX
5-11 through 19, 1965 Method: MPN ( Continued )
LL-6.0
LL-7.0
LL-8.0
LH-1.0
LH-2.0
LH-3.0
HN-0.0
HN-1.0
0.5
0.6
0.9
0.0
0.1
0.3
o.i*
1.0
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
7,900 21,^00 3MOO
27,800 31,300 3^,800
10,900 10,900 10,900
230,000
90,000
33,000
253,000
130,000
2,200 2,250 2,300
1,700 2,200 2,700
200 2,1*00 1*,600
20,000
20,000
2,000
6,000
8,000
9-29 through 30-65 Method: MF
MN-0.0
MN-2.0
MN-2.6
MN-3.3
m-k.o
m-k.j
NL-1.0
NL-1.7
NL-2.0
NL-3.0
NL-3.5
NL-1*.0
___
0.3
0.8
1.1*
1.8
2.3
0.3
0.9
1.1
l.l*
1.9
2.1*
k
1*
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
k
If
k
650 1,025 1,1*00
20,000 35,000 60,000
1,800 5,300 12,000
1,700 5,220 9,000
1*00 > 1,980 >1*,000
600 1,880 1*,000
8,000 18,500 30,000
1*,300 8,200 11,000
1*,500 6,500 10,000
1,200 3,680 6,000
<1,000 < 1,770 3,000
1*20 "" 738 1?000
1*60 500 5^0
1,000 8,600 16,600
600 2,100 1*,1*00
1,700 3,1+20 5,000
200 > 1,900 >1*,000
100 562 1,1*10
3,200 11,750 21,1*00
3,100 1*,880 6,300
2,700 3,320 3,700
1,200 2,300 3,700
1*20 720 1,060
< 100 < 312 530
-------
APPENDIX C (Continued)
WHITER, SPRING AND FALL MONTHS
STATION
TIME OF
TRAVEL,
DAYS
NO. OF
SAMPLES
TOTAL COLIFORMS/100 ml
MIN AVG MAX
FECAL COLIFORMS/100 ml
MIN AVG MAX
10-2? through 30-64 Method: MEN
FC-0.1
FC-0.3
FC-1.2
FC-1.5
FC-1.9
FC-2.6
FC-3.0
FC-3.3
CH-0.0
CH-1.0
CH-1.3
CH-2.2
CH-2.7
HM-0.2
HM-0.6
HM-1.0
HM-1.4
HM-1.8
HM-2.0
HM-2.9
MN-1.0
MN-2.0
MN-2.8
MN-4.0
NL-2.5
NL-4.0
0.0
0.1
1.1
1.5
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.1*
0.0
0.6
/
1.3
___
2.1
___
___
»_
___
4.7
0.0
0.4
1.0
1.7
0.0
0.9
2
2
2
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
1
3
1
1
l
1
1
3
4
2
2
2
2
2
13,000 52,500 92,000
4,900 13,500 22,100
1,090 1,750 2,400
790 2,350 4,900
330 4,750 9,200
2,700 10,000 17,200
1,700 7,350 13,000
2,300 3,600 4,900
24,000 24,400 34,800
24,000 92,000 160,000
92,000
10,900 12,000 13,000
17,200
1,700 4,800 7,900
24,000
2,300
3,300
1,400
700
1,090 2,100 3,480
79,000 >1, 220, 000 > 1,600, 000
109,000 850,000 1,600,000
> 160, ooo > 160,000 > 160, ooo
92,000 92,000 92,000
24,000 92,000 160,000
34,800 44,500 54,200
1,300 18,050 34,800
200 4,050 7,900
130 135 140
50 170 220
50 570 1,090
200 650 1,100
200 350 500
200 350 500
7,900 12,550 17,200
7,900 12,550 17,200
13,000
3,300 4,100 4,900
3,300
800 1,130 1,300
800
<200
<200
800
<200
310 377 490
7,000 216,000 542,000
33,000 722,000 1,410,000
17,200 20,600 24,000
4,900 7,900 10,900
4,900 6,400 7,900
3,300 8,100 13,000
I
o
I
vo
I
-------
APPENDIX C (Continued)
WINTER, SPRING AND FALL MONTHS
STATION
TIME OF
TRAVEL,
DAYS
NO. OF
SAMPLES
TOTAL COLIFORMS/100 ml
MIN AVG MAX
FECAL COLIFORMS /100 ml
MIN AVG MAX
11-15 through 19-65
Method: MPN
HM-1.8
MN-1.3
MN-2.0
MN-2.6
MN-3.3
MH-U.O
MN-U.7
NL-1.0
NL-1.7
NL-J3.0
NL-3-5
NL-4.0
___
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.2
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.2
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
2,700 > 8,150 > 16,000
lif,000, 127,000 172,000
13,000 295,000 1,600,000
11,000 60,000 2^0,000
11,000 > 63, 700 > 160, 000
17,200 72,000 160,000
3,300 81,100 160,000
17,200 >6U,300 > 160, 000
7,900 60,600 160,000
17,200 55,000 92,000
13,000 58,800 160,000
13,000 27,900 5^,200
H60 2,670 9,200
2,000 26,600 5^,200
5,000 20,000 70,000
1*,900 9,600 23,000
2,000 10,900 27,800
3,300 9,000 2U,000
3,300 7,900 22,100
3,300 18,200 5^,200
2,300 13,100 5^,200
3,300 lit, 000 5^,200
7,900 12,700 3^, 800
2,300 6,900 10,900
o
I
H
O
-------
APPENDIX c (Continued)
SUMMARY OF COLJFQRM DATA
MERR3MACK RIVER ESTUART
STATION
NO. OF
SAMPLES
TOTAL COLIFORMS/100 ml
MIN AVQ MAX
FECAL COLIFORMS/100 ml
MIN AVO MAX
9-15-64 through 9-16-64 Method: MPN
R-1A
R-1B
R-2A
R-2B
R-2C
R-2D
R-2E
R-3A
R-3B
R-3C
R-3D
R-3E
R-3F
R-4A
R-4B
R-4C
R-5A
R-6A
R-6B
R-6C
R-6D
R-6E
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
4
4
4
3
2
2
If
1*
1
4
4
4
If
3
2
790 18,400 5^,200
< 20,000 < 560,000 1,720,000
3,480 3,000 7,000
1,100 5,360 7,900
1,1*00 11,600 24,000
1,300 18,300 3^,800
1,100 -- 4,900
50 5,160 16,000
90 3,800 9,200
230 2,190 5,420
3,480 6,030 9,200
2,400 3,1*80
1,300 3,^*80
2,700 3,720 5,teO
1,720 2,770 S,1^
5,teO
790 1,260 1,720
490 2,000 5,teO
1,600 3,910 5,teO
no 690 1,720
220 620 1,300
170 - 1,300
70 765 1,UOO
< 20,000 148,000 330,000
790 1,320 5,420
< 200 < 1,570 3,300
200 1,880 4,900
^90 < 5,700 17,000
500 1,700
< 20 < 560 1,720
20 615 1,410
50 646 1,720
170 725 2,400
490 ~ 1,300
490 ' 790
200 772 1,300
230 370 490
1,090
130 320 490
70 255 ^90
80 435 9^0
< 20 < 65 170
20 70 170
< 20 1,300
I
o
-------
APPENDIX C (Continued)
SUMMARY OF.COLIFORM DATA
MERRIMACK RIVER ESTUART
STATION
NO. OF
SAMPLES
' TOTAL COLIFORMS/100 ml
MIN AVG MAX
FECAL COLIFORMS/100 ml
MIN AVG MAX
10-19-64 through 10-20-64 Method: MPN
R-1A
R-UB
R-2AA
R-2A
R-2B
R-2C
R-2D
R-2E
R-3AA
R-3A
R-3B
R-3C
R-3D
R-3E
R-3F
R-4A
R-4B
R-4C
R-5A
R-6A
R-6B
R-6C
R-6D
R-6E
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
4
4
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
k60 if, 520 13,000
< 20,000 < 1,5^0,000 5,^20,000
< 20 6,000 22,100
1,700 12,200 3^,800
i,Uoo 5,080 10,900
1,300 6,120 13,000
< 2,000 48,600 109,000
1,400 2,300
20 1,490 5,420
< 20 5,370 16,000
< 20 3,680 9,200
490 5,590 9,200
3,480 5,420
9,200 9,200
2,400 9,200
< 200 3,860 13,000
< 20 3,180 9,200
20 -- 70
< 20 1,420 3,480
40 815 2,400
< 20 405 1,300
50 232 490
50 440 1,300
170 422 700
130 832 1,700
< 20,000 < 522,000 1,720,000
< 20 < 680 1,400
200 925 1,700
200 1,200 3,300
200 1,080 2,200
200 < 16,100 49,000
200 500
< 20 < 378 1,300
< 20 < 870 1,720
< 20 < 1,160 2,400
330 1,680 5,420
330 ~ 490
490 1,300
790 1,300
110 < 952 3,300
< 20 < 390 1,300
< 20 < 20
<£ 20 < 707 2,400
20 132 230
< 20 62 130
20 80 170
20 77 220
< 20 < 48 110
o
-------
APPENDIX C (Continued)
SUMMARY OF COLIFQRM DATA
MERRIMACK RIVER ESTUART
STATION
NO. OF
SAMPLES
TOTAL COLIFORMB/100 ml
KEN AV6 MAX
FECAL COLIFORMB/100 ml
MIN AVO MAX
6-8-65 through 6-10-65 Method: MF
R-1A
R-UB
R-2AA
R-2A
R-2B
R-2C
R-2D
R-2E
R-3AA
R-3A
R-3B
R-3C
R-3D
R-3E
R-3F
R-UA
R-to
R-1*C
R-5A
R-6A
6
6
2
6
6
6
6
2
If
6
6
6
5
2
2
6
6
2
6
6
1,000 < 5,170 10,000
< 2,000 < 63,000 lMf,000
< 100 2,000
200 3,220 6,800
100 2,730 6,000
<100 < 3,180 8,600
too 3,650 10,000
200 < 1,000
100 625 1,900
500 3,750 12,300
506 3,000 8,800
100 3,070 10,000
< 100 < 2,U20 5,200
1,800 3,500
1,100 1,200
500 2,700 8,100
100 3,080 7,800
1,300 ~ 2,500
80 2,510 8,200
200 1,660 6,700
< 10 < 3,700 < 10,000
4,650 <12,200 31,300
< 10 < 1,000
< 10 < 390 < 1,000
10 < 330 < 1,000
< 10 < 252 < 1,000
< 10 < 275 < 1,000
<10 < 1,000
< 10 < 38 100
< 10 < 123 300
< 10 < 105 3^0
10 100 280
< 10 < 98 300
10 < 100
ho 300
< 10 < 120 300
^10 < 115 ^00
4o 100
10 101 280
< 10 < 62 160
o
I
-------
APPENDIX C (Continued)
SUMMARY OF COLIFORM DATA
MERRIMACK RIVER ESTUARY
STATION
NO. OF
SAMPLES
TOTAL COLIFORMS/100 ml
MIN AVG MAX
FECAL COUFORMS/100 ml
MIN ' AVG MAX
6-8-65 through 6-10-65 (Continued) Method: MF
R-6B
R-6C
R-6D
R-6E
HN-6.0
HN-5.0
HN-U.O
HN-3.0
HN-2.0
HN-1.0
HN-0.0
LH-3.0
LH-2.0
LH-1.0
6
6
If
k
6
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
100 2,080 11,600
200 1,210 ^, 000
100 3,560 13,^*00
100 tea 930
5,000 5,^70 11,000
18,000 18,000
15,000 82,000
160,000 161,000
190,000 290,000
177,000 2^0,000
130,000 « 200,000
100,000 360,000
100,000 -- 2,030,000
150,000 520,000
10 33 100
10 30 100
10 27 100
10 22 100
*K) 333 1,000
380 ^oo
200 -- 1,1*50
800 -- 14, 000
5,000 13,800
9,^00 13,000
8,000 12,^00
13,500 32,000
28,800 186,000
6,000 26,000
o
-------
APPENDIX D
INDUSTRIAL WASTE RESULTS
MERRIMACK RIVER
STATION
RIVER
MILE
SAMPLE OF
DATE
TEMP
0(3
FLOW
BOD^
Ppro
TSS
mg/1
NHo-N
mg/1
PHENOL
ug/l
PARA-
CRESOL
ug/1
HAMPSHIRE CHEMICAL CORP., NASHUA, NEW HAMPSHIRE
NL-1.6
-------
APPENDIX D (Continued)
INDUSTRIAL WASTE RESULTS
STATION
RIVER
MILE
SAMPLE OF
DATE
TEMP
°C
FLOW
BODc
ppm
TSS
.
fflg/1
NH -N
3
mg/1
PHENOL
ug/1
PARA-
CRESOL
ug/l
NEW ENGLAND POLE AND WOOD TREATING CORP., MERRIMACK, NEW HAMPSHIRE
__
MN-3.1
MN-3.3
MN-3.3
NL-4.0
_ MN-3.1
61.85
61.60
6l.l8
61.18
k3.k7
61.60
River Water
Effluent
River Water
River Mud
River Water
Effluent
10/7/65
10/7/65
10/7/65
10/7/65
10/7/65
2/16/66
9
61
9
12
«
-------
APPEHDDC B
PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL, AHD BACTERIAL DATA OP SELECTED TRIBUTARIES
STATION
DATE
no. or
VALUES
TBJFERATURE °C
MIH. AVG. HAX.
DISSOLVED OXYGEN
pps
BODs ppn
l-tlN. AVG. HAX. | MIH. AVG. MAX.
TOTAL COLITCRKS/lOO ml1
HH. AVG. MAX.
FECAL COLIFOBNS/100 ml1
KIN. AVG. MAX.
SOLUBLE PO,,-P «a/l
TOTAL OBTHO |
SOUHEQAN RIVER
So-9.0
80-9.0
So-8.6
So-8.0
So-7.0
80-3.0
So-2.0
80-9.0
So-8.6
So-8.0
So-7.0
So-6.0
So-5-0
So-3.8
So-3-5
So-3.0
So-1.0
SB
80-9.0
80-9.0
10/28-30/6U
5/12/65*
5/27/65
8/6-13/65
9/17-18/65
2
1
1
1
l
1
1
3
3
J
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
26
<4
»-
20.0 23.8 26.0
17.0 17.0 17.0
--
--
--
.-
6.i» 7.73 10.1
8.8 9.15 9-5
-_
-- __ -_
._
2.0
2.2
2.0
3.2
3.0
2.3
2.5
2.0
O.U
0.9
1.0 1.82 6.2
270 - 700
5,1»20
7,900
l*,900
7,900
2,000
220
Sto 510 700
21 nn Q cttn It tw\
,100 3,97" 1,900
3,300 7,670 13,000
7,000 12,800 17,200
23,000 111,000 240,000
79,000 113,000 130,000
17,000 21,000 83,000
13,000 18,000 214,000
10,900 13,700 17,200
2,210 3,700 5,"»20
170 530 1,090
1»00 332» 1,120
20 170
310
800
1,300
200
< 2,000
50
20 50 110
ii/V\ C9rt *7/VI
HUU 5jO fUO
200 700 1,700
1,300 3,200 U.900
2,000 15,300 33,000
8,000 16,300 33,000
<2,000 < U.OOO 8,000
1,700 3,670 7,000
1,700 2,770 3,300
80 213 330
80 170 220
2 10U« 1,120
«~
_.
-- -_
--
..
NASHUA RIVER (for data other than at Station N-1.0 see part V of this report)
H-1.0
N-1.0
N-1.0
8/i»-7/6i»
8/6-13/65
9/17-18/65
17
26
k
21.0 21.7 23.0
22.0 2 66« > 1,200
: :
BEAVER BROOK
BB-5.0
BB-1.0
BB-2.0
BB-3.0
BB-U.O
BB-5.0
BB-6.0
n/n-ia/&t
7/12-l>»/66
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
22.0 23.5 26.0
20.0 21.7 2U.5
22.0 23.7 26.5
22.0 23-3 25.0
22.0 23.8 25.5
2l».0 2U.8 27.0
1.7 3.0 5.2
2.0 2.7 U.I
6.8 .7.1 7.5
5.U 5-8 6.3
1».9 5.5 6.1t
U.U 5.U 6.3
1.2 1.8 2.2
1.0 1.7 2.2
.-
0.5 0.8 1.2
0.8 1.0 1.3
220 -- U90
1,000 1,730» 3,200
1,200 U.200 8,000
100 lUO 1
190 560 i,300
120 130 1"*0
1,900 3,760 7,l»00
20 - 50
"»o 190* 430
80 390 720
10 260 kO
70 190 l«0
20 53 100
300 530 770
0.16
0.21
--
._
0.85
0.51
1 MPH unless first value Btarred (*) then MF.
-------
. ri-KFIUIX E (Continued)
PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL, »ND BhCTERIAL D/iTA OF SELECTED TRIBUTARIES
STATION
DATE
NO. OF
VALUES
TEMPERATURE °C
KEN. AVG. MAX.
DISSOLVED OXYIZN
ppm
HEN. AVG. MAX.
BODR PPO
MIK. AVG. MAX.
TOTAL COLIFORMS/100 ml1
MIN. AVG. MAX.
FECAL COLIFORMS/100 ml1
HIN. AVO. MAX.
SOLUBLE PO||-F BK/1
TOTAL OBIHO
CONCORD RIVER
C-7.0
C-8.0
C-1.0
C-2.0
C-3.0
C-5.0
C-6.0
C-7.0
C-8.0
C-9.0
Il/17-l8/6ii
5/12-X3/65
6/28-30/66
2
2
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
2U.O 2U.9 25.5
2H.O 25.2 26.0
2U.O 25.1 26.0
28.0 26.1 21*. 5
2U.O 25.lt 27.0
pii n yf. i pft K
CH.U CU.X CO.^
23.5 25.8 27.5
214.0 26.3 27.0
I».U l*.8 5.1*
"3 5.2 5-9
3.6 l».l* 5.7
3.7 6.6 8.8
2.5 k.6 7.0
1.3 2.9 U.5
1.3 2.9 5.2
0.6 0.8 1.1
0.3 0.7 1.3
0.8 0.9 1.0
1.5 2.3 3.6
2.1 3-1 U.6
1.8 2.6 3.U
210 790
2,300 - 13,000
2l»0 l»10* 580
220 290 1*00
90 ISO 250
20 80 200
80
60 120 200 I
13,000 20,000 35,000 '
2,000 22,100 146,000
<20 20
200 500
36 88* 130
1*1* 71 110
20 U3 88
l» 9 20
12
Oft oQ lilt
eO to ***#
5 250 750
5 501 900
--
1.03 0.86
0.93 0.75
0.90 0.68
0.78 0.59
o 6Q O 5l»
VmVy Vty
0.83 0.68
0.97 0.72
ASSABET RIVER
A-0.5
A-1.0
A-2.0
A-3.0
A-3.5
A-U.O
A-U.5
A-5.0
A-6.0
A-7.0
A-8.0
A-9.0
A-9-5
A-9.8
A-9.8
6/21-23/66
1
r
6/28-30/66
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
16.5 19-9 2U.5
18.5 21.2 25.5
19.0 21.2 2U.O
20.0 21.8 23.5
20.5 22.2 23.5
20.5 21.9 2U.5
19.0 22.1 2U.O
21.5 23.9 26.0
21.0 23.5 25.0
22.0 21*. 2 27.0
22.0 23.8 26.0
21.5 2U.3 26.5
22.0 23.8 25.0
20.5 2U.O 26.0
22.5 2l».6 26.0
6.9 7.20 7.8
1.3 2.50 3.1
0.1 0.1*0 0.8
1.7 3.28 l».9
U.5 U.80 5-0
2.7 3.30 U.8
6.1 7.90 9-3
U.3 5.30 7.3
5.3 7.UO 9-5
5.2 6.30 6.9
3.0 I».UO 7.6
7.2 7.50 7.8
6.3 6.60 6.9
6.7 8.1*0 9.9
3.5 U.20 h.l
0.1* 0.8 1.1
6.0 7.U 8.2
5.1 5.6 6.1
3.U 3.9 "».2
__
1.7 2.8 3.7
-.
3-3 3.0 1|.2
l.i* 3.6 U.8
2.8 3-7 U.7
1.6 1.8 2.0
1.3 1.8 2.3
3.5 3-8 I..1*
1.6 1.6 1.7
0.6 1.7. 3.5
1,100 3,680* 10,000
360,000 517,000 730,000
3,200 89,200 2UO,000
1,1*00 U.800 7,600
2,000 10,320 28,000
160 730 1,800
61*0 2,120 1»,700
UOO 2,700 9,000
100 160 300
3,800 6,300 8,200
1,200 i»,oeo 5,500
870 2,880 7,300
200 J*90* 1,300
210 21*0* 260
63,000 102,000 180,000
100 5,220 16,000
50 80 120
80 130 21*0
..
10 UO 60
150 21*0 330
1*0 70 Ito
10 25 W*
960 1,810 1*,600
360 600 99°
110 365 930
36 171* 350
0.06 O.OU
5.29 I*. 99
6.1*1 5.26
6.52 2.6l
_.
2.82 2.38
--
1.21* 1.06
0.1*3 0.30
1.38 1.20
0.83 0.66
0.70 0.58
1.13 1-10
0.76 0.77
1.0U 0.89
SUDBURY RIVER
Su-1.0
Su-1.5
Su-2.0
Su-3.0
Su-9.8
6/28-30/66
6
6
6
6
6
25.0 26.8 29.0
23.0 25.3 27.0
23.0 25.1* 27.5
23.0 25.2 27.0
22.0 25. >» 27.0
5-5 6.8 7.2
3.1 5.2 6.6
3.5 6.3 7.5
i*.3 6.2 7.9
3.5 l».9 6.6
0.7 1.2 1.7
l*.5 7.2 12.5
2.1 8.9 15.0
0.2 0.7 1-1
1.5 1.8 2.0
200 770* 1,800
17,000 111,000 300,000
15,000 >118,000 >3UO,000
3,000 55,600 190,000
160 313 580
8 38* 60
> 1,000 ± U,300 < 10,000
;> 1,000 > 6,600 > 10,000
> 50 > 30,900 100,000
110 220 1*80
0.12 O.OU
0.37 0.27
0.20 0.18
0.21* 0.12
1.01 0.86
HOP BROOK (Sudbury River tributary)
HB-1.0
HB-2.0
HB-3.0
6/28-30/66
6
6
6
22.5 25.3 27.5
2l*.5 26.8 29.0
22.0 23.6 25.5
0.6 1.2 1.6
3.0 3;1 3-1*
5.1 6.0 6.7
27.5 33.0 1*0.0
17.5 19.0 21.5
1*0,000 291,000* 1,100,000
1,900 5,320 10,000
< 1,000 ±11,900* > 60,000
220 < 5"»7 < 1,000
30.67 23.15
19.UO 15.28
MPN unless first value starred (*) then MF.
-------
APPKHDDC E (Continued)
PHYSICAL, CBBaCAL, AHD BACTERIAL DATA OF SELECTED TRIBUTARIES
STATIOH
HATE
NO. OP
VALUES
TEMPERATURE °C
MIH. AVO. MAX.
DISSOLVED OXXOKH
MPT. AVO. MAX.
BODc ppm
MIN. AVO. MAX.
TOTAL COLgORHS/lOO
MIH. ATO.
1
"MAX.
MIH.
ATO.
MAX.
SOLUBLE POi.-P mg/1
TOIAL OBTHO
spicnr RIVER
8n-3 O
Sp-4 Q
Sp-1.0
Sp-2.0
8p-3.0
Sp-4.O
Sp-5.0
Sp-6.0
11/17-18/61*
7/12-14/66
1
3
22.0 22.5 24.0
24.0 24.5 25.0
24.0 24.3 25-0
24.0 25.3 26.0
23.5 24.2 25.0
26.0 26.0 26.0
6.4 6.6 6.6
4.6 5.1 5.4
6.1 6.4 6.7
5.7 6.9 9-1
0.6 1.3 2.6
2.6 2.9 3.3
2.3 1.2 0.3
2.4 2.0 1.5
1.7 1.5 1.3
24.5 24.1 24.0
780 1,OUO* 1,300
310 UlO 5to
1,200 U,960 11,000
350 1,410 3,500
1,800 4,630 10,000
^10,000 > 8, 603, 000 17.000,000
MA __
SO «
520 710* 900
40 150 350
100 > 490 > 1,000
20 37 60
< 10 < 1,710 75,000
93,000 > 631,000 > 1,000,000
0.11
1.25
0.83
1.32
POLICY BROOK (Tributary of the Spicket Hirer)
PB-3.0
PB-2.0
PB-3.0
11/18/64
7/12-14/64
1
3
3
18.0 19.3 20.0
22.0 22.8 23.5
0.0 0.2 0.3
0.7 3.1 6.4
6.6 7.3 8.0
2.5 2.9 3.1
9,200
53,000 283,000* 730,000
2,000 24,700 58,000
110
5,700 > 39,200* > 100,000
200 1,570 4,000
1.48
0.80
SHAWSHEEH RIVER
Sh-6.0
Sh-9.0
Sb-1.0
Sh-2.0
Sb-3.0
Sh-4.0
Sh-5.0
Sh-6.0
Sh-7.0
Sh-8.0
Sh-9.0
Sh-10.0
Sh-11.0
Sh-12.0
11/17-18/64
7/18-20-66
/
2
6
20.0 23.3 27.0
20.0 22.8 26.0
20.0 22.3 25.0
19.5 22.3 25.0
19.0 21.9 24.5
19.0 22.5 25.5
20.0 23.8 26.5
20.0 23.3 25.5
20.0 25.4 29.0
22.5 25.0 27.0
20.5 24.7 28.0
23.0 24.7 27.5
--
4.0 7.9 11.1
2.1 5.4 6.0
0.8 3.; 6.4
1.6 4.5 7.9
3.8 7.2 10.6
3.6 6.5 10.5
0.7 1.6 2.7
1.4 3.3 6.3
5.2 7.5 9.1
5.7 7.1 8.1
6.3 8.1 9-9
6.7 10.3 13.5
__
--
-..
1.2 1.6 2.3
1.3 1.6 1.9
1.2 1.5 1.7
1.2 1.5 2.1
0.9 l.l 1.3
2.5 3.1 3-7
1.1 1.1 1.2
1.1 1.8 2.6
1.7 2.2 3.1
2.8 3.U 4.0
2,210 ~ 2,210
1,720 5,420
1,800 12,000* 31,000
700 10,800 53,000
200 950 1,500
300 1,020 2,200
330 910 2,200
900 5,520 17,000
60 2,130 4,500
5,000 48,300 190,000
1,700 > 5,130 > 10,000
5,300 11,100 22,000
4,500 9,520 19,000
2,600 8,000 > 18,000
170 ~ 790
1,300 1,720
60 870* 2,400
< 100 638 2,200
40 77 130
24 43 60
40 6? 70
80 135 190
< 4 < 9 20
70 > 1,080 > 5,000
250 > 2,740 > 10,000
220 830 1,800
190 560 1,100
120 1,120 2,000
-.
~
_< -._
0.11
0.43
0.17
0.18
0.56
0.93
1.07
0.60
1.06
--
0.21
LITTLE RIVER
L-3.5
L-1.0
L-2.0
L-3.0
L-4.0
11/17-18/64
7/12-14/66
£'
3
19.5 21.6 23.5
22.0 22.7 24.0
21.5 22.2 23.5
24.0 24.7 25.5
7.8
5.0
4.5
4.1
"--
7.9
5.4
5.1*
6.5
8.1
6.1
6.0
8.9
~
1.3
~
~
1.5
--
1.7
--
"460
380
390
62,000
660
~
1,370*
2,250
78,600
2,950
490
3,100
5,600
89,000
4,900
20
100
110
140
60
490*
360
620
340
20
1,100
650
900
720
0.18
KPN unless first value starred (*) then HP.
-------
APFBOUDC 1 (Continued)
PHYSICAL, CHEMICAL, AND BACXBUAL DATA OF SELECTED TRIBUTARIES
SIATIOM
HAZE
HO. OF
TAMES
TEMPERATURE °C
KOI. AVO. MAX.
DISSOLVED OXXGEN
PP»
KDf. AVG. MAX.
BODc ppm TOTAL COLZFOBMS/100 ml1
MM. AVO. MAX. | NDI. ATO. MAX.
FECAL COLIFQRMS/100 "1^
tCOI. AVD. MAX.
SOLUBLE FO^-F BK/1
TOTAL OBTHO
POWWOW RIVER
P-2.0
P-1.0
P-2.0
P-3.0
11/17-18/6U
7/12-1V66
2
3
2U.5 26.2 27.5
2U.5 25.8 26.5
25.0 26.5 28.0
6.5 6.5 6.5
1».5 "*.8 5.5
3.1 5-3 6.9
*
0.8 1.3 1.7
3.7 5.8 7.2
230 ~ 270
75 230 l»00
250 320 U50
180,000 200,000 230,000
20 20
10 30 UO
20 68 100
1*6,000 71,600 110,000
0.2l»
1.00
COKTOOCOOX RIVER at Riverhill Bridge, Concord, Rev Hanpshire (River Bile 100.71-U.2)
10/27-25/W
5/12-13/65
2
2
50 80
9to ~ 1,300
FISCAXAQUOG RIVER at Graoaere Bridge, Oottstown, Hew Hampshire (River Mile 71.30-6.2)
I 10/27-29/6U
1 5/12-13/65
SOOCOOK RIVER at Route 3
Rte. 3
Rte. 106
10/27-29/61*
5/12-13/65
SUHCOOK RIVER O.U ailes
Rte. 3
Rte. 28
10/27-29/6U
5/12-13/65
2
2
bridge and
2
2
Route 106 bridge, Concord-Pembroke, Hew Hampshire (giver Milea 85.80-3.5
above Route 3 bridge and Route 28 bridge, Peabroke-Allenatovn, lev Hampshire (River
2
2
1460 l»90
Ito 2,210
and 85.80-6.lt)
< 20 790
330 1,200
Milea 82.90-1.5 and 82.90-5.2)
1,300 1,720
790 ~ 3, '80
< 20 20
50 80
< 20 ~ < 20
< 20 20
< 20 70
130 330
170 1*90
80 110
:: :: I
MPH unless first value is starred (*) then MF.
-------
APPENDIX F
NEW HAMPSHIRE HATER USX CLASSIFICATION
AND QUALITY STANDARDS
Dissolved oxygen
Coliform bacteria
NPH/100 ml.
pH
Substances potentially
toxic
Sludge deposits
Oil and grease
Color and turbidity
Slick, odors and surface-
floating solids
CLASS A
Potentially acceptable
for public water supply
after disinfection.
(Quality uniformly ex-
cellent.)
Not less than 1% sat.
Not more than 50.
5.0 - 8.5
None.
None
None.
Not in objectionable
amounts.
None.
CLASS B
B-l
Acceptable for bathing
and recreation, fish hab-
itat and public water
supply after adequate
treatment. (High esthetic
value.)
Not less than 1% sat.
Not more than 2kO.
5.0 - 8.5.
Not in toxic concentrations
or combinations.
Not in objectionable
amounts.
None
Not in objectionable
amounts
Hone
B-2
Acceptable for recrea-
tional boating, fish hab-
itat, industrial and pub-
lic water supplies after
adequate treatment.
(High esthetic value.)
Not less than 75% sat.
Rot more than 1,000.
5-0 - 8.5.
Not in toxic concentrations
or combinations.
Not in objectionable
amounts.
lot in objectionable
amounts.
Hot. in objectionable
amounts
Hot in objectionable
amounts.
CLASS C
Acceptable for recrea-
tional boating, fish hab-
itat, and industrial water
supply. (Third highest
quality.)
Not less than 5 PP».
Not specified.
5.0 - 8.5.
Not in toxic concentrations
or combinations.
Not in objectionable
amounts.
Not in objectionable
amounts.
Not in objectionable
amounts.
Not in objectionable
amounts.
CLASS D
Devoted to transportation
of sewage or industrial
waste without nuisance.
(Lowest classification.)
Present at all time*.
Not specified.
Not specified.
Hot in toxic concentrations
or combinations.
Not in objectionable
amounts .
Hot of unreasonable
quantity or duration.
Hot of unreasonable
quantity or duration.
Hot of unreasonable
quantity or duration.
NOTE: The waters in each classification shall satisfy all provisions of all lower classifications.
-------
AFFKHDIX F
MASSACHUSETTS HATEl USI CLASSIFICATION
AHD QUALITY STANDARDS
Dissolved oxygen
Oil and greaie
Odor, scum, floating
solids, or debris
Sludge deposits
Color and turbidity
Fhenoli or other taste
producing substances
Substances potentially
toxic
Free acids or alkalies
Radioactivity
Colifom bacteria
CLASS A
Suitable for any water
use. Character uni-
formly excellent.
Hot less than 79Jt sat.
Hone
Hone
Hone
Hone
Hone
Hone
Hone
CLASS B
Suitable for bathing
and recreation, Irri-
gation and agricultural
uses; good fish habitat;
good aesthetic value.
Acceptable for public
water supply with
filtration and disin-
fection.
Standards of Quality
Hot less than 79)1 sat.
Ho appreciable amount
Hone
lone
Hot objectionable
Hone
Hone
Hone
CLASS C
Suitable for recrea-
tional boating,
irrigation of crops
not used for con-
sumption without
cooking; habitat for
wildlife and common
food and game fishes
indigenous to the
region; industrial
cooling and most
industrial process
uses.
Hot less than 5 ppn
Hot objectionable
Hone
Hone
Hot objectionable
Hone
Hot in toxic con-
centrations or
combinations
Hone
CLASS D
Suitable for trans-
portation of sewage
and Industrial
wastes without nui-
sance, and for
power, navigation
and certain indus-
trial uses.
Present at all times
Hot objectionable
Hot objectionable
Hot objectionable
Hot objectionable
Hot in toxic con-
centrations or
combinations
Hot in objectionable
amounts
Within limits approved by the appropriate State agency with consideration of possible adverse
effects in downstream waters from discharge of radioactive wastes; limits in a particular water-
shed to be resolved when necessary after consultation between States involved.
* Within limits ap-
proved by State De-
partment of Health
for uses involved.
Bacterial content of
bathing waters «>"»ii
meet limits approved
by State Department of
Health and acceptability
will depend on sanitary
survey.
* Sea waters used for the taking of market shellfish shall not have a median coliform content in excess of 70 per 100 ml.
HOIK: Waters falling below these descriptions are considered as unsatisfactory and as Class K.
These standard! do not apply to conditions brought about by natural causes.
For purpose of distinction as to use, waters used or proposed for public water supply shall be so designated.
- F-2 -
-------
MERRIMACK RIVER BASIN
------- |