-------
Sewer Service Areas
After two years of extensive study and the review
of a wide range of waste treatment management alterna-
tives, several alternatives were screened for final
consideration. Two areas in Kingston have been iden-
tified as needing some type of system for collecting
and disposing of residential and commercial wastewater
(Figure 1-2) .
fc?
Sewer System ->
1-3
-------
A STEP system with local,
subsurface disposal is
recommended for Kingston
Center.
The smaller of these two areas is located in
Kingston Center and includes a dozen businesses and
about 4 homes where Route 3A crosses Stony (Halls)
Brook. Problems here are due to poorly drained soils
and a high groundwater table leading to on-site systems
overflows. All the options under consideration for
this area call for use of small diameter pressure sewers
and the installation of a septic tank effluent pump
(STEP) at each home and business to convey wastewater
to a nearby, town-owned leaching system. Two alterna-
tive sites for the leaching system (Sites C-l and C-2)
are still being considered. The proposed Kingston
Center service area is expected to generate 5,000
gallons per day of wastewater by the year 2005.
The larger area proposed for sewer service includes
all of Rocky Nook, Smith's Lane, and a section of
Route 3A as shown in Figure 1-2. In this area, a high
groundwater table and/or very dense residential develop-
ment precludes the effective use of on-site wastewater
disposal systems. The ongoing problems resulting from
inadequate wastewater disposal in this area are par-
ticularly significant since storm drains convey con-
taminated water from these neighborhoods to nearby
public beaches and the Jones River.
Groundwater seeping out
across Shore Drive.
I-4
-------
All of the alternatives under consideration for
the collection, treatment, and disposal of wastes
generated in the Rocky Nook service area include the
use of small diameter pressure sewers driven by septic
tank effluent pumps (STEPs). The septic tank effluent
pumps would be installed in conjunction with new or
existing septic tanks with each pump unit being shared
by two homes. The proposed Rocky Nook sewer service
area is expected to generate about 200,000 gallons
(0.2 mgd) of wastewater in the design year, 2005.
Final alternatives under consideration for the
treatment and disposal of the wastewater collected
from the Rocky Nook service area include:
1. transmission to Plymouth for treatment and disposal
to Plymouth Bay,
2. treatment with disposal to the land directly
adjacent to the Jones River estuary; and
3. treatment with disposal to the land at an inland
site in Kingston, in the general vicinity of the
town's existing septage disposal pits, landfill,
and an industrial park.
All of these options for treating the wastewater
from the Rocky Nook service area include facilities
for handling and disposing of septage generated through-
out the town of Kingston.
Preferred Alternatives
For the proposed Rocky Nook service area, Kingston's
Citizens Advisory Committee considered the option of
tieing into Plymouth's existing sewer system to be
both unimplementable politically (based on written
opposition by the Plymouth Board of Selectmen) and too
costly to the town. The Committee rejected the option
of wastewater treatment and disposal at the site next
to the Jones River estuary because the site lies in a
developed residential area and because of the environ-
mental risk associated with the site's close proximity
to the estuary. From the point of view of the Citizen
Advisory Committee members, the additional cost to the
town (about $33,000) of transmitting wastewater to the
inland site, near the town's sanitary landfill, was
A STEP system is also
recommended for Rocky
Nook, Smith's Lane and
part of Route 3A.
£Y. JO /
i,
Three alternative disposal
sites are still to be con-
sidered.
The Plymouth alternative
appears unimplementable.
The site near the Jones
River (A-3) would be less
expensive, but involve a
higher level of risk;
while the inland site
would provide lesser env-
ironmental risk at a
slightly higher cost.
-------
Leaching facilities in
Kingston Center were
found to be most cost
effective and environ-
mentally sound.
outweighed by the lesser environmental risk and re-
duced nuisance potential that facilities at the inland
site would pose compared with the site near the Jones
River. Wastewater disposal at the inland site thus
would have the lowest potential for adverse impacts of
the implementable alternatives.
For the Kingston Center service area, solutions
involving on-site rehabilitation of septic systems was
found infeasible due to potential future problems due
to the high groundwater. Connecting to a centralized
treatment system serving the Rocky Nook area was found
to be too expensive. Of the two local sites considered
for leaching facilities, one is located on town-owned
land near a public ball field. The other is nearer
the proposed service area but in a developed residential
area.
'The Citizens Advisory
Committee (CAC) will
recommend land disposal
for Rocky Nook at the
site near the landfill.
After careful consideration of these and other
alternatives, the Kingston Citizens Advisory Committee
on Sewage Facilities Planning has concluded that cer-
tain wastewater management options are best for Kings-
ton. They will be making their recommendations at the
upcoming Annual Town Meeting in favor of:
1. construction of small diameter pressure sewers in
the Rocky Nook service area, with treatment and
disposal to the land at the inland disposal site
near Kingston's landfill (Site B-2); and
Kingston Center will be
served by a leaching
field.
the installation of small diameter pressure sewers
in the Kingston Center problem area with treatment
and disposal through a leaching field at nearby,
town-owned land (Site C-2).
Federal and State recom-
mendations will follow
review of the EIS and
Facilities Plan.
Neither the Massachusetts Department of Environ-
mental Quality Engineering, Division of Water Pollution
Control, nor the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
have expressed a preferred alternative among the final
alternatives under consideration. These decisions
will follow the formal process of reviewing this Draft
EIS and the Town's 201 facilities plan.
The following summary
describes:
. the problems,
. the alternatives,
. impacts of alternatives.
The remainder of this summary describes in greater
detail the wastewater problems found in Kingston, the
alternatives considered for solving these problems,
and the impacts or environmental consequences which
are likely to result from implementing each of the
alternatives. A summary table comparing the costs and
effects of the final alternative is presented at the
end of this section.
-------
B. Wastewater Disposal Problems Found in Kingston
Introduction
Areas of Kingston have been identified as having
one or more of the following problems found alone and
in various combinations:
1. Failure of current wastewater disposal systems
threatens public health.
2. Homeowners are unable to comply with the State
Environmental Code (310 CMR 15.00), "Title 5",
when it becomes necessary to rehabilitate their
on-site disposal systems.
3. Residents are faced with the odors, inconveniences,
and costs associated with on-site disposal
systems backing up into their homes or overflow-
ing onto the ground.
Threats to Public Health
In Kingston, threats to public health resulting
from wastewater disposal practices occur where raw
sewage enters a stream, ditch or storm drain which may
then transmit disease-causing organisms to a water-
based recreation area, such as the Jones River and the
beaches at Rocky Nook. Bacterial and chemical analysis
of water samples taken throughout the Town of Kingston
on numerous occasions in the past indicates that the
Jones River and the waters draining to the beaches at
Rocky Nook contain significant levels of bacteria from
human waste (Figure 1-3).
In parts of Kingston,
septic systems are caus-
ing problems.
Samples show human waste
contamination of the Jones
River and Rocky Nook
beaches.
Storm drain discharging
contaminated water at
Rocky Nook beach.
1-7
-------
Vvfoter
Colirorm
zd ii-ioo
101 -1,000
1,001 -10,000
-------
Site conditions in parts of Rocky Nook, Smiths
Lane, and Kingston Center (Summer Street near the
railroad station) suggest that continued use of on-
site disposal systems in these areas threatens public
health. Bacterial and chemical analysis of the waters
draining from these areas indicates that wastewater
contamination is occurring.
High groundwater levels
and poorly drained soils
lead to problems in Kingston
Center, Rocky Nook and
Smith's Lane.
A high water table is a common problem in each of
these areas. Poorly drained soils prevent adequate
leaching of wastes into the ground, thereby increasing
the chance that overflows will occur and that indirect
contamination of water courses draining these wet
areas will result. Of these areas. Rocky Nook poses
the most severe threat to public health since ditches
and storm drains convey contaminated water from these
densely developed wet areas directly to the beaches on
Rocky Nook.
Inability to Comply with State Environmental Code
Massachusetts' Environmental (Sanitary) Code,
Title 5, requires that newly built or repaired on-site
wastewater disposal systems must meet certain minimum
design standards. The two most important design
standards are the 4 foot minimum depth to groundwater
and the minimum leaching area required for a given
soil and wastewater flow.
In these parts of Kingston,
minimum standards for on-
site waste disposal cannot
be met.
Analysis of lot sizes and the depth to ground-
water throughout all of Kingston indicates that resi-
dences in several areas of Kingston will be unable to
meet the basic requirements of Title 5 when it becomes
necessary to rehabilitate their on-site systems (see
Figures 1-4 and 1-5). As might be expected, these
areas correspond with the areas of worst recorded water
quality, as shown in Figure 1-3, and define the "core"
problem areas within the areas proposed for sewer
service in the town. In other parts of the proposed
service area, residences and businesses outside exper-
ience similar problems, but to a lesser extent.
Overflowing Cesspools and Septic Systems
Overflowing cesspools and septic systems are a
third problem encountered throughout Kingston at one
time or another. Research of local Health Department
records show that each year about 5% of the households
in Kingston are granted permits to repair on-site
Failing septic systems in
these areas cannot be
properly rebuilt.
-------
Problem
/KINGSTON
X-4
I
-------
Problem
Center
i-it
-------
However, for the rest of
the Town, septic systems
are the best way to dis-
pose of wastewater.
All reasonable alternatives
for collecting, treating,
and disposing of wastewater
were considered.
sewage disposal systems. This 5% figure is consistent
with an average system life of about 20 years.
Where it is possible to do so, under the State
Environmental Code "Title 5", rehabilitation of an on-
site system is the least expensive, most effective
long-term solution to the problems of on-site disposal
system failure. However, for those areas where site
conditions prevent on-site system rehabilitation under
the basic standards of the State code, alternative
waste treatment systems must be considered in order to
determine the most cost effective and environmentally
sound system acceptable to the town.
C. Alternatives: The Selection Process
Federal law requires that this study rigorously
investigate all reasonable alternatives for solving
Kingston's wastewater disposal problems. The first
step in such an investigation was to determine whether
on-site disposal systems currently in use in Kingston
could be used effectively in the future.
The previous section's discussion of problems
identified areas of Kingston where individual on-site
disposal systems could not be rebuilt and other waste
treatment alternatives are necessary. The preliminary
alternatives investigated for the identified problem
areas were:
Collection Systems:
gravity sewers
small diameter pressure sewers driven by septic
tank effluent pumps (STEPs)
Treatment Systems;
"cluster systems", i.e. community-owned leaching
facilities either in the problem neighborhood or
on nearby vacant land
aerated lagoons
aerated/facultative lagoons (aerated upper level
of lagoon, quiescent lower level for anaerobic
decomposition of wastes)
I-12
-------
upgraded secondary treatment facilities in
Plymouth (pending Town of Plymouth agreements)
rotating biological contactors (RBCs)
Disposal Systems;
underground leaching field, with or without
underdraining to an effluent collection/distribu-
tion system
rapid infiltration beds, with or without under-
draining
discharge through a pipe to the Jones River
discharge through Plymouth's outfall pipe which
empties into Plymouth Harbor (for a Plymouth
treatment option only)
The various combinations of alternatives listed
above were evaluated for each of the problem areas in
terms of their respective costs, environmental impacts,
institutional acceptability and flexibility. As shown
in Table 1-1, the factor limiting the acceptability of
alternatives was often cost.
In addition to those alternatives listed for
collecting, treating, and disposing of wastewater, the
study investigated alternatives for reducing the total
amount of wastewater generated in the problem areas.
Although this intent was well received, in application
household wastewater reduction methods were considered
too burdensome and unreliable because they would
require homeowners to make certain changes in their
lifestyles, would be less uniform and predictable in
their results, and would involve considerable public
education and long-term commitment.
D. Final Alternatives
The No Action Alternative
The so called "no action" alternative considers
the effects of no new solutions to the waste treatment
problems in the town. It is required as an element of
Federal EIS documents to allow a complete comparison
of the alternatives being considered. Should no new
Flow reduction methods
were considered, but would
not be a reliable means of
addressing the problems.
-------
Table
Septic systems/cesspools
• Unconventional waste reduction,
water conservation, etc.
not appropriate where high grouna-
water and/or small leaching area
limits their effectiveness
burden/responsibility on homeowner
excessive
• Collection Systems
Gravity sewers
Pressure sewers
• Treatment and Disposal Systems
Individual septic tank for
use w/STEP, pressure sewer
system
Large septic tank or Imhoff
tank for use with "cluster
system" and phased alterna-
tives
Underground leaching facil-
ity (field trench, etc.
including mound systems)
Intermittent sand filters
(infiltration beds)
Aerated lagoons with polish-
ing
Facultative/aerated lagoons
with polishing
Rotating biological con-
tactors
Upgraded secondary treat-
ment facilities in
Plymouth, HA
Pumping into the ground
overland flow through wet-
lands
Spray irrigation
too costlv, bedrock and water
i-ahlp at surface in service area
not necessary with STEP collection
for "cluster system", phased alter-
natives eliminated -(see below)
amount of sludge generated high
compared with facultative lagoons
too costly
fine soils and high water table in
and near service area, too costly
elsewhere
too costly
Cluster system in early years,
expanded to provide mechanical
treatment later
all phased alternatives were elimiminated
because of the uncertainty of future funding
for later stages of phased alternative
-------
A* Final Alternative* fan
KIMdSTON
K4N6ST6
AR
ROCKY MOOK
most cost effective
foe most of Kingston
may be appropriate for
isolated, extreme problems
least cost sewer for
both Kingston Center
alternatives
>i
mound system proposed
for use at either site
least cost sewer for
all Rocky Nook service
area alternatives
it
proposed for alternative
system at Site A- 3
proposed for alternative
system at Site B-2
proposed for alternative
systems at Sites A-3&B-2
proposed for alternative
of pumping to Plymouth
proposed for alternative
at Site A- 3
I-15"
-------
The no action alternative
will lead to further deteri-
oration of conditions.
action be taken to improve wastewater disposal in the
problem areas of Rocky Nook, Smith's Lane, and Kingston
Center, on-site disposal systems will continue to
operate poorly and ultimately fail with rehabilitation
not possible, water quality will worsen, the public
health threat will increase, and property values in
the worst problem areas will continue to be affected.
The effects of wastewater disposal problems are
expected to become more pronounced with time, as more
homes are converted to year-round use, and as more on-
site disposal systems become clogged with age. Faced
with possible condemnation by the local Board of
Health, a homeowner might try to solve his wastewater
disposal problem himself using unsound methods. Even
now, there are verbal reports of homes in Rocky Nook
with direct pipe connections to storm drains emptying
to beach areas and the Jones River.
Mysterious pipe discharg-
ing to drainage ditch on
Rocky Nook.
If no action is taken, there is a further possi-
bility that a significantly greater financial burden
to the town and its residents may result. The Massa-
chusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineer-
ing has told the Town of Kingston that existing evi-
dence of water quality and public health violations
indicates that a successful enforcement action could
be brought against the town, ultimately forcing the
town to abate known public health/water quality viola-
-------
tions. If the town was forced to build any of the
facilities proposed as final alternatives in this EIS
at a later date, the cost to Kingston could be as much
as ten times greater than if the town appropriated the
funds for these facilities now. Essentially, if
Kingston takes no action now, decreasing Federal and
State funds, possible changes in funding eligibility,
and general cost inflation would increase the local
share of costs for wastewater facilities substantially.
Rocky Nook: Three Alternatives Considered
Choosing the best location for wastewater treat-
ment and disposal requires consideration of many
factors. In Kingston, the most important considera-
tions involved: the protection of the town's present
and future drinking water supplies, maintaining the
quality of residential neighborhoods and recreational
waters, as well as the dollar cost of the alternatives
and their comparative affordability.
Strong health enforcement
action, without Federal
and State funding assis-
tance, will cause greater
financial burden in Kingston.
'- Dis0£*l
effluent
,^_ _- __,
rf"3 ... -V-
H^.,j^^»v-rM4lI^-.:
•;r?-~«v.T i :"im f-r. - r« j- .• .t - ,
1-17
-------
Final alternatives for
Rocky Nook and Smith's
Lane include:
. Tieing into Plymouth's
treatment plant
. Treatment and disposal
near the Jones River
. Treatment and disposal
near the landfill
Based on these considerations, only three general
alternatives appear reasonable for wastewater treat-
ment and disposal for the Rocky Nook area:
1. Tying into Plymouth's sewer system, which dis-
charges to Plymouth Harbor (Figure 1-6).
2. Treatment in Kingston, with disposal to the
ground next to the Jones River (Figure 1-7).
3. Treatment in Kingston, with disposal to the
ground inland, near the town landfill (Figure
1-8) .
•Alternative-
-------
., .. f^f^ll • * y: • ' >•• ' \ ^ •
.i'fi*i4;t
• '"•'• ,j4Ni| C.....;^\
Basic process, disposal, and cost characteristics
of these alternatives are presented in Table 1-2.
All three alternatives include the use of small
diameter pressure sewers driven by septic tank efflu-
ent pumps (STEPs). This collection system was found
to be particularly cost effective for the Rocky Nook
area because of high groundwater and a frequently
shallow depth to bedrock that exists there.
STEP system recommended
due to high costs and
environmental problems
associated with tradi-
tional gravity sewers.
-------
TABLE 1-2
Alternatives for Rocky Nook Sewer System
Anticipated Flow = 200,000 gallons per day in 2005
Alternative,
by Site
Plymouth
Site A-3
Site B-2
Major
Process
activated
sludge
facultative
lagoons
facultative
lagoons
Total Cost Cost to Kingston
Federal, Total Annual Operation
State & Capital and Maintenance
Disposal Local Cost Cost
to Plymouth $4,885,000 $2,341,000 $16,000
Bay
to ground $4,819,000 $ 289,000 $44,000
adjacent
Jones River
to ground $5,364,000 $ 322,000 $46,500
near town
landfill
Some Impacts are common to
all of the alternatives
(except no action).
Since all the waste treatment alternatives for
Rocky Nook, Smith's Lane, and the nearby portion of
Main Street include the provision of sewer service,
they all would have certain common effects. For all
the alternatives considered, sewers will:
1. Increase the value of coastal recreation areas
and water resources by reducing the public health
threat of contaminated water.
2. Allow the construction of homes on vacant lots
which are undevelopable without sewer service.
3. Accelerate the conversion of summer homes to
year-round use.
4. Cause a slight increase in local property taxes
and tax revenues, because of induced growth,
which otherwise might occur elsewhere.
5. Increase property values in the sewer service
area.
6. Increase the cost of home ownership in the sewer
service area through the user charges and better-
ment fees.
-------
7.
Cause short-term disruptions during sewer con-
struction, and possibly permanent loss of residen-
tial landscaping and fences where STEP installa-
tion cannot be accomplished otherwise.
Sewers might allow homes
to be built on vacant
lots with poor drainage.
In addition, there are also impacts specific to
certain of the proposed alternatives. These are dis-
cussed in the following discussion by the categories
of issues addressed.
Implementability—The alternative of pumping Kingston's
wastewater to treatment facilities in Plymouth is not
considered implementable, as noted previously, due to
the repeated rejection by the Plymouth Board of Select-
men of such proposals.
The other alternatives considered are legally and
institutionally implementable; however, as discussed
below, they have differing levels of associated adverse
impacts.
Affordability—The Plymouth treatment alternative,
although of comparable total cost to the other alter-
natives ($4.8 - $5.4 million), would pose a signifi-
The Plymouth alternative
is not considered imple-
mentable. It would also
result in a financial
burden to the town.
-------
cantly greater financial burden on the town and its
sewer users since it would not be eligible for in-
creased Federal and State funding. This alternative
would be eligible for only 55 percent funding of total
project costs, compared to 75 percent funding for the
other alternatives. The annual costs to the town and
users of the sewer system could be more than twice as
much for this alternative as for the others (see
detailed cost discussions in Section V of this EIS).
Site B-2 is far from
residential neighborhoods.
Of the two Rocky Nook
alternatives, one (B-2)
is in a more remote and
better accessable loc-
ation.
Neighborhood Issues—The two sites in Kingston being
considered for wastewater treatment and disposal of
Rocky Nook's wastewater are in areas of distinctly
different character. One site (A-3) is within a
residential neighborhood with homes only 300 feet
away. Although proper management should minimize any
odor problems, odors may be detectable at nearby
residences. Also septage truck traffic would increase
traffic and noise on residential streets adjoining
this site.
The alternate site (B-2) is by comparison in a
remote woodland area, over 2,000 feet from the nearest
residences. Opportunities exist to screen and buffer
this site from residences in the area. Construction
and septage truck traffic would not have to travel
over residential streets to get to Site B-2.
£-22
-------
Environmental Risk—Selection of Site A-3, located
adjacent to a marsh at the head of the Jones River,
would pose no significant impacts on estuarine plants
or animal life assuming that the sewer system is
properly designed, maintained, and managed. Water
quality problems could arise, however, if plant main-
tenance were to lapse, the sewer system were expanded,
or septage from other towns was accepted at the new
facility. Any unforeseen problems may further exacer-
bate this potential impact upon the estuary and thus
pose a possible environmental risk at this site. In
contrast, there is a technically feasible, environ-
mentally acceptable choice at Site B-2 which does not
pose the risks noted above.
Site B-2 also poses fewer
environmental risks.
Site A-3 is close to the
Jones River estuary.
Cost—The total project costs for the three options
being considered for the Rocky Nook area are compa-
rable ranging from $4.8 to $5.4 million (1983 dollars)
However, due to the requirements of the Federal and
State funding mechanisms, only the two Kingston sites
(A-3 and B-2) would be eligible for the maximum fund-
ing levels. The local share of the project costs at
Site A-3 would be $290,000 while at Site B-2 cost
Costs for the Rocky Nook
alternatives range from
$4.8 to $5.4 million.
1-23
-------
The local cost share would
be $290,000 or $320,000
for the two Kingston sites
vs. $2.3 million for the
Plymouth alternative.
A community-owned septic
system and leaching fac-
ility would be sized to
serve the users in the
problem area.
would be $320,000. Over a twenty-year bond retirement
period, and assuming substantial cost recovery through
charges to sewer users, the cost difference to the
Town of Kingston would be negligible between the two
options.
Kingston Center: Two Sites for a Local System
While the problems identified in Kingston Center
are among the most significant in the town, there are
only a total of 5 residences and 12 commercial users
affected. Solutions to the problems of this relatively
small area of the town considered several options includ-
ing joint treatment with the larger service area at
Rocky Nook, or an independent neighborhood system.
Since the land surface along Summer Street, near
the railroad station, is too close to the groundwater
table, proper wastewater disposal on site is not
possible. Transmitting wastewater from Kingston
Center to a centralized treatment system serving Rocky
Nook was also found to be infeasible because it would
be too expensive. Thus nearby undeveloped land was
evaluated for use as a site for a localized neighbor-
hood waste treatment system. This would be a community-
owned septic system and leaching facility sized to
serve just the users in the Summer Street problem
area.
Two sites currently under consideration for the
disposal system to serve Kingston Center are shown in
Figure 1-9. The cost for treatment facilities at
Site C-2 is in a woodland
owned by the Town of
Kingston.
-------
either site is roughly the same, despite the fact that
Site C-2 (the ball field site) is farther away from
the service area (see Table 1-3). Although it would
be more costly to pump the greater distance to Site C-
2, this site is presently owned by the Town already,
whereas Site C-l would have to be purchased, possibly
requiring eminent domain. The greater cost of pumping
to Site C-2 is thus offset by the acquisition cost of
Site C-l.
Site C-2 is the most cost
effective choice.
^HCUS ^^^r-^v-r ~ s: -i
-------
TABLE 1-3
Alternatives for Kingston Center Sewer System
Anticipated Flow = 5,000 gallons per day in 2005
Alternative,
by Site
Site C-l
Site C-2
Major
Process
septic tanks
& soil
absorption
septic tanks
& soil
absorption
Disposal
to ground
near town
center
to ground
near swamp
Total Cost*
Federal,
State &
Local
Cost to Kingston*
Total Annual Operation
Capital and Maintenance
Cost Cost
$300,000 $18,000
$300,000
$18,000
$1,500
$1,500
*1983 dollars. Multiply by 1.25 for cost in 1986 when construction would
take place. (1983 dollars = ENR 4002, March 17, 1983; 1986 dollars =
ENR 5000)
Whichever disposal site is chosen, individual
septic .tank effluent pumps (STEP) would be connected
with existing or new septic tanks on each of the
commercial properties and the residential properties
in the problem area along Summer Street. These indi-
vidual pumps would convey the wastewater through a
collector system to the disposal site. There the
wastewater would flow into a septic tank or dosing
chamber, and then to an underground leaching field.
If detailed site analysis reveals a high water table
at the location of the proposed system, the leaching
facility would have to be raised at most 6 feet above
the existing ground surface. Such a system is called
a "mound system" and is presently in use in many
states where high groundwater is a problem.
STEP system with col-
lection and treatment
at a leaching facility.
The impacts and costs associated with locating a
leaching facility at either of these sites are dis-
cussed in the following discussion.
Impacts—The principal impact of providing wastewater
collection, treatment and disposal to this portion of
Summer Street in Kingston Center would be a substan-
-------
tial improvement in the sanitary condition of Stony
(Halls) Brook. There would be some disruption of
traffic and associated noise during construction for
sewer installation, although this will be lessened by
the use of small diameter pressure sewers, whose
installation is less disruptive to surroundings. The
use of Site C-l, located in a developed residential/
commercial area, will cause greater disruption in the
neighborhood during construction and periodic mainten-
ance than would the use of Site C-2.
Costs—The total capital cost of collection, treatment
and disposal facilities for the Kingston Center prob-
lem area is $300,000 in 1983 dollars. The cost would
be the same for disposal at either site. Kingston's
share of the capital cost for these facilities would
be about $18,000. The annual operation and mainten-
ance cost for these facilities is estimated at about
$1,500 per year.
Overall Impacts of Alternatives
Except as specifically noted elsewhere in this
Draft EIS, the alternatives described are expected to
have:
a. no significant direct or indirect effects;
b. no significant conflicts with any Federal,
State, regional or local plans, policies or concerns;
c. no excessive energy requirements;
d. no significant demands on natural or deplet-
able resources;
e. no significant effects on urban quality,
historic and cultural resources and the design of the
built environment; and
f. no significant effects on water supply and
use, groundwater quality, general hydrology, noise
levels, land use trends, population projections, wet-
lands, flood plains, prime agricultural land, histori-
cal and archeologic sites, or other environmentally
sensitive areas.
Improved sanitary con-
ditions of Stony Brook
would result. Tempor-
ary disruption due to
construction activity
would occur. Site
C-2 is preferred.
Kingston's share of
total project costs
($300,000) would be
$18,000; annual O&M
costs would be $1500.
-------
A. Early Evidence of Pollution
B. 1975 Sewer Plan for Kingston
C. U.S. F.D.A. Sanitary Survey, 1975
D. Massachusetts DWPC Water Sampling, 1976-1982 . .
E. "208 Plan", 1978
F. Combined 201/EIS Sewer Study, 1981 to Present . .
G. Schedule for Completion
II-l
II-l
II-3
II-6
II-7
II-9
11-13
-------
II. OVERVIEW
A. Early Evidence of Pollution
Reports of pollution in the waters adjacent to
Kingston date back to the 1930's when shellfish beds
were closed due to harbor pollution. Since then,
pollution problems in the harbor have been generally
attributed to discharges from Plymouth's sewerage
treatment plant, although other contamination sources,
such as combined sewer overflows (CSO), are also
thought to contribute to the problem.
Bacterial sampling in the near shore waters of
Duxbury and Kingston Bays and Plymouth Harbor done in
1971 showed an average coliform bacteria concentration
of 5,000 coliforms per 100 ml MPN in the Jones River
compared with about 50 coliforms at Powder Point in
Duxbury and 2,500 coliforms in the Eel River in Ply-
mouth (average of 12 samples each, conducted by Massa-
chusetts Department of Marine Fisheries, 1971). At
that time, Massachusetts public health officials had
closed the mouth of the Jones River to shellfishing
because it was grossly contaminated. However, the
majority of grossly contaminated beds in 1971 (Figure
II-l) were in Plymouth Harbor along the coast where
combined sewer overflows from the Plymouth system were
known to occur at that time.
B. 1975 Sewer Plan for Kingston
Sewer planning initiated by the Town of Kingston
in the early 1970's led to a plan recommending the
construction of a sewer system to be tied in with the
Town of Plymouth's sewer system. The plan recommended
a phased expansion of the proposed sewer system to
best deal with the wastewater disposal needs of antici-
pated growth in town. The areas proposed for sewer
service in the 1975 plan are shown in Figure II-2. The
1975 plan did recognize that "although it is doubtful
all sections of the proposed sewerage system will ever
be built, all potential sewer locations have been
presented as a guide by which the town may develop and
expand the initial stages of the sewerage system."
(Whitman S Howard Engineers, 1975, page 17).
Bacterial contamination in
the Jones River and Duxbury
Bay dates back to the 1930s.
It has led to closure of
shellfish beds to protect
public health.
Earlier Kingston sewer
study recommended tie-
in with Plymouth's
sewer system.
I-I
-------
shellfish area*
-------
In describing existing conditions regarding
wastewater treatment in Kingston, the 1975 report stated
that high population densities and poor soil conditions
in some areas caused difficulties with the use of on-
site disposal systems and that with increased growth
these problems could be expected to increase. The
only neighborhood cited specifically as having experi-
enced these types of problems was Rocky Nook. The
report cites the high population density at Rocky Nook
in the summer months as a particular problem. At that
time, "a large portion of the dwellings in the Rocky
Nook area (were) used by summer residents only, how-
ever, many of the residences (were) being converted
into year round homes." (Whitman & Howard, 1975,
page 4).
Kingston's 1975 sewer plan recommended tieing in
proposed sewers with the Town of Plymouth's existing
sewage treatment plant. This recommendation met
strong opposition from the Town of Plymouth and could
not be implemented for this reason. (Letter from
Plymouth Selectmen Richard A. Dudman to the Town of
Kingston, dated September 13, 1976.
Shortly after these events, the United States
Congress passed amendments to the Clean Water Act
which eliminated the eligibility of most street sewers
from Federal funding assistance. Essentially, the
local communities would have to pay the cost of sewer
pipes and installation while the Federal and State
governments would pick up about 90 percent of the cost
of constructing sewage treatment facilities. These
statutory changes would have drastically increased
Kingston's share of the cost needed to implement the
recommendations of the 1975 sewer plan for Kingston.
»
C. FDA Report on Sanitary Survey of Plymouth Harbor,
1975
The United States Food and Drug Administration's
Shellfish Sanitation Branch conducted an indepth
survey of sanitary conditions in Plymouth Harbor with
An extensive sewer system
was proposed in 1975.
FDA tests conducted in
1975 included tests of
Kingston's waters.
1-3
-------
-to be
KI7& PUwi
-------
particular emphasis on the effect of Plymouth's waste-
water discharge on the shellfish growing waters in
Plymouth Harbor.
Of 17 sampling locations throughout Plymouth
Harbor, Kingston Bay and Duxbury Bay, only those
samples taken in the immediate vicinity of Plymouth's
outfall and the samples taken at the station closest
to Rocky Nook showed the coliform bacterial levels
higher than could be explained (statistically) by
comparison with the other samples which generally
reflected background levels. One sample the FDA took
in the Jones River (after a rainfall) found 7,900
total and fecal coliforms which they interpreted as ".
. . indicating considerable fresh fecal pollution".
(FDA, 1975 page 7). They also sampled the stream
which discharges directly south of Grays Beach on
Fresh fecal pollution was
found in the Jones River.
« -
The stream emptying at
the rocks next to Grays
Beach is polluted.
Rocky Nook. The two samples yielded fecal coliform
counts of 4,300 and 7,000 MPN, again after a rainfall.
A storm drain discharging to the shore in the vicinity
of Leigh Road and Shore Drive on Rocky Nook yielded a
fecal coliform count of 790 MPN. The FDA sampling was
done in the month of May 1975 before the beginning of
the summer season at Rocky Nook.
-------
DWPC samples also document
a history of bacterial con-
tamination.
Water quality standards
for coliform bacteria are
not being met in the lower
part of the Jones River.
D. Massachusetts DWPC Water Sampling 1976-1982^
The analysis of water samples taken by the Massa-
chusetts Division of Water Pollution Control (DWPC) in
several rounds of sampling between 1976 and 1982
consistently showed significant concentrations of
fecal coliform bacteria (in the hundreds or thousands
of bacteria per 100 ml) in the lower reaches of the
Jones River below Route 3A, in Stony (Halls) Brook at
Route 3A (Summer Street), and on a less consistent
basis in Smelt Brook at Route 3A (see Figure II-3).
The Massachusetts Water Quality classification
for the Jones River from its headwaters to the Elm
Street Dam is Class B (see Figure II-4). The classi-
fication for the lower reach for the Jones River below
the Elm Street Dam is Class SA. The water quality
sampling results obtained by Massachusetts DWPC sug-
gests that the Class B standard for the upper reach of
the Jones River is probably met most if not all of the
time, but that the Class SA standard in the lower
reach of the Jones River is seldom met, at least for
coliform bacteria. If the more rigorous, frequent
sampling required by Massachusetts Water Classifica-
tion Standards yielded results similar to that ob-
tained by Massachusetts DWPC, it is probable that the
lower reach of the Jones River would not even meet
Class SB standards for coliform bacteria (median total
coliform concentration no greater than 700 MPN and no
more than 20% of the samples greater than 1,000 per
100 ml.)
E. "208 Plan", 1978
The "208" Report prepared for Kingston by the
Old Colony Planning Council (OCPC), regional planning
agency, provides an overview of water quality and land
use characteristics for the town. The report's des-
cription of surface water quality relied on the 1976
sampling done by Massachusetts DWPC. The report
mentions "high" coliform concentrations in the upper
reaches of the Jones River and its tributaries though
the data they present suggests these waters would all
meet the Class B standard for bacteria (a log mean
fecal coliform concentration of 200 per 100 milliliters
with no more than 10 percent of the samples greater
than 400 per 100 ml.) The report also mentions the
Barns Worsted Mill which at the time had a NPDES
permit for discharges to the Jones River just below
-------
MM* PWPC
U-7
-------
Q
The 208 area-wide water
quality management plan
prepared in 1978 also dis-
cussed these water quality
problems.
Wapping Road. The report suggests that with the
completion of wastewater treatment facilities at the
mill, the Jones River would meet the Class B standard
at that point. Since the "208" report was published,
this mill was converted to industrial office space.
Water
for the
Ki viar-
1 m.
fia V-
-------
The "208" report points to "high total coliform
levels and excessive phosphorous levels" in Stony (Halls)
Brook at and below Route 3A, and in the Jones River
estuary (OCPC, 1978, page 33). The "208" report cites
the 1975 Massachusetts DWPC report that stated these
problems were caused by individual raw wastewater
discharges (sewage). The report also cited high fecal
total coliform levels in Smelt Brook at Route 3A. The
report concludes "from the sampling results, it seems
clear that there is a problem with fecal coliform in
the town center (Stony (Halls) Brook at Route 3A). It
is not clear that there is a problem at Rocky Nook, at
least from the sampling results." (OCPC, 1978, page
36)
At the time the "208" report was being prepared,
a plan of study for Step I "201" facilities planning
(the first part of the town's current sewer study) was
being reviewed. The "208" report expressed concern
over: the level of archeologic work anticipated, the
amount of funding to be allocated to needs assessment,
evaluation of alternatives, the preliminary design of
sewers and treatment works, and the level of attention
being paid to the secondary effects of the proposed
system such as growth effects.
F. A Combined 201/EIS Sewer Study: 1981 to Present
The Town of Kingston's request for State and
Federal grants to study its sewer needs and develop a
sewer plan (the STEP I Facilities Plan) was approved
in late 1980. Since Kingston's 1975 sewer plan recom-
mended pumping Kingston's collected sewage to treat-
ment facilities in Plymouth, and since Plymouth was
unwilling to accept Kingston's sewage, the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) initiated
an environmental impact statement (EIS) process to
study in-depth the socioeconomic and environmental
opportunities and constraints of the Plymouth alter-
native, and all other reasonable alternatives for the
proper management of Kingston's wastewater. This
report presents the results of that study.
Since Kingston's sewage related problems, and
alternatives for solving these problems were being
studied by both the Town's engineers in preparation
of the "201" Facilities Plan, and the U.S. EPA in the*
preparation of the EIS, a coordinated planning effort
was initiated.
This EIS Is being prepared
concurrently with a new
plan for wastewater treat-
ment and disposal facili-
ties.
TL-1
-------
The issues were identified
in May of 1981, including
problems in Rocky Nook and
Kingston Center.
MOU was developed to lay-
out the issues and alterr
natives to be considered.
Treatment alternatives
investigated were:
. septic systems
. public sewers
. cluster systems
Disposal options studied
included:
. land disposal
. ocean disposal
May 1981 Scoping of Issues
A public meeting was held in Kingston in May 1981
to identify the issues and concerns related to the
town's sewer needs and sewer options.
At the public scoping meeting:
1. Residents identified problem areas (particularly
Rocky Nook and Kingston Center at Route 3A and
Stony (Halls) Brook).
2. It was suggested that problems might be encoun-
tered with tieing into Plymouth's system, and that
other solutions should be investigated including
innovative solutions such as land application.
3. Residents expressed concerns and stated questions
regarding the impacts of a sewer system, especially
the costs involved (how much and who pays), and
the development impacts such as land use changes
and the effect on conversion of summer homes to
year-round use.
Based on the results of both public and agency
(State and Federal) scoping to set the issues to be
addressed, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) was
developed to clearly lay out which issues and alter-
natives would be investigated, and generally who
would be responsible for doing the work. This docu-
ment was reviewed and approved by all participants
including the involved State and Federal agencies, the
Town of Kingston's engineers, and the Kingston Citi-
zens Advisory Committee on Sewerage Facilities Plan-
ning (CAC).
The alternatives to be investigated by the
study, as laid out in the MOU included the continued
use of septic systems or cesspools, the construction of
public sewers, cluster treatment systems using leaching
fields for disposal, and/or other non-sewer alterna-
tives. The disposal options identified for use with
public sewers were disposal to the land in Kingston,
disposal to the ocean from Kingston, and disposal of
Kingston's wastewater through facilities in Plymouth.
The MOU presented a full range of issues to be investi-
gated in connection with the various options; these
issues were grouped under the general categories of
the need for a particular type of wastewater treat-
ment, and the impacts likely to result from the differ-
ent options.
I-10
-------
February 1982 Public Meeting on Sewer Needs
After almost a year of studying water quality
problems and problems associated with on-site disposal
systems, the public was presented with study findings
and with a wide range of alternatives for solving
these problems. This information was presented to the
public in a 8-page newsletter distributed to all
postal customers in Kingston. The presentation was
also made at a public meeting where those in attendance
were asked to respond regarding the accuracy and
completeness of the information presented on needs,
and on which of the alternatives merited further
investigation.
Based on the public response at the meeting and
the response made through questionnaire return coupons
(included in the newsletter), the sewer study expanded
the area proposed for service, and discarded from
consideration several alternatives considered by the
public and agency officials to be excessively burden-
some to the homeowners in the problem areas (see
Section IV of this EIS, Selection of Alternatives).
May 1982 Public Meeting on Sites for Treatment and
Disposal
After doing technical evaluations which identi-
fied general areas in Kingston suitable for central-
ized wastewater treatment and disposal, a full page
advertisement in the local paper presented a brief
Problems and alternative
solutions were discussed
at a public workshop in
February 1982.
Public response was used
to determine service areas
and select alternatives.
Treatment and disposal
sites were discussed at a
workshop in May of 1983.
There was strong opposi-
tion to use of sites next
to the Jones River.
-------
Final alternatives were
the subject of a third
workshop held in February
1983.
The public favors the in-
land site near the land-
fill and the septage pits.
description of the analysis and an array of possible
treatment and disposal sites. At the subsequent
public meeting, Kingston residents showed up to voice
opposition to sites in their neighborhood or sites
.rtiich included property they currently owned. Of
those in attendance, the most resistance or opposition
was to those sites closest to the Jones River with
moderate opposition to the other sites in Kingston and
essentially no opposition to the alternative of
pumping Kingston sewage to Plymouth's treatment plant.
February 1983 Public Meeting on Final Alternatives
Between the meeting on sites and the meeting on
final alternatives, the sewer study expended consider-
able effort evaluating refined alternatives for final
consideration. During this time, costs being developed
on the basic alternatives suggested significant prob-
lems might result from the town raising its share of
the costs. This led the sewer study to investigate a
wide array of cost saving collection and treatment
options. In many cases, the cost savings of certain
processes and process components had certain non-mone-
tary drawbacks. For example, small diameter pressure
sewers would be less costly to install in the Rocky
Nook area because of the high groundwater and a shallow
depth to bedrock in that area. However, the small
diameter pressure sewers are relatively unproven
compared to conventional gravity sewers and therefore
might be less reliable in the long run.
A newsletter describing study findings and pre-
senting final alternatives, their impacts, and costs
was mailed to all postal customers in Kingston prior
to the public meeting. The public was presented with
three alternatives for disposing of waste collected in
the Rocky Nook service area (disposal to Plymouth's
system, land disposal near the Jones River, and land
disposal inland near an industrial area), and two
alternatives for disposing of the small wastewater
flow from the problem area at Summer Street and Stony
(Halls) Brook in Kingston Center.
The public response at this meeting, and the
response made through return questionnaire coupons
included in the newsletter were in favor of treating
and disposing of Rocky Nook's wastewater at inland
sites near the industrial park and the town's landfill.
Opposition to the Plymouth alternative was based upon
its high local share of costs. Opposition to land
disposal near the Jones River was based upon its close
proximity to a developed residential area and the
-------
greater environmental risk of disposing wastes there
in comparison with the inland site. Based on this
response, and their own evaluation of the alternatives
over two years, the Kingston Citizens Advisory Com-
mittee voted to recommend the inland site to the town
at the annual town meeting.
The Kingston CAC voted to
recommend the inland site
at the upcoming town meet-
ing to be held in June 1983.
G. Schedule for Completion
Local acceptance of a sewer facility for Kingston
hinges upon the voting result at the upcoming town
meeting to be held in May 1983 and the subsequent town
election. The Town of Kingston will be presented with
a warrant article at the town meeting which would
appropriate funds for both the design and construction
of proposed sewer facilities. If passed at town
meeting, the appropriation will be contingent upon the
results of a referendum question to be placed on the
ballot for town elections to be held one week after
the town meeting. This referendum question will ask
the voters of Kingston to exempt the appropriation for
sewers from the limits of Massachusetts Proposition 2-
1/2. Should the town approve the warrant article at
town meeting and approve the referendum question at
town election, local approval for the sewer project
will be met. Should the voting at town meeting or at
town elections go against the sewer project, local
acceptance will not be met and some other process for
local acceptance (if any) will have to be developed.
Steps in the process from
here on include:
Appropriation of funds
at Town Meeting,
A referendum to override
Proposition 2-1/2,
Should the town accept the sewer proposals, the
State and Federal approval process will follow next.
Both the State and the Federal government approval
will depend in part on the presentations made in the
Town's 201 Facilities Plan and the EPA's Environmental
Impact Statement. As part of the review of this Draft
Environmental Impact Statement, a public hearing will
be held in Kingston to get the public reaction to the
Draft EIS. After public and government agency review,
the U.S. EPA will publish a Final Environmental
Impact Statement incorporating significant comments
and changes received during the review period.
If all Federal, State and local authorities can
agree on a common wastewater treatment and disposal
system, the town will be eligible to receive the
Federal and State funds which, along with the local
share, would be used for detailed design of the sys-
tem. After final design is approved, State and Federal
funds will be made available in stages corresponding
to the staging of construction of the facilities. If
all these events occur on schedule, the town's engi-
neers anticipate construction could begin in 1985 with
facility completion in 1986.
Review of the facilities
plan and this DEIS,
A public hearing on the
DEIS,
Federal and State selec-
tion of a recommended
alternative,
Award of a grant for
project design.
Desftjn and construction.
I-13
-------
DE
Types of Problems Vary
III-l
1. Threats to Public Health
2. Severity of Health Threat
3. Inability to Comply with State Environmental
Code
4. Overflowing On-Site Systems
Determination of Areas that Cannot Comply with
State Environmental Code
111-10
-------
III. PURPOSE AND NEED
A. Types of Problems Vary
A year and a half of study in Kingston has
brought to light a number of different wastewater
disposal problems. Areas of Kingston have been
identified as having one or more of the following
problems:
Current wastewater disposal threatens public
health.
Homeowners are unable to comply with the State
Environmental Code (310 CMR 15.00 "Title 5"), when it
becomes necessary to rehabilitate their on-site dis-
posal systems.
Residents are faced with the odors, inconve-
niences, and costs associated with on-site disposal
systems backing up into their house or overflowing
onto the ground.
These problems are found alone and in various
combinations in the areas of town found to be of
greatest concern.
This section describes the nature and implica-
tions of each of the basic wastewater disposal prob-
lems found, and how the problems occur in the differ-
ent neighborhoods of Kingston. It concludes with a
description of the methods used to determine the ser-
vice area where sewers are proposed.
1. Threats to Public Health
Public health problems resulting from improper
wastewater disposal require the following conditions:
a. source(s) of contamination; one or more
individuals infected with the disease-causing organism;
b. means of transmitting disease; a wastewater
disposal system which does not remove or destroy dis-
ease-causing organisms - and which is polluting a
watercourse (stream, storm drain or water supply sys-
tem) ; and
c. means of exposing public to disease: such
as ingestion of disease-causing organisms in contami-
nated drinking water, bathing (swimming) water, or
shellfish.
This project responds to
problems caused by poor
conditions for septic sys-
tem use and rehabilitation.
Public health threats
require:
• a source,
• a means of transmission,
and
• public exposure.
Ill-
-------
Contaminated water empties
to Rocky Nook beach from
this storm drain.
These conditions are all
evident in parts of the
Jones River and the beaches
of Rocky Nook.
The absence of any one of these three conditions
will essentially eliminate the threat to public health.
In Kingston, wastewater disposal threats to
public health occur where raw sewage enters a stream,
ditch or storm drain which may then transmit disease-
causing organisms to a water-based recreation area
such as the Jones River and the beaches at Rocky Nook.
Bacterial and chemical analysis of water samples taken
throughout the Town of Kingston on numerous occasions
indicates that the Jones River and the waters draining
to the beaches at Rocky Nook contain bacteria from
human waste (Figure III-l). The ponds in Kingston
were found to be free of human waste, although many
were rich in plant nutrients.
Bacterial contamination of recreational waters
begins with the discharge of untreated or poorly
treated sewage to a stream, ditch, or storm drain. In
Kingston, this probably occurs either where an on-site
IB-
-------
Water Sampl
\ \ K 1
Cumbers
Cofiforrn
fe
I mi,
I16I-W82
ffl-3
-------
In some cases, health
threats may be readily
eliminated by on-site
system modifications.
In other cases, correc-
tion of the problems will
be difficult and expensive.
High water tables and
poorly drained soils limit
on-site options.
disposal system is overflowing onto the ground surface
and into an adjacent ditch or storm drain, or where a
homeowner has made a direct, illegal connection from
an on-site system to a nearby storm drain or stream.
Where contamination occurs because of overflowing
cesspools or septic tanks, the source of contamination
is relatively easy to find and deal with. Where
contamination is caused by direct connections between
on-site systems and water courses, the offending
households may be very difficult to find since local
odor problems and surface overflows may not occur. In
this case, only repeated water quality sampling is
likely to isolate the neighborhood(s) where contamina-
tion originates. To isolate specific households with
direct connections would then require testing indi-
vidual on-site systems with colored dyes to see if the
dye appears in the watercourse (a process known as dye
testing).
Site cpnditions in parts of Rocky Nook, Smith's
Lane, and Kingston Center (Summer Street near the
railroad station) suggest that on-site disposal in
these areas threatens public health. Bacterial and
chemical analysis of the waters draining from these
areas indicate that wastewater contamination is occur-
ring. A high water table is a common problem in each
of these areas; poorly drained soils prevent adequate
leaching of wastes into the ground, increasing the
chance that overflows will occur and contaminate the
watercourses draining these wet areas. Of these
areas, Rocky Nook poses the most severe threat to
public health since the ditches and storm drains which
convey water from these wet areas discharge directly
to the beaches on Rocky Nook.
m-4
-------
Relatively large numbers of fecal bacteria have
been found in the Jones River near Route 3A upstream
of the problem areas mentioned above. Contamination
in this reach of the Jones River may be caused by
direct connections to the river from adjacent disposal
systems. Many of these homes predate modern sanitary
codes and any illegal connections which exist may have
been made so long ago that even present homeowners are
unaware of them.
Jones River at Route 3A.
2. Severity of Health Threat
For a given disease-causing organism, the severity
of a public health threat is influenced by: the type
and amount of contact with contaminated waters, and
the concentration of contaminants at the time contact
occurs.
Generally, it is necessary for ingestion of the
disease-causing organism to occur before a human is
infected with a disease. Therefore, swimming in con-
taminated waters presents a threat only to the extent
that water may inadvertently be swallowed. Children
playing in streams may become infected by placing
their fingers in their mouth after having touched
contaminated water. Eating shellfish from contami-
nated waters also presents a threat since they tend to
Gastric distress can
result from public bathing
in contaminated waters, or
ingestion of contaminated
shellfish.
IE-5
-------
&&~2fc.;*!*-''SiZz^ ..~sjfi*^*fc> jfw^-7^
^PK^^r- "*
:-?SliJ.--- •£:_.-•.-•' *;• '*" »-• /i
(7:^ -
concentrate bacterial contaminants above levels found
in the surrounding water, and since many shellfish
species are eaten raw. Shellfish beds in Kingston Bay
have been closed because of bacterial contamination of
overlying waters (Figure III-2).
The concentration of a disease-causing micro-
organism in water is influenced by the number of
people with a particular disease who are contributing
wastes to the water body. For a given body of water
contaminated with human wastes, it is therefore more
likely that organisms which cause common digestive ail-
ments such as diarrhea will be present, than rare organ-
isms which cause illnesses such as typhoid fever or
cholera.
In addition, the concentration of a disease caus-
ing organism in water is influenced by the length of
time the organism has been outside the human body, and
the amount of water available for dilution. Longer
times outside of the body, and greater amounts of dilu-
tion with water both tend to decrease the concentration
of these organisms and lessen the likelihood of infec-
tion. Saline waters and predator organisms are ulti-
mately lethal to disease-causing organisms and so will
also decrease the concentration of these contaminants
over time.
ffi-6
-------
"is.-.. "•;,;><"»«' /•--
^ %-^-^y***1)^?"^ /. „«*
e$S~ -''^'i^'faf^f^K,' :~s
UJ-7
-------
The Massachusetts Environ-
mental Code, Title 5,
specifies minimum standards
for new septic systems.
Older homes often do not
comply with this Code.
Some of them cannot be
rebuilt to comply with
the Code.
3. Inability to Comply with State Environmental Code
Massachusetts' Environmental Code, Title 5,
requires that newly built or repaired on-site waste-
water disposal systems meet certain minimum design
standards. The two most important design standards
are:
a. Depth to Groundwater
The leaching facility (leaching pit, trench or
field) must be at least four feet above the ground-
water , and
b. Leaching Area
The leaching area must be sufficiently large to
allow proper drainage through the soils found on the
site.
Since new homes must have a Board of Health per-
mit before the dwelling may be occupied, homes built
after Title 5 went into effect can be assumed to be in
compliance with the Code. Prior to Title 5, less
strict sanitary codes were in effect. Many of the on-
site disposal systems built under previous codes would
not comply with Title 5.
When the leaching facility in these older systems
becomes clogged (after 20 to 25 years on the average),
the homeowner must obtain a permit to rebuild his sys-
tem in accordance with Title 5. If it cannot be re-
built in accordance with Title 5, the Board of Health
may not be able to grant a permit to rebuild the sys-
tem. The home may then have to be condemned. The
inability to rebuild an on-site system according to
the present State Code has led to condemnation in at
least one instance in Kingston.
4. Overflowing Cesspools and Septic Systems
Overflowing cesspools and septic systems are en-
countered throughout Kingston at one time or another.
Of those who responded to the Kingston Board of
Health Septic System Management Study Questionnaire,
12% indicated they had some problems with their on-
site disposal system. Whitman & Howard's research of
Health Department records show that each year about 5%
of the households in Kingston are granted permits to
repair on-site systems. This 5% figure is consistent
with an average system life of about 20 years.
-------
Although an on-site system which overflows onto
the ground or backs up into a basement may not consti-
tute a public health or water quality problem, it is
nevertheless a serious and immediate problem for the
homeowner. When an on-site system overflows, it
should be pumped out to eliminate the immediate
problem.
Whether further action is necessary depends upon
the cause and frequency of the overflow. Often, small
leaching systems can handle only the waste load from
a small family. If a larger family moves in, the
leaching facility may be quickly overloaded. Where
leaching systems are built in poorly drained soils,
heavy rain or melting snow may saturate the ground
surrounding the system and contribute to system
overflow. Even if the leaching system is in well-
drained soil and is of an adequate size to handle the
waste load it accepts, prolonged use (20 to 25 years)
will lead to eventual clogging of the soil around the
leaching system and system overflows may occur. A
range of corrective actions is presented in Table III-l.
Septic systems eventually
fail after 20 to 25 years.
In general, where it is possible to do so under
the State Environmental Code, Title 5, rehabilitation
of a failed on-site system is the least expensive,
most effective long-term solution. For a detailed
OCCAS1ONALSEWAGEOVERFLOWS
(Hydraulic failure)
- wastewatcr overflowed onto the ground or backed
up into the house
- occasional increases in flow of wastewater to dis-
posal system
- septic tank or cesspool filled with accumulated sol-
ids
- conserve water
- pump out septic tank or cesspool, removing accu-
mulated solids
REPEATED SEWAGE OVERFLOW
(Repeated hydraulic failure)
- leaching system too small for amount of wastewater
applied and/or soil conditions, or
- reduction of infihrative capacity (clogging) of soil
due to deposition of septage based material in
leaching filter, primarily sulfides and cellulose, or
- poor construction of leaching facility (often subsoil
compacted carelessly)
- increase total leaching area
- construct a new leaching facility in parallel with the
existing one. Take the clogged leaching facility off
line. Thereafter, alternate systems yearly, or
- if not enough reserve area, dig up existing system.
replace clogged soil, construct new leaching facility.
or
- connect to some type of sewer system
FILTER FAILURE
- system adds unfiltered, unoxidized waste directly to
groundwater, thereby endangering public health
- leaching system is in or close to groundwater. or is
in excessively well-drained gravel or cobblestones.
preventing complete filter formation
- relocate leaching facility, or
- construct a mound system to assure 4-foot depth to
groundwater, or
- connect to some type of sewer system
-------
discussion of on-site wastewater disposal systems,
their use, failure, and rehabilitation, see Appendix
A.
B. Determination of Areas That Cannot Comply With
State Environmental Code
At least 4 ft. to the
watertable for adequate
leaching is a requirement
of the State Code.
For on-site systems to be rebuilt in a manner
that will not pollute groundwater, the bottom surface
of the leaching system must be at least four feet
above the groundwater surface. The State Environ-
mental Code does not permit on-site systems to be
built where this cannot be achieved. Where this four
foot groundwater distance does not exist, there is
often no alternative but to seek other wastewater
disposal methods.
Where surface waters are seen, it is usually a
good indicator of the nearby groundwater elevation.
For example, wetlands indicate where the groundwater
is so close to the ground surface that only wetland
vegetation can grow. It can be assumed that the
groundwater elevation immediately surrounding the
wetlands will be about the same elevation as the
wetland itself.
High water table at
Leigh Road.
ID-
H
-------
Hi#h water, -habk''
Z>&^l>*t U00\^
-------
Evidence of high water-
table can be found
throughout Rocky Nook.
Figure III-3 shows that on Rocky Nook, wetlands
are evident on either side of Leigh Road, west of
Rowlands Lane, and between Oak Street and Rowlands
Lane. Lands that lie adjacent to these wetlands are
at essentially the same elevation and can be assumed
to have a high water table beneath. A portion of
Smiths Lane directly to the east of Braunecker Avenue
also has a high water table as is evident from the
wetland vegetation growing nearby (Figure III-4) . In
addition, the lowlying land on Summer Street in the
lane
-------
vicinity of the railroad station and Stony Brook is
also near to groundwater (Figure III-5). In all of
these areas, some alternative wastewater disposal
method must be employed.
Stony Brook before it
passes under Summer
Street.
land tvitii
fla m-5
\J
1-13
-------
Development on small
lots at Rocky Nook.
Adequate area for a
leaching system is
also a requirement
of the State Code.
Another crucial requirement of the State Environ-
mental Code is an adequate leaching area for on-site
wastewater disposal systems. Although variances to
the setback and reserve leaching area requirements of
the Code are often granted for existing houses, where
a leaching system of adequate size cannot be built,
even with these variances, there is no alternative but
to seek other wastewater disposal methods.
in-14
-------
Parts of Rocky Nook contain lots that are so
small that on-site rehabilitation to the State Environ
mental Code's leaching area requirement is virtually
impossible, even if setback and reserve area variances
were granted. These areas are shown in Figure III-6.
Many lots in Rocky Nook
are too small to allow
system rehabilitation.
vm
small lek trt pri»tip*l
t>fc>»*t/te
-------
In Kingston Center, there is a group of four or five
houses on the west side of Summer Street whose even-
tual on-site wastewater disposal rehabilitation is
complicated by a very steep slope of the land in their
back yards to wetlands adjacent to Stony Brook (Figure
III-7). With conventional construction standards, on-
site systems may not be rebuildable on these lots.
Some alternative wastewater disposal methods must be
sought for these houses.
-------
Together, these areas comprise the "core" areas
of Kingston being considered for public sewer service
(Figure III-8) . Within these areas, water quality
analyses, Health Department records, and neighborhood
residents have indicated that widespread wastewater
disposal problems exist. In addition, the site evalua-
tions described above indicate that when these on-site
systems finally do fail, it will not be possible to
rehabilitate these systems in accordance with with
health code. The range of alternative solutions
considered for these problems is discussed in the next
chapter entitled, "Selection of Alternatives".
Sewer System •
Center
.- ' fc.
*sj ^ „'• •.',; . /
ffl-17
-------
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Introduction
Range of Alternatives Considered in Preliminary
Evaluation
Screening of Preliminary Alternatives
The Development of Final Alternatives
Site Selection
IV-1
IV-1
IV-8
IV-9
IV-14
-------
IV. THE SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES
A. Introduction
Beginning with public and agency scoping meetings,
Kingston's sewer study has evaluated a wide range of
alternatives for managing wastewater. A year ago, in
February 1982, the people of Kingston were consulted
on which of these alternatives merited further study.
Based on this public response, several alternatives
were screened from further consideration. In May,
1982, the public was consulted again on what sites in
Kingston they preferred for sewage treatment and
disposal. The public response guided the selection of
several alternatives for further study including the
development of cost information.
This section describes the range of alternatives
considered, and the screening process which led to the
selection of final alternatives for in-depth evalua-
tion. Table IV-1 summarizes the alternatives consid-
ered and the reason(s) for discarding those not cur-
rently under consideration. The final alternatives
are discussed in depth in the next section of this
EIS. Selection of preferred alternatives by the
Kingston Citizen Advisory Committee followed review of
the comparative impacts, costs, affordability and
impelementability of the final alternatives.
®* Range of Alternatives Considered in Preliminary
Evaluation
Public comnent played an im-
portant role in the process
of elimination which lead
to the final alternatives.
A wide range of alternatives
was evaluated.
Federal law requires this study to rigorously
investigate all reasonable alternatives for solving
Kingston's wastewater disposal problems. The follow-
discussion reviews the options considered for waste-
water treatment.
Septic Systems and
Conventional On-Site Disposal;
Cesspools
The first step was to determine whether on-site
disposal systems currently in use in Kingston could be
used effectively in the future. On-site systems have
many advantages in their favor:
1.
2.
They provide exceptionally good treatment of
household wastewater.
They are much less expensive than sewage collec-
tion and treatment.
Because of their many ad-
vantages, on-site systems
are the system of choice
for most of Kingston.
IV-
-------
• Septic systems/cesspools
• Unconventional waste reduction,
water conservation, etc.
-fbr Elimi
not appropriate wnere nign grouna-
water and/or small leaching area
limits their effectiveness
burden/responsibility on homeowner
excess
ive
fc^ I | «^llfe* *»lI^^Vr«*T» *
• Collection Systems
Gravity sewers
Pressure sewers
• Treatment and Disposal Systems
Individual septic tank for
use w/STEP, pressure sewer
system
Large septic tank or Imhoff
tank for use with "cluster
system" and phased alterna-
tives
Underground leaching facil-
ity (field trench, etc.
including mound systems)
Intermittent sand filters
(infiltration beds)
Aerated lagoons with polish-
ing
Facultative/aerated lagoons
with polishing
Rotating biological con-
tactors
Upgraded secondary treat-
ment facilities in
Plymouth, MA
Pumping into the ground
overland flow through wet-
lands
Spray irrigation
too costlv, bedrock ah3 water
not necessary with STEP collection.
for "cluster system", phased alter-
natives eliminated .(see below)
amount of sludge generated high
compared with facultative lagoons
too costly
fine soils and high water table in
and near service area, too costly
elsewhere
too costly
Cluster system in early years,
expanded to provide mechanical
treatment later
all phased alternatives were eliaiminated
because of the uncertainty of future funding
for later'stages of phased alternative
-------
ed <\*> Fnvil ^IterrahVe-
K.IM&ST0M
SERVI
CEM
AREA
ROCKY
most cost effective
for most of Kingston
may be appropriate for
isolated, extreme problems
least cost sewer for
both Kingston Center
alternatives
»1
mound system proposed
for use at either site
least cost sewer for
all Rocky Nook service
area alternatives
ii
proposed for alternative
system at Site A- 3
proposed for alternative
system at Site B-2
proposed for alternative
systems at Sites A-3&B-2
proposed for alternative
of pumping to Plymouth
proposed for alternative
at Site A- 3
-------
Other alternatives were con-
sidered only where septic
systems won't work effectively.
3. They are equitable. Each household has to
contend only with its own wastewater.
4. They provide an active incentive to conserve
water.
5. They can be made long term and self-renewing.
6. They are decentralized and therefore do not
require much government management or expenditure
of tax dollars.
However, on-site systems cannot be used every-
where. On-site systems may not be suitable where the
water table is high, or bedrock is close to the ground
surface, or where there are impermeable soils. In
addition, they limit the density of new development
and are often limited in their effectiveness in densely
developed areas (i.e. where lots are small).
Whenever existing individual on-site disposal
systems cannot be rehabilitated to meet the standards
set by State and Town health codes, nor meet adequate
pollution control standards, some alternative form of
wastewater disposal must be employed.
Sewer Alternatives and Unconventional Options
The previous chapter (III. Purpose and Need)
discussed problem areas in Kingston where individual
on-site disposal systems could not be rebuilt and
other alternatives are necessary.
Alternatives included:
• sewer systems and
• unconventional on-site
systems.
These alternatives can be separated into two
general categories:
1. Sewer systems; and
2. Unconventional methods of on-site disposal.
Where there are many homes in one area which are
unable to rehabilitate their on-site systems, some
form of sewer system is likely to be the least costly
solution. Where on-site system rehabilitation prob-
lems are scattered and relatively few, other, less
conventional means of wastewater disposal may be
necessary.
1. Sewer Systems
Sewer systems collect wastewater for transmission
TV-4
-------
to a treatment and disposal site.
of sewer systems were evaluated:
Two general types
a. Small scale "cluster systems" which serve a
relatively small group (cluster) of homes. Treatment
and disposal of wastewater may take place in the
neighborhood, using leaching facilities on vacant lots
and available back yard space, or it may take place
outside the neighborhood on nearby vacant land.
b. Larger scale sewer systems which serve a
larger area, and therefore collect a larger volume of
wastewater for treatment and disposal. Because they
concentrate a greater volume of wastewater at one
site, compared to a "cluster system", the disposal
site must be capable of accepting the high waste load
without significant environmental disruption. Alter-
natively, the wastewater must be treated to a higher
degree than with a smaller scale system.
Small scale "cluster systems" and larger scale
sewer systems may collect and transmit wastewater by
different types of sewers. Two general types of
sewers which may be used alone or together in small to
medium sized sewer systems are:
gravity sewers
pressure sewers
Both small scale and large
scale sewers were considered.
Gravity sewers and pressure
sewers were compared.
Conventional sewers operate by gravity. From the
sewer pipe that leaves the home to the sewer pipe in
the street and into the treatment plant, the flow of
wastewater depends on the sewer pipe having a suffi-
cient downward slope. The slope must be great enough
to ensure that the solids in the wastewater do not
settle out. If they did, they would rapidly clog the
sewer pipe. Wherever a sewer pipe must go up a hill,
a pump must be installed to force the wastewater to
the higher elevation.
pressure sewers force wastewater, under pressure,
through small diameter pipes to the treatment site.
Septic tank effluent pump systems (STEP Systems)
may be used to drive a pressure system. Here only
septic tank effluent is pumped with any waste solids
remaining in the on-site septic tank for eventual break-
down. Being under pressure, the-transmission pipes
STEP systems pump only
septic tank effluent,
under pressure, to a
treatment facility.
-------
Unconventional on-site
approaches place more
responsibility on the
homeowner.
can follow the grade of the street downhill or uphill,
and need only be placed below the frost line. A more
detailed comparison of STEP/pressure sewers and gravity
sewers is presented in Appendix D.
2. Unconventional Methods of On-Site Disposal
There are many methods which may provide adequate
disposal of wastewater on properties which are other-
wise constrained in utilizing conventional on-site
disposal methods. Unfortunately, these methods rely
on the household's assuming a greater responsibility
for waste disposal management. Although some people
are willing and able to assume this responsibility,
others are not willing or are unable to do so.
Health and pollution control officials are therefore
reluctant to recommend these alternatives except as a
last resort.
Unconventional alternatives
include:
• disposal system changes,
• flow reduction methods,
• waste reduction measures.
On-site wastewater disposal beyond the conven-
tional septic systems or cesspools may be accomplished
by:
a. altering the disposal system;
b. reducing the amount of water to be disposed
of; and/or,
c. reducing the amount of wastes in the waste-
water .
Disposal system types include:
• mound systems,
.pressure systems, and
• deep well injection.
a. Altering the Disposal System
Two on-site disposal methods were investigated as
alternatives to conventional leaching facilities. These
were mound systems and pumping into the ground. Mound
systems are identical to septic systems, except that
the leaching field is placed in a mound of clean fill
to allow the system to be raised at. least 4 feet above
the water table. In most cases, a pump would be
required to lift wastewater from the septic tank to
the leaching field. Mound systems may be appropriate
where the water table is high, but the native soils
must be coarse enough to allow underground conveyance
of the wastewater.
Pumping effluent into the groundwater was another
system investigated. In this system, a deep well is
dug and a perforated pipe installed down the shaft.
Then around the pipe, the well is packed with gravel.
-------
A system such as this can be effective for individuals
or in a dense development where there is limited
vacant land and where the bedrock and water table are
far below the ground surface. These conditions were
not present in the problem areas of Kingston, however,
precluding the use of such a system.
b. Reducing Water Use in the Home
Devices can be installed in showerheads, faucets,
and toilet tanks to reduce the amount of water used
for sanitary purposes and thus the amount of waste-
water to be disposed. Altering personal habits to
reduce the water used is also a means of significantly
improving a system's function. By doing laundry at a
commercial laundromat, for example, a 20 percent
reduction in domestic water consumption can be achieved.
Such methods can be valuable when the disposal
problem encountered is one of overloading the exist-
ing on-site leaching system. They also tend to be
most useful when in combination with overall water
conservation practices in the household. However,
where groundwater is close to the ground surface,
reducing water use will not result in better treatment
of effluent from a leaching field. In addition, it
still will be no easier to meet the requirements of
the State Environmental Code if and when system failure
occurs.
c. Reducing the Waste Content of Wastewater
Water conservation can help
in most cases, but won't
solve all the problems.
Systems that reduce the waste content of waste-
water can be expected to reduce the density or thick-
ness of the slime that causes the on-site system to
eventually fail. The less nutrients available to
slime-building organisms, the less slime there will
be.
Waste content reduction can be achieved in many
ways. By not using a garbage disposal, the organic
load can be reduced by one-third; not doing laundry at
home reduces it by one-fifth. Together, this is
nearly a fifty percent reduction.
The use of "composting toilets" is another way to
reduce both water use and waste load. Toilet wastes
and kitchen garbage are deposited at the bottom of a
large chamber. Wastes are digested by micro-organisms
to form a soil like substance called humus. Humus can
be used as a fertilizer. Composting toilets can
Waste concentrations can be
reduced by avoiding garbage
disposals....
by doing laundry outside of
the home....
by using composting
toilets, or....
E?-7
-------
by pretreating wastewater.
Where no other unconventional
system will work, holding
tanks may be needed.
achieve significant reduction in both water use (33
percent reduction) and organic load. However, they
are often expensive to install and do not provide for
the disposal of "grey water" (shower and sink wastes).
Other solutions include packaged aerobic digesters
(which oxidize the waste by aerating the effluent),
various mechanical filters and other miniature treat-
ment plant devices. These systems are expensive and
can be costly to maintain. Generally, there is always
some water which, although cleansed, must be disposed
of somewhere. If the soils are too fine or the water
table is too close to the ground surface, the waste-
water generated on site must be conveyed elsewhere for
disposal.
Where there is an isolated house with a waste-
water disposal problem and no on-site disposal system
is possible, using a holding tank can be an alterna-
tive to condemnation.
A holding tank is a large underground chamber
used to hold household wastewater until it can be
pumped out for disposal elsewhere. These tanks are
then pumped out regularly at a considerable expense
to the homeowner.
Preliminary public coiment
showed no overwhelming
support for any one approach.
C. Screening of Preliminary Alternatives
The alternatives described above were presented
to the public in a newsletter mailed to all postal
customers in Kingston. This newsletter contained a
questionnaire coupon soliciting public opinion on the
alternatives they preferred, those found acceptable,
and those that were unacceptable. The response to the
questionnaire, the response at the public meetings
and the judgement of the Town's engineers, State and
Federal participants all led to the screening of
alternatives for more detailed evaluation.
It did show disfavor with
several approaches.
At the time of this first screening, there was no
overwhelming support for any one alternative in par-
ticular. However, disfavor was expressed in connec-
tion with the following options:
1. No action was unacceptable to some residents from
the identified problem areas.
2. Cluster systems with disposal through a common,
town-owned leaching field in residential back
-------
yards were considered too much of an invasion of
individual property rights. Cluster systems with
disposal on vacant land outside the neighborhood
were acceptable.
3. Pumping effluent into the ground was considered
technically questionable, especially given soil
conditions in the problem areas.
4. Methods for reducing the amount of wastewater to
be disposed of were praised but were considered
insufficient remedies given the problems of
disposing any amount of wastewater in certain
parts of the problem areas. Also these alterna-
tives generally require residents to change their
lifestyles in ways which might not be realisti-
cally achieved on a neighborhood-wide basis.
D. The Development of Final Alternatives
After this preliminary screening, the sewer study
focused its attention on developing the remaining
alternatives for more detailed evaluation. At this
time, the evaluation of rough costs indicated that the
Town as a whole, and certain households in particular,
could not easily afford the cost of certain sewer
alternatives under consideration.
Recognizing that sewers are inherently expensive
and may present a significant burden on a town, its
taxpayers and residents, the Environmental Protection
Agency requires an evaluation of a town's ability to
pay its share of the project's cost. The town's
ability to afford a project is based upon the amount
the town must pay for its share of the total project
cost and the financial characteristics of the community.
These characteristics include: existing debt, revenues,
assessed property value, median income, income distribu-
tion, and other economic characteristics of the town
and its residents.
No action, neighborhood
clusters and injection
were all unpopular.
Conservation methods were
popular, but not regarded
as practical solutions.
Affordability was a key
concern in selecting final
alternatives.
Unaffordable alternatives
are not really viable.
EPA specifically requires that where certain
alternatives clearly exceed the community's ability to
pay, these alternatives should not be considered
viable. Also, where the cost effectiveness analysis
shows two alternatives to be roughly equivalent in
present worth and effectiveness, the one with lower
cost impacts on the community should be chosen.
EPA also places a special emphasis on the costs
-------
EPA has examined costs to
the Town and homeowners.
Costs of several alternatives
would exceed affordability
criteria.
which must be borne by those within the sewer service
area. These costs include the cost of connecting to
the sewer, annual charges for operation and main-
tenance of the sewer system, and the cost of repaying
debts associated with the capital cost to the town
(such as increased taxes or property betterment
costs). Generally, EPA considers a sewer project to
be expensive when the total sewer related charges to
customers amounts to more than 1 or 2 percent of the
median household income. In Kingston, the median 1979
household income, as determined by the 1980 Census, is
about $19,562 (U.S. Census, 1982). Therefore, any
sewer proposal which would cost homeowners more than
about $300 to $500 (current prices) in an average year
would be considered expensive. Expensive projects
undergo intense State and Federal scrutiny for cost
saving measures.
The preliminary cost estimates indicated that
several alternatives, and especially the alternative
of pumping Kingston's sewage to Plymouth, might exceed
EPA's affordability criteria. This prompted study
participants to conduct an exhaustive search for means
of reducing the costs associated with the alternatives
under investigation. The Kingston Citizens Advisory
Committee was a particularly motivating force in this
search.
Unaffordable alternatives
were therefore eliminated.
The alternatives being evaluated in detail at
that time were as follows (*indicates those alterna-
tives subsequently screened from further considera-
tion) :
1. Collection Systems
*. gravity sewers
small diameter pressure sewers driven by
septic tank effluent pumps (STEP)
-------
Treatment Processes
*. rotating biological contactors (RBCs)
* . aerated lagoons
aerated/facultative lagoons
cluster systems (community septic tank,
Imhoff tank)
Upgraded secondary treatment facilities in
Plymouth
3. Disposal Facilities
discharge through a pipe to Plymouth Harbor
through Plymouth's facilities
*. discharge through a pipe to the Jones River
infiltration into the ground with an under-
ground leaching field
infiltration into the ground with intermit-
tent sand filters
4. Treatment and Disposal Sites
sites in Kingston (see Figure IV-1)
at Plymouth's existing treatment plant site
Based on the screening process, gravity sewers
were ultimately discarded because of their higher cost
compared to the STEP system. This was not an easy
decision since, although they cost more, gravity
sewers are inherently more reliable and require less
maintenance than the STEP system components. The pros
and cons of these two collection systems are presented
in detail in Appendix D of this EIS.
Remaining alternatives were
further screened.
\
-------
K^M/je cf
m
«i
it Fiat
-------
Study participants
inspecting possible site
for wastewater treatment
and disposal.
The treatment alternatives using rotating bio-
logical contactors (RBCs) were discarded because they
were all too expensive.
Aerated lagoons were found to be less desirable
than facultative aerobic lagoons because of the costs
and impacts associated with disposing of the septage
they generate.
The option of discharging treated effluent through
a pipe to the Jones River was discarded because of
strong local opposition. Disposal to land next to the
Jones River estuary was considered preferable to the
straight pipe option because it would provide addi-
tional treatment of the wastewater.
Discharge to the Jones River
was eliminatejbecause of
strong local opposition.
-------
Land application sites all
over town were examined.
E. Site Selection
At the time treatment processes were being evalu-
ated, maps of soil and groundwater conditions (Figure
IV-2) were used to identify general areas in Kingston
suitable for centralized wastewater treatment and
disposal (see Appendix B: Hydrogeologic Evaluation of
Site B-2). A full page advertisement in the local
paper then presented an array of possible treatment
and disposal sites (Figure IV-3) .
: ^ • T^-. JV^Y ,;% \£~- «•:
*
^
«^CHANGE;
''vmmim^W
m£st£^':-^~!&&
TV-14
-------
rate »
Paid Advertisement
Voice
/Ml*.Mi
PROPOSED SEWER SERVICE AREA AND
DISPOSAL SITES BEING CONSIDERED
YOUR OPINION IS INVITED...
The public to Invited to the next meeting of Kingston's Citizen* Advisory Committee (7:30 p.m., May 4,1982
at the Faunce School) to discuss these disposal site alternatives, and to voice their preferences.
PROPOSED SEWER SERVICE AREA AND •
DISPOSAL SITES BEING CONSIDERED
The principal areas of Kingston being con-
sidered lor public sewer service are shown In
Figure 1. Within these areas, site evaluations. '
water quality analyses. Health Department '
records, and neighborhood residents have In-
dicated that widespread wastewater disposal
problems exist. The Kingston Wastewater
Management Study is now searching for ap-
propriate sewage treatment and disposal sites.
Under Federal law. the Study Is required to
Investigate all the reasonable alternatives. For
Kingston, me reasonable alternatives appear
to be limited to:
1. trarnmMon to Plymouth for
treatment and dbpotal to Ply-
mouth Bay.
2. treatment and disposal to the
Jones River estuary and
3. treatment and disposal loan in-
'and site In Kingston.
LIMITED SITES AVAILABLE
Choosing a site for a wastewater treatment
plant includes many considerations. In
Kingston, the most important considerations
are protection of Kingston's groundwaler
resources, and cost. Based on these and
•ither considerations, only two general areas
appear reasonable for wastewater treatment
and disposal in Kingston. These two areas.
some sites along the Jones River at Rocky
Nook (Disposal Area A) and some sites on the
•ill to the west of the Town's sanitary landfill
(Disposal Area B) are shown in Figure 1.
SITE SELECTION
Final selection of a site will he based upon
costs, environmental impacts, the preferences
of the p onple of Kingston and engineering
exploration of subsurface soil conditions
:'~v'"5 %**&$:>.
DISPOSAL AREA A
In the Jones river area, three alternative sites
.in* hpii.g considered All three locations have
(he advantage of being close to the proposed
sewer service area, thus minimizing construc-
tion and pumping costs. After being treated at
the treatment facility the effluent woul
be chlorinated and discharged to the Jones
River or filtered into thersah marsh and from
there into the Jones river Filtering clarified ef-
fluent interlhe marsh'would enhance both the
quality of the effluent (at low cost) and the
"biological productivity" of the marshalin-
creasing its value for wildlife}.
I WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT STUDY
Ktn|Mn CItinm Mtttory ComminN
DISPOSAL AREAS
In the vicinity of Kingston's landfill, several
sites appear possible for inland disposal.
ranging from the industrial park to the sandpit
about 1 mile to the west. Sewage would be
pumped from the service area uphill to a
sewage treatment plant located at one of
these sites. Treated effluent would then in-
filtrate into the ground, travel with the existing
groundwater and ultimately diffuse into the
tidal waters of the Jones River. Land disposal
of treated effluent at any of these sites would
have relatively little impact on Kingston's
groundwater resources This type of disporal
would affect only a small amount of groun-
dwater in an area where the groundwater
quality has probably already been impaired by
the existirfg -septage disposal pits, the town
landfill, and a previous hazardous wastes
disposal site.
This is the only undeveloped area in town
which is both close to the proposed sewer ser-
vice area and is sufficiently high above the
groundwater table to allow for proper
leaching of disposed effluent.
^M^i^nm^^ - • ft w?l
•^••VIU 4 '•'>• •..f'.-N^.i-'lv*' ' .-, ,'<~3\ \ ':«*>* P
' •
E-15
-------
Public opinion also played
an important role in eval-
uating sites.
At the subsequent public meeting to discuss these
options, Kingston residents generally voiced opposi-
tion to sites in their respective neighborhoods or
sites which included property they currently owned.
Of those in attendance, the most resistance or opposi-
tion was recorded to those sites closest to the Jones
River, with moderate opposition to other sites in
Kingston, and essentially no opposition to the alter-
native of pumping Kingston sewage to Plymouth's treat-
ment plant.
Two areas showed promise as
sites for final disposal.
Subsequent in-depth site evaluations showed
conditions at Site A-3 near the Jones River and at
Site B-2 near the town landfill to be most favorable
for the type of treatment and disposal proposed for
each. (See Appendix B: Hydrogeologic Evaluation of
Site B-2, and Appendix C: Evaluation of Disposal at
Site A-3, Estuary Analysis.)
Soil and groundwater characteristics of the two
sites (C-l and C-2) under consideration for disposal
of Kingston Center's wastewater have yet to be deter-
mined by the Town's engineers. Since both sites are
near wetlands, it is likely that a high groundwater
table is present at both sites and that wastewater dis-
posal would be through a mounded leaching system at
either site.
The following section describes in detail the
final alternatives considered for the centralized
treatment and disposal of Kingston's wastewater.
-------
A.
B.
C.
Introduction
The No Action Alternative
Rocky Hook Service Area .
D.
E.
1. The Plymouth Alternative
2. Land Disposal, Site A-3
3. Land Disposal, Site B-2
Kingston Center: Two Sites Considered
Summary Comparison of Alternatives . .
V-l
V-2
V-4
V-24
V-28
-------
V. FINAL ALTERNATIVES
A. Introduction
The final alternatives examined in further detail
considered a range of the most feasible options as
determined by the screening process. Three alternatives
for the Rocky Nook area, and two site options for
Kingston Center treatment were developed. These are
highlighted in the discussion below. A No Action
alternative was also considered for comparison of
impacts. This alternative would provide no new treat-
ment systems to handle wastewater from the problem
areas identified, with on-site treatment remaining as
the disposal method.
1. Rocky Nook: Three Alternatives Considered
To solve the widespread wastewater disposal prob-
lems on Rocky Nook, final alternatives for that area
included:
a. Tieing into Plymouth's Sewer System, Which
Discharges to Plymouth Harbor.
Kingston could tie into Plymouth's sewer system
by connecting to Plymouth's existing sewer lines which
extend to the Kingston/Plymouth town line.
b. Treatment in Kingston with Discharge to the
Jones River.
Three sites were considered for either a conven-
tional treatment plant with a chlorinated discharge to
the Jones River or for seepage into the marshes through
an innovative/alternative process that would emulate
natural systems. Ultimately, two of the sites were
discarded, as was the chlorinated discharge option,
based on potentially adverse environmental impacts.
The surviving site lies just north of the railroad
track, west of Rowlands Lane and south of the marshes.
Final alternatives for Rocky
Nook include:
connecting to Plymouth
Land disposal near the
Jones River estuary.
-------
Land disposal near the
landfill and offal pits.
c.
Ground.
Treatment in Kingston with Disposal to the
A cluster system is most
appropriate for Kingston
Center.
Several sites were considered for wastewater dis-
posal in the area between Kingston's industrial zone,
its sanitary landfill and its existing septage dis-
posal pits.
Analysis of soil and groundwater beneath this
area indicated that at least one suitable disposal
site exists in the area, noted as Site B-2 on our
maps.
2. Kingston Center; Two Sites Considered
In Kingston Center, where the problem area is
smaller and remote from the Rocky Nook problem area
encompassing less than twenty businesses and homes,
the only alternative which appears reasonable is to
provide sewers in the problem area and to dispose of
the wastes through a large community-owned septic tank
and leaching field system somewhere nearby. Two sites
were identified for further consideration, one on
privately owned land and the other on Town owned land.
Taking no action is likely
to result in deteriorating
environmental conditions.
B. The No Action Alternative
Should no action be taken to improve wastewater
disposal in the problem areas of Rocky Nook, Smith's
Lane, and Kingston Center, water quality will worsen,
the public health threat will increase, and property
values in the worst problem areas will continue to be
depressed. The effects of wastewater disposal prob-
lems are expected to become more pronounced with time
as more homes are converted to year-round use, and as
more on-site disposal systems become clogged with age.
Faced with possible condemnation by the local Board of
Health, if their on-site system could not be rehabili-
tated legally, a homeowner or business might try to
solve their wastewater disposal problems alone using
unsound methods. Even now, there are verbal reports
of homes in Rocky Nook with direct pipe connections to
storm drains emptying to beach areas and the Jones
River.
If no action is taken, there is also a possi-
bility that severe financial hardship may result from
the higher costs associated with construction of such
3Z1-2
-------
a project in the future. The Massachusetts Department
of Environmental Quality Engineering has told the Town
of Kingston that existing evidence of water quality
and public health violations indicates a successful
enforcement action could be brought against the town,
ultimately forcing the town to abate public health/
water quality violations at some time in the future.
If the town was forced to build any of the facilities
proposed as final alternatives in this EIS, the cost
to Kingston could be as much as ten times greater than
if the town appropriated the funds for these facili-
ties now. Essentially, if Kingston takes no action
now, decreasing Federal and State funds and possible
changes in funding eligibility as well as cost infla-
tion would increase the local share of costs for
wastewater facilities substantially.
No action may possibly
lead to financial hard-
ship.
-------
C. Rocky Nook Service Area: Alternatives Selected
for Further Study
1. The Plymouth Alternative
System Description
Under this alternative, sewage collected in the
proposed Rocky Nook sewer service area would be pumped
southeastward, through a force main along the railroad
tracks, and connected with the Town of Plymouth's
existing sewer system. Treatment would occur at Ply-
mouth's treatment plant which presently serves that
town.
Kingston could dispose of
wastewater through a new
or expanded Plymouth plant.
Cost estimates shown for this alternative assume
that Plymouth's existing treatment plant will be
expanded, at its present site, to treat both future
Plymouth flows and the relatively small additional
flow from Kingston. Wastewater would be treated to
secondary effluent standards and disinfected before
being discharged through an improved outfall pipe into
Plymouth Harbor (see Figure V-l).
-------
Alternatively, should Plymouth decide to dispose
of its wastewater inland, Kingston's wastewater would
still be pumped into Plymouth's sewer system combining
with Plymouth waste flows, and then pumped uphill and
inland for treatment and disposal to the land, in a
fashion similar to that described for Kingston under
the alternative for Site B-2. Inland disposal in the
Town of Plymouth would likely increase the share of
the capital cost to the Town of Kingston above the
level of estimates shown in Table 1 at the end of this
section.
Disposal of Plymouth's
wastewater inland would
not alter the proposal to
add Kingston's flows, but
the costs to Kingston
would likely increase.
Potential Financial Impacts on Homeowners
The most severe impact of the Plymouth alterna-
tive is the financial burden and possible hardship it
will likely impose on a number of households in the
Rocky Nook service area. This cost burden could be
substantial enough to force some homeowners to sell
their property and move to less costly accommodations.
Construction of sewers under all alternatives
will generally increase property values in the area
affected. Owners of property in Rocky Nook that choose
to sell will be able to make a greater profit than
would be possible if no sewer service were provided.
This will encourage some property owners to sell their
properties rather than assume the high costs of sewer
service. Accordingly, construction of sewers and
their associated costs may stimulate a turnover in
property ownership at Rocky Nook, accelerate the rate
of conversion of summer homes into year-round use and
allow the development of currently vacant lots.
This alternative would
result in the highest
cost to the Town and to
the homeowners.
Construction activities
will affect surrounding
neighborhoods.
Impacts on Environment
Other than the construction impacts of installing
sewers where proposed (described in Section VI-A), the
Plymouth alternative would have relatively few environ-
mental impacts on Kingston. Construction of a force
main to link to the Plymouth system would have negli-
gible impacts on the surrounding area, since the
Impacts would include con-
struction impacts and
impacts of the discharge.
Neither appears signifi-
cant.
-------
.. .lower as a result of
the broader distribution
of costs with Plymouth.
proposed route is along a rail right-of-way, away from
most residential development and automobile traffic.
The only physical impacts associated with the opera-
tion of the treatment plant would be related to its
discharge into Plymouth Harbor and ultimately Kingston
and Duxbury Bays. Kingston's wastewater flow (0.2
mgd) would be so small compared to Plymouth's antici-
pated flow (5.0 mgd) that the impact of Plymouth's
effluent discharge to the Bay will not change per-
ceptibly with or without Kingston's flow.
Costs
Kingston's share of the
$4.9 million cost would
be $2.3 million, result-
ing in costs to homeowners
annually of $410 to $620.
The estimated total cost of this alternative, in
1983 dollars, is about $4.9 million. Under the stan-
dard funding arrangement between Federal, State and
local governments, (see previous section, Alternatives:
The Selection Process) and assuming additional state
aid for sewer construction, Kingston's share of this
cost would be about $2.3 million dollars today.
-------
Since this alternative is not eligible for as
high a level of Federal and State funding as the other
alternatives, the cost to Kingston would be substan-
tially higher than under the other alternatives. It
is estimated that charges to property owners in the
Rocky Nook area could run as high as $410 annually per
household in the early years of the project. If State
aid for the construction of sewers is unavailable,
these charges might increase to $620 per year.
If Kingston were to recover its share of costs
through the general property tax, a property owner
with an average $47,000 assessment would pay an addi-
tional $130 per year in taxes (1983 dollars). If, on
the other hand, Kingston's share of the capital costs
were recovered by user charges to the owners of prop-
erty served by the sewer system, the one time charge
to an individual property owner would be about $1,900
(1983 dollars). Varied proportions combining both
recovery methods would result in a cost to the home-
owner within this range.
Based on the calculations of the Town's engineers
which assumed a loan through the town utilizing a
public indebtedness formula, if a homeowner received
a loan to finance this $1,900 cost, to be paid back
over 20 years at 14% interest, his loan payments would
be about $360 in the first year (in 1983 dollars) and
decline thereafter. Other loan sources of differing
rates would result in differing annual cost calcula-
tions. These cost figures are significantly above the
general affordability standard applied of about 1 to 2
percent of income using mean income Census figures.
Although the Plymouth Alternative has the highest
total cost to Kingston homeowners, compared with the
other alternatives, it would result in lower annual
user charges for households and businesses connected
to the sewer system. The estimated annual charge to
users will be about $50 (1983 dollars).
By law, annual user charges are calculated by
taking the annual costs for operation and maintenance
(O&M) of the system and distributing that cost among
all those who use the system. Usually the cost dis-
tribution is based on the flow the user contributes to
the sewer system using water consumption as the deter-
minant factor. Under this alternative, people using
the sewer in Kingston would share operation and main-
tenance costs with the two to three thousand Plymouth
residents using the Plymouth system. Kingston's cost
to share the Plymouth system would be smaller than the
The Plymouth alternative
is not eligible for as
high funding levels.
User fees for this option
would be about $50 yearly.
...lower as a result of
the broader distribution
of costs with Plymouth.
Z-7
-------
cost of operating its own, in-Kingston system due to
the broader distribution of annual O&M cost across
users in both towns.
The highest cost a service area homeowner would
bear would be in the year he tied into the sewer system.
Assuming a one time hook up fee of about $400, a $360
annual loan payment for the sewer betterment charge,
and about $50 for the sewer user charge, the homeowner's
total sewer cost for that first year would be about
$810 (1983 dollars). In later years, the annual cost
would be about $500.
Plymouth is opposed to
implementation of this
alternative.
Other Aspects of the Plymouth Alternative
The Plymouth Board of Selectmen have repeatedly
indicated that Plymouth is unwilling to accept Kingston's
sewage at this time. In a recent letter to Kingston's
Citizens Advisory Committee on sewer planning, the
Board of Selectmen in Plymouth said "... it would
not approve the sharing of a facility with Kingston or
another community unless the facility was already
designed to serve the needs of all of Plymouth for the
future." This institutional constraint further limits
the feasibility of this alternative making it the least
implementable of the three alternatives considered.
However, uncertainties
remain about Plymouth's
future wastewater treat-
ment system.
Uncertainties with Plymouth's Future Wastewater
Treatment System
Plymouth's existing sewerage treatment plant is
currently overloaded. Average flow at the plant is
2.6 million gallons per day (mgd), while the plant was
designed to treat 1.75 mgd. In addition, the Town of
Plymouth is considering expanding its sewer system to
handle up to 5 mgd to accommodate future growth. To
complicate matters further, the Massachusetts Ocean
Sanctuaries Act limits Plymouth's legal effluent
discharge to Plymouth Harbor to the original design
flow of 1.75 mgd. Thus the treatment plant is in
violation of its discharge permit. These and other
factors have led Plymouth to undertake its own sewer
study to investigate relocating the existing waste-
water treatment and disposal facility to inland sites
in Plymouth.
•S.-&
-------
2. Land Disposal Site A-3
System Description
Site A-3 is an unused field lying between the
railroad tracks and the salt marsh just west of How-
land's Lane (see Figure V-2). Because it is adjacent
to the proposed Rocky Nook service area, no pump
station would be necessary to convey wastewater from
the STEP collection system to the treatment facility.
Lagoons would be used to
treat wastewater at Site
A-3.
-Alternative -
-wi
V\e>we>A\
Site A-3
-------
The treatment facility
would be designed to min-
imize odors.
The facility itself would consist of headworks,
lagoons, a leaching facility, and an effluent distribu-
tion system (Figure V-3). Wastewater from the collec-
tion system would enter the headworks building where,
along with septage collected from cesspool and septic
tank pumpers, it would be vigorously aerated to drive
off septic odors. Air scrubbers would remove odors
from the enclosed headworks building to minimize odors
outside the plant.
1Z-IO
-------
The wastewater would then enter the first of three
large lagoons. The wastewater would be retained in
these lagoons at least 22 days to ensure proper break-
down and removal of pollutants and bacterial disinfec-
tion. As shown in Figure V-4, the upper portion of
each lagoon would be actively aerated to control odors
and to breakdown biodegradable pollutants. The lower
portion of the lagoon is not aerated so that solid
particles may settle out and be digested by natural
processes. This natural digestion of solids reduces
the volume of sludge produced by the system and elimi-
nates many of the problems associated with solids
disposal. With this system, the solids which accumu-
late at the bottom of the lagoons would have to be
removed only once every ten years or so.
Wastewater would remain 1n
the lagoons at least 22
days.
After spending at least 22 days in the aerated
lagoons, any fine particles which might remain sus-
pended in the wastewater would be removed in a "polish-
ing" facility, either a quiet pond or a rock filter.
After polishing, the wastewater would be disinfected
with ultraviolet light, a method which leaves no
harmful residuals. From there, the wastewater would
be allowed to flow into a soil filtration system,
either an underground leaching field (a large version
of the back yard system) or into sand filters (ponds
with a porous sand bottom). With both types of fil-
tration, effluent treatment is achieved by trickling
the liquid through the soil particles, in contact with
air. This provides additional breakdown of organic
matter and removal of wastewater chemicals. Bacteria
and viruses are adsorbed onto the soil particles, and
any fine particles still remaining in the effluent are
filtered out.
The treated wastewater
would then be disinfected
and applied to a soil
filter.
After passing through the soil filter, the efflu-
ent would be collected (by means of underdraining) and
allowed to flow into a series of pipes to be distribu-
ted along the upper border of the adjacent salt marsh.
The effluent would flow across the surface of the
marsh where the indigenous wetland plants and animals
would provide additional cleansing. It would then be
diluted in the tidal creeks and mosquito ditches of
the marsh and eventually conveyed to the Jones River
and Kingston Bay. The entire treatment process and
sequence is shown in Figure V-4.
The percolate from the
filter will flow through
the adjacent marsh to
Smelt Brook and the Jones.
I-ll
-------
Tide creek at Site A-3.
over
No adverse Impacts to the
marsh or the estuary are
expected.
Impacts
Other than the impacts associated with installa-
tion of sewers in the proposed service area, (see
Section VI), treatment and disposal of wastewater at
Site A-3 is expected to have a minimal long-term
impact on the surrounding environment.
Evaluation of tidal flows, stream flows, and
water quality in the Jones River estuary suggests that
discharge of treated effluent in the manner described
above will not have a significant adverse impact on
the salt marsh ecosystem. Because it would be treated
to such a high degree, and would be such a small
quantity compared to the amount of water available in
the estuary for dilution, the treated wastewater would
have a virtually undetectable impact on the quality of
water presently found in the estuary. A complete
summary of the analysis of these impacts appears in
Appendix C.
-------
Wastewater treatment and disposal at Site A-3
would result in significant adverse impacts on the
surrounding neighborhood during the construction
phase. This impact would be of a short-term nature.
To avoid use of the weight-limited bridge on
Rowlands Lane over the railroad track, construction
traffic would probably be routed from Route 3A down
Old Orchard Lane to Rowlands Lane and from there to
Site A-3 via an access road (see Figure V-5). Con-
struction activities could be timed to avoid construc-
tion traffic during the summer months, however, some
increased traffic congestion and disruption can be
expected. The noise of earth-moving and other equip-
ment during construction at Site A-3 would be heard at
residences immediately adjacent to the site during
daylight hours predominantly, at levels depending upon
wind direction. The majority of construction activity
would be completed within a year's time, although the
total construction period may last up to two years.
Impacts during construc-
tion would be significant,
but of a short duration.
ffo Z-5
\J
1-13
-------
Proper operation and main-
tenance of the plant would
minimize Impacts on nearby
residences.
Once the plant is in operation, adverse impacts
on the surrounding neighborhoods would be limited to
periodic septage truck traffic and occasionally detect-
able odors from the operation of the lagoons. Assuming
Kingston limits the use of the treatment facility to
septic tank pumpers that serve only Kingston residents
and businesses, an average of one to two septage
trucks per day would be emptied at the treatment
facility.
If properly operated and maintained, the smell of
the plant downwind, at the homes nearest the plant,
would be similar to the smell of the salt marsh at low
tide (a smell with which the neighborhood residents
are already familiar). Conditions may, at times,
result in perceptible odors.
Costs
Kingston's share of the
$4.8 million cost would be
$290,000 as a result of the
increased funding levels.
The estimated total cost for the sewer system and
the treatment plant at Site A-3 is about $4.8 million
at today's costs. Since this treatment alternative
employs technologies considered innovative and alterna-
tive, the Federal government will provide a greater
level of funding than for conventional treatment alter-
natives (such as the Plymouth treatment plant alterna-
tive) . With this funding arrangement, Kingston's share
of the capital cost is about $290,000 in 1983 dollars.
If Kingston recovered this cost through the general
property tax, a property owner with a $47,000 assess-
ment would pay an additional $16 per year (1983 costs)
in taxes over the 20-year bond retirement period.
If, on the other hand, Kingston's share of the
capital cost were recovered totally by charges to the
owners of property served by the sewer system, the
charge to an individual property owner who chose to
connect to the sewer system would be about $230 at
today's costs.
-------
This "betterment" charge might be paid by the
homeowner in a variety of ways, including through a
bank loan. Since the total betterment charge under
this alternative is relatively small (compared with
the Plymouth alternative for example), a homeowner may
choose to pay his betterment charge through a bank
loan. For example, if a homeowner took out a loan to
pay a sewer betterment of $230, and repaid it over 5
years at 14 percent interest rate, his annual loan
payment would be about $65 per year. Costs would vary
according to the terms of the loan agreement and pay
back period selected.
Homes and businesses connected to the sewer
system must also pay an annual "user charge" to pay
for plant operation and maintenance (O&M). Once all
of the homes and businesses in the proposed sewer
service area are connected to the sewer system, the
annual user charge to a typical homeowner would be
about $90 per year at 1983 costs. However, during the
early years of plant operation, fewer homes may be
tied into the system resulting in fewer users that
would be available for distribution of the annual
costs of plant operation and maintenance. It is
probable, therefore, that user charges in the early
years will be higher than the $90 estimated which
would not be expected until later years of the sys-
tem's operations.
If, for example, 50% of the potential users are
hooked up to the sewer system, the annual charge to a
typical user would be about $120 at 1983 costs.
Additionally, users would bear the greatest cost
burden during the first year they connected to the
sewer system. In that year, costs would include a one
time cost of approximately $400 for hooking up to the
sewer system, about $60 in loan payments for the better-
ment charge (if paid through a loan) and the annual
OSM costs of up to $135; thus the total cost in the
first year could be as high as $590. In following
years, the annual cost to sewer users would be less
than $200 at today's costs.
Costs to homeowners would
depend on the financing
method used by the town.
Annual user charges would
be about $90, but may be
as high as $135 early on.
-------
Site B-2 1s Inland at
higher elevation.
3. Land Disposal at Site B-2
System Description
Site B-2 is an undeveloped woodland area about
one-half mile west of Kingston's sanitary landfill,
and about three-quarters of a mile north of Kingston's
septage disposal (offal) pits. This site is at a
elevation of about 115 feet, much higher than that of
Site A-3. The wastewater collected in the service
area would be pumped to the treatment and disposal
site through a force main along Smiths Lane and through
the industrial park (Figure V-6).
Site B-2.
The great depth of soil
at this site would provide
a high level of treatment.
The treatment facilities proposed for use at Site
B-2 are very similar to those proposed for Site A-3.
Again, facultative/aerobic lagoons would be employed
to break down the pollutants in the wastewater. The
effluent would ultimately be allowed to infiltrate
into the ground at the disposal site (see Figures V-7
and V-8). Test wells drilled at the proposed site
indicate that about 25 to 30 feet of unsaturated soil
lies between the ground surface and the water table.
Trickling downward through this great depth of soil
would provide a high level of treatment for the efflu-
ent.
-------
•?«•-, •-- «c.-.?V, / «i. ifeSSF VSS-^'iJ
-..-,. -...: s^SCv7 %^^-5SB
Once it reached the water table, the effluent
would mix with the natural groundwater, and eventually
emerge in a very diluted form in Second Brook, Third
Brook, and ultimately the Jones River. Analysis of
soil and groundwater conditions beneath the site
suggests that it would take approximately 4 years for
effluent to travel from the site to Second Brook, the
closest water course. This long travel time would
ensure the destruction of any disease-causing organ-
isms which might survive treatment in the aerobic
lagoons (See Appendix B).
The highly treated efflu-
ent would travel, with
the groundwater to Second
and Third Brooks.
Y-17
-------
Land 1s available at this
site to provide a buffer.
The great depth of unsaturated soil beneath the
site provides such a high level of treatment for the
wastewater that it can be retained in the lagoons and
undergo treatment for a shorter period of time at this
site than and at Site A-3 (10 days instead of 22 accord-
ing to the Town's engineers). As a result, the lagoons
may be smaller and may cost less to contruct than the
lagoons which would be needed at Site A-3.
To isolate this treatment plant site from poten-
tial future development in the area, a strip of wood-
land about 150 feet wide would be left as a buffer
around the treatment plant site (see Figure V-8).
Since the wastewater and septage entering the plant
would be septic (containing no oxygen), it could
potentially produce odors. Odor control facilities
will therefore be provided. These need not be as
elaborate as those needed for Site A-3, since Site B-2
is more isolated with greater available buffer area.
-------
Impacts
Wastewater disposal at Site B-2 will preclude the
use of groundwater downgradient from the site for water
supply (drinking water). This is not considered a
significant impact for several reasons. First,
drilling explorations in the area conducted by Whitman
& Howard (the Town's engineers) and CE Maguire found
no water bearing strata (layers of coarse sand or
gravel) suitable for tapping as a municipal water
supply. Second, the long term quality of the ground-
water in this particular area is questionable because
of the close proximity of Kingston's landfill, its
septage disposal pits, and a site where hazardous
waste was once illegally dumped. Even if these sources
of contamination were eliminated today, it would take
years before the polluted groundwater beneath these
sites would flow away from the area. Third, the area
of groundwater affected is relatively small, repre-
senting only an insignificant percentage of Kingston's
potential groundwater resources.
Groundwater downgradient
of the site would be
affected by this alterna-
tive.
This groundwater 1s prob-
ably already affected by
the landfill, septage pits,
and a hazardous waste
dump.
-------
No other significant effects
are expected; and there 1s
generally lower environmental
risk at site B-2.
Although the quality of groundwater directly down
gradient of the site may be degraded below drinking
water standards, the groundwater emerging in the
receiving waters (Second Brook, Third Brook, and the
Jones River), will be so diluted, as noted previously,
that no significant impact on stream water quality or
plant life is anticipated. For the same reasons,
there will be no impact on water quality or the recrea-
tion potential of the Jones River.
One advantage of land disposal at Site B-2 over
that of Site A-3 is the lower environmental risk
involved. Because of the long time it will take the
wastewater to travel from the site to the receiving
waters, monitoring wells could be used to detect any
significant degrading of groundwater quality long
before groundwater emerges in surface waters. This
would allow a good deal of time for the town to res-
pond to any such problems.
-------
Impacts on the surrounding neighborhood are
relatively few since the site is very isolated. The
use of this land as a wastewater disposal site is in
harmony with surrounding land uses such as the town
landfill, the industrial park, and a nearby sand pit.
The closest existing residence is more than 2,000 feet
from the site, as is the Kingston Elementary School.
At this distance, the homes and the Elementary School
will be far enough away that sewage odors will be
undetectable if the plant is maintained and operated
properly (Figure V-9). Likewise any odor impacts
would be minimized in the event that unforeseen cir-
cumstances should adversely affect plant operations.
Use of site B-2 is 1n
harmony with surrounding
land uses.
fwn Site E>-2
•*->
2COO
3T-2I
-------
Construction impacts would
be minimal, as would im-
pacts to traffic.
During construction, truck traffic to the site
need not pass through any abutting residential neigh-
borhoods. During day-to-day operation of the plant,
septage pumping trucks would be traveling to the
disposal location over the same roads they now use
when disposing wastes at Kingston's septage pits.
Costs
Kingston's share of the
$5.4 million cost would be
$320,000.
The total cost of the sewer system for the Rocky
Nook area, connected to a treatment plant at Site B-2,
is about $5.4 million (1983 dollars). This alterna-
tive also qualifies for a higher level of Federal and
State funding so that Kingston's share of the cost
would be about $320,000 in today's dollars.
-------
If Kingston recovered this cost through the
general property tax, a property owner with a $47,000
assessment would pay an additional $18 per year in
taxes over the 20 year bond retirement period. If
Kingston's share of the capital cost were recovered by
charges to the owners of property served by the sewer
system, the total "betterment charge" to the property
owner would be about$255 at today's prices. If a
homeowner chose to pay this betterment charge through
a short-term bank loan, his annual loan payments for
the first five years would be about $75, assuming the
loan is repaid over 5 years at 14% interest.
Homes connected to this sewer system would pay an
annual "user charge" of about $90 per year for use of
this system, once all other users were hooked up. In
the first years following construction, there is a
likelihood that fewer homes would be connected, and
therefore fewer sewer users available to share the
cost of plant operation and maintenance. Assuming
only 50% of the homes and businesses in the service
area are tied in, the annual charge would be about
$135 (1983 prices).
A homeowner would bear the greatest cost burden
during the year he connects to the sewer system. In
that year, costs would include approximately $400 to hook
up to the sewer (a one-time cost), about $90 to $135
for the annual user charge, and about $75 in loan
payments associated with the sewer betterment charge;
thus the total cost to a homeowner could be as high as
$625 in that one year. Thereafter, annual sewer costs
would typically be less than $200 at today's prices.
Costs to homeowners would
depend on the financing
method used by the town.
Annual user charges would
be about $90, but may be
as high as $135 early on.
1-23
-------
Kingston Center has dis-
posal problems due to a
high watertable.
A community-owned septic
system and leaching fac-
ility was found to be
most cost effective.
D. Kingston Center: Two Sites Considered
Along Summer Street, near the railroad station,
the land surface is so close to the groundwater that
proper wastewater disposal on site is impossible.
Since transmitting collected wastewater from Kingston
Center to a centralized system also serving the Rocky
Nook area was found to be too expensive, nearby unde-
veloped properties were evaluated for use as sites for
a neighborhood system. This would be a community-
owned septic system and leaching facility sized to
serve just the Summer Street problem area.
Stony Brook flows under
Route 3A at Kingston
Center.
-------
Two Sites Under Consideration
The two sites currently under consideration are
shown in Figure V-10. The cost for treatment facili-
ties at either site is roughly the same, despite the
fact that Site C-2 (the ball field site) is farther
away from the service area. Although it would be more
costly to pump to Site C-2, this site is owned by the
Town already, whereas Site C-l would have to be
purchased, possibly through eminent domain. The
greater cost of pumping to Site C-2 is offset by the
acquisition cost of Site C-l.
Two disposal alternatives
are being considered for
the problems along Simmer
Street in Kingston Center.
-------
Either alternative will
result 1n a substantial
Improvement 1n Stony Brook,
and in minimal Impacts.
The type of treatment system proposed for either
site is very similar to the septic systems presently
used throughout Kingston. As shown in Figure V-ll
such a system (here shown at the ball field site)
would be entirely underground, preventing any odors
from escaping and preserving the visual quality and
recreational use of the site.
-------
Site C-l.
The use of septic tank effluent pumps (STEP) is
recommended as part of the wastewater collection
system for the Summer Street problem area. The use of
the STEP system would minimize traffic disruption,
'during construction, since it can be installed in
shallower trenches than conventional gravity sewers.
Whichever disposal site is chosen, individual
septic tank effluent pumps would be connected with
existing or new septic tanks on each of the commercial
properties and the four or five residential properties
in the problem area on Summer Street. These individual
pumps would convey the wastewater to the disposal
site. There the wastewater would flow into a septic
tank or dosing chamber, and then to an underground
leaching field. If detailed site analysis reveals a
high water table at the site, the leaching facility
would have to be raised at most 6 feet above the
existing ground surface. Such a system is called a
"mound system" and is presently in use in many states
where high groundwater is a problem. (Mounds were
considered for individual systems also but proved
impracticable because of the small lot sizes in the
area.)
The final recommendation as to which site should
be used as a wastewater disposal facility will be
based on the following considerations: surrounding
land uses, the depth to water table, and the prefer-
ences of the people of Kingston.
Both alternatives would
use STEP systems and local
subsurface disposal.
\
-------
This section critically E. Summary Comparison of Alternatives: Rocky Nook
compares alternatives. and Kingston CJnTe7
The final alternatives presented share many
attributes in terms of design and impacts. There are,
however, certain key differences between them. The
following discussion focuses on these differences.
Implementability
The alternative of pumping Kingston's wastewater
to treatment facilities in Plymouth is not considered
One alternative, the Ply- implementable. In 1976 and again in 1982, the Plymouth
S^MmSSSlS: ^ Board of Selectmen rejected Kingston's overtures
towards a "regional" sewer system with the following
statement:
"The central goal for the Town of Plymouth
is to develop a sewerage system with the
capacity to serve the present and future
needs of the entire Town of Plymouth. It
is the position of the Board of Selectmen
that it would not approve the sharing of a
facility with Kingston or another community
unless the facility was already designed
to serve the needs of all of Plymouth for
the future."
-Roger E. Silva, Chairman,
Plymouth Board of Selectmen
Letter to Kingston, November 9,
1982.
Although Plymouth is now planning to expand its
present sewer system to serve its needs, it is un-
likely the Town will expand its system to serve the
"... future needs of the entire Town ..." since
this expansion would not be eligible for State or
Federal funding assistance. It is, therefore, most
unlikely that Plymouth would accept additional waste-
water from Kingston in the near future.
All alternatives which include treatment and dis-
Both of the in-Kingston posal within Kingston are legally implementable by the
alternatives appear to Town. Politically, however, the alternatives which
be implementable. would use Sites A-3 and C-l have been opposed by some
-------
Kingston residents because these sites are in sub-
stantially developed neighborhoods (see Neighborhood
Issues below).
Affordability
The alternative of pumping Kingston's wastewater
to Plymouth would be so costly to the Town of Kingston
(about $3 million or more) that significant financial
hardship might result from its implementation. Al-
though the total construction cost of the Plymouth
alternative is comparable to the other alternatives
considered (all cost between $4.8 and $5.4 million
in current dollars), the local share of costs to
Kingston would be much greater because the Plymouth
alternative is not eligible for increased Federal and
State funding. The Massachusetts Department of Environ-
mental Quality Engineering determined that the STEP
sewer system was not eligible for increased funding as
an "innovative or alternative" technology if it was
not connected to an "innovative or alternative" treat-
ment and disposal system. Since the Plymouth alterna-
tive is neither innovative nor alternative, the STEP
system portion of that option was likewise not eligi-
ble for any increased level of funding. This accounts
for much of the difference in the local share of costs
under the different alternatives and weighs heavily in
the adverse impacts of that option in terms of its
affordability.
The annual cost to homeowners in the proposed
service area would be at least twice as much for the
Plymouth alternative compared with facilities at
either Site A-3 or B-2 in Kingston. The total prop-
erty betterment fee alone would cost homeowners about
8 times as much for the Plymouth alternative compared
to others (see Table V-l).
The proposed Rocky Nook sewer service area con-
tains an above-average concentration of low income,
elderly, and retired households as determined by the
socioeconomic survey presented in the next section of
this report. If the Town of Kingston implemented a
costly sewer alternative, these households in particular
would be faced with the greater financial burden and
likely hardship of paying their share of these costs,
or they might be forced into selling their property
and moving to less costly housing.
The Plymouth alternative
also appears unaffordable.
It would cost homeowners
at least twice as much as
any other alternative.
-------
The remaining alternatives with treatment facili-
ties in Kingston are all low enough in their local
share of costs that general financial affordability is
expected. If any instances of financial hardship
result, for example in the case of fixed income or
elderly residents, the town may, in the tradition of
New England government, find suitable methods on a
case-by-case basis for mitigating this impact with tax
abatements, forbearance on pressing fee collection or
whatever other means the town has available. The dis-
cussion of mitigation measures in Section VII addresses
this question further.
Sites C-l and A-3 are more
likely to affect residences
than sites C-2 and B-2.
Neighborhood Issues
Two sites currently under consideration for
wastewater treatment and disposal are in developed
residential neighborhoods. These are Sites C-l and A-
3, in the Kingston Center and Rocky Nook areas respec-
tively .
Site C-l is one of two alternative sites being
considered for the Kingston Center service area. It
is located in a resident's yard and would be near to
homes and businesses (within 100 to 200 feet away).
Although the system proposed for Site C-l would be
entirely underground, Kingston residents have raised
concerns about the effects of possible system failure
on the neighborhood as well as the impacts during con-
struction. There has also been concern over the
equity of taking a portion of a homeowner's yard for
neighborhood sewage disposal when Town-owned property
(at Site C-2) is available nearby.
Site A-3 is one of two sites in Kingston being
considered for the treatment and disposal of waste-
water from the Rocky Nook service area, as well -as
septage from all of Kingston. The site is only 300
feet from surrounding homes. Although proper manage-
ment and maintenance should minimize odor problems,
odors will be detectable at nearby residences since
the facility at A-3 would employ lagoon treatment and
would be receiving and treating septage as well. Un-
foreseen circumstances may at times increase the
likelihood that odor impacts would result. Also,
-------
septage truck traffic would have to travel over resi-
dential streets in the neighborhood to get to the
plant. Other adverse neighborhood impacts at this
site would include: noise, construction traffic, and
dust during construction, and a very limited amount of
buffer space available between the facility and nearby
homes.
Site C-2.
In comparison, Site B-2 is in a remote area of
the town. The closest residence is over 2,000 feet
away. A considerable amount of buffer space is avail-
able at this site to protect future development and
most adverse impacts associated with the construction
and operation phases would be mitigated.
Environmental Risk
The analysis of wastewater disposal from Site A-
3 presented in Appendix C has forecast no significant
impacts on estuarine plant or animal communities.
However, this forecast assumes the sewer system will
be maintained and managed properly. Water quality
problems could arise from disposal at A-3 if treatment
plant maintenance were underfunded, the sewer system
was expanded, or septage from other towns was accepted.
-------
Site A-3 is environmentally
more sensitive than B-2 due
to its proximity to the
Jones River estuary.
Since there is no room for expanding the treatment
facility being considered for Site A-3, higher waste
loads at the plant could pose a real threat to the
estuary. Also, being directly adjacent to the marsh
limits the amount of time the Town would have to res-
pond to any problems at the plant. Together these
considerations constitute a greater possible environ-
mental risk associated with disposal at Site A-3.
In contrast, there would be less environmental
risk associated with disposal at Site B-2 in Kingston
because it is in an undeveloped area relatively far
from surface waters.
Cost
Use of site B-2 would cost
about 11% more than use
of site A-3.
As shown in Table V-l, the total project cost
(exclusive of any Federal or State funding) of dis-
posal facilities at Site B-2 is almost $550,000 more
than the least cost alternative, facilities at Site A-
3. This represents an 11% difference in total cost.
The capital cost to the Town of Kingston for its share
of this total project cost is estimated to be $33,000
greater for the B-2 alternative, compared with A-3.
However, the cost difference to homeowners would be
slight due to the repayment terms over the 20-year
bond period (see Table V-l). By contrast, the Plymouth
alternative, while comparable in terms of total pro-
ject cost, would cost the town $2.3 million compared
with the $290,000 to $320,000 for a site in Kingston.
The Kingston Citizen Advisory Committee has voted
for facilities at Site B-2 despite the slightly higher
project cost. This preference is also reflected in
responses to the questionnaire included in the last
study newsletter. Generally, the local sentiment is
that the lesser environmental risk and neighborhood
impact associated with Site B-2 is worth the somewhat
higher cost compared with Site A-3. Also, the actual
-------
total project cost difference between A-3 and B-2
before funding would be less than the $550,000 cited
since Site A-3 would require some additional Phase II
archeologic work (which could be expensive because of
wet site conditions) while Site B-2 would require no
such further work (see Appendix E).
For the Kingston Center options, both sites (C-l
and C-2) would have similar total costs of approxi-
mately $300,000 (1983 dollars). The total local share
of these costs would be $18,000.
1-33
-------
tte ftaiky Mock
TOTAL COSTS:
1983 DOLLARS
Total Cost
Federal Share
State Share
Kingston's Share
Plymouth
$4,885,000
$ 944,000
$1,599,000
$2,341,000
Site A-3
$4,819,000
$4,096,000
$ 434,000
$ 249,000
Site B-2
$5,364,000
$4,559,000
$ 482,752
$ 322,000
No Action
Alternative
In the short run, costs limited to
town s ongoing maintenance of
septnge pits and some Health
Department activities; in long run.
if faced with stale enforcement
at I ion or court -Tiler, costs of
compliance would probably be
higher than those presented at
right.
COST TO
TAXPAYERS, 1983
Plymouth
Site A-3
Site B-2
No Action
Alternative
Additional tax
on $47,000
property
assessment,
over 20 year
bond
retirement
period
100% on taxes
(0% on betterments)
50% on taxes
(50% on betterments)
0% on taxes
(100% on betterments)
$131 per year
$66 per year
$0
$16 per year
$8 per year
$0
$18 per year
$9 per year
$0
Taxes for ongoing town maintenance
of seplage pits and some Health
Department activities; possibility
tmes for compliance with state
enforcement action
COST TO HOMEOWNERS
IN SEWER SERVICE
AREA, 1983
Plymouth
Site A-3
Site B-2
No Action
Alternative
Total
betterment
charge and
additional tax
on $47,000
assessment
(tax as
figured above)
SEWER
USER
CHARGE
100% on betterments
(0% on taxes)
50% on betterments
(50% on taxes)
0% on betterments
(100% on taxes)
with 100% or potential
users hooked up
with 50% of potential
users hooked up
TOTAL ANNUAL COST
WORST YEAR
$1,899 betterment
($360 1st year with town loan)
$949 betterment
(t $66 tax per year)
$0 betterment
(+ $131 tax per year}
$49
slightly more than above
$409
+ $400 one-time
hookup fee
$ 235 betterment
( $45 1st year with town loan)
$117 betterment
(+ $8 tax per year)
$0 betterment
(•«• $16 tax per year)
$90
$134
$179
+ $400 one-time
hookup fee
$ 261 betterment
$130 betterment
(+ $9 tax per year)
$0 betterment
(+ $18 tax per year)
$90
$134
S184
-*• $400 one-time
hookup fee
In addition to tax costs stated
iihnve, service area homeowners
disposal, ranging from about $50
lor a cesspool pumpout. to $3,900
lor rehabilitation of on-site system
(where legal), or lo the entire value
of home and lot where on-site
rehabilitation is illegal, and con-
demnation therefore a possibility.
-------
ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL
EFFECTS
ON WATER QUALITY:
Public Health,
Swimming, and Shellfishing
Plant/ Animal Communities
Plymouth
improved water quality, safer
swimming ;md hauling, possi-
hilil> of opening more areas
for shcllfishing
no significant impact
Site A-3
improved water quality, safer
swimming ;md boating, possi-
bility i»f opening more areas
Tor shellfishing
no significant impact
Site B-2
improved water quality, safer
swimming and boating, possi-
bility of opening more areas
for sh el 1 fish ing
no significant impact
No Action
Alternative
deteriorated water quality, increasing
health threat associated with swim-
ming, boating and sheltfjshing
no significant impact
ON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT:
New Homes in Service Area
Conversion of Summer Homes
To Year-Round Use
allows new home construction
on many vacant lots
accelerates present trend in
Rocky Nook
allows new home construction
on many vacant lols
accelerates present trend in
Rocky Nook
allows new home construction
on many vacant lots
accelerates present trend in
Rocky Nook
new home development limited
by inability to provide on-sile
sewage disposal
conversions proceed at current
pace
ON PROPERTY:
Property Taxes
Property Value
Cost of Ownership
possibility of higher taxes to pay
for sewers (see above), other-
wise some slight increase due
to school population from resi-
dential growth in service area
increased property values in
service area (substantial increase
for lots which became develop-
able with sewer service)
cost me reuse potentially high,
could cause financial hardship
possibility of higher lanes to pay
for sewers (see above), other-
wise some slight increase due
to school population from resi-
dential growth in service area
increased properly values in
service area (substantial increase
for lots which became develop-
able with sewer service)
cost increase moderate
possibility of higher taxes to pay
for sewers (see above), other-
wise some .slight increase due
to school population from resi-
dential growth in service area
increased properly values in
service area (substantial increase
for lots which became develop-
able with sewer service)
cost increase moderate
depends on luiure growth charac-
teristics (school age population.
commercial and industrial develop-
ment, etc ). possibility of higher
lanes to pay for compliance with
Stale enforcement action.
in core problem areas of Rocky
Nook, property values will continue
to he depressed
in core problem areas, costs for
on-site sewage disposal will likely
increase (see above under Cost to
Homeowners. )
•All costs in 1983 dollars (END cost index - 4002) : tc convert to 1986 dollars
(when construction would take place) multiply 1983 dollars by 1.25 (projected
ENR index for 1986 - 5OOO). All costs approximate. Source Whitman £ Howard,
Inc. Jan. 1983.
Y-l
\
^i
at
-------
0
Rocky Nook Service Area Alternatives
VI-1
1. Impacts of No Action
2. Impacts Common to All Sewer Alternatives
a. Water Quality
b. Residential Impacts
c. Traffic and Access
d. Construction
e. Financial
Kingston Center Service Area Alternatives
VI-28
1. Impacts of No Action
2. Impacts Common to All Sewer Alternatives
HBMCNMMUVXB
-------
VI. IMPACTS: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES AND THE
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
A. Rocky Nook Service Area Alternatives
1. Impacts of No Action
Water Quality
Should no action be taken to improve wastewater
disposal practices in the problem areas of Rocky Nook,
overflows of on-site disposal systems will continue to
occur. Untreated wastewater from these periodic
overflows will continue, and make its way into adja-
cent ditches and storm drains which discharge into
Kingston Bay. When and where these occur, there is
the threat of disease-causing organisms infecting
users of water-based recreation areas such as the
Jones River and beaches of Rocky Nook. No action will
mean that the water in Kingston Bay along the shores
of Rocky Nook will occasionally be contaminated with
bacteria from human wastes.
Residential Development
As a result of no action, homes in the problem
areas will continue to be unable to meet the basic
requirements of the State Environmental Code. As a
result, should an on-site disposal system be in need
of rehabilitation, the Kingston Board of Health may
not be able to grant a permit to rebuild the system.
The home may then have to be condemned. In addition,
should no action be taken to correct current waste-
water disposal practices, State enforcement action or
a court order may force the town to comply. Presently
vacant lots in the problem areas will be unbuildable
due to the inability of the homes to comply with the
health code.
The no-action alternative
is likely to lead to
continued fecal contamin-
ation of coastal waters..
and neighborhood deterioration.
•a-
-------
Conversion of homes on Rocky Nook from seasonal
to year-round use will likely continue and will
increase the frequency of the current waste system
overflows. This will result in an increased threat to
public health to Kingston beaches, boating areas, and
shellfish beds.
Loss of revenues, and de-
clines in property values
will also result from no
action.
Financial Impacts
If no action is taken to alleviate the existing
public health threats on Rocky Nook, the economic
repercussions may be significant to the entire town.
Being on the coast and offering fine recreational and
community resources, people have come to Kingston to
enjoy recreational opportunities and the quality of
life there. These resources do contribute a signifi-
cant portion of the market value of many properties in
Kingston, and also result in secondary economic bene-
fits from the local spending patterns of residents and
visitors alike.
Should deterioration of these coastal resources
occur as a consequence of no action, market values of
many properties throughout the town may be depressed,
while vacant lots, particularly in the problem areas,
would remain undevelopable. Should this occur, it
could result in a relative loss in tax revenues to the
town. Less money would also be spent at local busi-
nesses, restaurants, and other attractions in Kingston.
-------
In addition, some town expenditures could increase
if the town takes no action. First, State health
officials have indicated the existence of a relatively
minor issue regarding the Town's septage disposal
facilities as originally approved by the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE)
and the design actually built. The resolution of this
minor discrepancy would be of relatively small cost to
the Town, however, such cost would be eliminated
through the design of an up-to-date new facility as
proposed.
Second, should the State take action at some
future time to force compliance of the homes in the
problem area with the Health Code, the cost to the
town would likely be higher in the future. The cost
of building sewer facilities in Kingston will probably
never be lower than at present, both in terms of the
funding available and in terms of inflation. The
relatively low cost (about $300,000) to Kingston for
facilities at Site A-3 or Site B-2 is due to the high
Federal and State funding levels presently available
for those alternatives. The Federal funding level for
these facilities will fall from 75 percent to 55
percent after October, 1984 with the State portion not
expected to increase sufficiently to compensate. Thus
the Town would bear the added costs. Also, as treat-
ment technology advances, it becomes less likely that
STEP sewers will remain eligible for comparatively
higher funding levels as "innovative/alternative"
technology.
Changes in the Clean Water
Act will greatly increase
local share of cost in the
near future.
These factors would combine in the future to make
the local share of sewer facility construction costs
significantly higher.
In all, these changes could increase sewer costs
to Kingston by several million dollars. If Kingston
does not choose to begin design and construction of
sewer facilities now, the cost burden on Kingston and
upon individual users could be severe.
Health enforcement, without
funding assistance would be
an economic burden for some
homeowners.
3-3
-------
All alternatives share some
common aspects and impacts.
All will result in a net
improvement of water qual-
ity in Kingston.
Growth will be stimulated
by availability of sewers.
Sewers will improve property
values but will also increase
costs of living.
2. Impacts Common to All Sewer Alternatives^
All of the sewer alternatives under consideration
will alleviate existing problems of sewage overflows
and bacterial contamination of recreational waters in
the problem areas. The provision of sewer service and
the costs associated with sewers will have other
important impacts on the neighborhoods served, and on
the town as a whole. Providing sewer service in the
areas proposed will have a range of effects as high-
lighted and discussed later in this section.
Water Quality
Increase the value of recreation areas by reduc-
ing the public health threat from water contact.
Cause little or no significant change in water
quality, animal, or plant communities at waste-
water disposal sites.
Residential Development
Provide for the continued use of homes whose on-
site systems will require rehabilitation but
which cannot meet current health code standards.
Allow new construction of homes on vacant lots
which could not be developed without sewers.
Accelerate the conversion of summer houses to
year-round use.
Financial Impacts
Increase local property taxes.
Increase the value of properties which can be
served by sewers while reducing factors which
could potentially undermine property market-
ability and value.
VI-4
-------
Increase the cost of home ownership within the
sewer service area for those connected to the
sewer.
Construction Impacts
Interfere with normal traffic flow, generate dust
and noise while sewers and septage treatment
facilities are installed.
Cause some temporary disruption to individual
lots and possible permanent removal of fences,
trees, shrubs, and patios in the sewered areas.
a. Water Quality
Public Health and Recreation
The installation of sewers in the proposed ser-
vice area will alleviate the public health threat
posed by the current contamination of Kingston's
beaches, boating areas, and shellfish beds resulting
from discharge of inadequately treated wastewater in
the problem areas. As homes and businesses in the
worst problem areas hook up to the sewer, their con-
tribution to health-threatening contamination of
public swimming areas and water bodies is eliminated.
The extent to which installation of sewers will
improve recreational resources depends on the magni-
tude of the local sources of contamination relative to
other sources outside the town.
Building sewers will cause
temporary disruption.
Installing sewers will
reduce health threats.
-------
Installing sewers will
not, alone, assure clean
water in Kingston Bay.
For example, since pollution from failing on-site
systems in Rocky Nook is the major source of contami-
nants at Rocky Nook beaches, removing this source
would cause a substantial improvement in the safety of
swimming at these beaches. On the other hand, since
the water in Kingston Bay may occasionally be polluted
with human wastes from sources outside of Kingston,
the provision of sewer service to the problem area
will not necessarily ensure that Kingston Bay waters
will be without further incidents of pollution.
Reducing the health threat at Kingston's beaches
and boating areas can have significant economic
benefits as well as a direct recreational benefit to
Kingston residents. Many people have settled in
Kingston because of its coastal resources offering
beautiful beaches, protected swimming and boating
waters, excellent fishing (and shellfishing when
permitted), and scenic vistas along the shore. These
coastal resources represent a significant portion of
Clean water enhances the
value of property and,
indirectly, local business.
the market value of many properties in Kingston, as
well as the attraction for seasonal residents and
visitors. As such, these coastal resources contribute
tax revenues, encourage future growth in the town, and
contribute to the success of many local businesses.
-------
Biologic Impacts of Wastewater Disposal
Wastewater disposal through any of the three
alternatives under consideration, is expected to have
no significant impact on plant or animal populations
which live in or depend on the waters affected by
wastewater disposal. For the in-Kingston solutions,
this conclusion is based on the high degree of treat-
ment and dilution that wastewater would undergo
before emerging in the Jones River or its tributaries.
For the Plymouth alternative, this conclusion is based
on Kingston's flow being such a small portion (about
4 percent) of the total wastewater flow which would be
treated and disposed of to Plymouth Harbor.
Since Plymouth's own sewer study is still under-
way, it is impossible at present to evaluate the net
environmental impact of a future wastewater discharge
to Plymouth Harbor. Until the environmental impacts
of Plymouth's wastewater discharge are evaluated as
part of Plymouth's sewer study, it is reasonable to
assume that the environmental impacts of the Plymouth
discharge would not be signficantly different with or
without Kingston's additional small flow.
Improper waste disposal may impair water quality
in ways that disrupt local plant and animal communi-
ties . However, local plant and animal communities in
and around Kingston do not appear to be significantly
influenced by the current wastewater disposal prac-
tices, nor are they likely to be significantly influ-
enced by the implementation of improved disposal
alternatives under consideration.
None of the disposal al-
ternatives is expected to
adversely affect plant
and animal communities.
Other than bacterial con-
tamination, existing septic
systems are resulting in no
adverse biological impacts.
Chemical analysis of waters throughout Kingston
has found plant nutrient levels sufficient to cause
the lush growth of plants which is found in many of
Kingston's ponds and streams. Of particular interest
is the occurrence of high levels of both phosphorous
and nitrogen compounds (two key elements in plant
fertilizers) in water essentially isolated from human
influence.
-------
Kingston's waters are na-
turally rich in nutrients.
For example, groundwaters tested at ten locations
(see Figure VI-1) by Whitman & Howard (including three
municipal wells) contained concentrations of phosphate
sufficient to cause algal blooms in ponds. (Drinking
water with high concentrations of phosphorous poses no
threat to human health.) At least two of these samples
came from groundwaters in undeveloped woodlands out-
side man's influence.
-------
Waters draining from swamps and marsh lands were
also found to be high in plant nutrients. This is to
be expected since wetlands are highly productive
ecosystems which often produce a surplus of organic
matter. As organic matter decomposes, nutrients such
as phosphorous and nitrogen are released to the sur-
rounding environment. This is an essential step in
natural nutrient recycling.
It appears that the amount of plant nutrients
originating from natural biologic and geologic sources
in Kingston's waters is so great that current waste-
water disposal practices do not make a significant
difference in the size or diversity of plant and
animal communities in Kingston. This relationship
would not be altered by the proposed sewer system and
treatment alternatives considered.
Septic system nutrients are
an insignificant increment.
b. Residential Development and Resident Makeup
Providing sewers to Rocky Nook will have signifi-
cant economic impacts, both positive and negative, on
this neighborhood. Beneficial economic impacts include
increased property values, especially for those prop-
erties which are presently undevelopable, seasonal, or
afflicted with severe on-site wastewater disposal
problems, and associated increased tax revenues to the
town. Sustaining the Town's attractiveness as a
residential and recreational area would also be a
beneficial result of providing sewers in terms of
direct and indirect economic benefits.
Sewers will have both pos-
itive and negative economic
effects.
Adverse economic impacts include increased
property taxes to residents whose property values
increase and possibly town wide, along with the
levying of sewer betterment charges and sewer user
charges in the areas to be served. New development,
and the accelerated conversion of seasonal homes to
year-round use is expected to have a secondary, posi-
tive economic impact of upgrading the neighborhood's
appearance and value while also increasing directly
the tax revenues of the town.
Since the Rocky Nook area has a number of fixed
and low income households, including an above average
number of elderly and retired persons, the analysis of
the effects of providing sewer service examined, in
particular, the potential for significant adverse
financial impacts leading to possible economic hard-
ship. Because of the relatively small size of the
proposed sewer service area, it was possible to examine
in a more detailed way the socioeconomic characteris-
tics of a large portion of the sewer service area.
A detailed socioeconomic
survey was conducted for
the proposed sewer service
area.
-------
The area selected for more detailed examination
includes all the properties north of East Avenue on
Rocky Nook (Figures VI-2 and VI-3). This area includes
over half of the population which would be served by
sewers. It encompasses the worst wastewater disposal
problem areas and the most congested neighborhoods.
Generally, this encompasses the area where the antici-
pated socioeconomic impacts, both positive and nega-
tive, are expected to be most pronounced.
kv Nook Point
-------
Show
Drive
E.-//
-------
The object of this socioeconomic survey was to
determine the following information about the Rocky
Nook service area:
Vacant lots
how many presently undevelop-
able lots will become develop-
able if sewers are installed?
where are these lots located?
Housing
(seasonal &
year-round)
Elderly and/
or retired
year-round
residents
where are the seasonal dwell-
ings located?
how many are there?
what is their assessed prop-
erty value?
how many are susceptible to
turnover and redevelopment
with sewers?
where do they live?
what is assessed value of
the houses they live in?
The method used to derive this information is
shown in the following flow chart (Figure VI-4).
-------
Sources used:
Assessor's Maps of Rocky Nook
Persons Listed Book
Assessment Books
Look up a particular street addres
in the Assessor's Book.
\f
Locate the lot on
the Assessor's Map.
lf ownership extends over more than one lot,
draw a thick line around the lots in contiguous
ownership.
Does the lot have an assessed building value
(in Assessor's Book)?
Yes
\s
Write the assessed building value
and street address on the map.
Lot is vacant .
Is the owner's name in Assessor's Book found
in the alphabetical section of Persons Listed
by the Board of Registrars?
Does the owner live at the address
in question?
Yes
!Person(s) is a Kingston
resident and lives there
(at that house) year- round,
Person(s) is a Kingston resident but
ownsbuildlng as an investment.
ps
I "BJ
M-
^
I
Is thera a person (s) listed in the
"By Street" section of "Persons
Listed"?
House is year-round and a
rental.
I I
House is seasonal and
not vear-round.
Go to next street address on
Assessor's List.
J L
-------
Half of the houses on
Rocky Nook are year-
round and half are
seasonal.
Almost half of the year-
round occupants are
either elderly residents
or renters.
Socioeconomic Survey Results
The results of this investigation are summarized
below showing the numbers of homes, characteristics of
the residents, and development scenarios that may
result. Information is based on Town of Kingston
records and neighborhood reconnaissance.
Developed Lots
Total number of houses: 408
219 are seasonal houses, and
189 are occupied year-round.
Of the 189 year-round houses:
42 (22%) are occupied by elderly and/or
retired persons; and
42 (22%) are occupied by renters.
Mean assessed house values*:
Mean housing values range
from $14,000 to $22,000.
year-round housing $22,400
seasonal housing $14,800
year-round housing occupied by
elderly $20,350
year-round housing occupied by
renters $18,600
*These figures are from local assessed valuations
data and probably do not reflect actual current
sales figures which would be expected to be higher.
Undeveloped lots currently
number 83.
Of a maximum total of
113 undeveloped lots,..
Undeveloped Lots
Current total:
83
Maximum with further subdivision of large parcels
to 20,000 square feet: 113
Developable if sewers are available:
...upwards of 74 might
be developed if sewers
are provided.
at less than 20,000
square feet per lot: 45
at 20,000 square feet
or more per lot: 29
Probably undevelopable, even
with sewer service,
because of wetlands
restrictions: 39
-------
Development on Vacant Lots
The socioeconomic survey of an area within the
Rocky Nook sewer area showed that there are about 45
vacant lots under 20,000 square feet in area which
might be "grandfathered" under previous zoning regula-
tions, and thus might be buildable lots. Since con-
struction on these very small lots may require vari-
ances from local boards (Zoning Board of Appeals,
Conservation Commission), the town may exercise some
control over their development. Also, with the sub-
division of certain large parcels of land in the study
area to the current zoning of 20,000 square feet per
lot, about 29 additional lots might be developed.
Again, Kingston's subdivision regulations might limit
this development.
Proposed zoning and sub-
division regulations are
a means to control growth.
Currently, many house lots have remained unde-
veloped because on-site environmental conditions
and/or small lot size have prevented their owners from
being able to comply with Massachusetts' and Kingston's
Health Codes for septic systems.
The installation of sewers will eliminate these
wastewater disposal restrictions and allow new homes
to be built. The new sewer system will also combine
with independent development pressures in general to
make these lots attractive for development. This new
development is expected to take two forms: provision
Sewers will encourage
development of currently
vacant lots.
21-15
-------
Future development may be
accelerated without care-
ful growth management.
of sewers will put pressure for development on those
vacant lots that lie within the sewer service area but
have not yet been subdivided nor provided with streets;
in addition, houses will be built on vacant lots adja-
cent to existing streets receiving sewers.
The socioeconomic survey showed that sewers will
probably result initially in a slight increase in
housing density (and population) due to limited develop-
ment only on immediately buildable vacant lots which
are scattered throughout Rocky Nook. Outside of the
study area, zoning regulations will for the most part
prevent the kind of building density that occurs on
Rocky Nook.
The detailed survey also suggested that the rate
of development on vacant lots may increase in the
future. If development pressures do accelerate and if
proposed zoning regulations are not adequate to curtail
widespread development at the higher densities, the
impacts resulting from the increased housing and resi-
dential concentrations may prove to be a problem, par-
ticularly regarding traffic and access in some neigh-
borhoods, as discussed below.
Conversion of seasonal
homes to year round use
will likely accelerate.
Conversion of Summer Homes to Year-Round Use
Construction of proposed sewers will probably
accelerate the conversion of homes on Rocky Nook from
seasonal to year-round use. Increased pressure to
convert will result from:
1. removal of existing limitations on wastewater
disposal on site, as posed by inadequate septic
systems and the inability to rehabilitate accord-
ing to the State Code; and
2. increased property values, which would be further
enhanced by conversion of summer homes to year-
round dwelling, will increase the cost of prop-
erty ownership in the area possibly leading to
changes in ownership and heightened conversion.
As the costs of building, operating and maintain-
ing the sewer system and disposal facilities are
passed on to the users, many property owners (espe-
cially those who own small seasonal houses of low
assessed value) may choose not to absorb the higher
taxes and user charges that will result. They will
-------
also discover that with the provision of sewers, their
property is worth considerably more money than before.
As a result, selling these homes could become more
attractive than keeping them and it is likely that
some present owners would follow this course. This
turnaround in ownership of low valued seasonal houses
will, in all likelihood, lead to an upgrading of these
dwellings and of the area in general.
Some property owners would
rather sell their property
than pay for sewers.
In the area of Rocky Nook surveyed (not the
entire sewer service area), seasonal houses outnumber
those occupied year-round by 219 to 189. Of the
remainder of houses outside the survey area to be
served by sewers, most are occupied year round.
Nevertheless, it is quite probable that there are
currently upwards of about 250 houses used only sea-
sonally in the Rocky Nook service area (or about one-
third of the houses proposed to be served with sewers).
Many of these houses will be subject to change of
ownership and/or improvement and upgrading to year-
round use if sewers are installed. Some of the sea-
sonal houses with currently higher assessed values as
well as those already improved may remain in seasonal
use.
33-17
-------
These trends influence the
character of neighborhoods
where change occurs.
Providing sewer service will have the greatest
impact on those neighborhoods with the greatest concen-
tration of summer homes and those with readily build-
able vacant lots. The following table (VI-1) summar-
izes some of the characteristics of the different neigh-
borhoods in the Rocky Nook study area. Neighborhoods
such as Rocky Nook Beach, Rocky Nook Park Annex-
Brewster Park, Kingston Shores, and Hillside Park,
contain many houses with a low assessed value which
are occupied only seasonally and thus could be expected
to experience changes in ownership and make-up. These
areas are shown in Figure VI-3.
Purvey Results*
I.
II.
III.
IV.
V.
VI.
i/II.
NEIGHBORHOOD
(See Figure VI-3)
ROCKY NOOK AVENUE
SHORE DRIVE
ROCKY NOOK PARK
ROCKY NOOK PARK
ANNEX-BREWSTER PRK.
KINGSTON SHORES
ROCKY NOOK BEACH
HILLSIDE PARK
NO. OF
HOUSES
21
21
94
98
58
53
63
YEAR ROUND HOUSING SEASONAL HOUSING
No. of Mean Assessed No. of Mean Assessed
Houses Value(000's $) Houses Value(000's $)
8
13
36
47
36
24
25
32.
26.
21.
22.
21.
21.
21.
8
2
6
5
2
4
1
13
8
58
51
22
29
38
22
14
15
14
13
12
13
.9
.0
.7
.3
.8
.7
.6
YEAR RND. HOUSING YEAR RND. RENTAL
OCC. BY ELDERLY/RETIRED HOUSING
No. of % of No. of % Year
Houses Year Round Houses Round
0
2
9
9
14
3
5
0
15
25
19
39
13
20
3
2
8
12
7
6
4
38
15
22
26
19
25
16
TOTAL
408
189
22.4
219
14.8
42
22
42
22
21-1
-------
within
-------
Access within the Hillside
Park neighborhood is very
restricted.
c. Impacts; Traffic and Access
Potential traffic and access problems are pre-
sently most concentrated in the Hillside Park area of
Rocky Nook due to that area's high density, unique
layout and access pattern. The potential for problems
during and after construction of a sewer system would
be greatest here.
^fm^ff, *• -T-**' *-~** ' "*"Q**-"-
The Hillside Park neighborhood of Rocky Nook is
at the present time primarily a summer home community.
Of the approximately 60 houses in this community, two-
thirds are seasonal. House lots are as small as 3,000
square feet. The amount of building which might occur
in the future is limited to only four vacant lots.
The streets in this neighborhood (Adams, Drew, Seaver,
Cobb, and Holmes) are one lane, dead end streets. The
streets are too narrow to permit two cars to pass side
by side.
VL-2O
-------
fm
Ir-SlSS-
If sewers are installed, there will be pressure
on this neighborhood, as on adjoining areas, to convert
homes to year-round use. However, year-round use in
the Hillside Park neighborhood is likely to create
certain unique problems. First and foremost, there is
a potential safety hazard due to the roadway alignments
and limited access to many homes. It may be difficult
for emergency vehicles (fire, police, ambulance) to
effectively serve the residents of this area on a
year-round basis without modification to the street
pattern. There is danger that parked cars may block
the progress of emergency vehicles answering a call.
Due to the number of dead end streets, should an
emergency vehicle turn down the wrong street, the time
it takes that vehicle to back up the street and return
to the correct one may be critical to the emergency
situation.
Land use change prompted
by sewers could aggravate
access problems.
Second, in relation to the safety problem of
access by emergency vehicles, inclement weather may
further exacerbate difficulties in servicing this
neighborhood. Plowing the streets after a major snow-
fall can be very difficult because of the inability of
a snow plow to turn around, and the limited space
available to pile plowed snow. The small size of
house lots, the narrowness of the street rights-of-
way, the lack of setbacks of houses from the streets,
-------
This could create safety
hazards.
and the presence of fences in the front yard combine
to make snow plowing a much more difficult enterprise
and could present further difficulties of access in
the snow for emergency and other vehicles attempting
to reach the Hillside Park community.
All in all, conversion of the Hillside Park com-
munity to year-round use may sustain present safety
hazards over a year-round period should traffic and
access modifications not be made.
Insofar as truck traffic associated with present
maintenance of the on-site systems in concerned, the
existing usage poses continued problems and potential
safety hazards given the poor access and road condi-
tions in the area. Normal maintenance of the new
sewer systems would likely improve this condition as
fewer truck visits will be needed and a septage manage-
ment program could be implemented for the new system.
Other neighborhoods in Rocky Nook may likewise
be susceptible to similar problems, but to a lesser
degree.
Noise, dust and some in-
terference with traffic
will occur temporarily.
d. Construction Impacts
During construction of facilities, some disruption
of traffic and increased congestion can be expected
along town streets in the areas where sewers would be
installed and at the wastewater disposal plant site
(with the in-Kingston solutions). These impacts will
be of a short-term nature during the construction period.
Construction activity in the streets will create
noise and generate dust. Construction equipment will
interfere with traffic for brief periods as the sewer
lines are put in place. These effects are not ex-
pected to occur in any particular area for more than 7
days at a time as the construction crews move along
the sewer route. Construction can be timed to take
place during the off-season (fall and spring months)
when there are fewer residents in these neighborhoods.
The installation of new septic tanks (if they are
needed), the septic tank effluent pump (STEP), and the
sewer pipe to connect the house to the street sewer
line will also cause temporary disruption.
-------
Around each house, a backhoe would be used to dig
trenches and pits required for the STEP equipment.
The installation of this equipment may necessitate
dismantling and/or removal of landscape features that
may interfere, such as backyard patios, sections of
fences, or trees and shrubs. Some of these disrup-
tions would be temporary in nature lasting only for
the duration of work on a particular lot. There
would, however, be some permanent removal and possibly
some damage to landscape features. Mitigation mea-
sures would be possible and should be addressed by the
Town prior to beginning any work (see Section VII).
Construction of household
hook-ups may disturb
landscape features.
-------
Putting the cost of new
sewers on the tax rate
would violate the limits
imposed by 2 1/2.
Charging homeowners the
full costs of new sewers
could cause hardships.
e. Financial Impacts
Increased Property Taxes
The construction of sewers and a sewage treatment
facility will increase local property taxes for several
reasons. First, the Town of Kingston may elect to pay
some part of its share of the cost of sewer construc-
tion with town-wide property tax revenues. Kingston's
share of the cost of certain alternatives (the Plymouth
alternative) would be so high that meeting these costs
through the town-wide property tax levy could be a
violation of the tax limitations of Massachusetts Prop-
osition 2-1/2. This would therefore require the town
to vote a special override to 2-1/2 for this purpose.
However, given the more favorable costs of the other
alternatives, this is not a likely outcome.
If, on the other hand, the town chose not to
finance the sewer costs out of property taxes, the
local share of the cost could be met by charging
homeowners and businesses in the sewer service area
based on the "betterment" of their property. Depend-
ing on the total cost to Kingston, putting the costs
of sewers entirely on those within the proposed sewer
service area could impose severe financial hardship on
certain households, particularly retired homeowners
and others living on a fixed income. Moreover, for
expensive alternatives, imposing all the costs on
those within the served area would not be considered
"affordable" under EPA's affordability criteria. Some
combination of added property taxes and user better-
ment charges is another possible revenue formula which
the town could choose to lessen the financial burden
on individual users while still providing for a direct
user cost. The method of recovering sewer costs is
entirely a Town decision, through the Town must demon-
strate its ability to raise these monies by acceptable
methods.
Sewers can be expected to
increase Kingston's tax
base.
The provision of sewers could lead to further
increases to property taxes for the town as a whole by
promoting population growth which might otherwise not
occur. This would be the case as development occurred
on a number of vacant lots on Rocky Nook which will
become developable if sewers are installed. Once
developed, these lots could generate an increased
number of new residences, possibly on a year-round
basis, whose occupants will require normal public
services.
-------
While the increased demand generated by this
potential influx of new residents for schooling, fire
and police protection, and other public services may
not warrant added expenditures by the town, it may
contribute to a trend of expansion, incrementally over
a period of several years, in which services would be
increased and which could lead eventually to tax in-
creases. To some extent, these added costs will be
offset by increased property tax revenues from these
newly developed sites. However, if these currently
undeveloped lots are developed at a. higher density
than provided for under current zoning (20,000 square
feet and 40,000 square feet per lot) which is a possi-
bility in certain cases, the cost of providing munici-
pal services, particularly improvements to roads in
the area, may be such that they would require increased
taxes.
At the same time, demand
for community services may
increase over time.
This outcome would be more likely to result if
the provision of sewers in the area leads to a general
conversion of homes to year-round use, heightened
residential development activity overall, and further
intensification of nearby land uses which possibly
could also connect to the sewer system. In the ab-
sence of such heightened development activity, the
lots that could be easily developed following the
provision of sewers would not in themselves be ex-
pected to generate significant increased demand for
public services or lead to increased taxes.
For those living within the sewer service area,
the assessments on property may be expected to in-
crease by some amount in proportion to the increased
value of the property with sewers. Often this amount
is estimated as being equivalent to the town's cost of
providing the sewer service. Over a period of years,
particularly with the conversion of homes to year-
round use and sales of properties in the area, assess-
ments would be expected to continue to rise.
More moderate development
and growth rates are not
expected to generate
higher local taxes.
Increased Property Value
Building sewers where they are currently proposed
is expected to increase the value of both developed
and undeveloped property in the area. All properties
which may be potentially served by the sewer are
considered to be improved by the existence of the
sewer system since a homeowner or business would not
have to bear the expense and potential problems of
wastewater disposal on-site. For properties which can
For homes where on-site
systems cannot be built
or rehabilitated, sewers
will preserve and increase
property values.
-------
maintain an on-site system according to the current
Sanitary Code, sewers represent an increased value
equal to or greater than ongoing maintenance (pumping)
costs over the life of the system and the ultimate
cost of rehabilitating the on-site system versus the
costs of using the sewers. For homes with on-site
systems which could not be rehabilitated within the
standards of the State Environmental Code, the avail-
ability of a sewer connection preserves the value of
the home itself (with no sewer, such a home could be
condemned when its on-site system fails).
On lots that have remained vacant because their
small size or a high water table precludes the use of
on-site wastewater disposal systems, the provision of
sewers increases the value of the property from that
of an undevelopable lot to that of a developable one.
In a shoreline area such as Rocky Nook, this could be
a substantial increase in value.
VI-
-------
Improvement in the quality and appearance of a
neighborhood is another way in which sewers may in-
crease local property values. The occurrence of
frequent sewage overflows from certain properties onto
the ground makes a neighborhood less desirable to live
in, both for health reasons and aesthetically. This
could have an adverse influence on the market value of
all property in that neighborhood. Moreover, residents
in the neighborhood, who may have no problem with
sewage disposal, have little incentive to make sub-
stantial improvements in their own property since
prospective buyers or renters steer clear of the
neighborhood because of its reported wastewater dis-
posal problems. As these problems are eliminated from
a neighborhood, homeowners have a much greater incen-
tive to undertake repairs and upgrade the appearance
of their homes and lots; this increases the property
values in the neighborhood as a whole.
By abating nuisance septic
system overflows, sewers
can improve the character
of neighborhoods.
VT-27
-------
If no action is taken,
Stony Brook will remain
contaminated.
B. Kingston Center Collection and Treatment Alternatives
1. Impacts of No Action
a. Water Quality
Site analysis of Kingston Center (Route 3A where
it crosses Stony Brook) revealed that this part of
town was indeed a problem area due to a high water
table. Water quality analyses confirmed this situation
by turning up significant numbers of fecal coliform
bacteria in the samples taken. The water table in
this area is so close to the ground surface that some
on-site leaching facilities are under water, thus pre-
venting proper operation of on-site systems and ade-
quate treatment of effluent.
Without some action, improper treatment and dis-
posal of wastewater from this area will continue to be
a source of bacterial contamination in Stony Brook,
while improper operation of the on-site systems will
continue resulting in periodic overflows.
Stony Brook at Route 3A.
-------
b. Property
Should no action be taken to correct wastewater
disposal problems, businesses and homes in the Kings-
ton Center problem area will be unable to meet the
basic requirement of the State Environmental Code.
Then, if an on-site system in this area fails, the
Kingston Board of Health may not be able to grant a
permit to rebuild the system. The property may then
have to be condemned resulting in severe impacts to
the owners or residents who must relocate. In addi-
tion, occasional overflows of on-site systems will
continue to occur in the center of town.
Septic systems in Kingston
center cannot be rebuild
legally.
c. Financial Impacts
Should no action be taken to correct problems.
State enforcement action through a court order may
compel the town to abate the public health violations.
The threat of condemnation of property could result in
a decrease in property values in the center of town
and a drop in tax revenue which the businesses and
homes currently generate. Furthermore, should the
State at some time in the future force compliance with
Health Codes, the costs to the town for wastewater
disposal facilities at that future time are likely to
be higher than they are today.
2. Impacts Common to All Sewer Alternatives
Whichever site is chosen (C-l or C-2) for the
Kingston Center alternatives, the type of treatment
system will be very unobtrusive. The system proposed
for either site is very similar to the leaching sys-
tems presently used throughout Kingston. The treat-
ment system would be entirely underground, eliminating
escape of odors and preserving the visual quality and
current use of the site. If sited above ground (a
"mound system"), the system could be landscaped to
screen it from surrounding properties.
No action could lead to
deterioration of property
values in the area.
The treatment and disposal
facilities will be very
unobtrusive.
21-
-------
Temporary disturbance will
result from construction.
The STEP system will improve
water quality in Stony Brook.
Sewer construction in the area will temporarily
disrupt traffic flow on Route 3A during the short
period of time that the pressure sewer is laid under
the street. In addition, there will be some noise and
dust generated with the installation of new septic
tanks, septic tank effluent pumps, and connector sewer
pipes from each house or business to the street. On-
site impacts of construction may result in disruption
of landscape features (fences, grass, shrubbery or
trees), but these would not be major and could, if
properly planned, be minimized or otherwise corrected.
With the construction of the STEP sewer system
and treatment and disposal facilities in Kingston
Center, the threat of condemnation of property and
State enforcement action is ended. Compliance with
the State Environmental Code will have been achieved.
Property values will, at a minimum, remain stable and
could experience appreciation according to the general
real estate trends in the area.
In addition, there will be improvement in the
water quality of Stony Brook and a lessening of any
potential threat to public health by removing the
source of bacterial contamination.
Jones River at high tide.
-------
A. Construction Impacts
B. Problems of Induced Growth . .
C. Problems of Financial Hardship
VII-1
VII-5
VII-6
-------
VII. MITIGATING ACTIONS
A. Construction Impacts
1. The Rocky Nook area is, to a significant degree,
a summer resort community. Traffic flows and
population are significantly higher during the
summer months than at other times of the year.
Sewer construction activity in the streets, and
around house lots would create considerably more
disruption, potential hazard, and possible eco-
nomic loss (from cancelled rentals and seasonal
spending) should it occur in the summer months.
Recommendation
Much of Rocky Nook is a
seasonal area, busy from
Memorial day to Labor day.
It is recommended that all sewer construction
work in the streets and around houses be sched-
uled during the off-season months, before Memor-
ial Day and after Labor Day.
Sewer construction should
be timed to avoid the
summer peak season.
YU-
-------
The extent of potential
disruption will depend on
the alternative selected.
2. Depending on which alternative is chosen (Site A-
3, B-2, or Plymouth), the treatment plant con-
struction schedule should be timed to result in
minimal disruption.
Construction at Site A-3 during the summer would
result in greatest noise and dust impacts, and
traffic disruption among the summer residents.
In addition, the use of the access road along Old
Orchard Lane would conflict with traffic and
users at Grey's Beach. The construction of a
force main to Plymouth would result in less
impacts, though there would still be genereated
significant noise, dust, and traffic disruptions.
Impacts from construction at Site B-2 would be
minimal at any time of year, however, during the
summer months access to the site and traffic in
town would be most likely to conflict.
Recommendation
If site A-3 or the Plymouth
alternative is selected,
summer construction should
be avoided.
If Site A-3 is chosen, avoid construction at the
site from Memorial Day through mid-September.
Likewise, under the Plymouth alternative, time
the laying of the force main to Plymouth during
the off-season months. Construction at Site B-2
can proceed at any time of year, however, work
si-
-------
at this site should also be scheduled primarily
during the off-season. For all sites, efforts
should be incorporated to retain existing natural
buffers (trees, berms, etc.) as well as provide
measures to minimize construction impacts at the
sites from their surroundings.
3. The process of sewer construction is a poten-
tially disruptive and disturbing activity even if
it proceeds during the off-season. For work
around houses, removal of fences, patios, trees,
and shrubs may be necessary in order to install
septic tanks, septic tank effluent pumps, and the
connecting pressure sewers.
Recommendation
The actual plotting of the location of STEP
systems, new septic tanks, and pressure sewers be
determined in conjunction with a qualified land-
scape professional so as to minimize disruption
to the landscape features around a house. Neces-
sary removal of landscape features should be
followed by relocation and/or replacement where
destruction of property occurs.
Landscape professionals
should plan locations of
STEP systems around homes.
BL-3
-------
Sewer construction in the
streets can disrupt traf-
fic.
4. Sewer construction in streets is always dis-
ruptive, particularly so when the street is
heavily travelled (as is Route 3A in the Rocky
Nook service area and in Kingston Center). Con-
struction can result in short-term inconveniences
and potential environmental problems.
Actions must be taken to
minimize construction im-
pacts and ensure public
safety.
Recommendations
The Town's sewer construction contractor should
be required to:
a. Take action to minimize disruption of both
pedestrian and vehicular traffic and to
ensure adequate access and egress for busi-
nesses and residents during the construction
period.
Take action to ensure adequate police, fire,
and ambulance access over streets during
construction.
Provide adequate precautions (in accordance
with OSHA requirements) for public safety
and protection of the public from potential
hazards created by construction activity.
To minimize noise impacts, construction
should be timed during reasonable daylight
hours.
e.
Employ proven methods for preventing soil
erosion and ensuring dust control during
construction.
Restore pavements and street landscaping to
a condition equivalent to or better than
that existing prior to construction.
-------
B. Problems of Induced Growth
1. The Hillside Park neighborhood of Rocky Nook is
served with five single-lane, narrow, dead-end
streets of considerable length (up to 800 feet
long). Without some improvement in the street
pattern and access, such as street widening and
cul-de-sacs or turnarounds, there would be a
potential safety hazard and generally poor access,
It is currently difficult for emergency vehicles
(fire, police, and ambulance) and service vehi-
cles (snow plows, garbage trucks, delivery vehi-
cles) to effectively serve the residents of this
area. Sewers will increase pressure on summer
houses to be converted to year-round use, which
will in turn increase the year-round resident
population and number of vehicles using these
streets.
Sewers are likely to agra-
vate access problems in
Hillside park.
Recommendations
On-street parking should be limited where possible
both day and night to allow free access by
emergency and other vehicles. Study should be
made of possible means of providing better access
to the area. Some type of street turnaround,
widening, or cul-de-sac should be considered.
Financial implications of street improvements
Turning space should be
provided and on-street
parking prohibited.
-------
must also be considered since such improvements
may raise taxes or impose financial burdens on
homeowners.
Increasing demands on
Rowlands Lane are expected.
The Town should monitor the
intersection of Route 3A
and Howlands Lane.
Increased year-round population on Rocky Nook
will increase the traffic to and from this neigh-
borhood. Howlands Lane serves as the only road
connecting Rocky Nook and the rest of town.
Recommendations
It is recommended that the traffic at the inter-
section of Route 3A and Howlands Lane be monitored
after sewer construction is completed. Increas-
ing traffic passing through this intersection may
create hazards and delays for those turning left
from Howlands Lane to Route 3A or from Route 3A
onto Howlands Lane. Some form of traffic control
may be needed if the numbers of users is suffi-
ciently high.
Problems of Financial Hardship
There may be residents whose financial resources
are limited to the point that if required to
connect to a sewer system or share in betterment
costs, they would face a severe financial hard-
ship and possibly would be forced to move out of
their homes.
The town should explore
financing options to min-
imize impacts on home-
owners .
Recommendation
To deal with such cases on an equitable and rea-
sonable basis, the town should explore options
for reducing the financial burden on individual
homeowners. Such methods as deferred payment
schedules, more favorable loan terms through
local banks, broader tax revenue financing to
absorb some costs for families shown to be signi-
ficantly burdened, possible State funding sources
and other comparable measures available through
the town may be advisable.
-------
This could be applied to benefit the town not
only in terms of minimizing the financial burden
on those residents least able to afford such cost
increases, but also in attracting the maximum
number of residents of all income levels who
would connect to the sewer system in the first
year thus affording the greatest possible sub-
scription to the system and distributing the
operation and maintenance costs most equitably.
yjj-7
-------
0X0
A. Coordination with the General Public VIII-1
B. Coordination with Local Officials VIII-4
C. Coordination with Government Agencies VIII-4
-------
VIII. COORDINATION
A. Coordination with the General Public
Coordination with the public, and public partici-
pation, were accomplished through a number of channels
in the course of this EIS. Leadership was provided
by:
Public Participation Coordinator:
William J. Twohig
Town of Kingston Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC)
Alan P. Gnospelius (1981-1982)
Mary K. O'Donnell
Richard A. Ottino (1981)
Joseph M. Palombo
Robert D. Sgarzi
Manuel A.B. Tavares
William J. Twohig, Chairperson
Bartholomew A. Vernazzaro (1982-1983)
The public was kept informed throughout the
process and was invited to participate continously.
They were asked to share in decision-making at crucial
-------
points in the project. Input was received from the
public in a variety of ways. They included:
By mail, directly to the Advisory Committee, EPA
and the consultants or via the public participation
coordinator.
By telephone conversations with the public
participation coordinator and project consultants,
generally in response to specific questions and con-
cerns.
In person at monthly advisory committee meetings
held in town, at three local public workshops con-
ducted for this purpose, during field investigations
by the consultants, and at meetings with the public
participation coordinator during established office
hours.
By newspaper questionnaire return in response to
two major public information newsletters mailed to
postal addresses in town and available at local public
offices. Each of the newsletters provided background
information on the study and regarding decisions to be
made. Each of the newsletters also included a ballot
questionnaire asking the reader to declare his or her
preference on a variety of issues. Results were
tabulated and used to assist in decision-making.
Information was provided to the public on a regu-
lar basis through:
presentations at monthly Citizens Advisory
Committee Meetings;
reports of such meetings in the local newspaper;
presentations at town committee meetings;
presentations at public workshops (one of which
appeared, in part, on local cable television); and
advertisements placed in the local newspaper and
through two major public information newsletters, both
distributed by direct mail.
Newsletters were prepared by the consultant and
were reviewed by representatives of government agen-
cies (see Coordination with Government Agencies).
-------
The formal public participation process for this
EIS consisted of several key steps which provided
necessary inputs to the study and which correspond to
the major elements of the EIS.
1. Scoping Session
Participants identified issues of concern to
them. The public's concerns and suggestions were
incorporated into a Memorandum of Understanding which
set the nature and scope of the sewer study.
2. First Public Meeting - Sewer Needs
After almost a year of studying water quality
problems and problems associated with on-site disposal
systems, the public was presented with study findings
and with a wide range of alternatives for solving
these problems. This information was presented to the
public in a 8-page newsletter distributed to all
postal customers in Kingston, as well as presented at
the public meeting. Based on the public response at
the meeting and the response made through the question-
naire return coupon (included in the newsletter), the
sewer study expanded the area proposed for service,
and discarded several alternatives from further con-
sideration.
3. Second Public Meeting - Sites for Treatment
and Disposal
After doing technical evaluations which identi-
fied general areas in Kingston suitable for central-
ized wastewater treatment and disposal, a full page
advertisement in the local paper presented a brief
description of the analysis and an array of possible
treatment and disposal sites. At the subsequent
public meeting, Kingston residents generally voiced
opposition to sites in their respective neighborhoods
or sites which included property they currently owned,
while comments also identified those sites least
opposed.
4. Third Public Meeting - Final Alternatives
Between the time of the meeting on sites and the
meeting on final alternatives, costs being developed
on the basic alternatives suggested significant prob-
-------
ions and impacts might result from the means available
to the town to cover the local share of the costs.
This led the sewer study to investigate a wide array
of cost saving collection and treatment options.
An eight page newsletter describing study find-
ings and presenting final alternatives, their impacts,
and preliminary costs was mailed to all postal cus-
tomers in Kingston prior to the final public meeting.
This information was summarized at the public meeting.
The public response at this meeting, and the
response made through return guestionnaire coupons
included in the newsletter were in favor of treating
and disposing of Rocky Nook's wastewater at the inland
site near the industrial park and the town's landfill.
Opposition was voiced against other alternatives
because of their costs and potential environmental
effects. Comments were also received on the Kingston
Center alternatives.
This process was then followed by the preparation
and distribution of this Draft Environmental Impact
Statement (DEIS). A review and comment period on the
DEIS, and a public hearing in the town will follow.
B. Coordination with Local Officials
Formal coordination with Kingston Selectmen was
accomplished primarily through their attendance at key
Citizen Advisory Committee meetings, regular briefing
of Selectmen by the Public Participation Coordinator,
and special presentations by the consultants at regu-
lar meetings of the Board of Selectmen.
Special meetings were also held with local offi-
cials, town committees, and citizens on several occa-
sions to discuss issues of particular concern to them.
Examples include meetings with the Board of Health to
discuss the issue of need for sewers in certain areas
and a meeting with the Finance Committee on issues
related to cost allocation alternatives.
C. Coordination with Government Agencies
Coordination with regional, State and Federal
Government and quasi-government agencies was provided
through periodic progress meetings and through special
meetings between the consultants and representatives
of such agencies.
vni'4
-------
Progress meetings provided opportunities for the
consultants to report on project direction, progress,
and anticipated activities. At the same time they
provided agency representatives with opportunities to
comment from the perspective of their agencies, to
ensure that their agency's concerns were addressed,
and to ensure conformance with their agency's policies.
Agencies which participated in these meetings or which
were consulted during the preparation of the EIS
included the following:
Massachusetts
State Historical Preservation Office
Department of Environmental Management
Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
Division of Water Pollution Control,
SE Region Office
Coastal Zone Management
Division of Marine Fisheries
Regional
Old Colony Planning Council
Federal
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Water Quality Branch
Municipal Facilities Branch
Water Supply Branch
Office of Program Support, Environmental
Impact Office
U.S. Geological Survey
New England Interstate Water Pollution Control
Commission
DISTRIBUTION LIST
Federal Agencies
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Council on Environmental Quality
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Vill-5
-------
Coast Guard
Department of Commerce (NOAA)
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of Interior
Department of Transportation
Environmental Protection Agency, Regions II
Fish and Wildlife Service
Massachusetts Agencies
Bureau of Project Development
Coastal Zone Management Office
Department of Environmental Quality Engineering
Department of Environmental Management
Massachusetts Historical Commission
Energy Policy Office
Executive Office of Environmental Affairs
Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control
Executive Office of Community Development
Department of Commerce and Development
Department of Food and Agriculture
Department of Public Health
Department of Public Works
Division of Air and Hazardous Materials
Division of Fisheries and Wildlife
Division of Land and Water Use
Division of Marine Fisheries
Division of Water Supply
Division of Wetland Protection
Metropolitan District Commission
Water Resources Commission
OTHER FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES
New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission
ORGANIZATIONS
Coffin & Richardson
Conservation Law Foundation
Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program
Massachusetts Wildlife Federation
Trout Unlimited
Worcester Polytechnical Institute
-------
-------
APPENDIX A; EVALUATION OF ON-SITE WASTEWATER
TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL
BACKGROUND
The following assessment of need for modifica-
tions to Kingston's current wastewater treatment and
disposal practices is based on three basic premises.
1. Where existing, traditional wastewater prac-
tices are providing cost-effective and environmentally
sound wastewater treatment and disposal, these prac-
tices should be continued.
The premises of the needs
analysis include:
1. If it works, leave it
alone.
2. In areas where traditional wastewater treat-
ment and disposal methods can be used in a cost-effec-
tive and environmentally sound manner but at the pre-
sent time are not, there is a need to upgrade existing
practices to protect public health and water quality.
3. In areas where traditional wastewater treat-
ment and disposal practices are either not cost-effec-
tive nor environmentally sound, there is a need to
provide an appropriate alternative to these practices.
2.
3.
If it doesn't work,
fix it.
If it can't be fixed,
find an alternative.
DESCRIPTION OF ON-SITE SYSTEMS
Common on-site systems include both cesspools and
septic tank leaching systems, as well as a number of
variations of both. All of them perform similar func-
tions, though septic tank-leaching field systems
generally offer better pathogen (disease causing
organism) control than cesspools where the groundwater
is fairly high. Neither cesspools nor septic tanks
kill pathogens directly; the pathogen kill occurs in
the aerated soil between the leaching system and the
groundwater. Figure A-l shows a typical cesspool and
Figure A-2 and A-3 show typical septic tank systems
for both relatively deep water tables or bedrock. In
both systems, solids accumulate, putrify, and are
Septic systems are usually
cesspool or septic tank
systems.
A-l
-------
/ 4 A
/nf
/
Fig. A-l TYPICAL CESSPOOL
& 4
yv
/V
**-
yT ^T j,# ^f
/
surface
soil
crushed stone or
washed
Fig. A-2 TYPICAL SEPTIC SYSTEM: SHALLOW DEPTH
TO WATER TABLE
decomposed both into gases that vent off through the
house plumbing and into water soluble materials, which
for the most part leach away into the soil.
A-
-------
•floating g
•freely *eHI*d solids
ig. A-3 TYPICAL SEPTIC SYSTEM: RELATIVELY
DEEP WATER TABLE
In both types of systems, cesspools and septic
tanks, it is the soil leaching processes that provide
the most improvement in the effluent. Where leaching
is into unsaturated soils, i.e. when it is well above
the water table, a natural biological filter grows at
the interface between the disposal systems' leaching
material and the soil. This natural, "living" filter:
absorbs dissolved material from the wastewater; strains
out suspended particles, bacteria and other pathogens
and digests them; oxidizes ammonia to nitrates; and
converts readily soluble organic phosphate compounds
into easily precipitated (settled out of solution)
orthophosphates. (Unfortunately, where the leaching
facility is in the groundwater, the filter does not
develop and these processes do not occur.)
ADVANTAGES
The principal advantages of individual on-site
disposal systems include:
1. They are five to seven times less expensive
than sewage collection and treatment.
2. They are energy saving, i.e. most operate by
gravity and require no energy to operate.
In both systems, the soil
leaching process provides
the bulk of the treatment.
Septic systems have a
number of advantages...
A-3
-------
3. They are inherently equitable, leaving each
household to contend only with its own wastewater and
giving each a responsibility equal to the amount of
their contribution of wastewater. (Unlike sewage
collection and treatment systems which cause one
neighborhood to accept wastewater from all over the
community.)
4. They provide an active incentive to conserve
water as they can handle only a finite amount of
wastewater.
5. They can be made long-term and self-renewing
through the use of alternating leaching systems.
6. They are efficient, providing an effluent of
better quality than most sewage treatment plants if
operated properly.
7. They are decentralized, and, therefore, do
not require a great deal of government management at
the expense of tax dollars.
...and a number of disad- DISADVANTAGES
vantages as well.
The principal disadvantages of such systems are
that:
1. They demand that homeowners accept responsi-
bility which some are not able to accept, i.e., they
cannot afford to pay for a system nor they do know how
to properly maintain it.
2. They limit the density of development,
depending on assumptions made, to between one house
per one-fifth of an acre and one house per acre for
single residences.
3. They are often underdesigned, even under
current codes, and as a result can require chronic
maintenance.
4. When they fail, they are a nuisance and are
often perceived as a public health risk right in the
back yard, a fact which leads some people to fear
their system. (will it fail while I have guests in
the house?)
A-4
-------
5. These systems are not practical in some
places and impossible to use in others. Areas where
there are impermeable soils, groundwater close to the
surface, or bedrock close to the surface cannot make
practical use of traditional on-site systems.
ON-SITE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS NEED ASSESSMENT
THE METHOD
Traditional methods of determining where problems
with on-site disposal systems exist have relied upon
information from health department personnel, sanitary
surveys, pumping data, and the Soil Conservation
Service.
While this information is often useful, it is
indicative only of existing problems and does not lead
to identification of the most cost-effective means of
solving on-site disposal problems.
The method used in this study is designed to
pinpoint where on-site systems cannot be used effec-
tively and not where on-site systems are currently not
being used effectively. It is based on the premise
that it is the responsibility of local health offi-
cials to locate existing problem systems and require
that these systems be repaired or rehabilitated. It
is the responsibility of the facilities planner to
locate areas where such systems cannot be repaired or
rehabilitated and to recommend alternative means for
the treatment and disposal of wastewater.
The two principal constraints which make on-site
rehabilitation under the State Environmental Code
(Title 5) impossible are those of insufficient space
and insufficient depth to groundwater. To locate
where these limitations occur, the entire town was
examined to determine the approximate depth to ground-
water. As Title 5 requires a minimum of 4 feet to
groundwater beneath a leaching facility, and the
minimum depth from the ground surface to the bottom of
a leaching facility must be 2 feet, where groundwater
is less than 6 feet below ground surface, on-site sys-
tems cannot be used in accordance with Title 5. All
areas in which groundwater was less than 6 feet below
ground surface were designated as areas where on-site
system use is not feasible.
The traditional approach to
identifying septic system
problems relys on records
of system failure.
The method used here relies
on evaluation of constraints
to septic system use.
The principal constraints
are space and depth to
groundwater.
Where groundwater is closer
than six feet below the
surface, septic systems are
illegal.
A-5
-------
If there isn't space for
an on-site system, altern-
atives are needed.
Space limitations become more complex. In general,
the process involves determining the space available
for construction of an on-site system on each lot
within an area, determining the space required to con-
struct a Title 5 system for the buildings on those
lots, and comparing the available space with the
required space. If the available space is greater
than or equal to the required space, the lot is suited
to on-site system use. If the available space is less
than the required space, then alternatives to on-site
systems must be used.
In practice, this method becomes much more com-
plex because of the many factors which affect the
suitability of any given lot for on-site system use.
These factors fall into two general categories:
site related factors and system related factors.
1. Site related factors include:
a. Lot size
For on-site disposal to be feasible, there must
be enough space available on the lot to construct a
disposal system and provide required reserve space.
Available space consists of the total area of a site
minus the area occupied by structures and the area
required for setbacks in accordance with Title 5,
Section 3.7.
b. Location of structures on the lot affects
the amount of available space in a manner independent
of lot size. Due to setback requirements of Title 5,
a lot with a house in one corner will have consider-
ably more available space for leaching area than
another lot of the same size which has a house built
in its center.
c. Soil permeability
According to Title 5, soil permeability deter-
mines the system size for a given wastewater flow.
Sites where soil percolation rates are slower than 30
minutes per inch are considered unsuitable for on-site
disposal.
pa,r o r ex-fa.
-------
d. Depth to groundwater which must be suf-
ficient to allow 4 feet of aerated soil between the
bottom of system excavations and the maximum ground-
water table elevation. Where depth to groundwater is
less than six feet, additional surface space must be
available to provide room for construction of mounds
to elevate disposal facilities. Space requirements
are further impacted by constraints on system type
resulting from groundwater elevation, i.e. shallow
depth to groundwater may necessitate construction of
trench systems or leaching beds which require more
space than leaching pits.
vuLLJ-JLUJJ
e.
On-site systems must be located at a distance
from downhill slopes equal to 150 times the slope.
Where it is necessary to construct mounded systems,
sufficient space must be available to appropriately
slope the sidewalls of the mound.
2. System related factors include:
a. System size or the leaching area required in
square feet. System size, according to Title 5, is a
function of soil permeability and expected volume of
flow or demand.
b. System type
Systems such as leaching pits, trenches, and
fields each require differing amounts of space to
provide the same size leaching area.
c. System configuration including: the number
of components in the system, i.e. the number of leach-
ing pits or trenches; the size of components, i.e. the
diameter and depth of pits or the length, width and
depth of trenches; and the relative placement of
components. Title 5 requires that leaching facilities
be placed no closer than twice their effective depth,
width, or diameter, whichever is greater.
i*r-#
APPLYING THE METHOD
The factors listed above were used to systemati-
cally evaluate where in - Kingston conventional on-
site disposal systems are suitable.
The evaluation process covers:
1. Checking and rechecking written and mapped
information in the field including the observation of
groundwater elevations under various weather condi-
tions at different times during the year.
A Town-wide study was made
to find areas suitable
for septic systems.
A-7
-------
2. Analyzing house and property lot sizes using
Kingston Tax Assessor's maps, available photogrammetry
and aerial photographs.
3. Determining the depth to the water table
town-wide, using topographic maps and known ground-
water elevations.
4. Determining which on-site system types
(leaching pit, trenches, or beds) can be used for on-
site system rehabilitation.
5. Examining topographic maps and available
photogrammetry to determine which developed areas are
too close to the water table for effective and environ-
mentally sound wastewater disposal.
6. Approximating soil permeability over the
town from data supplied by:
a. Soil Conservation Service survey informa-
tion.
b. Results of percolation tests taken in the
area.
Where on-site systems can
be rebuilt, this is the
most cost effective and
environmentally sound action.
7. Based on the type of land use, estimating
the design flow of wastewater. A minimum soil percola-
tion rate of 10 min/in was used to be conservative.
8. Determining the system size (leaching area)
required in accordance with estimated flow and soil
permeability.
9. Determining for the given system type and
size, the space requirements needed.
10. Comparing the available space on the house
lot with the space requirements.
After this, if the on-site system could not be
rebuilt even with appropriate variances, then it was
noted that some environmentally sound alternative
disposal site was required.
REHABILITATION OF ON-SITE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
If on-site systems could
not be used, alternatives
were considered.
Where an on-site disposal system can be rebuilt
to the standards set by health codes, and yet has
failed, rehabilitation of the on-site system is the
most cost-effective, environmentally sound action to
take.
A-&
-------
The most common conditions that lead to on-site
disposal system failure are:
1. Inadequate leaching system size.
2. Clogging with age.
3. Overload.
1. Inadequate Leaching System Size
Most on-site disposal codes specify a loading rate
to be used in leaching design that is based almost
entirely on soil characteristics. Recent research
indicates, however, that in highly permeable soils, it
is the permeability of the organic filter that forms
at the interface between the soil and the leaching
system that is the limiting factor. Kingston's Health
Code addresses this limitation by requiring a minimum
leaching area larger than required under Title 5.
That failure is not more widespread is prevented
only by the good fortune that the average dwelling
unit contains only three people, not the five for
which its on-site system was designed. Houses with
five or more inhabitants do experience much more
trouble with on-site disposal than those with three or
less.
2. Clogging With Age
On-site systems fail with age. A recent statis-
tical study (in Connecticut) of systems designed to
modern codes found their median life to be 27 years
(somewhat shorter in more permeable soils and longer
in less permeable soils).
Failure appears to be caused by deposition in the
leaching filter of septage based inorganic compounds
(ferrous and probably other sulfides), cellulose
(paper and lint) and possibly grease, in addition to
the polysaccharide slimes that form the filter itself.
The principal culprits in long-term failure appear to
be the sulfides and cellulose. The sulfides are
insoluble as long as they are kept in a septic (anaero-
bic) environment, and cellulose will not rot or
decompose as long as it is kept submerged in water.
With time, they accumulate at rates consistent with a
27 year median system life.
The polysaccharide slime of the "living" filter
appears to be a problem primarily in short-term fail-
ures; those that occur in undersized or overloaded
systems in a matter of months (or a few years) after
Septic systems all fail
eventually.
Some fail because of
underdesign or over-
loading.
Most fail due to clogging
with age.
-------
Resting the leaching system
permits it to recover.
Parallel leaching facilities
make resting possible.
Valve
Positioned
on No. i
during
Odd Years
their construction. It does not appear to be a signi-
ficant factor in long-term failure, however, since it
stops thickening as it approaches impermeability.
Correction or elimination of sulfides and cellu-
lose accumulation in soil appears to be possible
without chemicals or removal of soil if the leaching
system can be taken out of service for an extended
period of time (months, probably). Insoluble sulfide
deposits will oxidize to readily soluble sulfates if
the water surrounding them is allowed to become aero-
bic, and cellulose will be digested by dry-rot fungus
if the water constantly saturating it is allowed to
drain away. Taking a leaching system out of service
automatically accomplishes these objectives. Time
must be allowed for the polysaccharide slime to digest
itself, for the water saturating the leaching system
to drain away from the slime-sulfide-cellulose mat,
for aerobic rainwater to percolate down through the
soil, and for dry-rot fungus to grow.
To accomplish this, the most widely applicable
remedy is the construction of a second leaching
facility in parallel (not in series) with the existing
one. Figure A-4 shows this schematically. With time,
the "rested" system should approach the characteris-
tics of a new system, so that with periodic alteration,
parallel leaching systems should be usable for many,
many years. It is imperative that the added system be
capable of being taken off-line and drained. No
benefit will accrue from resting if the system is not
isolated and drained.
(— ] No
. 2 {—
IS
rH
WHAT IF ON-SITE REHABILITATION CANNOT BE DONE TO
STANDARDS
Wherever existing individual on-site wastewater
disposal systems cannot be rebuilt to health code
standards, nor be improved to meet adequate public
health and pollution control standards, some alterna-
tive form of wastewater disposal must be employed. In
general, these alternatives include:
1. sewers to remove wastewater from areas that
are unsuitable for in-the-ground disposal, either be-
cause of high groundwater or impermeable soils.
A-
-------
2. cluster systems (community disposal systems)
for areas where the soil can absorb wastewater but in
which the existing patterns of development and property
ownership preclude individual property owners from
reconstructing their on-site disposal systems.
3. unconventional individual on-site disposal
systems for isolated cases in which neither of the two
alternatives are feasible.
PUBLIC SEWERS
Alternatives to conventional
systems include sewers, clus-
ters and unconventional on-
site systems.
In times past, it was widely assumed that all
urbanizing areas would be ultimately serviced with
sewers and that individual on-site disposal systems in
suburban areas were only interim solutions. However,
as suburban growth has become ever more extensive, it
has become evident that universal sewering is simply
not possible and that individual on-site disposal must
be viewed as a permanent long-term waste disposal
method. In recognition of this change, on-site system
codes have been improved and Federal law has restricted
EPA assistance for sewer building to only those develop-
ed areas where less expensive alternatives (i.e.
individual on-site disposal) cannot work effectively.
In essence, it appears most reasonable to assume
today:
1. that all new growth in unsewered areas must
be built in a manner in which individual on-site dis-
posal can be used permanently.
2. that areas that do not now need sewers are
not expected to need sewers in the next 20 years, and
3. that areas in Kingston that now need sewers
are the only areas expected to need sewers in the next
20 years.
Under these assumptions, it is possible to design
a sewer system limited to serving only the areas in
which it is now needed, without providing for future
expansion of wastewater flow or future extension of
sewer lines. This limited design could result in
lower construction costs and in less land use change
induced by the sewers.
Providing sewers universally
is simply not possible.
Areas which now need sewers
are the only areas which
are expected to need sewers
in the next 20 years.
It is not necessary to build
an expandable sewer system.
A-
-------
This makes it possible to use
cost saving, but limited scale
systems such as STEPs, to
solve problems.
A second consequence of designing a sewer system
with limited anticipation of future expansion is that
new kinds of systems become possible, such as the
sewage tank effluent pump (STEP) system which has been
recommended in Kingston. STEP systems consist of
septic tanks that settle solids in wastewater and
digest them, and septic tank effluent pumps that force
septic tank effluent through small diameter pressur-
ized pipes laid close to the ground surface. A fuller
discussion of STEP systems is presented in Appendix
D.
CLUSTER SYSTEMS
Cluster systems provide one
facility for several homes.
This facility can be located
in, or near, the neighborhood.
In some cases, the facility
can be located on space
shared among backyards.
In areas where the existing patterns of develop-
ment and/or property ownership preclude individual on-
site disposal systems, but where the neighborhood as a
whole is not overcrowded, it MAY be possible to con-
struct cluster systems. With a cluster system, waste-
water is collected from the individual lots in the
neighborhood and disposed of in the ground somewhere
in or near the neighborhood. Such systems MAY have a
number of advantages over individual on-site systems
beyond more uniform application of wastewater over a
larger land area. These additional advantages include
the possibility of more design sophistication and of
using more effective pre-treatment than is possible in
an ordinary septic tank.
In a design sense, cluster systems can be of two
types: those within the back yards of the properties
to be served, and those on vacant land adjoining the
served neighborhoods (see Figure A-5 and A-6). In
many respects, systems on adjoining vacant land are
similar to conventional sewer systems, i.e. sewers of
some sort are built to pick up wastewater from all the
buildings in the neighborhood and the wastewater is
conducted out of the immediate neighborhood for dis-
posal.
In areas where the soils are sufficiently perm-
eable and the groundwater is sufficiently below the
ground surface, it MAY be possible to build a cluster
system within the neighborhood itself. The community
would first have to acquire control (by easement) of
underground back yard space, and rights-of-way for
maintenance access. They would then build the cluster
system on existing homeowner properties and maintain
the facility. Periodic maintenance would include
inspection and lubrication of the pumps and blowers,
and removal of accumulated solids. Such a system
-------
Cluster
In th«
i
Cluster
tfutrf
*VW///A\
«w \ -L
fia
A-13
-------
This does not appear an
appropriate approach for
Kingston.
would obviously interfere with individual property
owners' use of their land, but it might also represent
an alternative that would permit the town to meet
environmental standards without forcing a more costly,
conventional public sewer system on the neighborhood.
In Kingston, however, the widespread nature of
wastewater disposal problems on Rocky Nook as well as
the lack of vacant and permeable sites precluded the
use of several small cluster systems that would dis-
pose of wastewater outside the particular neighbor-
hood. In addition, at the public meeting held in
February 1982, public opinion and the questionnaire
responses from the first newsletter indicated vir-
tually no support for small scale cluster systems with
wastewater disposal through a community leaching
facility in the back yards of homes.
Unconventional approaches
involve
UNCONVENTIONAL INDIVIDUAL ON-SITE DISPOSAL
Where failing systems are not rebuildable to
usual on-site standards and are also so scattered or
isolated that some sort of sewer system is not feas-
ible, a number of relatively less desirable alterna-
tives might still be possible to avert the need to
condemn the property. These alternatives include:
1. Reducing the amount of water that must be
disposed into the ground;
2. Forcing effluent into the ground under
pressure;
3. Reducing the wastes in the wastewater.
...reducing the amount of
water used
A-14
REDUCED WATER USE
Systems that reduce the amount of water that must
be disposed range from simple devices that restrict
water flow in shower heads or toilet tanks, through
holding tanks (that must be pumped out regularly), to
exotic systems that totally reclean and recycle waste-
water. In general, the more effective a system is in
reducing wastewater flow, the more costly it is likely
to be. (It should be noted that water conservation is
worthwhile for its own sake, to reduce demand on King-
ston's finite natural resources and to reduce the
energy costs of pumping and heating water.)
-------
One low-cost method for significantly reducing
wastewater flow (to an individual homeowner's disposal
system) is by not doing laundry at home. Average
residential water use is about 45 gallons per capita
per day, of which clothes washing comprises about 10
gallons. So, by using a commercial laundromat, a
significant reduction can be achieved.
Other methods that can be used include minor
modifications of toilet tank water levels and shower
heads.
PUMPING EFFLUENT INTO THE GROUND
Systems that force effluent into the ground under
pressure have been advanced in other places but they
are likely to lead to a greater buildup of the organic
slime in the subsoil. The increasing density of the
slime would tend to decrease the ability to force more
effluent into the ground. Eventually, the system
would establish a dynamic equilibrium (based on the
slime's permeability) with no real gain in water
disposal being accomplished.
...forcing effluent Into
the ground under pressure,.,
CONTROLLING THE WASTES IN THE WASTEWATER
Systems that reduce the waste content in the
wastewater can be expected to reduce the density or
thickness of the slime that usually causes on-site
systems to fail. The less nutrients available to the
slime-building organisms, the less slime there will
be.
Reduction of waste content in the effluent applied
to the leaching system is possible in a number of
ways:
1. Reducing the amount of waste material going
into the wastewater.
2. Improving the pretreatment of wastewater
before it is applied to the leaching system.
Methods for reducing the waste content of waste-
water include not using garbage grinders, not doing
laundry at home, and using composting toilets or
holding tanks for toilet wastes.
...or limiting the concentra-
tion of wastes.
A-is
-------
f V \
m
Unconventional on-site systems
are generally more expensive
than conventional systems.
Eliminating garbage grinding would reduce the
waste (organic) load by about one-third; not doing
laundry at home would reduce it by about one-fifth;
and the use of composting toilets or holding tanks
would reduce it by about one-third. Combined, the
three practices could reduce the waste content of
wastewater by about 85 percent.
COSTS
As a general rule, where the continued use of
existing on-site disposal systems is environmentally
acceptable, it is likely to be the least costly method
of wastewater disposal. Conventional public sewers
are likely to be the most costly method. Community or
cluster systems, in many cases, may be less than con-
ventional sewers although they are very likely to be
more costly than individual on-site disposal.
There are a number of reasons for this order of
costs. On-site systems are inherently smaller, simpler
and require less excavation work. They usually have
no moving parts and require little maintenance.
Further, although most existing on-site systems re-
quire major reconstruction every 20 to 30 years, on
average this reconstruction can be treated, in an
accounting sense, as a future cost that must be dis-
counted for comparison purposes.
EPA is required by law to use such an accounting
procedure, and to fund only the "most cost-effective"
alternative.
-------
-------
APPENDIX B; HYDROGEOLOGIC EVALUATION OF SITE B-2
BACKGROUND
To isolate those areas in Kingston which appear
to be generally favorable for land disposal of efflu- A Town-wide search was con-
ent, CE Maguire conducted a preliminary mapping analy- ducted for suitable land
sis and synthesis of the following information (see application sites.
Figure B-l, a through d):
1. Estimated depth to groundwater.
2. Municipal water supply recharge areas.
3. Residential and commercial development.
4. Areas where the groundwater quality has
probably been degraded well below potable quality,
including the estimated wastewater plume from Kings-
ton 's septage pits.
5. Areas known to be insufficiently permeable.
Analysis and synthesis of this information sug-
gested that all but one area of Kingston is unsuitable
for land disposal of effluent. The one area of Kings- Only one suitable area
ton which might be suitable for land disposal is shown could be found.
in Figure B-2.
B-
-------
-------
Municipal water supply
re&harM *rea&
j
:'A"?9~' v.-v.-
i' ._r'> '?u^-j?rr^^-^rT^^.'^~~ - "•" *.;*'-"'.. • r^S~'—^^ __ ^
a &-I
-------
-------
•Ared4 where
fr-5
-------
Four sites were examined
within the suitable area.
Based on this and an analysis of the area's
geology, four sites were chosen for subsurface drill-
ing exploration. The results are presented after a
discussion of the geohydrologic system.
2000' 4000'
-------
Geohydrologic System:
Regionally, the study area in Kingston lies in an
area of transition between the recessional moraine and
outwash associations to the south, and the till and
bedrock associations found to the north. The study
area itself is characterized by fine to coarse sands
and gravels which probably overlie, and may be inter-
bedded with, less permeable outwash deposits (silt and
clay) and possibly till. The southern most exposures
of bedrock in the region occur less than a mile north-
west of the study area; these outcrops occur at about
40 to 50 feet above Mean Sea Level. Regionally, the
bedrock dips towards the south; borings taken less
than a mile due south of the study area found bedrock
at about 20 to 40 feet above Mean Sea Level. Still
further to the south in Plymouth, the bedrock surface
continues to dip to the south and east, lying more
than 100 feet below Mean Sea Level at the Cape Cod
Canal (U.S.G.S. 1974).
The study area lies about 1 mile north of the
Monks Hill moraine. This is a recessional moraine of
the Late Wisconsin glaciation, and is mostly sandy
till with some well stratified gravel and sand (see
Figure 3, Unit 5). The U.S. Geological Survey investi-
gators Williams and Tasker describe this unit as
having a "texture and hydraulic conductivity highly
variable horizontally and vertically" (U.S.G.S., 1974).
In two places, compact till lies between the Monks
Hill moraine and the study area (Figure 3, Unit 7) .
The geology of the area is
complex.
Surficial geology of the study area itself is
characterized by glacial outwash deposits of fine to
coarse sand and gravel (Figure 3, Units 3 and 4).
Williams and Tasker indicate the sandy outwash deposits
commonly overlie till and possibly clay. The kettle
and kame field topography common to the southwest of
the study area becomes less pronounced in the study
area where the topography has a more terraced appear-
ance. In general, the study area appears to have a
complex geology with some characteristics of the
recessional moraine and outwash associations to the
south, and some characteristics of the till and bed-
rock associations found more commonly to the north.
The supposition that the study area may, in places,
be underlain by a complex interbedding of relatively
coarse and relatively fine grained materials is born
out to some extent by boring logs and other subsurface
data for the surrounding area.
Characteristics of both the
recessional moraine/outwash
and till /bedrock associations
are present.
-------
MAP SHOWING SURFICIA
Description of nuteriib extending from water table to
bedrock and estimated hydraulic conductivity1, in
feet per day (in parentheses). To convert hydraulic
conductivity to coefficient of permeability1, in gallons
per day per square foot, multiply by 7.5.
-------
1
Tidal peat, organic tilt, silt (lets than 10) and fine to med-
ium sand (40-100), commonly less than 30 ft thick.
Generally mantles silt, sand, gravel, and compact silty
bouldery gravel (till).
Dominantly silt and clay (less than 10) lying beneath rel-
atively thin topset and foreset deltaic sand and gravel
(40-250) in Duxbury, Pembroke, and in smaller deltas
elsewhere; lies beneath thin mantle of fine sand (40) in
former lake bottoms. Locally may lie above sand and
gravel (40-250) where unit adjoins those of sand and
gravel. Commonly rests directly on compact silty
boulder gravel (till).
Dominantly fine to coarse sand (40-150) and some thin
beds and lenses of fine gravel (150-200) and silt (less
than 10), chiefly finer grained outwash deposits and
topset and foreset beds of deltas. Sandy outwash
deposits generally rest on compact silty boulder gravel
(till) (less than 10); deltaic sand commonly lies above
silt and clay (less than 10). Texture of deposits be-
comes finer grained southward in individual areas.
Dominantly fine to coarse gravel (150-475) and some beds
and lenses of fine to coarse sand (40-150) and silt (less
than 10). Gravel deposits include topset beds of deltas
and outwash, in which the texture becomes finer grained
southward. Deltaic gravel and some kame field depos-
its generally lie above sand and silt; other kame field
deposits and outwash gravel commonly lie on compact
silty boulder gravel (till) (less than 10).
Chiefly loose, unstratified. unsorted sandy, silty gravel
(sandy till) (less than 100), poorly stratified and poorly
sorted coarse sandy boulder gravel, and some well-
stratified, well-sorted gravel and sand (less than 250).
Texture and hydraulic conductivity highly variable
horizontally and vertically. Thickness unknown from
subsurface data.
Compact unsorted silty boulder gravel (till) (less than 10).
May include small beds and lenses of poorly sorted
stratified gravel, sand, and silt, and is, in some areas,
mantled with relatively thin deposits of gravel, sand,
and silt. Lies immediately above bedrock in most areas;
in much of northern part of area bedrock is exposed.
Compact silty boulder gravel (compact till) (less than 10)
or loose silty sandy boulder gravel (sandy till) (less
than 100) overlying stratified sandy gravel (150-250),
sand (40-50). silt and clay (less than 10) as indicated
above. Stratified deposits rest on lower compact till
unit, or locally on bedrock. Stratified deposits are
undifTerentiated where subsurface data are lacking
and where their presence is inferred.
-------
Many of the test wells
showed a relatively im-
permeable layer present.
Figure B-2 shows the location of selected borings
which surround the study area. A number of boring
logs from these sites show the presence of a rela-
tively impermeable layer or layers of outwash material
(silt and clay predominantly, with occasional hardpan).
In several instances, this less permeable strata lies
below surface deposits of sand and gravel, and above
the coarse grained water bearing strata, although this
is not necessarily the case in the study area because
of the high variability in the texture, thickness and
positioning of these glacial deposits.
\\iAcodtdo
"Kinfi&fon,
Nook
r^^-^rs^V^
' V / \s ,-Qf\~
-------
KEY:
Number of Boring
Shown in Figure B-2 Sources of Subsurface Information
1 Report on 1974-1975 Test Well Investigation,
Whitman & Howard, Inc. (Grassy Hole Well)
2-4 Subsurface Soil Investigation, Whitman s
Howard, Inc. (landfill expansion area)
Figure 1 boring 2 = OW 5
Figure 1 boring 3 = OW 6
Figure 1 boring 4 = OW 7
5 Test Wells in Kingston, MA, Sept. 1972,
Whitman & Howard, Inc.
6 "Site Hydrogeology" - Part of preliminary
draft report by Goldberg-Zoino Associates
on hazardous waste disposal site.
7-14 Massachusetts Hydrologic - Date Report No.
16, U.S.G.S.
Figure B-2 USGS Kingston
Boring Number Well Number
7 B8
8 W137
9 W65
10 W8
11 W113
• 12 W114
13 W51
14 W49
-------
Groundwater movement from
the area is northeasterly.
SUBSURFACE INVESTIGATION
After the evaluation of existing information sug-
gested one area of Kingston was likely to contain
sites favorable for wastewater disposal, a drilling
program was developed to find a useable site. This
drilling program evaluated both soil conditions and
the groundwater's elevation at four locations in the
study area (Figure B-4). It should be noted that the
hydrogeologic evaluation conducted was intended only
to determine if a useable site existed within that
area considered most favorable for wastewater dis-
posal. It was not intended to find the "best" loca-
tion for such disposal. It is possible therefore that
other sites in the vicinity of Site B-2 might also be
used if soil and groundwater conditions were favorable.
The drilling work conducted at each of the four
sites shown in Figure B-4 consisted of drilling to
refusal (bedrock), taking soil samples every 5 feet,
and installing groundwater monitoring wells at least
10 feet below the groundwater table.
The results of this investigation are presented
in Figure B-5 (estimated elevation of groundwater),
the boring logs, and accompanying tables and calcula-
tions.
In summary, the hydrogeologic investigation found:
1. a sufficient depth to groundwater at Site
B-2 (25 to 50 feet approximately).
2. soils at Site B-2 are sufficiently permeable
to allow proper infiltration of treated effluent.
3. soils at Site B-2 are not so coarse that
effluent disposed there would travel underground too
quickly (limiting the soil's treatment of effluent).
4. the groundwater table in the vicinity of
Site B-2 slopes down to the north, indicating that
wastewater disposed at B-2 would become very diluted
in the natural groundwater and eventually emerge in
Second Brook, Third Brook, and the Jones River.
-------
-Ttf*t Wall and
-------
DATE
u
&a
83
2 Z
G.S.Elev.
V\/L (froc)
Bow
Bow fro c^
IVL
BOW (roc)
BIS
loo. oo
1.83
35-^4
3^.52.
unstable
' 85
my
.57.33
45.^8
25-77
46.11
45.^6
25-25"
45.7-5'
2S.QO
BIT
7/0.74
.f
- A//X»
4^.85
46.83
&I8
10+.
00
— A/A
5-^.5-8
73-33
-Ma /i aciucJJ
3/6"
o
o
O
•9
c *
e 2
m m
3 q
m
O
%
^
?
2
O
-------
wAw4t»T'
WKR-i
elev
-------
z
o
>
w
u
wsw
/Z5
//*
35"
851
16
(o5
55
35
25
15
I Approximate
Ground
Surface
ENE
A
24
56
26
31
54
I/Z**
Or br fm(-c)
sand,little to
trace silt,little
to no fm gravel
Or Tan fm(-c)
sand, trace
silt
Becomes siltier
/Boulder
Or br fmc sand,
little fm gravel
vlittle to trace
* 62.
*I35
%.
Br fmc sand, / ^
some too little
fm gravel, little silt
Boulder
-Or Tan fmc sand, some
fmc gravel, little silt,
Or br fm(-c)
sand some to
trace silt,
trace fm
gravel
Boulder
SOIL PROFILE II
KINGSTON, MASS. E.I.S.
Scales
Horizontal: 1" - 400'
Vertical: 1" - 20'
-------
NW
SE
§
•H
ti
*I9
*£l
35
33
40
Approximate
Ground
Or br fmc sand,
little to trace
Silt -and f Gravel
Or br fmc sand,
trace f gravel,
trace silt
(Siltier at
bottom)
Or br fm sand,
little to trace silt,
trace fm gravel.
-fm Gravel, little fm
tr silt
70
20
24
27
*37
*27
Or Tan fm(-c) sand,
trace silt
A
Boulder
Br cmf sand, some
cmf gravel, little silt
-Br cmf Gravel and
— * * fmc sand, little ailt
Strata is interlayered:
fmc aand, little silt
fm sand, some silt
fmc sand, trace silt
f sand, little silt
f sand and silt (varved)
(some layers are
gradational)
occasional gravel
SOIL PROFILE
KINGSTON, MASS. E.I.S.
Scales:
Horizontal: 1" = 400'
Vertical: 1" =« 20'
-------
CP
TC
PR
RE
SJ
QUILO DRILLING
100 WATER STREET EAST PR
C E Masniire. Inc. .
OJECT NAME Environmental Impact State}
POUT «.FNT TO above / ment for Sewer A
MPLES S
i
o\
IDC
LOC
ref
GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS
A, 30'1" ..^"-P. „„,...
Al after Hours
Rods-"N"
Type
Sue 1 D
Hammer Wl
Hammer Fall
C
'IDE
RE!
ATI
1
a
NC
S
W
PR
ou
CASING
HW-NW
4" 3"
300#
1., INC.
E. R 1
Providence, R.I.
Kingston, Mass.
nit|n 3910
a.m.™ 83-155
SAMPLER
S/S
1 3/6"
1400
30"
CORE BAR
BIT
LOCATION OF BORING
1 DEPTH
Casing
Blowl
Per
loot
8
11
28
36
70
38
78
1?1
20r5
64
75
86
42
31
24
14
18
48
54
90
78
65
72
45
£t;
88
95
72
82
112
125
138
Sample
Depths
From- To
0'-1'6"
5'-6'4"
8'6"-10'
13 '6"-15'
18'6"-20'
Z3'6"-251
28'6"-30'
33'6"-35'
Type
of
D
D
D
D
D
P
D
P
GROUND SURFACE TO 35'
Sample Type
0=0ry C= Cored W = *osned
UP=UndistgrDed Piston
TP= Test Pit AsAuger VWoneTeil
UT = UndisturPed Thmwall
TOWN MISI - IAIT »IOV.
Blows per 6"
on Sampler
0-6
2
TJ
24
6
u
16
19
2?
1 6-12
4
38
42
19
17
16
20
27
ProportiO
iitlte
same
and
i2-ie
5
40/4
40
12
JU
31
42
54
Moisture
Density
or
Consist
Moist
loose
1 Moist
At
W<
vc
dc
Wl
rery
mse
!t
sry
:nse
!t
medium
dense
Wet
dense
••
Wet
very
dense
it
USED H*
is Used
01010%
Ow20%
>0»35%
i<
Cones.
0-
10-
3O-
5O
Strolo
Cnonoe
Elev
5'
9 "6"
14'
19 '6"
23 "6"
28 '6"
38 '6"
40 '7"
START
COMPLETE
TOTAL MRJ
BORINCFOR
SHECI
DATE
HOLE
LINE I
OFFSC
sow.
_l <*_3_
NO B-15
ISTA
T -_,„
ELfir
11/10/82 «•«
CHUN
D. SerowiK
SOILS ENGK.
SOIL IDENTIFICATION
Remarks incluae color, gradation , Type of
soil etc Hoci«-eolor,type, condition, hard-
ness , Drifting time , seems and etc
4" Black organic Topsoil -
Reddish Brown fine SAND,
little silt & medium sand,
trace of fine to coarse
gravel
Yellow Brown fine SAND,
some silt
yellow Brown tine to med.
SAND & Gravel, sone si]
t
Brown fine to coarse SAND,
little silt & fine gravel
Gray Brown silty fine S
little fine gravel & me
sand
AND,
d.
Brown fine SAND, little
silt (Brown Silt Lenses)
Light Brown fine to medium
SAND, little fine grave
little silt
JXSING THE!
>OlD wt. 1 30" fa
anless Density
0 Lease
50 Med. Dense
90 Dense
r Very Dense
Drilled
4 NW
Boulder
cas ing
on2"OD. Sampler
Cohesive Consistency
0-4 Soft 30
4-6 M/Sliff
B-IS Stilt
15-30 V-Stilf
l-Mcrd
1,
SAMPLE
No
1
2
3
4
-
«
7
8
Pen
18'
16'
18'
it)1
10
18'
18'
Rec
8"
10"
12"
6"
1U
10"
3"
5UMH
Eortfi Born
Rock Cor in
f*>6'3
' ~77 —
(HOLE NO B-IS
TC
PR
RE
S«
GUILD DRILLIIMG
K» WAFER SFRECT EAST PR
i CO., INC.
OVIDENCE. « 1
XDDRESS
PORT Sf NT TO
UDI re SPUT Tn
GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS
At ., after Hours
rs
Type
S'ifO
Hcnmer Wl
Hammer Fall
PROJ NO
CASING
LOCATION OF BORING
5
8
Casing
BlOWl
per
loot
GROUND
Sample
Depths
From- To
40'7"-42'1'
43'6"-45'
48'6"-50'
53'6"-54'6'
58'6"-60'
63'6"-65'
68'6"-70'
73'6"-75'
78'fj"-gO'
T,p«
ol
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
T)
Blows per 6"
on Sampler
6-6
53
40
26
W
57
300
22
300
44
300
38
300
29
301
10(
22
SURFACE TO
Sample Type
TPtTesl Pi' 6-Ayger VWoneTtft
UTiUndisturoed Th.n*ail
90
)0/3"
22
i UM
40
F Wt.
28
I Wei
40
' Wei
42
i Wei
40
(f Wei
# Wei
27
.2-ie
47
300#
25/3
32
300#
25
ht
64
ht
41
iht
39
iht
42
£ht
zht
27
SAMPLER CORE BAR
MOfStgre
Density
or
Consist
Moist
very
dense
Wet
dense
Wet
very
dense
Moist
very
dense
Net
ve
de
ry
nse
Moist
very
dense
USED
Proportions Used
trace OtoiO%
nine 01020%
some 201035%
ond 35to5O%
"
Strata
Change
Elev
48 '6"
56 '6"
73 ' 6"
BIT
=^^^^^^=
SOIL IDEN
Remarks mclue
soil etc Rocx-c
ness, Drilling tirr
SHEET 1 .. or 3
HOI run B-15
1 It* * !TA
«"•* R FU
Dete. Tim.
«TADT 82
TOTAL MRS
•r%»iur. tnsf sun
SOU A fttfut
TIFICATION
e color, gradation, Type of
ic, seomsandetc
Brown fine to medium SAND
& Gravel,
little silt &
coarse sand, cobbles
Brown fine to coarse SAND,
some s il t
gravel
" & fine
Brown fin
some silt
" trace
ii
& fine to coarse
to coarse Gravel
; to medium SAND,
of fine gravel
Brown fine to coarse SAND,
some silt, little fine
gravel
' CASING THEN
l4OlbW!.«30"to
Cohesioniess Density
0 - 0 Loose
10-50 Med. Dense
30-90 Dense
SO + Very Dense
on 2 00.
Cohesive
0-4
4-6
8-15
15 -3<
SAMPLE
No
9
J.U
11
I'l
1 4
14
1^
In
17
Pen
18'
18'
Iti'
i'2.'
IH
It)1
in
if
Rec
10"
6"
~
7"
12"
17'
10'
1?'
Sampler SUM
Consistency Eorlti Btn
Soft 30 -f Hard Rock Corn
M/Stiff Sompte.
MARY
) v-St'rt'f | HOLE NO B-15
-------
TO
PPX
ME
QUILD DRILLING CO., INC.
WO WATE« ST««T EAST PROVIDENCE. R 1
5JKT UAUT t
>OHT iENT TO
OCATK3N
SAMPLES SENT TO _ OUR JOB NO 83-155
GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS
At after Hours
Type
Sue ID.
Hammer W!
Hammer Fall
CASING
SAMPLER CORE BAR.
BIT
LOCATION OF BORING
1
Casing
BUM
foot
Sample
Depths
From- To
83'6"-85'
88'6"-88'8'
93'6"-9S'
1UJ *f)"-iUi
T»pe
of
D
n
B
on SampKr
0*6|T 6-12
~w
3UO
17«
300J
78
' Wei:
/2"
Wt.
r
2« 1 26
Soap wei
90
300
1 Wei
57
fhe
38
ht
54
1°*
Moisture
Density
or
Consist
Moist
very
dense
it
it
very
dense
Strata
Change
Elev
83 '6"
87'1"
88 '8"
99 '6"
lOe'3"
SOIL IDEN
Remarhs inclufl
•Mete Rack-c
ness, I>*no, tin
Brown fiw
& Gravel,
& sand, 1
WEET_J 0,_L.
V 1C
HOI F run V ij
SURF « ru
jjiu. lisa
TOTAL MRS.
6X3RINC FOREMAN
sfln* viioa
TIFICATION
e color, gradation. Type of
«IOr, type, condition, nord-
M, seams and etc
, to mediim SAND
some coarse grave
Lttle silt
Drilled Boulder-87 • 1" to 88'
Itouldfir
Broun fin
some silt
gravel &
Broun fin
Silt & fl
Gravel
" some f
Refusal
of Borin,
Installed
10' Sere
30' of 2
with Ste
and Cap
ggpp,, TyDt Proportions Used !40nWt.t 3O"fa
OTOry C=Cor»d W.*05h.d Wee 01010% CO"?*Jrt" *"""''
UP--UndlSturMd Piston H»» 101020% B-JO-MeSnSIn,.
tPiTMtPit A'Auger ViVaneTest same 201035% 50-9O Oente
UT"Unai»turbed Thnwall and S9to90% SO+ Very Densa
tOWH Milt - '*" """
1Pra0fn*nf-«
e to medium SAND,
, little fine
coarse sand
e to coarse SAND,
ne to medium
ine gravel
- Bottom
g 106'3"
Well at 40*
en
" Solid PVC
el Guard Pipe
SAMPLE
No
Ib
5"
19
• T1
21!
1 on 2"00. Sampler SUMI.
Coheeive Coneistsncy Earth Bom
0-4 Soft 30 + Hard Rock Carln
4-0 M/Stlfl SompMe .
19-30
Pen
TF
2«
if
101
Rec
16"
1"
14'
l4''
^sz-
v-siii'i IHOLE NO .•-"
BUILD DRILLING CO., INC.
no WATEI STREET EAST PROVIDENCE, R 1
»« C E M*eu{re. Inc 1.^.^55 Providence. RI
panirrr utuc Environmental Impact Sta.tafLp,>Trr| Kingston. Mass.
REPORT SFJHT TO above / ment for Sewer Area. „„„ , ^
CAUPI Fe. cjffur Tn none
GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS
Mudded
rs
Rods "Htf" CASIN6 SAMPLER
sTio £#
Hommfr Fall
83-
CORE BAR.
BIT
LOCATION OF BORING
DEPTH
Casing
Blo»l
P»
foot
SompU
Depths
From- To
T»oe
01
Sompls Typ,
D=Dry C=Cored w*Aosned
UP'UndisturMd Pijlon
TP= Test Pit A^Auger V=Vont Tost
UT = Undlsturbsd Tnmwall
Blows per 6"
on Somplif
I 6-12
Moisture
Density
or
A
Slroto
pev
ddiCioi
u
SHEET LOF—L.
Ha F km B-15
[32 SURF. ELEV.
START 2/3/83
COMPLETE 2/4/83
TOTAL MNS.
BORING FOREMAN _E
INSPECTOR
SOUS EMM
ATTI;: —
SOIL IDENTIFICATION
Remarks include cater, gradation, Type of
sot etc. Rock-G0lorttype,eonditionthord-
ness, Dmhng time, seems ond etc
Removed previously installs
mil and redrilled to 67',
installing new well @ 58'.
Used:
al 10' - 2" P7C slotted
10' - 2" PVC solid
1 Bag Cement
Prooorlions Us«d l4OtbWt.x 3o"fo
wee OtolO% Cohenonlais Density
"tie 101020% O'S. Loos*
uwiu ?n<«a«a/ IO-3O Med. Ovnse
«omt 201039% JQ.JO (j^,,
o« 391090% 50+ VorytSn..
1
on2"OO. Sompler
Cohtsive Consistency
0-4 Soft 304
4-e MVStlff
6-19 Stiff
I9-3O V-Stiff
SAMPLE
No
1
SUMM
Eortti Bern;
Hard Rock Carin
Soniolas ..
Pen
R*e
^Si4-,i
0 /
f
| HOLE NO B-15
-------
QUILO DPIL.L.ING CO., IN
NO WATfl STIEIT EAST PROVIDENCE. R 1
TO C E Maouire Inc. |ftDOPEM Provid
PR
RC
SA
OJCCTM
PORT SEN
MPLESS
C. *HE£T 1 — of_2_
P«T .. . ,,_ .,„.
nc«. RI "***<> 6=^^
IT TO above /n«nt for Sewer Are-y^,,^ 3910 OFFWT
'•"TO " IfMjn.un 83-155 SUNF. ELEV
GROUND WATIR OBSERVATIONS
At 21 '*" .fur £___.«<„,,
D«~
Rod. "H" CASING SAMUR CORE MR ^^ 11/16/82
T>p, HH »w s/s eonmre H'1"'81
So. ID *"3" TW TOTiLW.
H™-,*. 300# 1»0# ,1T (WWIW FORtlUK _IL-
H. r™, 24" 30"
s.m
{ft
serowik
90fV9 rMO*
LOCATION OF BORING
*
Cos,nS
BUMI
pw
loo<
A
Q
't
'(3
*r\
18
An
7R
'|2
7
i
5
e
10
12
7
5
9i
SompU
Dtptlis
From- To
)'-!'«"
S'-4'
r*»ntn i~A«lng
*'-<,'*''
i'6"-10'
1 V«"-H'
T ka'6"-20'
i I
' 1
i
11
16
i ft
L
t.
GROUND
Sompn TH
OiDry C=O
UPiUndniix
TP.TKI fa
UT»Undf«gf
1OWM M.II
7fli nn.^n1
33'6"-35'
38'6"-*o-
T»p«
Of
D
n
D
n
D
ft
u
D
Blows per e"
on SoffVMi
6-6
2
9
42
Ifl
22
9
5f,
37
9
SURFACE T"
*
trtt WtvwineO
Md Piston
A>Augtr VWcmTstt
Oft TIWI.01I
s - lAsf NOV.
I 6-IE
2
17
41
14
JID
11
34
11
ii-i^
2
75
20
74
25
27
44
u
Moilturl
Dtntity
or
Con|i|t
M/looai
M/denn
W/daoai
W/v/d
W/densi
M/v/d
fl
W/m/d
Stroto
Chdrm
Ern.
5'
7'
12'
18'6"
Pushed
cobble
28'
33-6"
USED Hlj & NW CASING;
Proportions Uud MOBWI.i}
Iroct OrolO% ColmionMM DM
ktti* lomao^u ^"^ too
,« So/ «-SO MM.O,
sonw 201039% SO-SO Dim
M J5to50% 50+ VsryOi
SOIL IDENTIFICATION
Rtmorks mclud* color, grodotion, Typ* of
soil tic Roa.cosgr.typt.eondilion.Mcd-
rwts, Drilling tirm, »«oms ontf *K
6" Black organic Topiotl -
leddlah brown fine SAHD 6
Silt
Yellow Brown fine to medium
SAND, tr lilt C, fine erivel
fellov Brown fine to medium
SAND, some silt, little fine
gravel
Jrown fine to coarie SAND,
little allt & fine to medium
gravel
Brown coarae to fine SAND &
fine Gravel, tr. of silt
Brown fine SAND, tr.silt &
medium aand
Brown fine SARD, little silt
& fine gravel
Sr.fine to meJ.SAND.Ut". line
to coar.iravel.tr. of silt
SAMPLE
No
1
u
2
3
4
}
d
)
0
y
PMt
181
12'
li)1
id1
Ifl1
• T1'
1O
let1
IB
Ib
R«c
ft"
-
14"
12"
R"
4"
J
6"
li£lv
Ijii
0"tollonZ"OD Sompttr SUMMARY: .
stty Cohnin Consistency Eorth Bo»s TZ±_i
It O-4 Soft 3O+HOM Roc* Coring _____
^mm «-• U/SH« Sonol-* ,„—.»?,
in 19-30 v-Stlff (HOLE NO. B-16
TC
M
IS
s<
*_
GUILD DRILLIIMO CO., IN
WO WATER STKHT EAST PROVIDENCE. R 1
IAOORESS
Q, SHEET 2 o« 2
("T , _
MO run B-16
1 Itf » IT» _ _
PORTSEMTTO_ |*"mUE« CORE BAM. ....
1 fnutif ft M-l
TOTAL HW , _
BIT lUUSVrMI
B owi ptr 6"
on SampMir
6-6
15
18
?«;
24
ifl_
60
( 3
Ro
' e-12
13
16
•JL
_i2_
7?
(
*l
o# <
ler 1
,2-18
18
27
in
27
?7
lOCMh
50
t.)
It
Moiltwt
Omsity
or
Consist
V/dense
W/»/d
11
11
Slrolo
CMngc
Eliv
43 '6"
48'6"
58-6"
*$F-
66'
71 '5"
SOIL IDENTIFICATION
Rtrnorks tncludt C0l0f;orodo1lonr Typi of
soilttc. Rock-calor,typ«teonditionthord-
n*ss, DnNing tint, todrni end «1c
Little allt
Brown stlty fine SAND
" little «ilt
ITellow Brown very fine SAND
» Silt (layered)
-ight Brown fine SAND, little
>ilt
trown silty fine to coarse
SAND & fine to medium Grivel
sorae cobbles
Bottom of Boring 7Z'2"
Installed Well @ 45'
25' Screen 20' Solid
Steel guard pipe, cap & lock
+ cement
SAMPLE
No
IU
J]
1 2
1J
1A
S°"'ll< ,T|P* Mwrnont UMd '«OH>WI..30"lollon2"OO.S«n(>l« SUM!
0=0ry CiCorad W=9Vos)wd ran 01010% Cnmnonlm Dmily CoMtM CmiMiKy torn Bon
UP.UnftilgroM Piston Mnt IOW2O% 0-» LOOM 0-4 Soft 30+ Hard Roe* Cor.
TP.TtMP,i A=*u,e. VWom1.fl „,„ zo»3S
-------
QUILD DRILLING CO., INC.
WO WATER STREET EAST PROVIDENCE. R 1
m C E Maraiire. Inc. liMJOTW Providence. R.I:'
PROJECT MAMT Environmental Impact Statelr~... — Kingston. Mass.
R?P•<»..» 191°
GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS
|
Dr
th
BOI
vl
7/
$g
oT
UP
TP
UT
t
OCATIOI
Blovi
P*
foot
8
12
16
43
Had
hud
h 1-
BlTi
20
26
32
36
27
43
-ft-
67
42
45
39
~28
32'
57
GROUND
mplt Typ
>y C'Ct
< Undilhjrl
• T«st Pit
lUndlltur
DW* Mil
(I OF BORING
Somplt
Dtptril
From- To
3'6"-5'
8'6"-10'
28'6ll-30l
33'6"-3i'
38'6"-40' 1
SURFACE TO
«
"rod Wzwosnod
•d Piston
A'Augir ViVor
ElCt ThinnMK
I . IAIT MOV.
Tyo.
ot
D
.£_
kJ
nTut
Bk
on
14
!IU
26
9
10
10
tod.-'*" CASIN
Homnw Foil 2ft"
)Mplr6
Sompli
1 6-12
3
16 ,
li ,
32
19
15
12
Proportic
troct
Mtu
HIM
ond
2-ie
18
20
38
19
15
nt UM
Oto 10"
01020°
ZOtoSS'
»»SO
OUNJOBNO. 83
G SAMPLER
0
Vf
%
dlum
mse
n
14
Conn
fl-
lC-
50
Strou
Choose
Eln
3'6"
6'
23 "6"
33'6"
38 '6"
•O»Wt.<3
onloit 0*f
10 LOW
SO Mod.Di
50 Dm
+• Viry Ol
-155
CORE BAR.
BIT
tHcrr
l_or^_
unrun B-17
omCT
SURT. B.EV..
•— SET-
START 11/22/82
COMPUTE ll/2«/82
TOTAL M**.
BORtNO FOREMAN _Jl»_J
«HLa tHQrn
SOIL IDENTIFICATION
Rimorkl includt color, grodolion, Typi of
•oil etc. Roctt-celor,typi, condition, nord-
nt»t, Drifcng him. loornt ond «tc
2" Black Organic Topsoil -
Reddish Brown fine to med.
SAND, some silt
Brown tine to medium ^Alw,
little fine to coarse
gravel, trace of silt
Brown fine to medium SAND
& Gravel, Cobbles &
Boulders, some silt
Yellow Brown fine to coarse
SAND 6 fine to medium Grave
little silt, cobbles &
Tallow Brown fine to mediun
SAND, some silt
" little silt, coarse
sand & fine gravel
Tallow Brown fine to
medium SAND, little
silt
" trace of fine gravel
Tallow Brown fine SAND,
li
to
0"to
wty
II
KIM
M
n«o
ccie silt
now Brown siit>
coarse SAND
on Z"OO. SompMr
Connnt Corwmncy
0-4 Soft SO
4-8 M/Sllff
8-15 Stiff
IS-SO V-S«ff
cine
4.Hord
Eonk
Rock
Samp
-~-z
ierowiK
s
No
1
i
4
1
9
sum
Bonr
Corin
W _
AMPI
Pin
18'
1H1
is;
IS1
it"
IB1
18'
18'
5^
g _
X
R*c
6"
0"
8"
12"
5"
12"
8"
7"
y
0'
2Z
(MOLE NO B-I?
QUILD DRILLING CO., INC.
MO WATER SWEET EAST PROVIDENCE. R 1
TO IAOORESS
PROJECT NAME . (LOCATION .
REPORT SENT TO -~, . ^
GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS
Al_ , otMr .. Moort
So
D:
UP
TP
UT
LOCATIO
Covng
Blo»>
(901
mpll Ty(
Dry C:Ct
--UndKtur
»Tl»t Pit
:Undlltur
N OF BORING
Sompli
Dtptht
Froirt- To
43'6"-45'
48'6"-50'
53'6"-55'
58'6"-60-
red W=*oshed
wd Piston
A:AuOB' ViVOn
Dtd Thinwdll
Tyoi
Of
fi
D
D
I .
iTost
B
or
Frolf
6-6
^0(1
3QC
12
300
JOO
f
t
t
i
t
ou
CASING
Typl
>virwn~Mlt
owspir
Sompu
1 6-IZ
5
.UL
We;
12
Wei
-12-
»roo«rtic
roet
fttt
otnc 't
md :
s"
r
To
7
20
it
15
>t
«• uw
OtolO1*
OtoZOT
•OtoJS1!
15 to 50'
Moiitura
Dmlly
or
Coniiit
»et
medium
dense
Jet
dense
Wet
aedium
dense
1 14
. e—.
: i?;
X, I?',
..«M 83-155
SAMPLEft CORE BAR.
Stroto
Chong.
Ehv
43 '6
48' 6"
53' 6"
58 '6"
60'
Oewt.«3<
MUMl Dtn
0 Loot
K> Mod.M
M Om
• Viry Dl
BIT
START
COMPLETE
TOTAL MR!
•OUENOR
m«rf 2 n. 2
uisracTA
SUNK CUV.
nun
SOIL IDENTIFICATION
Rirnorkt inchido color, gradation. Typo of
•oilitc Roa-cofcr.typi.egnditiori.kird-
niM, Oraing liini, Moms end Ite
Brawn fine SAND with Gray
Silt Layers, trace of
fine to medium gravel
Brown fine SAND,
little silt
Light Brown coarse to fine
SAND & fine Gravel, some
silt
Brown fine SAND, some silt,
trace of fine gravel &
mrrHimi sand
Installed well at 45'
10' Screen - 35' of 2"
Solid PVC
Steel Guard Pipe, Cap,
Lock & Cement
J"fo
lily
•
I>M
•
KM
onZ'OO. Somptor !
Cohtln* CcmiMrcy Eonti
0-4 Soft 30 + word Ron
J-e M/SHft 1 Sompl
is-so v-ltMf IHOLE
=11
S
No
10
11
U
UMM
ton
^n.
m -.
lAMP
Pin
Lit1
l(j'
IB'
.H1
451
LE
Roc
Lli"
14"
LU"
.41'
NO B-17
-------
TC
GUILD DRILLING
tOO WATER STREET EAST PR
C E Mtculre. Inc. ,
PROJECTS
REPORT SE»
SAMPLES S
At-
ITTO above / ment for Sewer Ai
Ov
too
oc
ea
• SIT TO "
GROUND WATER OBSERAATK)
NS
s
r»
Wds-"R"
Type
Site ID
Mcmmer Wt
Mommer Foil
CO., INC.
IOENCE, R 1
»(•«,« Providence, R.I.
ATI
M .
M ^ 391°
a"Wf*K> 83-155
CASING
HM-NW
4" 3"
300*
4"
SAMPLER
9/9
1 3/8"
140*
30"
CORE BAR.
LOCATION OF BORING
X
Dr
Ro
B
tb
ad
Casing
Blow!
P*r
foot
HjuL.
ead
ff-V
1 *T-
e
_
an~*A
i
11
12
Sample
Depms
From- To
0'-1'6"
3'6"-5'
8'6'VLO1
ll'fil'-IS1
iH'fi".?n'
23'6"-2V
28'6"-30'
33'6"-3S'
Typt
of
P
D
n
n
n
n
D
n
D
Blows per 6"
on Sample*
-rff
3
9
30O
9
30f>
e.
^nn
f,
ifioi
q
3 Oft
1U
3001
14
1 6-12
4
16
; Well
9
: UM-ff
{
U» Test Pit AiAuger v«VoneTeet some 20to35%
UTtUndislurbed Trwwoll ond 3Jto5O%
TOWN MtM - l»«t MOW.
Strata
Change
Elev
2'
8'6"
13'
18 '6"
23' 6"
33 '6"
38 ' 6"
START
COMPUTE
TOTAL MR)
•ORINGFOd
SNtfT 1 M 2
RAW
HOioie B-18
amtT
«>»• n r-
303.
11/24/32
11/29/82
EISA* D. i
IS:
ieittUVK
MBPECTOII
SOILS ENOR.
SOIL IDENTIFICATION
Remarks include color, grade
soil etc Bocn -color. type, cor.
neis.DnHinglime, seams and
lion, Type of
«tnn,nard-
tlc
2" Black Organic Topsoll -
Reddish Brown fine
little silt & medii
SAND,
urn sand,
Brown fine to coarse SAND
& Gravel, Cobbles
Boulders, some sil
i
t
Yellow Brown fine to ned.
SAND, some silt, 1
fine gravel
Brown medium to fli
little silt, trace
gravel & coarse sat
Lttle
ne SAND,
of fine
ad
Yellow Brown fine to medium
SAND, little silt,
fine gravel
Gray Brown fine to
SAND, some silt, t
fine gravel & coar
trace of
medium
race of
se sand
Brown fine to medium SAND,
trace of silt & fine gravel
Yellow Brown fine to medium
SAND, little Silt
U "CASING: THE
l40BWt.,JO"lo
Coneuonues Deneiiy
0-10 Loose
IO-30 Med. Dense
30-50 Dense
JO+ Very Dame
i HW d
Bln»
SAMPLE
No
1
2
3
4
b
£
1
6
9
Pen
18'
It)'
18'
1ft1
nr
•
18"
itt"
18'
18'
Roc
6"
6"
8"
ft"
8"
9"
LU"
D5"
IV
1 on 2"OO. Sampler 1 SUMMARY ,
Cohesive Consistency I Enrltt BOTM 55
0-4 Soft 30 + Mart Hoe* Coring ___
4-8 M/SHff | Samples - 1Z
8-15 SHIf i u«. e- — T!*S7 TS"~
IS-30 v-Stilf HOLE NO B-18
TC
PR
HE
S<
GUILD DRILLING
100 WATII STMET EAST ft
1 CO., INC.
OVIDENCI. R 1
ADDRESS , . - , -
PORT SENT TO _ DO/I i »|Q
>mp«r>ITTn niBjnfBfn 83-155
GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS
Ai . , _ 0*i*» MOM'*
Type
Sut ; D
Homtntr Foil
CASING
SAMPLER cone BAR
BIT
LOCATION OF BORING
5
1
Cosing
Blows
P"
fept
Somplt
Depths
From- Te
43'6"-45'
48'6"-50'
53'6"-55'
Typt
of
D
P
D
B ows p«r 6"
on Som«W
^
1$
22
IB
1 6-12
19
\8
16
"T2-B
20
22
19
Moisture
Density
Or
Consist
Wet
denae
ti
ti
Strolo
Cnonge
Eltv
43 '6"
48 "6"
53 '6"
55'
STAUT
coMHrrt
TOTAL HR3
SOMNG POfl
INSPECTOX
SOILS tNOR
eucrr 1 it* 2
ROT
xnrun B-18
111* SV STi
arnrr
>ustr n *u
Don Tm»
e.m
ts
(«""
SOIL IDENTIFICATION
Rtmorks include color, grfltfo
coil tic. Roch-color, type, com
ness, Dmmg lime, seams ond
non, Type of
dition.nord-
etc
Yellow Brown medium to fine
SAND, some silt, ti
coarse sand
Yellow Brown fine S
some silt
Yellow Bro
Silt (laye
wn fine !
red & con
•ace of
AND,
AND &
•pact)
Bottom of Boeing 55'
Installed Well at '
15' Screen
25' of Solid PVC
Steel Guard ?ipe,
Lock & Cement
S»npl« Typt Proportions Ustfl 140* Wl., JO"(o
D'Or, C=Cor»l w=-*osi>eo iroct OiotO% CohtsmnHis Omiily
UP'Undisiuroed Piston IIIK !Oto2O% S"10 LoMf
TP--T.M Pi. A=Aooe- VWontTttl um 2O»35% H'S "^S-?"**
UT^UnDiilvroed Tn,n«oll ond 3»to5O% 50+ Irtry 0«ni«
on2"00. Sompn,
Cohesive Consistency
0-4 Soft 30
4-8 M/Stlff
••15 SMI
IS-50 V-SWf
tO1
Cap i
SAMPU
No
IV
11
J2
EarmBan
•f Hard Rock Corn
Samples
Pen
R'
8"'
8'
Dec
?"
4"
?"
«RI
"9
| MOLE NO B-18
-------
TC
PS
RE
V
GUILD DRILLING
WO WATER STRUT EAST Pfl
C E MAmiire. Inc. |
KXIECTW
PORT SEP
MPLESS
UJF Environmental Impact State-)
t
o\
ADC
LOC
r
pur tn None
GROUND WATER OBSERVATIONS
a* , , 9*f , . »*mf'f
Mudded
r»
cc
'IDENC
WESS
ATION
VF^ft
1., INC.
E, R 1
Klnuton. Mass.
louRjoeNO n 83-232
Rods "NW" CASING
T,pt Bf
Site ID _&I!
MommerWI 300ff
un™™, Fnll 24"
SAMPLER COME BAR.
LOCATION OF" BORING '
s
Cosing
Bio**
Mr
foot
GROUND
Sompit
Depth*
From- To
*
-
;•
•-i-
Typt
Of
6>ows ptr 6"
on SompMr
•^f
Somp<« Type
D;Dfy C=Corfd Ws'Aosrwd
UPiUndnturMd Piiion
TP«TlMPi» A^AuQer VWmTMl
UT:lMdi»1urb*d Th,nwOII
1 6-13
i3-l!
MOiltUfC
Dtnuty
Of
Connsl
JSED
Proportion* U»*d
trace OtolO%
kltU IOtoZO%
umc 20to3S%
ond 351050%
Strolo
Cnonge
Em
CA
-------
W*OJECT
SUBJECT
COMP.
>. £ \
>
C. a \ c o» W.-J" i'ov%<,
CHECK
ACC. NO
SHEET NO._L_OF
DATE >3U "I 19
CONT.
616 4 6 IS.
-Jo de-term v/ve.
i'n O<.c..«mc\
n *
-31
-31
n '
.33
-------
SUBJECT
COMP.
CHECK
ACC. NO
SHEET NO.ji.OF.
DATE 3/7 19 5-3
CONT. NO.-sT
V -f.
9 ,
'
* 2 & 88 <^*
* & /$ y
ftl Jtt
/
(5/8
FT
9+
v *
1-81
-------
15
01
rt
0)
Curve reflecting calculations
on 6 velocity calculations of
time in years versus the D.~
size in mm.
-------
^^..M-.l^-f-l?
n
* ZOO 3,*/
16
.05 E
^L.
A,
4,
L/£.
-
2..S X/Q-3
A --.85?
I.4QX/Q
"'
o
^15,551/3.5-23
IS
6/
Z5
15
r!3.5-/
-
.k.
3Z
ffly.gg.».5'y
JflL
•?'
Li
' 5
JL!
Jlo
.53
59
.45
*fi±£
^i
12.
1±
.045F
.35
• onzsz
J^_
^4i
.59
-ii
.75
.5Z
.47
.Ift
1.0X10
*
.1?
.21
JG35.
,36
j2i£
.078
4-9
,54,
38
87
.14
,ze
.85
.52.
3 x / r>
~ '
3.4ZX/Q
"2
2.?4
8.33 X
4-9
o
^
8
Z
0
>
m
o
Tl
N
-------
-------
EVALUATION OF DISPOSAL AT SITE A-3, ESTUARY ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
The development of a treatment alternative employ-
ing eventual disposal to the Jones River included
evaluations of a wide array of treatment processes,
and disposal options (Section IV). The site selection
process had identified three potential treatment plant
sites along the lower reaches of the Jones River on
Rocky Nook (Figure C-l). Public preferences and
design considerations led to the selection of Site A-3
for more detailed evaluation of treatment and disposal
options. At the time this determination was made, the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering (DEQE) decided there was a significant
potential for adverse impacts on the estuary of cer-
tain disposal options being considered, and so an in-
depth scientific evaluation of the existing estuary
environment, and the impacts of certain options was
necessary. This appendix describes this in-depth
analysis, the results obtained, and their significance.
This analysis consists of two parts. First, the
existing environment is characterized, with particular
emphasis on the hydrography of the lower reach of the
Jones River and the tributaries which border the
proposed treatment and disposal site. The second part
of the analysis is an evaluation of potential changes
in the estuary environment which might result from the
disposal of wastewater from Site A-3 (Figure C-2).
This second part estimated treatment plant effluent
quality from reports on process performance made in
the literature, used this information with flow pro-
jections and the baseline hydrographic information to
estimate water quality changes in the estuary, and
finally, relied on the literature for the evaluation
of impacts on the environment.
-------
don* 30nes
'• ''^^^"^T^*^** »/^*
-------
-------
CONCLUSIONS
The conclusions reached through these evaluations
include:
1. After treatment in facultative aerobic lagoons,
with polishing, the best method of final treat-
ment and disposal is with ultraviolet disinfec-
tion, filtration through a leaching field which
is underdrained to an effluent distribution
system. This distribution system allows the
effluent to flow over the surface of the marshes
with ultimate disposal to the tidal reach of
Smelt Brook and the tide creeks adjacent to the
site.
2. Wastewater disinfection with chlorine, even with
subsequent dechlorination posed an unjustifiable
environmental risk to estuarine animal populations.
3. With proper operation and maintenance of the
proposed facilities, the effluent will be of a
very high quality when it reaches the receiving
surface waters.
4. Treated effluent would be greatly diluted in the
receiving waters because of the high degree of
tidal flushing in this estuary.
5. In addition to the potential for odor problems in
abutting residential area, the principal environ-
mental drawback of wastewater treatment and
disposal facilities at Site A-3 is its close
proximity to sensitive natural areas and the
small size of the site. Should there be problems
with operation or maintenance of these facilities,
there is little room on site to make a design-
oriented response to the problem, and at the same
time the close proximity to the marsh provides
virtually no spatial or temporal buffer between
the facilities and the estuary.
-------
LJ
ID)
A. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
Site Description
Site A-3 is a lowlying old field near the
mouth of the Jones River in Kingston, Massachu-
setts (Figure C-l). The site is approximately 22
acres in total area; of this, 14 acres are
upland. Site topography (Figure C-3) shows the
upland rising to approximately 20 to 25 feet
above Mean Sea Level, with the upland-salt marsh
border at about 6 feet above Mean Sea Level, and
the salt marsh-tide creek border at about 5 feet
above Mean Sea Level.
Site A-3 is relatively isolated from nearby
residential areas, both visually and in terms of
accessibility. To the south, this site borders
an infrequently used railroad line. On all other
sides, this site is bounded by both fresh and
salt water marshes and their drainageways.
Upland at Site A-3.
As shown on the vegetation map, Figure C-4,
the upland portion of Site A'-3 is an old field,
open in appearance due to the scarcity of tree
cover with approximately 50 percent shrub layer
-------
Cfcrtuwt* Mea* Sen lev*)
-------
cover over much of the site. The soils are
predominantly silty till with some ponding of
runoff waters in shallow depressions and com-
pacted surface soils alongside the path which
traverses this site. Drainage on site is gener-
ally poor. Groundwater which seeps out along the
railroad line maintains wet soil conditions along
much of the southern border of the site.
During times of high runoff and high ground-
water table, the wet area will extend a greater
distance from the railroad tracks into the site,
although the site's topography provides for good
drainage to the wetlands which skirt the upland.
Test pits dug by Whitman & Howard on this site
found the groundwater table at about 3 to 10 feet
above Mean Sea Level. The potential for flooding
from the Jones River under conditions of high
river flow, at high tide, with a storm surge of
bay waters has not been quantified as yet by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
Regular monthly extremes in high tides flood the
salt marshes entirely to its border with the
upland. Preliminary FEMA mapping in Kingston
showed the elevation of the 100-year flood
waters along the coastal shore of Rocky Nook to
be about 10 to 12 feet above Mean Sea Level. It
is expected that the 100-year flood waters at
Site A-3 could be higher than along the Rocky
Nook coast due to the significant freshwater
drainageways surrounding the site.
£-7
-------
-------
APPENDIX C: PART A
Vegetation
The portion of the site which would be used for
wastewater treatment facilities is currently vegetated
with upland shrubs 3 to 6 feet in height, and has the
general appearance of abandoned pastureland (Figure C-
4). Along the lower slopes, there is a line of red
cedars and white pines generally ranging from 15 to 30
feet in height with some pines as high as 50 feet
tall. Below this line of trees there is a wet area
where the groundwater from the site seeps out and
drains to the upper border of the salt marsh. In this
area, the shrub vegetation is often characterized by
wetland species such as high bush blueberry, arrow
wood, seaside alder, and common reed (Phragmites
communis). The boundary between this wet shrub thicket
Upland border with salt
marsh.
C-<\
-------
and the upper border of the salt marsh is distinct in
places where storm debris has washed up from the river
and old stumps/ trees, pieces of wire fencing and
other debris were apparently dragged down from the
upland. In other places, the transition between
upland and the salt marsh is less distinct.
The salt marsh itself is typical of that found in
New England, the upper border is characterized by
switch grass or panic grass, and marsh elder (Figure
C-5). The high marsh is covered with salt meadow
grass Spatina patens, and seashore salt grass (Distichlis.
spicata), tall salt marsh grass (Spartina alterniflora)
covers the lowest part of the marsh, alongside tidal
creeks in the area regularly inundated with the daily
tide.
Alongside the mosquito ditches which traverse the
high marsh, plants common along the upper border of the
salt marsh thrive on the higher ground created by the
peat and muck once shoveled from the ditches. Among
these, marsh elder is the most prominent. The salt
marsh adjacent to the site has few salt pannes, and
these are small and not particularly distinct. There
are no true pond holes in this part of the marsh.
in the lowlands along the eastern edge of the
site, a red maple swamp provides a continuous flow of
water to the main tidal creek and several of its
tributaries. Between the wooded swamp and the tidal
-------
* ^
upland
marsh, just south of the path which traverses the site
there is a small brackish wetland dominated by herba-
ceous vegetation including: switch grass, narrow
leaved cat tail, blue flag, and large areas of seaside
golden rod. A similar brackish meadow (mapped as a
shallow fresh marsh by Massachusetts DEM) is found
along Smelt Brook between Route 3A and the railroad
tracks. In both cases, the brackish vegetation has
probably been influenced by the restriction of tidal
flushing at the railroad and at the culvert where the
path crosses the creek. Freshwater wetlands along
Rowlands Lane to the north and east of the site also
contribute freshwater to the tidal creeks.
Table C-l lists some of the characteristic species
found in these different plant communities. Figure C-
4 shows the approximate boundaries of these different
groups. The characterization of vegetation at, and
surrounding Site A-3 was done by several walkovers of
the site with approximate boundaries located with the
aid of Massachusetts wetlands maps (aerial orthophotos)
and the FEMA photogrammetric maps. Should this site
be selected for wastewater treatment and disposal
facilities, permanent quadrangles should be set up at
and near the points of wastewater discharge to the
marsh to establish a rigorous baseline for studying
changes in vegetation.
c-\\
-------
OLD FIELD
Tree Layer - 5% coverage
White pine Pinus strobus L., occasional
Red cedar Juniperus virginiana L., common
Black locust Robinia pseudoacacia L., rare
Grey birch Betula populifolia, rare
Shrub Layer - 75% coverage
Trees:
Black cherry
White pine
Red cedar
Prunus serotina Ehrh./ occasional
Pinus strobus L., occasional
Juniperus virginiana L., rare
Shrubs;
Staghorn sumac Rhus typhina L., common
Bayberry Myrica pensylvanica Loisel, occasional
Bittersweet Celastrus scandens L., occasional
Red osier dogwood Cornus stolinifera Michx.,
occasional in wet spots
.11 , '
U%CI
-------
WET MEADOW/THICKET
Tree Layer - only where overlap occurs with old field
vegetation (see Vegetation Map).
Shrub Layer - 90% coverage
Same tree and shrub species as for shrub layer
of old field, plus:
Shrubs:
arrow-wood Viburnum dentatum L., common
high bush blueberry Vaccinium corymbosum L.,
common
sweet gale Myrica gale L., occasional
Herbs;
Common reed Phragmites communis Trin.
occasional
Herb Layer - 10% coverage
Switch grass Panicum virgatum L., common
Golden rod Solidago spp., occasional
Herb Layer - 25% coverage
Switch grass Panicum virgatum L., occasional
lance-leaved golden rod, Solidago graminifolia
Salisb. occasional
elm-leaved golden rod, Solidago ulmifolia Muhl.,
occasional
turkey foot Andropogon gerardi Vitm,
occasional
grasses Gramineae family, common as a group
-------
BRACKISH MARSH
Tree Layer - none
Shrub Layer - 5% coverage (at border with upland)
Shrubs:
Rugosa rose
Bayberry
Winterberry
Rosa rugosa Thunb.
Myrica pensylvanica Loisel, rare
Ilex verticillata (L.) Gray, rare
Herb Layer - 95% coverage
Shrubs;
Marsh-elder
Herbs:
Iva frutescens L., rare
Seaside golden rod Solidago sempervirens L., common
Switch grass Panicum virgatum L., common
Narrow-leaved cat tail Typha angustifolia L.,
occasional (common along stream)
-------
Blue Flag Iris versicolor L., occasional
(common along stream)
Yarrow Achillea millefolium L., rare
Grasses Gramineae family, common as a group
WOODED SWAMP
Tree Layer - 100% coverage
Red maple Acer rubrum L., common
Shrub Layer - 60% coverage
Arrow-wood Viburnum dentatum L. common
High bush blueberry Vaccinium corymbosum L.,
occasional
Herb Layer - 40% coverage
Touch-me-not Impatiens biflora Walt., common
-------
Channel margin at low
tide, Station E.
Soils
The soil of the upland site where facilities
construction would take place is sandy till with a
full range of particle sizes from silts to gravel and
cobble size rocks. The marsh itself is organic peat
overlying till and with muck covering many channel
bottoms and sides. There is evidence of the progres-
sive submergence of the upland as the rising sea level
allows the salt marsh to creep up over the upland.
Evidence pointing to this includes the stumps of red
cedar, a common old field species, protruding up
through mats of Spartina patens or Juncus gerardi orf
the high marsh north of Site A-3. Also, large boulders
protrude up out of the peat in the higher elevations
of the salt marsh. In the upper tide creeks of the
estuary, the depth of peat is relatively shallow
(about 2 feet) over stony till; the bottoms of these
channels are more stony and gravelly than the tidal
channel at lower elevations.
-------
Drainage at the upland site is generally poor.
Standing water can often be seen in depressions in
many areas after wet weather. At all times, the lower
slopes of the upland are wet with groundwater seeping
out towards the marshes.
Test pits dug on the upland by Whitman & Howard
showed the groundwater's elevation at about 10 to 12
feet below the ground surface, or between 3 and 10
feet above mean sea level.
Area Subject to Inundation by Severe Flood
Federal Emergency Management Agency mapping of
flood prone areas has not yet identified those areas
along the Jones River estuary which would be subject
to inundation by the 100-year flood. Complicating
such an estimation are the hydrologic characteristics
of a major river system, a large tidal range (nine and
a half feet on the average) and the effects of storm
surges and wave action from the bay.
The large area of the Jones River estuary sug-
gests that tidal flooding poses a greater threat at
Site A-3 than does flooding of the Jones River alone.
Severe flooding of Smelt Brook and the wetland directly
adjacent to the site might also be significant.
Preliminary FEMA estimates of the flood hazard
area along coastal portions of Rocky Nook show inun-
dation to about 10 to 12 feet in elevation above mean
sea level. This is about 5 feet above mean high tide.
The estimated area of Site A-3 which would be inun-
dated by tidal flooding to 11 feet above mean sea
level is shown in Figure C-6.
£-17
-------
F\a>A
II feet
C7
-------
Hydrography
A particular concern of this study was the amount
of water available in receiving streams for dilution
of treated wastewater. To estimate the amount of
dilution available at different times during the tidal
cycle and to see where the effluent would go under
different streams in tide conditions, five stations
at the tide creeks adjacent to the site and in the
Jones River were set up for hydrographic measurements
(Figure C-7). These stations also correspond to water
quality sampling stations so the relationship between
water quality and flow conditions could be evaluated.
-------
Estimation of stream velocities particularly in
the tide creeks surrounding the site was often diffi-
cult because of the stratified flow which would occur
when strong winds blew surface waters in the opposite
direction of underlying waters. In the channels at
higher elevations in the marsh, freshwater flow was
seen on occasion to float above the rising wedge of
saltwater and continued to flow "down stream" even
while the tide rose. Whenever this stratified flow
was observed, it was apparently only the top few
inches which were affected. Where this stratified
flow is in two different directions, floating objects,
such as oranges, could not be used to estimate stream
velocity accurately. Rather, velocity measurements at
all stations relied heavily on the use of drogues.
They had a substantial surface area which floated a
foot to three feet below the surface of the water and
had a high visibility, low windage indicator protrud-
ing a short distance above the surface. Even so, high
winds often prevented the accurate measurement of
velocity thereby requiring a good deal of interpola-
tion between data which were known to be reliable.
Velocities were tied into channel cross sectional area
by tide height. Velocity was multiplied by cross
sectional area to yield stream flow at that time
during the tidal cycle.
Figure C-8 summarizes the methods used for esti-
mating flows at stations A through E. First, changes
in water elevation corresponding to the tidal cycle
were quantified using 16 foot 2 by 4's marked in one-
tenth foot increments driven into the mud at mid
channel. These measurements were taken during an
average tidal cycle, to estimate average flow condi-
tions, and during an above average tidal range to
estimate flow conditions at the highest high and
lowest low tide elevation. As can be seen in Figures
C-9 (A through E), the change in water elevation with
respect to the tide follows a typical sinusoidal curve
with the exception of stations C, D and E which have
channel bottoms higher in elevation than the low tide
elevation. During those times of the tidal cycle when
the water elevation is below bottom of these creeks,
the flow in these creeks is towards the Jones River
and is mostly freshwater draining from the lower border
of the upland, the swamp and Smelt Brook.
-------
SUMMARY: METHOD OF FLOW ESTIMATION
H
Tfwe.
1. Pods narked in 1/10 foot incre-
ments were placed in the channels
at stations A,B,C,D, and E. The
true elevations of the rods were
determined by surveying. Tide
heights were recorded during an
average, and above average (height)
tidal cycle.
2. Channel cross sections were
taken at stations A,B,C,D, and E.
Cross sectional area was determined
for different tide heights so it
could be related to the timing of
the tide cycle, and so, velocities.
H Time L,
3. Velocities at the different
stations at different tines
during the tidal cycle were
determined by timing the speed
of floating (oranges) and sub-
merged (drogues) objects over
given distances.
4. Flow (discharge) was estimated
by multiplying cross sectional
area of the channel by velocity
over the tidal cycle. Note that
the shape of the graph to the right
would be different for the up-
stream stations (D and E partic-
ularly) which have no tidal flow at
low tide. Extensive overtopping
of banks, high runoff, or storm
surging will also affect discharge
characteristics.
a
c-2\
-------
TtPAL ELEVATI0M
u)
u.
8
CL
D
V1
WITH TIME. SHQWINQ TW0
q.S FOOT TttJAL OCCLBS
-------
The next step towards quantifying flows was the
measurement of channel cross sections with respect to
tidal elevations measured at each of the five stations.
At stations A and B in the Jones River, cross sections
were taken from a boat with a lead line at 5 foot
intervals across a transect line stretching from bank
to bank. At stations C, D and E, cross sections were
taken at low or half tide, at horizontal intervals of
about 2 feet. Once tide elevation and channel cross
section data were generated, the tide height measuring
rods were surveyed with respect to mean sea level.
The resulting cross sectional profiles are shown in
Figure C-10 (detailed measurements retained in EPA's
project files).
The final step in establishing flows at the 5
stations was the measurement of water velocity in the
stream channels at different times during the tidal
cycle. Realizing it was impossible to completely
characterize flows in such a highly variable hydro-
logic system, particular emphasis was placed on esti-
mating flows during "low flow" situations. This was
of particular concern since the low flow situation is
presumably a time when the least amount of water is
available for the dilution of treated effluent. With
this in mind, flow information was taken during
dry weather after several days of dry weather.
Kii.V Jwlf P«M»!
sr
• -• .-•; $,.\' -,,
5'Xpx.;VYJ'*n^stwl ^f't«r*>
^
•id:i- Ny*
C\\cw\Y\e\
Statton A
10'
10'
2AO
10'
-------
'©EMDIT^ »
tc*ble £-2
The results of these measurements are summarized
in Table C-2. Because of the need to interpolate
between the data points and because of the natural
variability in flows, the hydrographs shown are ideal-
ized curves whos*1 shape will actually vary consider-
ably with changes in the tidal amplitude, freshwater
Flow Summary
(all flows in cubic feet per second)
Recorded Estimated for Ave. Tide
Station min
A 162
B 586
C 45
D 7
E 0.55
flow '
**> x-^A
wo /r\ \
// • \
// YM
isoo I \
1 \
: \
000 1 1 \
\
*° I N
Js^,
(T ' z » 4
^/j/V» tide
max min ave max
1,875 50 1,200 2,300
1,648 40 1,000 2,000
252 30 150 300
63 8 20 70
2.86 0.6 1.2 3
Not including high tide low flow
k
\
\
\
\
\
\
\ 1
\ \ lew tide*
T IWIA
i*lrTl£f
(hour** 'J
ESTIMATED TIDAL HYDROGRAPHS
STATIONS A, B, C & D
-------
runoff, high wind, and the effects that flooding of
the high marsh has on base flow in the estuary. Aside
from this variability in the shape of the hydrographs,
the magnitude of flows is representative of average
tidal flows and relatively low freshwater stream
flows.
These hydrographs have been used to develop rough
estimates of typical minimum, average, and maximum
water flows during the daily tidal cycle.
As a check on these flow estimates, a simple
watershed discharge calculation was performed. The
watershed of the Jones River is about 22 square miles
in area excluding about 4 square miles tributary to
Silver Lake, the municipal water supply for Brockton,
Whitman and Hanson. Multiplying this basin size by
the estimated groundwater discharge for the region of
0.9 mgd per square mile per day (U.S.G.S., 1974),
gives a total basin discharge of about 19.8 million
gallons per day or about 31 cfs.
At the Elm Street gauging station on the Jones
River (Figure C-ll), the average discharge over 14
years of record (1966 through 1980) was 31.4 cfs
(U.S.G.S., 1981). The maximum discharge at this
gauging station was 575 cfs from March 19, 1968; with
-------
a minimum daily discharge for the period of record of
0.59 cfs on August 11, 1966. These flows do not
reflect input from significant downstream tributaries
including Smelt Brook and Stony (Halls) Brook.
The flow estimate for Station A, the mouth of the
Jones River, of 50 cfs as a typical low flow (i.e.
non-tidal reflecting the discharge of the river it-
self) corresponds exactly to the flow estimate used by
the Federal Food and Drug Administration in their
sanitary survey of Plymouth Harbor, Massachusetts
(U.S. FDA, 1975).
Low tide near the mouth
of the Jones River, hydro-
graphic Station A.
Water Quality
To evaluate the water quality impacts of dispos-
ing treated wastewater to the marsh land and tide
creeks draining the marsh, baseline water quality
assessment was done at the 5 hydrographic stations and
several others. The first round of sampling was done
on September 9, 1982, the Thursday after Labor Day
weekend when the wasteload from seasonal residents of
the problem areas would expect it to be high. Water
samples were taken near the time of low tide and near
high tide. The intent of sampling during different
periods of the tidal cycle was to compare the quality
of water draining from the Jones River watershed, with
the quality of water flushing into the estuary from
the Bay on incoming tides.
-------
Tide cycle on 9/9/82
10:08 am 4:22 pen
icoo' -2000
RESULTS CF WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS DCNE CN SAMPLES TAKEN CN SEPTEMBER 9, 1982
Sanpling Station and Sanple Nurcber
Parameter
Time (DST)
Temperature (C )
pH (units)
BOD5
TSS
Salinity (0/00)
Nltrate-B
Ammonia-l
TKH-*
Orthophosphate-F
Total Phosphate-P
Chloride
Total Coliforn (HPH)
Fecal Coliforn (MPH)
AI
10:10aa
17
6.2
<2
529
5.52
1.6
0.42
3.62
0.10
0.14
2,950
2,400
2,400
Bl
10:40an
17
7.2
< 2
132
< 4
1.6
0.58
1.72
0.19
0.20
466
9,300
2,400
3.
10i4Saj
19
7.3
< 2
218
< 4
1.6
0.37
1.87
0.25
0.25
854
2,400
930
NOTES t 1. Dissolved oxygen was measured
Dl
• ll:45a»
17.5
6.6
<2
2.8
<4
1.2
0.29
0.83
0.05
0.05
49.6
£ 24, 000
1,500
El
12:00pa
17
6.9
< 2
1.7
*4
1.6
0.29
0.79
O.OS
0.92
1,200
4,600
930
rl
12:12pn
17
6.2
20
11,900
< 4
4.4
55.5
90.5
0.6
O.OS
784
11,000
1,500
at the saturation level for
A2
3 t 37pm
19
7.8
< 2
3
30.46
0.8
0.25
0.95
0.05
O.OS
16,900
9
3
the given
B2
2:45pn
21
7.8
t 2
fl.9
25.60
0.1
0.26
0.46
O.OS
O.OS
14,000
93
4
water
C2
3:00pn
20
7.8
< 2
7.2
25.60
0.1
0.10
0.46
0.05
0.05
13.900
930
9
D2
3:0apa
19
6.7
I 2
7.9
7.81
0.1
0.30
0.81
0.05
0.05
3,960
1,500
240
E2_
3:20p»
20
6.8
< 2
52. S
8.72
0.8
0.41
0.99
0.1
0.1
4,390
1,500
240
temperature in all samples, except where noted.
2. All results are in mgA except where noted.
3. Dissolved oxygen - 0.05 mg/1 (sample of almost stagnant flow froai red maple
swamp, flow • 0.03 to 0.06 cfs).
-------
The test performed on the water samples included
indicators of relative salinity, wastewater pollution,
plant nutrients, bacterial contamination, and others.
The results of this first round of sampling are
shown in Table C-3 along with the stations where
samples were taken, and a simplified representation of
the tidal cycle on the day of sampling. With the
exception of sample F-l which was taken in an almost
stagnant flow through a marsh, the dissolved oxygen
concentration was at saturation in all samples taken.
The five day biochemical oxygen demand (8005) was
similarly very low in all samples except for sample F-
1. Total suspended solids was relatively high in the
major river and stream channels and samples taken with
the outgoing tide; in contrast, the waters coming into
the estuary from Kingston Bay were relatively low in
TSS. There seems to be a fairly direct relationship
between concentration of total suspended solids and
the concentration of total kjeldahl nitrogen which
suggests that there is a good deal of organic material
associated with the suspended particulate material.
Organic matter floating in
tide creeks.
The plant nutrients nitrate and orthophosphate
were both relatively high in the freshwaters draining
the Jones River watershed at low tide. In contrast,
the waters coming in from the bay have relatively low
concentrations of these plant nutrients.
-------
An evaluation of the potential for ammonia toxic-
ity to fish, particularly juveniles, showed that at
the temperatures and pH values encountered with each
sample none of the samples had a concentration of
total ammonia which would yield an unionized ammonia
concentration of 0.020 mg per liter NH3 (the EPA
ammonia criterion for freshwater aquatic life, U.S.
EPA, 1976A).
Bacterial samples were tested using the multiple
tube technique because of the high turbidity in many
of the waters tested. The results show the waters
draining from the Jones River estuary to the Bay have
a much greater concentration of both total coliform
and fecal coliform bacteria. For example, at stations
A, B, and C the low tide concentration of fecal coli-
form bacteria were 2,400, 2,400, and 930 compared to
concentrations in the waters entering the estuary from
the bay towards high tide of 3, 4, and 9 respectively.
Of course, the single most important factor in this
difference is the amount of water available for dilu-
tion in the bay on the rising tide. At times, the
flow of water coming down the Jones River may be
diluted almost 50 times by tidal waters (Table C-2).
September 27, 1982 Sampling
Water sampling done on September 27, 1982 yielded
results generally comparable to those of the first
round of sampling (September 9, 1982) with the follow-
ing exceptions (Table C-4). Temperatures were all
colder ranging from 14.5 degrees C. to 16 degrees C.
compared with a range of 17.5 degrees C. to 21 degrees
C. in the earlier round of sampling. Total suspended
solids were also much lower, particularly in the main
river channels. For example, the low tide TSS at
station A (the mouth of the Jones River) was 8.0 in
the September 27 sampling compared with 529 in the
September 9 sampling. Similarly, total kjeldahl nitro-
gen and nitrate nitrogen were also lower in these
samples. An exception is the high nitrate nitrogen
concentration of 4.8 milligrams per liter found in
Smelt Brook at station D. No other samples taken in
Smelt Brook have found this high a level of nitrate.
The concentration of phosphates was more consistent
among the samples taken on September 27, with a high
of 0.10 milligrams per liter at station C compared
with 0.25 milligrams per liter at station C on Septem-
ber 9, 1982.
-------
£-4
Tide cycle on 9/27/82
7:40 am 12:43 pm
RESULTS OF WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS DCNE CN SAMPLES TAKEN CN SEPTEMBER 27, 1982
Parameter
Time (DST)
Temperature (C )
pH (units)
BOD5
TSS
Salinity (0/00)
Nitrate-N
Ammonia-H
TKN-H
Orthophosphate-P
Total Phosphate-P
Chloride
Total Coliform (MPN)
Fecal Coliform (MPN)
NOTESi
A1CB1D G Mill
8:09am 8 .-OOarn 7:41am 10:14am 10:00am 12:40pm 12:28pm 10:34am
16
7.7
< 2
4.3
23.60
<0.2
0.22
0.56
< 0.05
<0.05
13,800
430
230
16
7.3
<2
9.8
19.78
<0.2
0.36
0.54
0.10
0.10
11,600
430
230
16
6.6
<2
12.7
7.27
<0.2
0.38
0.82
0.06
0.08
4,200
2,400
930
14.5
7.0
< 2
3.3
-------
Bacterial concentrations found in the samples
taken on September 27, 1982 are comparable to those
found in the earlier sampling, given the relative
accuracy of the analysis method and the variability in
dilution at the time of sampling. The low tide
sampling found bacterial concentration often two or
three orders of magnitude greater than the concentra-
tions found towards high tide. To the extent that the
freshwater coming down the Jones River floats on top
of the denser tidal waters, water sampling of these
surface waters, even at an arms length distance below
the surface, may bias the results towards the charac-
ter of river water as opposed to tidal waters. In any
case, there is no doubt that considering the large
volumes of water involved, the relatively high concen-
trations of fecal coliform bacteria are a matter of
concern from a public health standpoint. Sampling
station G is at a tide creek which receives surface
drainage from some of the Rocky Nook problem areas
through storm drains originating on Rowlands Lane.
Analysis of the bacterial concentration at this tide
creek found fecal coliform concentration of 430 MPN
suggesting that contamination may be originating from
the problem area along Rowlands Lane, but because of
the relatively low flow observed at the time of samp-
ling, does not suggest that this tide creek alone is a
major source of contamination in the Jones River.
-------
Bacterial grab samples taken in the Jones River
just above its confluence with Stony (Halls) Brook
found relatively high concentrations of both fecal and
coliform bacteria. Since these samples suggested that
a portion of the bacterial contamination found repeat-
edly in the Jones River may be originating upstream
of those areas which might be affected by proposed
sewer system, further studies were deemed necessary.
On December 9, 1982, bacterial samples were taken
in the Jones River beginning just below the Elm Street
Dam and working down river with the falling tide (Table
C-5). Care was taken to sample during dry weather
after several days of dry weather to minimize coliform
input from runoff and street drainage. These samples
were taken in a sequence which eliminated or minimized
possible influences of tidal waters. In these samples,
two types of fecal bacteria were tested for: fecal
coliform bacteria and fecal streptococcus bacteria.
Where the concentration of bacterial colonies per 100
milliliters is in the 100's or greater, the ratio of
fecal coliform bacteria to fecal streptococcus bac-
teria has been used to discriminate between human and
non-human sources. This seemed appropriate because of
the agricultural character of many areas in Kingston
and the number of domestic geese and horses seen in
the lower watershed of the Jones River. The results
of this analysis, however, do not clearly suggest
whether the source contamination is human or non-
human.
For this round of sampling, two methods of analysis
were used (Standard Methods, 1980). Membrane filtra-
tion was used for most of the samples because it was
found that this method yielded fecal streptococcus
results whereas the pour plate method for fecal strep-
tococcus usually did not, and because the majority of
samples taken in the lower estuary were done using the
multiple tube technique whereas many of the samples
taken by others (including Whitman & Howard) in the
stretch of the Jones River between Elm Street and
Route 3 use the membrane filtration technique. As a
comparison, multiple tube cultures were done on samples
taken along with samples cultured using the membrane
-------
RESULTS OF BACTERIAL ANALYSIS OF WATER SAMPLES
TAKEN DECEMBER 9, 1982
Station
*
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
METHOD OF ANALYSIS'
Membrane Filtration
(colonies/100 ml)
Sample §1 Sample §2
PC FS FC FS
Multiple Tube
(MPH/100 ml)
fecal coliform
Pour Plate
(colonies/100 ml)'
fecal strep.
16
16
40
126
20
30
80
140
320
460
270
4
6
136
' 126
50
68
19
119
39
85
18
10
192
30
89
90
17
10
190
114
52
44
300
1100
100
1100
460
< 100
< 100
Notes: 1. For each sampling station, all samples were taken simultaneously.
2. Based on plate culture of 1 ml of sample.
-------
filtration technique. As can be seen in Table C-5, the
multiple tube technique yielded higher concentrations
of bacteria per 100 milliliters than did the membrane
filtration technique. This difference may be due in
part to the problems with particulate matter forming
a residue on the membrane filter which interferes with
the growth and identification of fecal bacteria colonies.
The differences may also be due in part to the statis-
tical differences between the methods.
Evaluation of these results suggest that the
water in the upper reaches of the Jones River is
relatively free of fecal contamination before it
reaches its confluence with Stony (Halls) Brook.
Also, there appears to be a slight increase in fecal
bacteria at stations 9 and 8 just above, and a short
distance down stream of where the river passes under
Route 3A. Sampling done by Massachusetts Department
of Environmental Quality Engineering and by Whitman &
Howard, Inc. have also found levels of fecal coliform
bacteria in concentrations between 100 and 1,000
colonies per 100 milliliters in this stretch of the
Jones River.
Jones River just below
Route 3A.
-------
Few definitive statements can be made based on
the limited scope of the sampling done with respect to
bacterial contamination of the Jones River. It is
clear, based on the consistency of results, among the
samples taken as part of this study, and in comparison
with results obtained by other researchers at other
times with other methods, that the lower reaches of
the Jones River contain concentrations of fecal coli-
form bacteria ranging from the hundreds into the low
thousands per 100 milliliters. It also appears clear
that the waters entering the Jones River estuary on
the rising tide have a relatively low concentration of
these bacteria. There appears to be no single source
of contamination which can alone account for a major
portion of the contamination in the river. Rather, it
appears that many sources both human and animal collec-
tively account for the bacterial concentration found
during the course ofi the study.
Researchers encountered anecdotal evidence of
direct sewage discharge to the river. One of these
was described as an outfall to one portion of the salt
marsh; however, a walkover of the area could not
locate it. Since Massachusetts DEQE has previously
surveyed the river and ordered direct pipe discharges
rectified, any direct discharges which remain are
probably well hidden and may be relatively indirect
discharges in the sense that the wastewater may flow
across and into marsh soils before entering drainage-
ways. Direct discharges may also be periodic events,
for example, if a homeowner had an overflow pipe from
his cesspool or septic tank which would only discharge
when the on-site system was overloaded.
Non-human animal sources which may be contributing
bacteria to the river without being any threat to
public health have been identified in a number of
places. In the lower portion of the watershed, these
sources include a number of small ponds containing
duck and geese (both large contributors of fecal
bacteria) and occasionally small corrals or fields
where horses are kept. Finally, consideration must be
given to the fecal contribution of undomesticated
-------
animals particularly those which thrive in the marshes
and wetlands which drain into the lower reaches of the
Jones River. Of these animals, the most abundant are
the water fowl, meadow and field mice which thrive on
the high salt marsh.
Cow pasture along Jones
River just above Route 3A.
Finally, it is anticipated that, during wet
weather, all of these sources are dwarfed by the con-
tribution of storm drains particularly those draining
from the problem areas at Rocky Nook.
Part B: Impact Evaluation
Evaluation of the proposed facilities with regard
to existing conditions suggests that the disposal of
treated wastewater to the marsh and the tide creeks
draining to the Jones River would not have a signifi-
cant impact on water quality or on the viability of
animal and plant populations of the estuary. However,
the "margin of safety" associated with facilities at
this site with regard to potential impacts on the
estuary is not so great that concerns about future
operation and maintenance problems can be ignored.
Essentially, the environmental risk associated with
wastewater disposal comes from the plant's close
proximity to the estuary and the inability to expand
-------
the facility should future problems suggest this is
necessary. Quantifying this environmental risk is
impossible because it hinges on intangible future
events such as the town's management of the sewer
system, especially the unprogrammed expansion of the
sewer system and the local funding of operation and
maintenance of sewer facilities.
Proposed Facilities
The wastewater treatment and disposal facilities
proposed for Site A-3 are depicted in the Figure C-12.
Septic tank effluent entering the headworks of the
plant would be combined with septage trucked in by
cesspool/septic tank pumpers and would be vigorously
aerated within the headworks building. Odors driven
off in this process would be vented to a scrubbing
unit to minimize the odor nuisance to nearby resi-
dential areas. Screening and grit removal will also
take place in the headworks though this is not antici-
pated to be a significant waste generator because of
the type of sewer system involved. The wastewater
would then flow into the lower to middle zone with a
facultative aerobic lagoon.
Three such lagoons, connected in series, comprise
the main treatment component in terms of organic
breakdown. The lower portion of these lagoons is not
aerated; it is intended to be anaerobic to provide for
the anaerobic digestion of settleable solids. The
anaerobic digestion of lagoons sludge eliminates the
need for frequent sludge removal and disposal; it is
anticipated that the sludge which builds up in these
lagoons will only have to be removed once every 10
years or so for disposal at the local landfill. These
Upland at Site A-3.
-------
-------
lagoons are sized to provide 22 days of detention at
the design flow of 200,000 gallons per day. This
capacity will allow plant operators to detain waste-
water even longer during the earlier years of opera-
tion when there is a higher proportion of septage;
thus a higher degree of treatment may be achieved
while providing needed odor control.
Vigorous aeration of the upper layers of water in
these lagoons serve several functions. First, it
facilitates the growth of aerobic bacteria which break
down organic material in the wastewater to forms which
are more easily removed in the treatment process or
into forms which can be assimilated by natural systems
without harm to animal or plant populations. Follow-
ing the 22-day detention period in the lagoon, the
treated wastewaters pass through a polishing facility.
This could be a rock filter designed to strain out
suspended solids including the cellular material
generated in the lagoons. The other choice for a
polishing facility would be a polishing pond. In such
a pond, the effluent would be detained for one to two
days where it would be left quiet (no mechanical aera-
tion or mixing) to allow the settling of suspended
material. In either process, the removal of suspended
material is essential for the effectiveness of the
next treatment process, disinfection.
Ultraviolet disinfection is recommended for use
at this site for several reasons. First, the option
of chlorination even with dechlorination was considered
to pose a much greater threat to animals depending on
the estuarine waters, particularly juvenile inverte-
brates and fish (EPA 1976C, 1982A, GAO, 1977). The
second reason is that any residual toxicity left in
the wastewater from the addition of disinfecting
chemicals would interfere with or destroy the biologi-
cal slime layer which will form in the down stream
leaching facility.
As with on-site systems, the biological slime
layer performs important functions in the removal of
pollutants in the wastewater and transformation of
wastes into forms easily assimilated by the natural
environment. These treatment functions include the
destruction of wastewater bacteria, the breakdown of
organic material (particularly dissolved organics)
into simpler inorganic forms, and the conversion of
nitrogenous material into nitrate (note that many of
these functions are carried out by similar bacterial
populations in the facultative/aerobic lagoons).
-------
Ultraviolet disinfection will therefore provide a
higher degree of disinfection than chemical disinfec-
tion by maintaining the viability of biological treat-
ment in the leaching facility downstream. Ultraviolet
disinfection is a cost effective method so long as
proper operation and maintenance of the facility keeps
the concentration of suspended solids in the disinfec-
tion chambers low (pathogens may avoid destruction and
disinfection if they are embedded within suspended
solids and the presence of suspended material will
reduce the diffusion of ultraviolet light in the media
thus reducing the extent of destructive exposure to
this radiation).
Disinfected wastewater would then flow into an
underdrained leaching facility- The type of facility
currently under consideration would be an underground
leaching field sized to provide one square foot of
bottom area for the infiltration of one gallon of
wastewater per day. Wastewater treatment in the
leaching facility would be accomplished by a filtra-
tion through a biological slime layer and by its
percolation through approximately four to five feet of
aerated soil. The bacteria will:
1. help destroy any bacteria which may have survived
disinfection,
2. breakdown both particulate and dissolved organic
material into simpler compounds,
3. assimilate a certain amount of these nutrients in
their cell mass and process it into the poly-
saccharide slime which will build up in the soil,
and
4. mediate reactions which account for the conver-
sion of nitrogenous material to nitrate.
Percolation through the aerated soil will provide
additional destruction of bacteria and viruses should
any survive prior treatment, and will provide an
immense surface area for soil adsorption reactions.
Aerobic conditions in this zone will also facilitate
the conversion of nitrogenous material to nitrate form
and will facilitate precipitation reactions with
chemicals such as phosphorous which have not already
precipitated in homeowner's septic tanks or in the
aerated lagoons. At the bottom of this aerated
lagoon, drainage pipes will convey the treated waste-
water which is passed through the leaching field to an
effluent distribution system.
C-AO
-------
Consideration was given to the alternative of
using intermittent sand filters for final effluent
filtration and disposal to the marsh. In one configura-
tion, the effluent would be allowed to seep through
the sand filters and bleed out at the toe of the slope
along the upper border of the salt marsh. The chief
disadvantage of this system is the inability to con-
trol the distribution of effluent except in the initial
construction of sand filters. The advantage to provid-
ing piped underdrains with the leaching field alterna-
tive is the greater control over the fate of the
treated effluent with the system of pipes.
It has been anticipated from the outset that
treatment and disposal facilities at this site might
employ the natural capacity of the freshwater and
saltwater marshes for the assimilation and treatment
of certain wastewater chemicals. In general, during
the growing season, the wetland vegetation will actively
uptake orthophosphates and nitrates thus decreasing
the concentrations of these chemicals when the treated
effluent eventually reaches the tide creek draining
the site. Also, at all times of the year, anerobic
conditions in the saturated muck and peat of these
marshes provide a favorable environment for the growth
of denitrifying bacteria (EPA, 1976B). These bacteria
will convert nitrate to nitrogen gas and nitrous oxide
gas which will dissipate in the air. Being rich in
organic material, these wetland soils also have a high
potential for chelation, particularly for any metals
which might have survived prior treatment. And
Station E at low tide.
6-41
-------
finally, a great amount of biological activity occurr-
ing at the marsh surface is probably inimical to the
survival of pathogenic microorganisms in the waste-
water. Should any pathogens survive the extended
treatment disinfection and filtration processes, the
marsh would provide an additional buffer before the
wastewater reaches the surface receiving waters.
To maximize the use of the adjacent marsh land
for final effluent treatment for "polishing", a system
of pipes would be used to distribute the treated
effluent evenly over the upper border of these marsh
lands.
Estimation of Effluent Quality
To estimate the impact of wastewater disposal to
the marsh would have on the water quality in the
receiving streams, estimates were made of quality of
effluent being discharged from the treatment facili-
ties. First to be conservative, it was assumed that
the marsh land provides no treatment of effluent.
Further, conservative estimates from the literature
were used to avoid overestimating the treatment capa-
bilities of the proposed facilities. This evaluation
did however assume the proper operation and mainten-
ance of the treatment facility and further assumed
that the Town of Kingston would limit the use of the
treatment facility so as not to exceed its design
capacity.
Since the proposed facility consists of several
treatment processes which are considered to be innova-
tive or alternative, they are almost by definition
poorly documented in the literature. No comparable
combination of treatment facilities was found reported
in the literature. Therefore, the estimation of
effluent quality relied upon reports in the literature
on the treatment efficiency and effluent quality
resulting from individual treatment processes. This
method of evaluation generally does not account for
diminishing marginal returns and treatment effective-
ness.
Table C-6 presents the estimated effluent quality
from the previous described treatment facilities.
After discussions with Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Quality Engineering, water quality
impact analysis was done using higher concentrations
for both ammonia nitrogen and orthophosphate phosphor-
ous. The following is a brief discussion of pollutant
transformations and reductions in the proposed facility.
C '
-------
The biochemical oxygen demand of the plant influ-
ent will be very high particularly because of the
anerobic, reduced state (septic condition) of the
septic tank effluent and septage inputs. Oxidation of
these reduced organics will begin in the headworks and
continue for a period of at least 22 days in the
facultative aerobic lagoon. Within the aerobic layers
of these lagoons, vigorous aeration and the respira-
tion of algae and bacteria will reduce the organic
waste mass and thereby potential oxygen demand. Of
course, the growth and decay of algal cells itself
will impose a biochemical oxygen demand in downstream
waters. The cellular material will to some extent be
removed through settling into the anerobic layers of
the facultative lagoons and in settling or straining
in the polishing facility. Dissolved organic material
which may survive this physical settling process will
exert a certain oxygen demand in the leaching facility
where conditions will be favorable for this type of
treatment. In all, it is expected that the five day
biochemical oxygen demand of the effluent as it leaves
the effluent distribution system will be 4 milligrams
per liter or less (EPA 1977A, 1977B, 1978A, 1978B,
1980A).
The concentration of suspended solids in the
influent streams of the plant will depend largely upon
the proportion of septage to wastewater of this influ-
ent. A portion of the septage based suspended mater-
ial will be inorganic precipitants which should be
readily settled out in the grit channels in the head-
works or, for the finer material, in the aerated
lagoons. The growth of microorganisms in the aerated
lagoons will contribute to the total concentration of
suspended solids in these waters. Final settling or
straining in the polishing facility must yield a
sufficiently clear liquid for the effective use of
ultraviolet disinfection. After subsequent filtration
through the underground leaching field, it is antici-
pated that the highest concentration of suspended
solids would be approximately 5 milligrams per liter
in the effluent leaving the effluent distribution
system (EPA 1977A, 1978A, 1978B, 1980A).
-------
Jones River at high tide.
Considerable concern has been raised over the
possible effects of discharging nitrogenous compounds
to the estuary. This concern stems from some studies
which show nitrogen as a limiting factor in the pri-
mary productivity of the New England salt marsh
(Valiela and Teal, 1979). Evaluation of nitrogen
inputs from the treated effluent used estimates of
nitrate nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen, and the total
kjeldahl nitrogen fractions in the wastewater. It is
assumed that total kjeldahl nitrogen (which includes
ammonia nitrogen) plus nitrate nitrogen equals the
total nitrogen leaving the treatment system. The
nitrogen compounds entering the headworks of the plant
will mostly be in organic nitrogen or ammonia fractions
with relatively little nitrate. The vigorous aeration
of the upper zone in the lagoons will facilitate the
breakdown of the complex organics into simpler nitro-
gen forms such as ammonia and other forms which may be
assimilated by bacterial and algal cells. A certain
amount of the organic nitrogen will be settled out
with other solids, though in the long run much of this
nitrogen may be re-released from the lower portions of
the lagoon. To some extent, "ammonia stripping"
will occur through the vigorous aeration and over the
surface area of the lagoon. Bacterial nitrification
is also expected to occur. It is also expected that
denitrification will occur in the anerobic zone of the
facultative lagoon.
-------
Nitrogen attenuation in the polishing facility is
expected to be through the physical straining or
settling of particulates containing nitrogenous com-
pounds. A good deal of this nitrogen removed may have
been in the ammonia or nitrate form in the lagoons
that was subsequently assimilated by cells which
persist in the polishing facility. Passage through
the biological slime layer and the aerated zone be-
neath the leaching field is expected to facilitate the
microbial conversion of virtually all remaining dis-
solved organic nitrogen and ammonia nitrogen to nitrate
nitrogen. This filtration would also ensure good
removal of any particulate matter which might survive
previous treatment steps. It is therefore expected
that the nitrogen in wastewater leaving the effluent
distribution system will be mostly in the form of
nitrate nitrogen (EPA 1975A, 1978B). Howeever, at the
request of Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Quality Engineering water quality specialists, a
significant concentration of ammonia (10 milligrams
per liter) was assumed to be contained in the effluent
for the purpose of evaluating water quality impacts to
receiving waters.
The total nitrogen (total kjeldahl nitrogen plus
nitrate nitrogen) leaving the plant is expected to be
in the range of 20 to 30 milligrams per liter. Concen-
tration of total nitrogen in residential wastewater is
reported at between 35 and 100 milligrams per liter
(EPA 1980A). In the septic tank, the supernatant
(liquids floating on top of the sludge) contains total
nitrogen concentrations ranging from about 15 to up to
200 milligrams per liter and the septic tank sludge
ranging from about 170 milligrams per liter to 2,200
milligrams per liter (Brandes, 1978) . Septage., a
combination of both supernatant and sludge, has an
average concentration of total nitrogen in the range
of about 400 to 800 milligrams per liter (EPA 1980A).
Although the literature often cites the total nitrogen
concentration at the influent to treatment plant of
about 20 milligrams per liter (EPA 1975A, 1976D), to
be conservative it has been assumed that the influent
concentration of nitrogen would be in the range of 30
to 50 milligrams per liter. Therefore, we estimate
that the wastewater treatment plant's effluent concen-
tration of nitrogen will be 20 to 30 milligrams per
liter assumes that the treatment process together will
cause the removal of about 30 to 50 percent of the
nitrogen entering the plant (EPA, 1975A, 1977A, 1979A).
Of course, one could make less conservative assumptions
about the plant influent (say 20 milligrams per liter
total nitrogen) and more conservative assumptions
-------
about the removal efficiency of the treatment processes
(i.e. 0 percent removal of nitrogen) and still obtain
the same effluent concentration of nitrogen.
A number of studies have pointed to the natural
capacity of both freshwater and saltwater wetlands to
remove nitrogen from the waters they are in contact
with. The studies of Valliela, et. al. on the fertili-
zation of salt marsh vegetation showed dramatic in-
creases both above ground and below ground productivity
in the salt marsh species, Spartina patens, Distichlis
sp. and Spartina alterniflora with the addition of
nitrogen (Valiela et. als. 1975, 1976). Other studies
have shown a significant degree of microbial denitrifi-
cation in the arierobic layer of soil just below the
surface of flooded marsh land (EPA 1976B). In con-
trast with nitrate uptake by plant material which will
ultimately be recycled into the estuary and therefore
a net export, the end products of denitrification are
nitrogen gas and nitrous oxide which will dissolve in
the atmosphere and be generally unavailable to estua-
rine plants and animals. Although plant uptake of
nitrate will virtually cease in the winter months,
denitrification at the water mud interface in wetlands
will continue year round though at a lower rate at
lower temperatures (EPA 1976B). Since quantification
of these removal processes in the marsh are relatively
scarce in the literature, this impact analysis makes
the worst case assumption that no nitrogen removal
will take place as the effluent seeps across the
surface of the marsh. Essentially, this assumption is
the same as assuming straight pipe discharges to the
receiving waters from the treatment facility.
Station B at low tide.
-------
Phosphates
Removal of phosphorous in the proposed treatment
facilities will come through both precipitation reac-
tions with cations present in the wastewater, and
through soil adsorption reactions in the leaching
facility. Although a considerable amount of phosphor-
ous precipitation occurs in the septic tank itself
(Brandes, 1978), a certain amount of this may be
reintroduced into the water column through septage
disposal. Organically bound phosphorous will be
digested to some extent in the facultative aerobic
lagoon and will be available for subsequent precipi-
tation reaction which will cause a good deal of phos-
phorous to end up in the sludge at the bottom of these
lagoons. Naturally, a fair amount of recycling of
orthophosphate between the water column and the bio-
mass in the lagoon will occur. Because of the highly
aerobic treatment the surface waters will undergo
before passing through polishing and into the leaching
field, it is expected that virtually all of the phos-
phorous entering the leaching field will be in the
orthophosphorous form with any small amounts of dis-
solved organic phosphorous being readily converted in
the upper layers of the leaching field to orthophos-
phate (EPA 1978B, Laak, 1980). The orthophosphate in
turn will be readily adsorbed onto the soil particle
in the aerobic zone of the leaching facility (EPA 1978B)
It is therefore expected that over the 20 year plan-
ning period, the concentration of phosphates in the
effluent leaving the effluent distribution system
would be below the detectable limits (less than 0.05
milligrams per liter).
Installing measuring rod
in Smelt Brook, Station D.
-------
At the request of Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Quality Engineering water quality spe-
cialists, an orthophosphate concentration 1 milligram
per liter was assumed for the purpose of evaluating
water quality impacts on the receiving waters.
Bacterial Contaminants
The long detention time in the facultative aerobic
lagoon, ultraviolet disinfection, and filtration
through a biological slime layer and at least 4 feet
of aerated soil should ensure very good removal of
microbial pathogens prior to the release of the efflu-
ent to the marsh (EPA 1977A, Laak, 1980). It is also
expected that the marsh itself would act as an addi-
tional buffer since it is a generally hostile environ-
ment for enteric organisms. To be conservative a
value of 10 colonies per 100 milliliters was used in
the impact analysis.
CALCULATION OF DILUTION
Two methods were used to estimate the water
quality in receiving streams with the addition of
treated effluent. The first method depicted in Figure
C-13 looked at the resulting concentration of waste-
water chemicals at the time and place of lowest flow
in the receiving waters. At this place and time, the
amount of water available for diluting the effluent
would be at its minimum and therefore represents a
worst case situation.
The lowest flow recorded at any of the hydro-
graphic stations (A through E) was 0.55 cfs at station
Low flow near Station E.
-------
MAXIMUM DISTANCE OVER WHICH EFFLUENT COULD BE
DISCHARGED UPSTREAM OF STATION E
a
\J
E. This would provide a dilution factor between 1 and
2 if the entire flow of the plant discharged at this
point (200,000 gallons per day equals 0.31 cfs). A
more realistic assumption is that the effluent would
be distributed over the marsh, or at least discharged
in part to higher flow streams surrounding the site
such as Smelt Brook. If wastewater were distributed
evenly along the margin of the site next to the main
tidal channels, the cumulative amount of effluent at
Station E (assuming outgoing flow in this tide creek)
would be about half of the total flow (0.17 cfs).
Using this wastewater flow to station E plus a con-
servative estimate as to the lowest flow at this site
of 0.40 cfs (compared with the actual lowest flow
recorded there of 0.55 cfs) the dilution of the waste-
water was calculated. To assess the cumulative
-------
METHOD FOR CALCULATING CHEMICAL CONCENTRATIONS
IN WATER RECEIVING WASTEWATER EFFLUENT
[baseline mg/1 . baseline flow, cfs +
effluent mg/1 . effluent flow, cfs]
4- combined flow, cfs
= mg/1 in combined flow
Example; Station "E"
design year flow of wastewater = 0.2 MGD
0.2 mgd = 139 gallons per minute
flow enters major channels over distance of -»- 2815' (Figure C-13)
139 g/min 4- 2815' = 0.049 or 0.05 g/ft/min
0.05 g/ft/min = 0.0067 ft3/ft/min
0.0067 ft3/ft/min = 0.00011 ft3/ft/sec
wastewater flow at "E" has entered channel over distance of
<** 1565' (Figure C-13)
1565' x 0.00011 ft3/ft/sec = 0.17 cfs
conservative estimate = 0.18 cfs
lowest recorded flow at "E" = 0.55 cfs
conservative estimate = 0.40 cfs
For nitrate-N:
baseline [(0.3 mg/1 . 0.40 cfs)
effluent + (20 mg/1 . 0.18 cfs)]
combined 4- 0.58 cfs
= 6.41 mg/1 nitrate-N
-------
effect of both the addition of wastewater chemicals
and the ambient level of these chemicals in the receiv-
ing waters the low flow concentrations of the various
wastewater chemicals and bacteria as determined by the
water quality sampling were used in the dilution
calculation. Tables C-6 and C-7 present the results
of these calculations.
A second method of assessing water quality changes
to the receiving waters looked at a scenario where
wastewater would accumulate in the estuary on the in-
coming tides and receive additional wastewater inputs
as the same water passed by the site where the water
is draining from it on the out going tide. Because
stations D and E lie substantially above the elevation
of mean low water, the period of flow towards the
Jones River estuary is longer than the period of time
the flow is from the river up towards the site.
Therefore, the degree of wastewater accumulation with
incoming tides was evaluated for hydrographic station
C. The dilution potential in the Jones River is
naturally greater than at Station C.
Assuming the tidal cycle duration of 13 hours,
one may assume that water will be flowing from the
Jones River, past station C and into the salt marshes
for about 6-1/2 hours. Over this time period, approxi-
mately 22 million gallons of water would flow in past
station C. During the same time period, 54,167 gallons
would be discharged from proposed treatment facility.
Assuming complete mixing, this would provide dilution
of one part of effluent to 400 parts of tidal water.
If one then assumes that this dilution has occurred in
the waters draining from the site to the Jones River
with the falling tide, evaluation of resulting water
quality, assuming continuous discharge from the plant,
was calculated for stations E and c at that time when
tidal waters dropped just below the channel bottom.
For station E, this represents an accumulation of
effluent over three-quarters of a tidal cycle; for
station C this represents an accumulation of effluent
over one entire tidal cycle. The results of these
calculations indicate that wastewater accumulation due
to incoming tides is much less significant in terms of
water quality degradation than the worst case low flow
situation at station E previously described. As a
final note on accumulation, it is probable that a good
portion of the flow of wastewater will be towards the
Jones River even at times when the wedge of tidal
-------
T^-ble
Parameter
PH
BOD5
TSS
Salinity
Nitrate-N
Ammonia-N
TKN-N
Orthophosphate-P
Total phosphate-P
Chloride
Total coliform
Fecal coliform
Temperature
DO
Low Flow Baseline
Concentration in
Receiving Water,
Station "E"
0.79-0.88
0.05
<^ 0.05
1200-1900
2400-4600 MPN
430-930 MPN
14.5-17.0°C
Saturation
Effluent
Concentration
Worst Case
Assumptions
Resulting
Concentration
in Receiving
Water "E"
6.9-7.0
< 2
1.7-3.7
<4
0.3-1.6
0.29-0.32
4.0 2.6
5.0 2.7-4.1
<4 <4
20 6.4-7.3
@ 0.3 0.29-0.31
@ 10.0*
Tradeoff w/
Nitrate (20)
@ below detect-
able limits
Tradeoff w/
Nitrate (6.8)
-------
View of Jones River from
Station C.
C-7
Dilution Factors
(effluent to receiving water)
Station
At Channel Flows:
E4
D4
C
B
A
min
2
23
145
1,890
523
min
2
26
97
129
161
ave
4
65
484
3,226
3,871
max
10
226
968
6,452
7,419
•'"Based on 200,000 gal/day effluent discharge in year 2005. (0.31 cfs)
2
Recorded.
o
Estimated - average conditions.
Assuming a point discharge at these stations (full 200,000 gal/day).
-------
saline water is rising in the marsh. This is due to
the different densities of freshwater versus saltwater
which creates stratified flow conditions observed
during the estuary analysis.
Predicted Effects on Marsh
The principal observable effect of disposing
treated wastewater to the adjoining marsh land will be
an increase in productivity of plant life closest to
the point of discharge from the effluent distribution
system. This will be a result of nitrogen uptake
during the growing season, and it is expected to have
this effect on both fresh and salt marsh species. No
significant changes are expected from the addition of
freshwater to the upper border of the marsh because
this is already occurring naturally as groundwater
from the site seeps out along the toe of the slope
adjacent to the upper border of the salt marsh. The
border between the freshVater wetland species and the
species typical of the upper border of the salt marsh
is influenced more by the periodic inundation by
exceptionally high tides which will limit the growth
of salt intolerant species than by the increased flow
of freshwater to the upper border of the marsh. In
places where the installation of a effluent distribu-
tion system disturbs the soils along the lower border
of the upland site, wetland species which thrive on
such soils, for example common reed (Phragmites communis),
-------
can be expected to dominate. Overall, the increased
productivity of vegetation along the outfall points of
the effluent distribution should enhance the value of
this area for wildlife. Of course, this would be
somewhat offset by the destruction of the drier habi-
tats of the upland site where treatment facilities
would go. The increased productivity of vegetation
may also contribute to the net productivity and energy
export of the marsh, though considering the, small area
involved, this would probably be undetectable.
As mentioned previously, Massachusetts DEQE re-
quested the evaluation of wastewater disposal assuming
an ammonia concentration in the effluent of 10 milli-
grams per liter. Under the worst case assumptions
described above for station E, the resulting concen-
tration of ammonia in the receiving waters would be
about 3.3 milligrams per liter. The highest concen-
trations of unionized ammonia (toxic fraction) result
when high temperatures occur in alkaline waters of
low ionic strength. At station E, the highest temp-
erature recorded is 20 degrees C. at about one hour
before high tide; the pH of this water was 6.8. Under
these conditions, the calculated concentration of
total ammonia would be relatively close to that which
might yield a concentration of unionized ammonia of
0.020 milligrams per liter, EPA's maximum criterion
for freshwater aquatic life (EPA 1976A). However, the
-------
water which had this temperature and pH combination
was not fresh (salinity measured at 8.72 0/00) and the
actual concentration the unionized ammonia fraction
decreases with increased salinity. However, some
research has shown that ammonia toxicity for young
salmonid fishes increases with increased salinity,
suggesting some toxic relationship other than the
concentration of unionized ammonia (EPA 1976A). Most
studies on ammonia toxicity have concentrated on
salmonid fishes in their freshwater environments. The
EPA criterion of 0.020 milligrams per liter of union-
ized ammonia is actually one-tenth of the amount which
has actually been shown to be toxic to some species of
freshwater aquatic life. This lower criterion is a
safety factor "to provide safety for those life forms
not examined ..." (EPA 1976A). In the Jones River
estuary, the species of animal life most susceptible
to ammonia toxicity are probably invertebrate species
(amphipods have been shown to be susceptible to ammonia
toxicity, EPA 1976A). Although concentrations of
unionized ammonia greater than the EPA criterion are
not expected to result from wastewater disposal from
Site A-3. Water quality monitoring of ammonia frac-
tions in the receiving waters should be done if this
alternative is implemented.
-------
-------
APPENDIX D
Comparison of Gravity Sewers and STEP Systems
Septic tank effluent pump (STEP) systems are a
newer solution to sewer system needs than conventional
gravity sewers. STEP systems also pose a different
set of characteristics in their use which must be con-
sidered when evaluating the merits, costs and limita-
tions of this and other pressurized sewer systems versus
gravity sewers. Because the issues related to sewer
system costs, their impacts on the environment, and
their reliability are key elements of any recommenda-
tions for solving Kingston's wastewater treatment prob-
lems, this appendix compares these two sewer system
alternatives.
Conventional sewers operate by gravity. They are
installed in the ground at a depth and with a suffi-
cient pitch to allow the wastewater to flow by gravity
from the served households to a treatment facility.
The slope of the sewer pipe must be great enough to
ensure that settling of solids in the wastewater does
not clog the pipe. Street sewers which operate by
gravity are typically concrete pipes, 6 to 12 inches
in diameter, installed at least 4 feet, and more
typically 8 feet below the ground surface.
Where the land is rolling or pitched away from
the treatment facility and its major collection points,
gravity sewers may not be appropriate. Under these
conditions, the only alternatives would be to either
dig deep trenches under the street or place a pump
station in the low spot and force the wastewater to
the higher elevation. Both alternatives are expen-
sive.
-------
Other environmental conditions may also increase
the cost of building sewers. Where there is high
groundwater, trench dewatering measures increase
installation costs. Also, over time, high groundwater
or water in saturated soils can infiltrate into the
gravity sewer line, causing increased flow at the
treatment facility, decreasing treatment effectiveness
and/or increasing treatment costs. Where bedrock is
close to the ground surface, costly blasting and rock
excavation measures would be required for sewer pipe
installation (Figure D-l).
If all three conditions (hilly topography, high
groundwater, and shallow bedrock) are present in any
combination (as they are on Rocky Nook), anticipated
costs and likely environmental impacts of gravity
sewer installation could be significantly higher and
possibly prohibitive. Alternative wastewater collec-
tion systems more suited to the conditions of the
problem areas were therefore considered.
-------
The STEP (Septic Tank Effluent Pump) system, one
type of small diameter, pressurized sewer system, is
considered the system of choice for Rocky Nook and
Kingston Center. In the STEP system, a pump is located
at each septic tank serving a home or couple of homes.
The pump forces septic tank effluent, under pressure,
through a system of small diameter pipes to the
treatment facility (see Figures D-2 and D-3).
ypical STEP system ho?k-up
(wh€jn existing sepHc twite are
new septic
tank
*—£' pressure sewer
riot- to 6«\te
The STEP collection system can be less expensive
to construct than conventional gravity sewers. Col-
lector sewers used with STEPs are smaller in diameter
and less expensive per length of pipe than conventional
gravity sewers. The smaller diameter pipe is possible
with a STEP system since the effluent is under pres-
sure and solids which accumulate in the septic tanks
are not transported in the sewers.
\J
V-Z-
-------
Other major cost savings which may be gained by
using a STEP system are a result of the effluent being
conveyed under pressure. This allows the sewer pipes
to be laid to follow the grades of the street either
downhill or uphill. This reduces costs by eliminating
the need to dig and shore the sides of deep trenches.
In fact, STEP system pipes need only be placed below
the frost line, about 4 feet deep. Since deep trenches
are eliminated, much of the cost of dewatering trenches
is eliminated, as well as the cost of removing rock
5TEP system
(when exisHrri sephc -hanks axe in adequate
pressure
l/sewerx
tre
where bedrock is close to or at the ground surface.
Also, because the pipes are under pressure, all joints
are tightly sealed. Positive pressure and tight
joints minimize groundwater infiltration, reducing the
volume of wastewater to be treated. Finally, STEP
system sewer pipes can be laid more quickly and at less
expense than conventional gravity sewer pipes.
There are certain disadvantages of using a STEP
system, however. Operation and maintenance costs of
a STEP system are higher and involve servicing pumps
and periodic cleaning of collector sewers and mains.
Energy requirements to operate the effluent pumps are
also higher. However, in a hilly area like Rocky
O-4-
-------
Nook, a number of larger pump stations would be
required to operate a conventional gravity system.
These stations, too, require maintenance and have high
energy requirements, thus eliminating any advantages
in this regard of the gravity sewers.
There are essentially three elements of a STEP
system that may break down. First, the septic tank
effluent pump (STEP) may fail. Should this happen, a
homeowner would have to have his septic tank pumped
out until the faulty pump could be repaired or re-
placed. The town would keep some spare pumps on hand
to ensure timely repair in such emergencies. Other
alternative systems, such as grinder pumps which grind
household wastewater prior to transmittal to a treat-
ment facility for disposal, were also considered but
were found to be less suitable to the needs of this
area. Use of the septic tank as an emergency holding
tank is a major advantage of STEPs over grinder pumps
which offer no backup capability.
The failure of a STEP through mechanical break-
down or electrical outages is comparable to failure of
a home's well pump. Although most of Kingston is
served by public water, millions of homes throughout
America drink and bathe in water drawn from their own
wells by a pump in their basement. When this well
pump fails, a homeowner is in no less of a predicament
than if it was a septic tank effluent pump that had
failed. The continued use of individual well pumps
attests to the resourcefulness of homeowners and pump
manufacturers alike in dealing with occasional pump
failures.
Second, the check valve between the STEP and
street sewer may fail. This would cause a backup and
overflow much the same as what occurs now when a septic
tank leaching system overflows.
Finally, a pressurized street sewer could rupture
and lose pressure causing some temporary distruption to
an area and nearby homes. In this case, a temporary
connection could be installed to bypass the broken
pipe so that repair can proceed and households are
minimally inconvenienced.
There are three important considerations to
remember for those who feel STEP'S are more "risky"
than conventional gravity sewers.
-------
1. What happens when a STEP system fails is
comparable to the existing conditions that occur when
a leaching system backs up. During this "down time",
the septic tank in the STEP system acts as a backup
and still detains wastewater as it does in a conven-
tional on-site system. The septic tank would have to
be pumped out until repairs were completed.
2. A STEP system must be carefully designed and
be supported by a preventative maintenance program.
To these ends, the Town of Kingston should give very
careful consideration to the selection of an engineer-
ing consultant to perform the next phase of design
work.
3. While the reliability of conventional gravity
sewers typically is greater due to the reduced pumping
and associated mechanical features of this system, pro-
vision of gravity sewers in Rocky Nook would not be a
typical case due to the constraints of the land as
noted above. Under these circumstances, the inherent
greater reliability of gravity sewers would be reduced
by the need to provide pumping stations at key points
in the system. This fact, coupled with the signifi-
cantly higher costs of constructing gravity sewers on
Rocky Nook, provides considerable weight to the advan-
tages of STEP systems in such an area.
STEP systems and other pressurized sewer systems
are described as new technologies, hence EPA considers
them to be "innovative and alternative" methods of
wastewater disposal eligible for increased levels of
Federal and State funding.
However, this does not mean that STEP pressure
sewer systems are untried and unproven. In fact, as
of 1977, twenty-five states "have approved at least
one (pressure sewer) project that is either being
designed, constructed, or operated. Since 1977, many
more such systems have been approved and put on line.
States where these systems are either planned or in
use include the following:
v-k?
-------
Arkansas
California
Delaware
Florida
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Kentucky
Michigan
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
New Jersey
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oregon
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
South Dakota
Texas
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
In the March, 1981 issue of PublicWorks Magazine,
the experience of the community of Glide, Oregon with
their STEP system is described ("Pressure Sewer
System Proves Effective, Economical") and offers some
useful information for comparison purposes. The
system was initially designed to serve 2,000 people.
Operation and maintenance costs with the STEP system
have in fact been less than a conventional gravity
system. Electrical consumption was measured at 0.2
kwh/day which at lOC/kwh, would be a cost of $6.00/
month to homeowners. In conclusion, the authors
stated "that a properly designed pressure system can
integrate reliability, simple construction and main-
tenance, and cost efficiency."
All in all, using a new, innovative and alterna-
tive technology, such as the STEP system, should not
be looked upon as risky, but as a sound decision
warranted by environmental and cost considerations,
and consistent with the need to provide cost effective
solutions to wastewater treatment problems.
Alternatives for Small Wastewater Systems: Pressure
Sewers/Vacuum Sewers, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Oct. 1977, p. 10.
2"Pressure Sewer System Proves Effective, Economical",
Public Works, March 1981, p. 86.
{7-7
-------
-------
RABER ASSOCIATES
CONSULTANTS IN THE HISTORICAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
CULTURAL RESOURCES RECONNAISSANCE
OF
KINGSTON, MASSACHUSETTS SEWERAGE FACILITIES
Michael S. Raber
prepared for:
C E Maguire, Inc.
1 Davol Square
Providence, RI 02903
April 1983
41 Great Hill Road • P.O. Box 198
Cobalt • CT06414 • (203)267-2280
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
The Town of Kingston, Massachusetts proposes to construct sewerage facilities,
using funds provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering. The funding
sources bring the project under the purview of acts and regulations protecting
significant cultural resources form adverse impacts in publicly funded
construction. Significant cultural resources are sites or remains of past
human activity with sufficient physical integrity, artistic quality, unique
character, typical stylistic representation, association with major historical
personages, and/or research information for American prehistory or history to
warrant inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places (cf. 36 CFR 63).
C E Maguire, Inc., conducting an Environmental Impact Statement for alternative
sewerage facilities under contract to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
retained Raber Associates to conduct a cultural resource reconnaissance, as
the initial step in compliance with resource protection acts and regulations.
The objectives of the reconnaissance were to identify any known or potential
cultural resources in project areas, to assess the known or potential signifi-
cance of such resources, and to develop recommendations regarding any
additional cultural resource investigations needed to identify or mitigate
significant resources.
Michael S. Raber acted as principal investigator and author of this reconnaissance,
assisted by Elizabeth Wheeler acting as research assistant. Reconnaissance
tasks included the collection and analysis of background data on local and
regional environment, prehistory, and history; walkover inspections of all
project areas; and interviews with knowledgeable local historians and
archaeologists. Research took place during January to March of 1983.
Section II of this report outlines project areas and project construction
plans. Sections III-V review the environmental, Amerindian, and Euroamerican
contexts of project areas, and identify project areas sensitive for known
or possible resources. Section VIpresents conclusions, and recommendations
regarding additional cultural resource investigations.
-------
II. PROJECT AREAS
Project area locations are shown in Figure 1, with an inset street map for
reference to areas discussed in this report. For details of project plans,
dimensions, and physical impacts, refer to descriptions in the body of the
draft environmental impact statement.
-------
'''
«JS*,:M.:;^I
a ••',?.<. t •*"'"«/ V'fi
fr^M^M
n.**;?"'*-^, gffim
.»•%•;•'.'••.vv- xr> 'vl
.-
LOCATIONS OF RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL .A \-
PROJECT AREAS AND DISPOSAL SITES "t<
inset shows area street names
Figure 1
•^-~4 '. /---'
; (J^ ~^~'7'/!:r5-^'fAB2i>^'.''
•>-'''.(' ' T'—. \
' -<2< ' •' ^ Jfcfl?V. »•' • .'
x'x*-,' / e^Si^v s^f \
-------
Ill, PROJECT AREA ENVIRONMENTS
A. Overview of Landscape and Natural Resources in Kingston Vicinity
Most project areas lie within the Jones River drainage basin, in east-central
Plymouth County, Massachusetts. In contrast to the somewhat higher, more
poorly drained, broken kettle-and-kame topography immediately to the south and
southwest, the Jones River basin consists largely of dissecved kame and outwash
terraces under about 100 feet elevation above mean sea level. The south-
central part of the basin, including proposed disposal site B-2, rises irre-
gularly to about 150 feet, and grades into the complex terrain of the Monks
Hill moraine. This latter feature, created during the retreat of the last
glaciation from southern New England 13-15,000 years ago, divides the basin
from the irregular outwash deposits to the south. Within the basin, especially
in the eastern half where the projects considered here would be built, most
areas aside from the Rocky Nook peninsula are well drained. Many Jones River
tributaries rise or pass through low lying freshwater marsh, as does the main
channel of the river in slower reaches above tidewater. In the generally
narrow flats below high tide at the intersection of Route 3A and the Jones
River, salt marsh below about six feet elevation meets freshwater wetlands
fed by pockets of high watertable and/or Jones River tributaries.
Project areas approximately southeast of Howlands Lane lie outside the Jones
River basin. Some of these areas, especially near Gray's Beach Park, were
formerly drained by Gray's Brook, a small stream entering Kingston Bay just
east of the park. Nineteenth century railroad construction, and subsequent
maintenance, have masked and disturbed this flow, as noted below in section
III.B.
Regionally, Kingston is at the extreme southern border of landscape with
strong bedrock framework to glaciated terrain. Bedrock, chiefly granite,
is exposed in a few places on Rocky Nook Point, and in exposures about
forty to fifty feet in elevation near the central Jones River basin. The bedrock
south of Kingston dips dramatically, to over 100 feet below mean sea level
at the Cape Cod Canal and to several hundreds of feet further south under
Cape Cod. Bedrock contours in Kingston remain unmapped, but probably defined
much of the Jones River drainage during late glacial landscape formation.
Much of Rocky Nook peninsula is composed of unsorted till, perhaps deposited
as ground moraine during Wisconsinan glacial advance which ended about 15,000 years
ago. The other project areas derive from later events during glacial retreat,
notably: the deposition of ice-contact kame terraces as ice retreated north
of Monks Hill moraine; and the deposition of lakebottom silts, clays, and some
sand,with large, adjacent areas of sand deposited as deltas,in.'an extensive
lake which existed for several centuries south of the retreating ice in Cape
Cod Bay. Lakebottom deposits occur east of the project areas around Summer
Street and disposal site C-l, as well as more extensively in the upper Jones
River basin along the main floodplain. In some places, such as the Blackwater
Swamp west of Summer Street, remnant ice blocks lasted through some or all of
these recessive glacial events, as sand and gravel deposits developed around
them. The depressions resulting from the eventual melting of such blocks became
the bases of many freshwater swamps and marshes CChute 1965; Williams and Tasker
1974; Oldale 1981).
-------
Following glacial retreat and proglacial lake draining by c. 13,000 years ago
sea levels were substantially lower than at present due to the tremendous
volume of global water absorbed in ice masses. At this time, sea level was
approximately seventy-five to ninety meters below the present coast, which
was not defined until about 2000 years ago [e.g., Emery and Merrill 1979).
While early postglacial surfaces east of present Kingston have been obscured
by riverine and marine deposits of sand and silt, it is probable that the
shallow depths of modern Duxbury, Kingston, and Plymouth Bay reflect a relatively
flat surface extending for miles into the postglacial strand. This land, drowned
under a rising sea, was very likely once the delta of a river formed by the
major streams now entering the bay, as suggested by the depth and configuration
of present bay channels relative to these streams (see Williams and Tasker 1974:
Sheet 2).
Changes in sea level were important factors in the nature and distribution of
resources available to prehistoric Amerindian peoples. In any detail, these
resource histories have not been reconstructed. Extrapolating backwards from
both historic or modern conditions, and from known or hypothesized patterns
of land use among Amerindian and Euroamerican peoples, there are several
important changes to be noted regarding the use of some project areas at
different times before sea level stabilization:
i. present coastal areas would have been more interior, and
in less productive ecosystems, than at present; intertidal
shellfish, coastal finfish, and saltmarsh waterfowl would
not have been available in or near any project areas before
about 2000 years ago or less, while anadromous fish might
not have travelled as far inland in the pre-modern tidal
regime as in present or historic times (cf, Iwanowicz et al.1974: 25)
ii. some poorly drained project areas, identified in section
III.B, would at times have been less poorly drained, and
hence more available to Amerindians for certain purposes.
At least in late prehistoric times, and probably for at least six or seven
millenia prior to European contact, there were regionally significant marine
resources available in the Jones River, its estuary, and the bay. Soft-shell
clams (Mya arenaria) were abundant in the intertidal flats of the Duxbury,
Kingston, and Plymouth Bay historically, and can be presumed present—in an
unknown configuration of flats—much earlier. There is some reason to believe
oysters (Crassotrea virginica Gmelin) were available along this coast, although
they have since virtually disappeared. Shad, alewives, herring, and smelt
(Alosa spp., Osmerus spp.) ran in the river and into its ponds. Species of
cod, mackerel, and bass lived in the bay, and in some cases could have been
hunted from the shore of Rocky Neck Point (see below). Waterfowl probably
lived in the Jones River estuary, and perhaps in the interior wetlands.
These biota, along with mammals generally available in the New England interior,
were attractive to both Amerindian and Euroamerican peoples (Kellogg 1910: 17Sff.;
Yonge 1960: 169ff; Iwanowizc «* a^. 1974).
-------
B. Natural Conditions in Project Areas
1. Rocky Nook Project Areas North of Railroad (Site A-3; streets off of
Howlands Lane)
Two major surficial geologic deposits defined most of the pre-nineteenth century
soil and drainage characteristics of these areas: ground moraine north of
about present Blair Drive; and fine to coarse sands deposited with some silt
as either proglacial lake deltas or outwash over a considerable area south of
Blair Drive, extending beyond the railroad tracks to encompass all other
project areas off of Smiths Lane and Route 3A in east Kingston. Saltmarsh
now fringes these areas to the west and south, with freshwater swamp dominated
by red maple (Acer rubrum L.) or staghom sumac (Rhustyphina L.) abut-
ting much of the saltmarsh (Figure 2). Freshwater swamp rises around saltmarsh
to about twenty-five feet elevation in many places. In areas of ground moraine,
which are fairly level at about thirty feet elevation through the central part
of Rockly Nook peninsula, densely settled residential streets have obscured
soil conditions relative to unsettled areas (U.S. Department of Agricalture 1969).
West of Howlands Lane and these streets, present soils developed in the till
deposits exhibit a mosaic of silt and sandy loams with varied drainage conditions.
Drainage patterns on Rocky Nook peninsula generally run to east and west/south-
west, into Kingston Bay and the Jones River estuary. Aside from the advent
of saltmarsh at present elevations, probably between two and three thousand
years ago, there is no reason to believe that drainage conditions were
very different in ground moraine areas during periods of prehistoric Amerindian
occupation than they were until the twentieth century. Twentieth century
road construction and road drainage has, if anything, probably dried out
some previously marshy or high watertable areas, while land filling related
to home development has probably obscured similar areas. Recent road and home
construction has apparently altered surface run-off conditions, as have some
mosquito control ditches (personal communication, Elizabeth Woodward, March 9,
1983), but research conducted by C E Maguire, Inc., for this project suggests
that groundwater levels ere generally slightly lower as a result of modern
development (personal communications, Christopher Mason). Therefor , we can
combine data from soils, wetland plans, and project planning to distinguish
natural areas of generally poor drainage from areas whibh were moderately well
to excessively drained in Figure 2 (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1969;
Commonwealth of Massachusetts 1978).
The Rocky Nook ground moraine contained or abutted several important biotic
resources available to prehistoric and historic peoples. Sometime betwcnn
about 6000 and 2-3000 years ago, it is likely that the intertidal flats north
and east of this area were saltmarsh (cf. Redfield and Rubin 1962, Kaye and
Barghoom 1964, and Emery and Merrill 1979 regarding sea levels and marsh
formation; Iwanowizc et al. 1974: 5), Waterfowl may have lived in this environment,
as well perhaps as inTreshwater marshes on the peninsula. At some point prior
to sea levfel stabilization, and continuing with alterations until the present
time, Rocky Nook Point and the northeast coast of the peninsula were adjacent
to Jones River channels in which anadromous fish appeared each year; while this
area was evidently not an important point of fish capture in historic times
for these species, it may have been such a point in past millenia. Following
sea level stabilization, shellfish were available in the flats around the
peninsula. At various times, including the historic period before about 1900,
the channel of the Jones River followed the east shore of Rocky Nook peninsula,
providing access at Fishing Rocks to various finfish species.
-------
Figure 2. DRAINAGE CONDITIONS IN ROCKY NOOK PROJECT AREAS
Poor drainage likely through all postglacial era
Poorly drained at present, possibly better
drained in prehistoric and/or historic past
Good drainage likely through all postglacial era
-------
The deltaic or outwash deposits south of Blair Drive include disposal site
A-3 and project residential areas east of Howlands Lane. The disposal site
ranges between about six and twenty feet in elevation, and consists of silt
loam soils developed on a mixture of both till and finer matrices of lakebed
deposits. Drainage is presently poor during much of the year, and runs
generally north and west into the saltmarsh and tidal creeks of the Jones
River estuary. Most of the site is today covered by upland shrub species,
dominated by staghorn sumac and several grass species, with red cedar (Juniperus
virginiana L.) and•some white pine tfinus strobus L.) near the west edge of
this saltmarsh margin. Freshwater red maple swamp covers the extreme eastern
edge of the site, near Howlands Lane. Near the center of the site is a small
brackish wetland, dominated by switch grass (Panicum virgatum, L.) and seaside
golden rod (Solidago semper virens L.). This latter area, and some of the poor
drainage conditions at the site, are probably historic artifacts of nineteenth
and twentieth century land modification. Railroad construction restricted
tidal flushing of wetlands, and apparently diverted both groundwater and surface
run-off from areas east and south of site A-3 onto the site. Where a footpath
across the site passes over a west/northwest flowing tidal creek, culvert
installation has also restricted tidal flushing and encouraged the brackish
condition noted above.
Before railroad construction, we believe site A-3 was less poorly drained
than at present. Present drainage is also affected by proximity of tidewater
and saltmarsh. When sea level was somewhat lower, it is probable that this
area was a potentially useful point of approach to lower saltmarsh resources,
and perhaps to intertidal flats at even earlier stages of sea rise, for prehis-
toric peoples. Some or all of the site may have been of similar utility after
sea level stabilization, although the exact nature of site drainage during
the past few millenia prior to railroad construction cannot now be specified.
The poorly drained silt loam of site A-3 extends east of Howlands Lane in the
vicinity of Wharf Lane, drainage from which vicinity probably feeds into
the freshwater marsh immediately west of Howlands Lane. This small project
area is in a narrow topographic dip between the moraine deposits to the north
and the deltaic or outwash deposits—of which it is a part--to the south. It
is not clear if this small residential area had different drainage conditions
in the past than at present. Elevations range between fifteen and twenty feet.
Other project areas north of the railroad and Gray's Beach Park are part of
extensive coarse sand soils areas in the deltaic/outwash deposits. These
areas are at about twenty-five feet elevation, level or slightly sloped, and
excessively drained. Gray's Beach Park, through which a short cross-country
project easement will pass under some project alternatives, is similar. We
believe drainage conditions here have been rather stable throughout postglacial
time, with varied access to shellfish and finfish resources, as well perhaps
as waterfowl, depending on sea level and Jones River channel conditions noted
above regarding the ground moraine deposit areas of Rocky Nook peninsula.
2. Railroad track between Howlands Lane and Plymouth Town Line
This artificial environment has caused direct and indirect disturbances to
land within and adjacent to the rail right-of-way, Cuts of two to four feet,
in a few places retained by timber walls, characterize about 350 feet of
this alignment east of Howlands Lane, and most of the 850 feet running west
from the Plymouth boundary. The remaining 1250 feet is more or less at original
-------
grade, with drainage ditch cut several feet into the ground along the south
side of the tracks. Interception of Gray's Brook, which runs for about 1000
feet into Kingston Bay immediately east of Gray's Beach Park, has probably
resulted in the present poor drainage around the brook. Both sides of the track
at the brook juncture—which is effected with a small culvert--are today
covered with some freshwater shrub or wooded swamp, especially the upstream
side to the south (Commonwealth of Massachusetts 1978). Some drainage from
the small Gray's Brook basin is probably diverted west/northwest by the
railroad ditches, creating some of the drainage conditions noted above for
site A-3.
3. Project Areas south of railroad in east Kingston, and along Plymouth
Town Line (Route 3A. Crescent Street. Smiths Lane. Howlands Lane.
Peck Street, Boundary Lane, and unnamed lane east of Howlands Lane)
With the exception of a short section of Smiths Lane which crosses the
drainage of a small unnamed tributary to Smelt Brook, all of these project
areas are included within the sandy deposits of delta or outwash noted above.
Kames or karae terraces rise from northeast to southwest in this part of
Kingston, except where dissected by the Smelt Brook tributary, from about
fifteen feet elevation on the shore near the Plymouth boundary to about
seventy-five feet elevation where Smiths Lane crosses Route 3. Higher
land south and east of these project areas rise to over 100 'feet elevation
on either side of the Smelt Brook tributary. These project areas are in
virtually all places excessively drained, in coarse sand soils. Organic
deposits, very poorly drained, characterize the Smelt Brook tributary, over
which Smiths Lane passes on apparent land fill. North and west of Smiths Lane,
the very poorly drained deposits in the Smelt Brook floodplain lie some thirty
feet below the road on slopes of between eight and thirty-five percent.
Route 3A is separated from Smelt Brook by an irregular hill about twenty feet
higher than the road (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1969).
These project areas apparently retain much of their postglacial drainage and
soil characteristics, other than undocumented areas of disturbance on the
numerous lots along the streets. Smelt Brook and its unnamed tributary have
had anadromous fish in the past, although precise points of capture are not
known.
4. Disposal Site B-2and Access Road
Site B-2 is primarily a broad, somewhat concave area at about 120-130 feet
elevation, with higher terraces to the south rising to the Monks Hill moraine
a mile away. To the northeast, kames and kame terraces rise to about 150 feet
elevation, and form part of the drainage divide of Second Brook, a Jones River
tributary. The northwest boundary of this irregularly-shaped project area
drops very gradually, with an isolated kettle hole thirty to fifty feet deep
along the northernmost edge of the area. One small, unmapped depression of
perhaps ten feet lies near a small kame hill on the northeast boundary. The
entire project area is forested, except where paths cut through, and is
predominantly covered by pitch pine (Pimis rigida Mill.). Located in a transitional
zone between kettle-and-kame topography on and south of Monks Hill moraine,
and the kame terrace and delta deposits of the Jones River basin, site B-2
has stony -loamy sanfl and coarse sand soils which are excessively or somewhat
excessively drained (U.S. Department of Agriculture 1969).
-------
With the possible exception of the two depressions noted in the northern
part of site B-2, the only changes which have occurred in this area since
glacial retreat involve plant cover. The depressions may have been formed
by ice blocks, and may have been pools or ponds during a brief period shortly
after ice retreat. Plant cover may have been dominated by oak species, at
least during earlier historic times, before being replaced by pitch pine
following historic lumbering (cf. Melville 1976: 65).
The access road east of the power line easement is in an area of severe
disturbance due to local industrial activities. All soils have been stripped
well into glacial deposits. West of the power line easement, the access road
is a footpath five to eight feet wide. About 500 feet at the east end of
this path, and about 350-400 feet at the west end where the path enters the
site boundaries used in this study, are cuts of several feet into original
surfaces. The remainder of the path, some 900 feet, is more or less at
original grade. The path passes through land of similar soils, drainage, and
plant cover to that of site B-2. Topographically, the path tends to follow
a. contour of about 135 feet elevation along a broad, north facing slope of
a kame terrace.
5, Summer and Evergreen Streets; Disposal Sites C-l and C-2
These areas are characterized by coarse or gravelly loamy sand soils developed
on kame or kame/delta deposits, in most places usually having excessive
drainage. All areas lie in the broad, marshy drainage of Stony Brook, a large
Jones River tributary marked by a large wooded swamp and bog—Blackwater
Swamp—west of Summer Street along the main channel of the stream, and by
scattered swamps and marshes near the edges of the drainage. Stony Brook
crosses Summer Street just north of the railroad tracks, which by intercepting
the drainage on a banked grade carrying a northerly spur to Duxbury have
apparently ponded surface and ground water around Summer and Evergreen Street
to create a small wooded swamp. This swamp extends to both sides of the
rail spur. All these project areas are between about twenty-five and thirty
feet elevation, except for the most northerly of the Summer Street project
house lots which rise to about fifty feet on a long narrow hill facing south
into the Stony Brook drainage. Most project areas are level or slightly
sloped.
Both disposal sites abut, or are very near, marsh or swamp deposits which
are apparently of natural origin. Site C-l, which is an open grassy field,
is several hundred feet from wooded swamp to the east. Site C-2 is level,
covered with white pine and red maple, and is more or less bounded to the north
by Blackwater Swamp and to the south—across the railroad tracks—by a smaller
wooded swamp. Surface water appears at C-2 in periods of high run-off, but
for most of the year the site is evidently well or excessively drained. Some
of the surface water at C-2 may derive from a drainage ditch running into the
area from slightly lower ground to the northeast. Aside from this ditch, sites
C-l and C-2 appear undisturbed.
Commercial and industrial development in the Summer and Evergreen Streets
area has caused some disturbance to original land surfaces, although the
full extent of these modifications is probably not apparent. The Stony Brook
channel under Summer Street has been straightened and ditched for about 100
feet west of the road, and has rubble retaining walls several feet high for
-------
part of this distance. Some commercial buildings on both side of Summer
Street are surrounded by graded, paved parking areas. The area west of the
railroad station has been built up over the Stony Brook floodplain for a
height of three to four feet. There has also been grading and stripping of
an undetermined extent between Evergreen Street and the railroad tracks, and
east of Summer Street south of the tracks behind some of the present structures.
Bates Farm Road, the dirt path connecting Summer Street to site C-2, is in
most places at or slightly below grade, showing some signs of scrapping and
grading but with soil disturbance incompletely known. There are deeper cuts,
well into subsoil, along the easternmost 500 feet, and a short segment which
has been banked up several feet above a wet area.
-------
IV. SENSITIVITY OF PROJECT AREAS FOR AMERINDIAN CULTURAL RESOURCES
There is abundant, if poorly documented, evidence for Amerindian occupation in
Kingston. Much of this evidence has been found over a period of some decades
by a number of local avocational archaeologists, while some sites have appeared
because of road or home construction. Some fifteen sites, several of which
may actually be parts of single, larger sites, are reported in files of the
Massachusetts Historical Commission. In addition, we learned of three other
sites while interviewing Kingstonites for this reconnaissance—including one
multi-component site of some size being excavated amidst comparative secrecy
by several local avocational archaeologists—plus one other early Huroamerican
site which may have also had an Amerinidian component. Of these nineteen sites,
thirteen appear to be either within project area limits, or within 1500 feet
of such limits. Given the unsystematic means by which most of these sites
were found, and the fact that there is virtually no information of substance
available for any of them, it is apparent that Kingston shares with most of
southern New England an extremely undeveloped data base for prehistoriography.
Many project areas have potential for recovery of more controlled information.
We review below the general context of prehistoric and historic (i.e., after
European contact) Amerindians in this vicinity, and then specify the sensiti-
vity of the various project areas for resources from these millenia.
A, Prehistoric Amerindians
The people we call Paleoindians, the first Amerindians known in southern New
England, apparently arrived on the heels of the last glacier about 12,000 years
ago. In a sub-arctic environment of tundra or tundra and spruce, they hunted
large animals such as mastodon and caribou, but also probably practiced at
least the rudiments of the hunting and capture of smaller animals and the
gathering of seasonally available plants which characterized the material basis
of all Amerindian life—as we now conjecture—until the appearance of agriculture
sometime during the first millenium A.D. There are no reported sites in or
around Kingston from the Paleoindian era, which lasted until perhaps 9000 years
ago. Many known sites from this period elsewhere in the region are located
near large streams, often on high ground which may have served to advantage in
spotting megafauna amidst low or sparse vegetation. In this regard, project
areas near the present coast could have been important observation points for
the streams of the present Duxbury, Kingston, and Plymouth Bay. Sites in the
bay near these streams would, of course, now be submerged.
As climatic warming occurred and sea levels rose between about 10,000 and 3000
years ago, many generations of Amerindians evolved a more elaborate system
of seasonally adjusted hunting, gathering, and fish or shellfish capture after
the megafauna of the Paleoindian era moved into the arctic or became extinct.
Temperate forests, more or less as known historically, developed by about
5-6000 years ago. Even before the complete establishment of modern plant cover,
most or all of the game animals and marine life available to historic peoples
were living in the American northeast. The social organization and settlement
patterns of the Archaic era (c. 9000-2000 years ago)—a period of apparent
diversified resource use distinguished from the subsequent Woodland era largely
by the absence of pottery—remain conjectural. It is clear even from the limited
evidence available that many sites were located along or near streams and
wetlands, presumably in part to exploit fish and waterfowl, and that other
sites were located at more isolated ponds and rock outcrops as likely hunting
camps and quarries. It is not clear what the system(s) unifying such locations
were, either seasonally or socially.
-------
In Kingston, sites attributed to Middle (c. 7-5000 years ago] or Late (c.
5-2000 years ago) Archaic times have been reported in the Lucas Pond vicinity
south of the Jones River (MHC No. 19-PL-300), and at an apparently very large
site on the west side of the Jones River estuary around the Kingston/Duxbury
boundary (MHC No. 19-PL-45). In addition, a unreported Archaic site is
evidently being excavated si.uth of Atwood Avenue on Rocky Nook Point, adjacent
to some project areas and to saltmarsh resources of present or somewhat lower
elevation (personal communication, anonymous Kingston informant). All three
of these site locations suggest use of finfish and shellfish resources, and
perhaps of waterfowl at the two sites in the Jones River estuary. No sites
are reported with Early Archaic materials other than a mention of supposed
component(s) from this period at site 19-PL-45, otherwise undocumented; lacunae
for this period (c. 9-7000 years ago) are common, and are not likely to be
filled soon if people of this period spent much time at drowned estuaries and
river channels. In all cases, these chronological assignments are based on
stone tool typologies which have been given dates elsewhere in southern New
England or in the northeastern United States. Since we do not understand
how, when, or why such technologies changed, these typological comparisons
have somewhat limited utility as time markers, and even less as indicators of
social or cultural distinctions.
The Woodland era, from about 2000 years ago to European contact in the sixteenth
century A.D., featured considerable emphasis on the use of coastal resources,
and by Middle Woodland times (c. 1500 - 1000 years ago) some agriculture may
have also begun to alter settlement and social systems. Since the era begins
at about the time of modern sea level stabilization, there must be caution
in assuming that the widespread associations of shellfish middens and ceramic
artifacts mean that shellfish exploitation began in earnest during the Woodland.
Even with seasonal concentrations at estuaries and intertidal flats, and perhaps
more sedentary emphases in annual movements with planting seasons and grounds,
ancient hunting, gathering, and resource capture continued to be extremely
important. In Kingston, a Woodland shellheap site is reported on Smelt Brook
near Foundry Pond (MHC No. 19-PL-117), while Woodland components are reported
at the Lucas Pond and Jones River estuary sites noted above for Archaic finds.
There is also said to be a Woodland component at the Atwood Avenue site.
Most sites in Kingston have been reported with no temporal or cultural desig-
nations, and often with no information at all other than approximate location.
Many of these sites are directly related to project areas. In particular,
the entire east side of Rocky Nook peninsula in the ground moraine area was
the scene of very extensive undocumented finds, including shell middens, during
construction of residential street earlier in the twentieth century (MHC No.
19-PL-119. On the opposite side of the moraine, artifacts have repeatedly
been recovered in fields on both sides of Howlands Lane north of East Avenue
(personal communication, Elizabeth Woodward, March 9, 1983). Further south
on the peninsula, shell midden has been located south of Wharf Lane on the
eastern shore (MHC -No. 19-PL-293). It is important to note that all of these
Rocky Nook sites, including the Atwood Avenue site, have been found, apparently,
in areas identified as aboriginally well drained.
Smelt Brook, below Smiths Lane project areas and extending upstream beyond
Route 3, has four sites reported in addition to the Woodland site mentioned
above. One of these may have been very near the brook itself (MHC No. 19-PL-114),
but the others were twenty to thirty feet above the stream on level areas, all
-------
well drained (MHC Nos. 19-PL-113, 115, 116), Site 113 may correspond to a
locally reported burial site (personal communication, Catherine and Heirbert
Macy, March 9, 1983), At the end of Spring Street, near saltmarsh about
1200-1500 feet west of project site A-3, Indian artifacts are reported in
the vicinity of the seventeenth century Allerton site (Melville 1976: 4; see
section V below), also on fairly level, excessively drained ground.
There have been repeated, undocumented finds made in fields immediately north
of project site C-l, near the eastern edge of excessively drained kame or
delta deposits (personal communication, Rose Po, March 11, 1983). While it
is a truism in southern New England prehistoriography that most sites are
found in fairly level, well drained areas not too far from fresh water,
Kingston is an area which serves to remind us that changed water levels
have altered site drainage in some cases. About 800 feet east of project
area C-l, undocumented site MHC No. 19-PL-121 is located somewhere in or
around a wooded swamp on Stony Brook, just above the point where the brook
meets tidewater and saltmarsh emerges. The silt loam soils at this site are
only moderately well drained, as are those of the large site MHC No. 19-PL-45
on the Duxbury border, and in the former case may actually be less well drained
than reported on soil maps if the wetland designation is correct. In addition
to changes in drainage, even less well drained areas were potentially attrac-
tive for perhaps short-term use in drier seasons: site 45 has Woodland components,
from centuries when modern drainage had presumably evolved, in an area adjacent
to extensive intertidal flats.
Upland sites at interior locations are sometimes found in southern New England,
away from larger streams but often near springs, small streams, or marshes.
We generally assume these sites were hunting camps, or places where people
wintered away from more severe coastal weather. Since we have little data
on seasonality of use at most known sites, or enough chronological data to
determine or estimate which sites in an area were in use at about the same time,
the interior fall or winter camp remains a reasonable hypothesis based on
ethnographic observations of Contact Period Amerindians but is still an important
unknown for prehistoric peoples. Limited evidence from outer Cape Cod
suggests that in areas of coastal resource abundance, settlement may have
included forays into the interior for limited purposes but remained essentially
coastal in orientation (McManamon 1982). In Kingston, very few sites have
been reported in the uplands near the Monks Hill moraine. Of three known,
two (MHC Nos. 19-PL-304 and 339) are near a large kettle pond (one of these
a stone quarry), while one (MHC No. 19-PL-123) is near the summit of Monks
Hill--a regional high point and thus perhaps an atypical observation post.
Data recovery at some of the more coastal project areas could include the
kind of seasonal information needed to assess settlement patterns in at least
some prehistoric periods.
Although we tend to think of Amerindian settlement systems as fairly localized,
it is clear even in the absence of data on group territories or social organi-
zation that there was considerable travel among localities and regions in
prehistoric time. The presence of raw materials, or finished products made of
raw materials, with origins far from their points of archaeological discovery
sometimes makes this point, as do in a more ambiguous manner the elaborate
burial customs found over large areas of eastern North America during Late
Archaic and Early Woodland times.. Early historic information, reviewed below,
indicates that one or two regionally important trails ran through present
-------
Kingston near or through some project areas. There are no archaeological
data on whether trail camps had any distinctive features of location, activity
or spatial organization. If it is possible to distinguish such sites in
practice, their recovery in Kingston could be significant in providing a
basis of comparison with other areas for eventual reconstruction of any
prehistoric 'travel modes' in cultural activity.
B. Historic Amerindians
The Duxbury, Kingston, and Plymouth Bay was an important center of Amerindian
settlement just prior to Pilgrim arrival in 1620, but a widespread 1617-19
epidemic which struck particularly hard on the eastern New England coast
wiped out most Amerindians in the bay area, leaving little for later observers
to observe. This part of southern New England was occupied by the Pokanoket
or Wampanoag group, one of several Algonquian-speaking peoples whose internal
social and political organization remains essentially unknown to us. The
Patuxet, an important Pokanoket sub-group or village near Plymouth, are the
only reported historic Amerindians in this general area. Their virtual
elimination just prior to Pilgrim settlement essentially left the field open
to the English. The Jones River estuary and basin was apparently heavily
wooded at this time, in contrast to areas cleared for planting around
Plymouth, and there is little to be said at the moment about historic
Amerindians in Kingston. There was settlement known at many of the other
large estuaries and streams along this stretch of Massachusetts coast,
and we cannot now explain this apparent absence—especially given the
density of reported prehistoric sites (Cook 1976; Salwen 1978; DePaoli and
Farkas 1982).
A major regional trail ran along the coast, and apparently became the basis
for some or all of the earliest route north from Plymouth. This Amerindian
trail followed, more or less, the path of the railroad east of Route 3A to
its junction with Route 3, and then was approximately where Route 3 is now.
An alternative to this route—if not the main trail itself—crossed the
Jones River further upstream, near the junction of Route 3A and Green Street,
proceeding north to cross Stony Brook about 500 feet east of the rail spur
bounding site C-l. A more poorly defined path leading west left the north
trail somewhere south of the Jones River, and proceeded along the very
general route of the railroad. The only reported Amerindian site from the
period of historic contact in Kingston is located near the junction of
Main and Green Streets, on Route 3A, along the second northerly route noted
above (MHC No. 19-PL-342). As usual, there is no available information on it.
Recovery of other Contact Era materials in project areas would be extremely
important in defining settlement, and perhaps political, systems in this
vicinity just prior to Euroamerican settlement (Melville 1976: 361-2, 375;
DePaoli and Farkas 1982).
C. Sensitivity of Project Areas
Most project areas seem potentially sensitive, if not highly sensitive, for
Amerindian resources. In particular, the Rocky Nook residential areas north
of the railroad tracks should be regarded as highly sensitive for such resource?
in areas of good drainage (see Figure 2). Although there has obviously been
much disturbance of this area by road and home construction, this disturbance
is not continuous across the area of knswn Amerindian occupations. Given the
£-17
-------
apparently long period of prehistoric habitation here, as suggested by the
multi-component Atwood Avenue site, many sites are possible in and around
project areas: this possibility increases the likelihood of recovering most or
all of individual sites, even amidst nearby disturbance. It should also be
noted that significant information is retrievable from large, multi-feature
sites even if there has been partial site destruction. In some cases, undis-
turbed activity areas within large sites can be significant even in isolation
if they provide complete, undisturbed data on poorly understood aspects of
intra-site activities.
Project areas along Smiths Lane, and^ disposal site C-l, are both very near
known sites related in undocumented ways to the Smelt and Stony Brooks. Site
C-l is apparently undisturbed. Smiths Lane houselots are partially disturbed,
but as with Rocky Nook peninsula the precise extent of disturbance is unknown,
and significant data should be regarded as potentially present.
Lying between areas of known sensitivity, and on well drained soils near
varied marine resources, project areas along Route 5A in east Kingston,
and along roads leading from it (Crescent Street, Peck Street, Boundary Lane, etc),
should be seen as potentially sensitive. The considerations of unknown
disturbance and significant data noted above should apply here.
Disposal site A-3 is located near marsh and stream resources, as well as
having been apparently along a major route of Indian travel. Its presently
poor drainage may not always have been in effect. We regard it as potentially
sensitive for Amerindian resources. For similar reasons, except perhaps the
possibility of being near a~travel route, site C-2 should also be regarded
as sensitive.
Outside of areas with known disturbance—which is in places localized but
apparently intensive—the commercial and residential project areas along
Summer and Evergreen Streets should be seen as sensitive for Amerindian resources.
This is especially the case north of the small commercial district, where
Summer Street rises on a hill overlooking Blackwater Swamp.
Disposal site B-2 appears to meet few criteria of sensitivity for known or
possible Amerindian resources. It is removed from any water bources, and
has no rock outcrops of possible value as shelters or quarries. .Its elevation,
and the absence of these features, make it likely that no significant
Amerindian resources will be impacted there by project activity. A partial
exception to this assessment is that areas adjacent to the large kettle hole
at the north end of the project area, and to the smaller depression near"
the northeast border of the project area, are marginally sensitive for very
early Amerindian resources because of the possible availability of water
in the depressions.
About half of the rail line project area east of Rowlands Lane is severely
disturbed and not sensitive for any Amerindian resources. The remainder is
at least partially disturbed by drainage ditch on the south side of the track,
but project construction north of the track could impact such resources.
This general location is near stream and marine resources.
-------
V. SENSITIVITY OF PROJECT AREAS FOR EUROAMERICAN CULTURAL RESOURCES
1, Rocky Nook Residential Areas North of Railroad
Most of this area, especially on the ground moraine section, was used for
pasture, and perhaps some limited field crops, OB a small number of land
holdings from the 1630s to the early twentieth century. North of the present
Rocky Nook wharf area, there were apparently only three farmsteads: the homes
and outbuildings built by John and Joseph Howland, used between about 1635
and 1750 (Deetz I960); and the home of John Cook, occupied between the early
1630s and the late nineteenth century, when it was replaced by the present
farmhouse at No. 45 Howlands Lane (Gray 1831; Walling 1857; Walker 1879;
Richards 1903; personal communication, Elizabeth Woodward, March 9, 1983).
Neither of the Howlands sites, which have been subject to past archaeological
investigations, will be impacted by the proposed project. The original
Cook farmstead area is part of the proposed project. Although the original
house is evidently built over, the surrounding grounds are likely to contain
remains of undocumented outbuildings and refuse covering a period of some
350 years. Successive construction and deposition during this period will
have seriously obscured the nature and extent of materials from the earlier
centuries--when there was probably less household refuse in durable form-
at many points around the house, especially nearer the house. However,
the fairly large undeveloped area around the present house (about two acres)
does present the possibility of recovering intact refuse deposits from the
seventeenth century, an era for which patterns of refuse disposal remain
problematic CStarbuck 1980: 372ff.). Although recovery of significant data
will be less likely as project areas are placed nearer the house, without
field data the area around No. 45 Howlands Lane should be regarded as sensitive
for potentially significant archaeological data.
There were several other very early colonial sites, domestic and commercial,
in the general area between the present wharf and the railroad. Edward Gray,
a prominent merchant and shipowner in Plymouth Colony, had land along the
brook which bore his name. He built a house, possibly in the 1660s, which
was reportedly destroyed by nineteenth century railroad construction. In the
1670s, he also built the first wharf on Rocky Nook at an unknown location,
probably somewhere between Gray's Brook and the present wharf. Presumably,
there were warehouses associated with this structure, on shore or on the wharf.
Through the end of the eighteenth century, an undocumented number of wharves
and warehouses were operated in this vicinity, as Kingston's primary landing
for fishing before 1776. Some of the facilities associated with the wharves
are said to have been on land. This stretch of shore has remained relatively
undeveloped, and any nodera disturbances are presently unknown. Therefore,
any project areas near the shore between the present Rocky Nook Wharf and
Gray's Brook appear to be sensitive for seventeenth and eighteenth century
commercial facilities [Bailey 1920; Bailey and Drew 1926; Melville 1976: 258ff.)
Any such facilities could be associated with underwater wharf remains, which
while outside project areas would be considered part of land sites under some
conditions of controlled dating.
-------
Edward Gray's son, John, apparently built a house in the late seventeenth
century near the northern corner of Rowlands Lane and Gray's Beach Road
(Bailey 1920; Bailey and Drew 1926). The house site has been built over by
either Gray's Beach Road in the twentieth century, or by subsequent structures
on the same site. Street and home construction near this site have probably
diminished the possibilities of recovering undisturbed seventeenth century
refuse deposits, leaving at best the superimposed accumulations DJ. three
centuries. It is unlikely that significant information could be recovered here.
The present Rocky Nook wharf was built in 1802-03, one of the few surviving
stone wharfs of this vintage in the eastern United States. It will not
be effected by the proposed project. The project areas near the wharf encompass
a very important part of Kingston's nineteenth century commercial life.
Rocky Nook was a shipping point for local industrial and agricultural products
in the coastal and West Indian trade, a storage area for Kingston-caught
fish dried on racks in nearby fields, and rigging or fitting out point for
many of the ships built at Kingston shipyards on the Jones River along
Landing Road. These activities were run by several local families—notably,
the Holmeses, Delanos, Winsors, and Whittens--until the local fishing and
shipbuilding industries faded in the 1870s and 1880s. An unknown number and
type o£warehouses, fish houses, and other facilities operated near the foot
of the wharf. By the late 1850s, only one or two are known, continuing
into the early twentieth century on historic maps. Several of the homes
in this area today may be converted storage or other commercial facilities--
we have not determined the origins of these structures in this reconnaissance,
but in size, shape, and location they match closely some structures on
earlier maps. Archaeological and documentary research in this vicinity
could recover significant information about the operations of these local
shipping concerns, especially before they contracted in the face of rail
and steamship competition beginning in the 1840s. Project areas in the east
half of Wharf Lane should be regarded as sensitive for resources from thi~
locally significant historic period. At present, we cannot specify modern
disturbances to this area, or the precise location, nature, or extent of
such resources (Jones 1926; Melville 1976; Walling 18S8;WalkeT lS?9?fti-chards 1903)
During much of the nineteenth century, the Delanos operated salt works north
of the present Rocky Nook wharf. The Salt Rock ledge on which these operations
were centered was demolished for use as rip-rap in the early twentieth century,
and the works themselves--vats on posts — left few if any remains •. This area
was near present Rocky Nook Avenue, a. project area. It is not sensitive for
these or other historic resources (Melville 1976: 274, 372-73).
All project area roads other ^han Howlands Lane and Wharf Lane were developed
in the twentieth century, during three separate stages of summer home con-
struction. Howlands Lane originated as a 1695 right-of-way, following the
shore closely past the approximate area of its intersection with Wharf Lane.
This was apparently the only road onto the peninsula, other than perhaps one
or more undocumented lanes such as the one across site A-3, and served the
pre-nineteenth century wharves as well as the pastures to the north. With
the construction of the 1802-03 wharf, we believe the present alignments of
Howlands Lane and Wharf Road soon followed although we have seen no evidence
for this change; Gray 1831 shows the modern route. None of the present roads
in project areas appears to overlie any earlier historic sites (Bailey 1920;
Bailey and Drew 1926; Melville 1976: 377],
-------
2. Site A-3
This project area appears to have been used only as pasture historically,
and, via the existing path, as a route between Delano residences on Main'
Street and the Rocky Nook wharf area. It is not sensitive for historic resources,
x- Project Areas south of railroad in east Kingston, and along Plymouth
Town Line " ~"~~~~~~~~"
Historic maps indicate that project area streets were not built over any
earlier historic sites. Crescent Street, and the sections of Main Street
east and west of Crescent Street, were evidently parts of the earliest highway
north of Plymouth. No other roads in this vicinity appeared before the
straightened section of Main Street past Crescent Street in 1836, through
pasture. Smiths Lane, with possible beginnings as a seventeenth century path
to meadow pastures on Smelt Brook, was only developed as a residential street
early in the twentieth century, and did not cross the Smelt Brook tributary
for some years after 1900. Boundary Lane first appears on maps in the second
half of the nineteenth century, and its development was probably associated
with the appearance of a freight station on the railroad near the Plymouth
Cordage Company. The remaining project area streets, and the houses on them,
are of twentieth century vintage (Gray 1831; Walling 1858; Walker 1879;
Richards 1903; Melville 1976: 373ff.).
One possible exception to the generalization made about streets, which may
apply also to nearby houses, should be noted for the area at the end of the
short lane south of and parallel to Howlands Lane. A seventeenth century
habitation site has been reported here, with no documentation (MHC No. Kingston
HA-7). We cannot confirm this report at present. This vicinity should be
regarded as sensitive for potential seventeenth century resources, although
the railroad cut behind this area as well as the presence of several modern
homes probably preclude the recovery of significant data here. Despite
these problems, this area should not be ignored without field checks.
The approach to the homes near the Plymouth town line, north of the railroad
tracks, is in part over a widened railbed on which stood a freight house in
the late nineteenth-early twentieth century (Walker 1879; Richards 1903).
There are no visible remains of this structure. Its foundation, if extant,
is of unknown construction. Since rail facilities of this vintage often
remain undocumented, there is some possibility of significant structural
remains being impacted here. It is also possible that any such remains
found will be of a well understood type of foundationv In the absence of
information, this area should be regarded as sensitive if it is included~in
a project alignment.
A comparison of historic maps with recent large scale photogrammetry of
these project areas indicates that very little of the area potentially
subject to STEP construction around homes and businesses will contain historic
structures. As noted, the various short lanes off of Main Street are of
recent vintage in previously unoccupied areas. Along Main, Crescent, and
the northern end of Smith Streets, present structures have evidently been
standing for some time, or have been built over earlier structures. We did
not attempt to compare building styles with historic maps in this reconnaissance.
We did determine that in presently vacant areas or undeveloped areas where
-------
STEP construction is possible, no mapped historic structures existed in
most cases. In these more frequent cases, STEP construction might impact
varied refuse deposits around standing and non-standing structures. The
older sites on these streets have been occupied for several hundred years,
and in all cases there has been superimposition of refuse with nineteenth
and twentieth century deposits likely. Recovery of primary refuse deposits
frorr pre-1850 domestic activit~es--which are of interest in current research
on the evolution of houselot organization (e.g., Starbuck 1980)--seems
very unlikely (Gray 1831; Walling 1858; Walker 1879; Richards 1903).
One house, at the northwest corner of Howlands Lane and Main Street, appears
to have been removed during the twentieth century. A house at this location
appears on all historic maps which show individual structure, beginning with
Gray 1831. This was a large, multi-winged structure. Its site is currently
a paved commercial lot. Other than possible foundation remains, and the
same kinds of domestic refuse noted above, we expect no resources at this
site.
Based on these primarily cartographic analyses, we expect no significant
historic resources in these project areas, except as noted above for the
freight house and the seventeenth century site.
4. Site B-2
This area was used historically only as woodlot, and no significant resources
are expected (personal communication, Edward Holmes, March 9, 1983).
5. Site C-l
Although apparently never developed, and known to have been used historically
only as an occasional circus ground, this site has two associations with
very early settlement in Kingston: the area was part of the extensive
Bradford family holdings, and was about 500 feet from the site of the Major
William Bradford house (standing c. 1680-1730); the earliest highway north
out of Plymouth (c. 1637) passed near or along the east side of the site,
in the general vicinity of the abandoned rail spur to Duxbury. The latter
association will probably not yield any significant information, especially
given the presence of the railbed. The former association could yield
some domestic refuse of the Bradford occupation. However, later domestic
sites near this area have probably left corresponding refuse here as well;
there is archaeological evidence at the Bradford house site itself for
abundant material from succeeding centuries. The context of this site is not
promising for recovery of primary deposits from any undisturbed period, and
we do not expect significant historic resources to be impacted here (Anonymous
n.d,; Bailey 1920; Bailey and Drew 1926; personal communication, Edward Holmes,
March 9, 1983).
6. Site C-2 and^ Access Road
There are no known or expected historic resources at this disposal site.
The access road, known as Bates Farm Road or Pottle Street, is of an undocu-
mented age which probably pre-dates the 1844 construction of the railroad.
With the exception of a freight house, now moved from the road to its north
side in a new avatar as auction gallery storage, there are no known historic
resources in this road (Walker 1879; Richards 1903; personal communication,
Margaret Warnsman, March 10, 1983).
-------
7. Summer Street Residential and Commercial Project Areas
Summer Street was first laid out here in 1708 as part of a re-aligned
road between Plymouth and Boston, and except for being widened in 1927
this road has remained unchanged in alignment. It appears to overlie no
historic sites. Evergreen Street, originally a path from Stony Brook to
the Bridgewater Road from early English settlement, was laid out as a
street in the 1870s or 1880s. Its construction caused the demolition of the
1679 home of William Bradford III. This first period of construction, along
wiht subsequent repairs, pavings, and utility installation, has most likely
destroyed any integrity the house remains might have had after demolition.
We expect no significant resources in these streets CWalker 1876; Melville
1976: 380-81). ~~
North of the small commercial area, eighteenth and nineteenth residences
comprise most project areas. Comparison of recent photogrammetry with
earlier detailed maps reveals no presently vacant land where STEP construction
might impact remains of homes or outbuildings. Superimposed domestic
refuse from a period of over 250 years on small lots will probably be impacted,
but does not constitute significant data for reasons outlined above for
similar project areas in east Kingston. We expect no significant historic
resources in residential project areas.
The commercial district project areas, beginning north of Stony Brook about
400 feet on the west side and about 200 feet on the east side of Summer Street,
were largely unoccupied historically before the 1844 construction of the Old
Colony Railroad. One farmhouse, later moved out of these project areas, and
an associated barn at the site of the present depot appear to have comprised
all known sites here before 1844. With the rapid emergence of the new
commercial center of Kingston at this intersection, a complex series--still
not completely documented in published sources—of construction events has
followed to the present time. Generally, cartographic analysis indicates
that commercial structures have remained close to the streets, and have been
built and rebuilt on the same sites leaving little vacant space or undisturbed
earlier sites. The only exceptions seem to be paved parking areas north and
south of the present U.S. Post Office, which cover nineteenth century resi-
dential sites shown in Walker 1879 and Richards 1903. Given the relatively
late dates of these two residences (eighteenth or nineteenth centuries) in
terms of available architectural knowledge and refuse disposal patterns, it is
not likely that significant resources would be impacted here even if there
were intact archaeological sites under the pavement. We expect no significant
historic resources to be impacted in the commercial areas(Melville 1976).
-------
VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Except for most of disposal site B-2 and about half of the railroad track
project area east of Howlands Lane, we found that all project areas were
sensitive for Amerindian cultural resources. While some project areas, notably
the Rocky Nook peninsula, are in areas of known or reported Amerindian sites,
in all cases the actual nature and presence of such resources in project areas
remain undefined. Given the present inadequacies in knowledge about Amerindian
prehistory and history, any sites recovered in project areas are potential
sources of significant information.
Known or possible Euroamerican resources may exist in the following project areas:
i. around No. 45 Howlands Lane (seventeenth century farmstead);
ii. near the foot of Rocky Nook wharf, and between the wharf and
Gray's Brook [seventeenth through nineteenth century commercial
wharf, storage, and outfitting facilities);
iii. near the end of an unnamed lane south of and parallel to Howlands
Lane (unconfirmed seventeenth century farmstead);
iv. on the north side of the railroad tracks, immediately west of
Boundary Lane (nineteenth century rail freight house);
Neither the presence nor the significance of the Euroamerican resources can
be determined without additional field and/or documentary research"!
In several cases, avoidance of some sensitive project areas or sub-areas is
a resource management option with few apparent adverse project design considera-
tions. We recommend avoidance of the rail freight house site, of the north
side of the railroad tracks east of Howlands Lane, and of the small areas
designated as sensitive for Amerindian resources in disposal site B-2 (Figure 3).
Further project planning in the other areas identified as sensitive will
require archaeological testing, and in some cases documentary/informant research,
to determine the presence of any cultural resources in these areas, and to
assess the significance or potential significance of any such resources.
The three areas noted abov« with possible historic resources which probably
not be avoided by project planning are all in areas of possible Amerindian
resources. As we outline below, testing in these three areas can be incorporated
into programs of testing for Amerindian sites with some modifications.
Generally, we have found that subsurface tests at least .5 meter square and
no more that twenty meters apart in any direction are adequate to locate all
but the very smallest Amerindian sites in areas of undifferentiated sensitivity
(i.e., in areas where all land is apparently of equal sensitivity). With
this framework in mind, we distinguish the following categories of project area:
i. large, undeveloped project areas (disposal sites A-3, C-l, and C-2);
ii. developed project areas, with unknown extents of undocumented
prior disturbance, which are essentially aligned in narrow strips
through sensitive lands (all residential or commercial properties
along roadways with no intersecting project area roads);
iii. developed project areas, with unknown extents of undocumented
prior disturbance, aligned in dense, intersecting patterns which
create large, undefined sensitive areas (properties in residential
neighborhoods of more or less gridiron street pattern).
-------
Q
Bu^^l
"If I ;A
j r
-------
1, Testing in Large, Undeveloped Project Areas
The three disposal sites at issue are sensitive only for Amerindian resources.
Areas subject to project impacts should be tested initially at equidistant
twenty meter intervals. At sites C-2 and A-5, the season during which testing
is conducted will affect testing costs: both sites are subject to high water-
tables and/or surface run-off or ponding during some periods each year.
If tests are made in the driest months, no unusual measures will probably
be required to test site C-2. At site A-3, it is possible that high watertables
may persist in some places through most or all of the year. Testing should
be conducted to depths of culturally sterile soil horizons, usually approximated
by penetrating glacial or immediate postglacial deposits. In the silt'loams
of site A-3, such deposits could be as much as four feet below the surface
U.S. Department of Agriculture 1969). Watertables at or above this depth
will necessitate the use of pumps, and perhaps of water-powered excavation
techniques appropriate to water-saturated sites (e.g., Croes 1976). Testing
costs will be raised to a presently unknown extent under these circumstances.
Pumping problems aside, and based on project area sizes and conventional
assumptions regarding test methods and soils, we estimate the following
labor inputs will be necessary to complete initial field tests:
Site C-l: 1 person-day
Site C-2: 3 person-days
Site A-3: 40 person-days
Additional test beyond the initial grid may be needed to confirm archaeological
site presence. These assumptions are also subject to change if project area
sizes are altered in design.
2. Testing in Developed, Strip-like Project Areas
All project areas involving STEP construction raise problems of both direct
and indirect impacts to cultural resources. Unlike most conventional sewerage
facility plans, STEP construction brings public funding onto private lots
for direct impacts. STEP construction, by making project lots more desirable
and valuable, allows for possible expansion or upgrading of project lot
structures or other landscape developments, thereby constituting possible
indirect impacts to cultural resources. To minimize possible resource miti-
gation costs in project implementation (direct impacts), and to allow for
possible public or private preservation efforts at archaeological sites discovered
on private lots during project planning (thus minimizing indirect impacts),
we recommend locating any Amerindian sites on project area lots prior to
final STEP location design. Once this is accomplished, site avoidance may
become a cost-effective option in planning. If testing is restricted only
to areas previously anticipated for STEP construction, site discovery would
require additional tests to determine site limits and significance, and to
allow for avoidance options. This latter alternative—testing only in anticipated
STEP areas—thus raises possibilities of increased resource management costs
through duplication of labor mobilization efforts, and through longer project
schedules.
-------
Proceeding with this recommendation in 'strip-like1 project areas along
streets, field testing will require at least two phases: determining the
extent of any prior disturbance at points selected for interval subsurface
— -- — —--— _z_^^__. ^ I ^^ • — . - —-— » w .• w .*. * i h. *; **V>AW-^UCU ^ w J. J.JlLCJCvcl.1. O U D o UX^ i
testing, and testing those points where disturbance does not apparently'
*•*-• *-* r _ _ - *•»**. t-»fc»»*ww v*w j itw u> ** HH ***ci*tj.y
preclude recevery of archaeological resources.Along each project street,
corridors would be mapped behind rows of project homes or businesses, of
widths corresponding approximately to the distance between primary lot
structures on streetfronts and back property lines. Within each corridor,
a grid of possible test points would be mapped at equidistant twenty meter
intervals, designed to avoid standing structures, paved areas, or obvious
points of substantial disturbance. On each property, a soil test would be
conducted with a bucket auger or other appropriate device to assess soil
integrity, with amplification if possible through brief interviews with
property owners. Subsurface test units .5 meter square would be completed
only at points with no apparent substantial disturbance.
Because of the uncertainties regarding disturbance, we cannot now specify
labor estimates for both phases of this kind of program. Noting that in
practice both phases would probably be conducted in more or less immediate
sequence on a given property, we can estimate field inputs needed for the
first phase of disturbance assessment:
Smiths Lane: 12 person-days (assume average 150 foot corridor depth
on each side of road)
Main Street: 19person-days (same assumption)
Crescent Street: 8person-days (same assumption)
Peck Street: 2 person-days (same assumption)
Summer Street: 7person-days (assume average 200 foot corridor depth,
in non-commercial areas)
Since these estimates do not account for obvious areas of disturbance, etc.,
they should be regarded as very high estimates.
3. Testing in Developed, Gridiron-like Project Areas
These areas include virtually all of the Rocky Nook peninsula north of
the railroad tracks, and small residential clusters on the unnamed lane south
of Howlands Lane and at the end of Boundary Lane. Rocky Nook in particular
is highly sensitive for significant Amerindian resources, with some points
of possible Euroamerican resources as noted above. The Amerindian possibilities
include large sites of important annual or seasonal exploitation of marine
and waterfowl resources.
We would recommend the same kind of testing strategy in these areas as for
the 'strip-like' project areas discussed above, with the important proviso
that poorly drained areas on the Rocky Nook ground moraine not be tested:
as outlined in section IV, the poorly drained areas are not likely to contain
significant resources from any periods of Amerindian prehistory or history.
Off the ground moraine, prehistoric drainage changes cannot be specified
and testing should proceed in all project areas, with tests conducted in dry
or low groundwater periods to the extent possible. Referring to Figure 2,
approximately seventy (70) acres on Rocky Nook would be subject to potential
testing, using a grid of equidistant twenty-meter points in all directions within
potentially sensitive areas.
-------
We estimate a maximum of fifty (SO) person-days might be needed to complete
the first phase of disturbance assessment. Again, since this estinate includes
actual field work at each potential test point, it is a very high estimate.
In the smaller areas of the unnamed lane and Boundary Lane, comparable dis-
turbance assessment might require about two (2) person-days.
For comparative purposes, we note that if the same kind of two phase program
were conducted only at previously planned STEP facility locations on Rocky
Nook, similar labor estimates would result. Each of the approximately 285
STEP facilities anticipated in this area might require 4 test points, or
about 1140 points. The recommended program assumes about 1120 points (70
acres x c. 16 points/acre). A major difference between the recomnended
and the non-recommended approach is that the former proceeds must faster
along a resource management schedule and allows for greater project savings.
For the identified areas of potential Euroamerican resources, we recommend
the following modifications to" the general scheme outlined above:
i. at the property at No. 45 Howlands Lane, any .5 meter subsurface
tests which yield seventeenth or eighteenth century material
should be expanded to at least 1 meter square, so as to provide
for a larger sample of the integrity, nature, and disposition
of refuse or outbuilding remains;
2. similar expansion should be followed at the end of the unnamed
lane east of Howlands Lane;
3. test intervals or .5 meter square units should be decreased to
ten meters around the foot of Rocky Nook wharf, and between the
wharf and Gray's Brook, to isolate potentially small commercial
structures, with unit expansion to 1 meter square at points of artifact
discovery.
For the latter area of commercial facilities, we recommend conducting documentary
research in land titles, in the collection of glass negatives filed in
the town library of nineteenth and early twentieth century views of Kingston,
and in available research reports of any comparable facilities known elsewhere
in the eastern American seaboard. Families with past ownership or use
experience with the present wharf during its commercial period should be contacted
for possible informant data on structure location or function.
~
-------
DOCUMENTARY SOURCES CONSULTED
Anonymous
n.d. The Major William Bradford House Site, Kingston. Mss. on file,
Plimoth Plantation, Plymouth.
Bailey, Sarah Y.
1920 The Story of Jones River in Pilgrim Plymouth 1620-1726.
Kingston Branch of the Alliance of Unitarian Women.
Bailey, Sarah Y., and Emily F. Drew
1926 The Civic Progress of Kingston/A History of Her Industries-Two Hundred
Years 1726-1926. Plymouth: Memorial Press.
Boyden, B.
1876 Map of the Town of Kingston, Plymouth County. Boston.
Chute, Newton E.
1965 Geologic Map of the Duxbury Quadrangle, Plymouth County, Massachusetts.
U.S. Geological Survey Map GQ-466. Washington.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Public Works
1944 Massachusetts City and Town Maps, vol. IV, Boston: Massachusetts
Geodetic Survey.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Environmental Management
1978 Wetland Restriction Program, Plan of Wetlands: Kingston, Duxbury,
and Plymouth.
Cook, S.F.
1976 The Indian Population of New England in the Seventeenth Century.
University of California Publications in Anthropology 12.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Croes, Dale R., ed,
1976 The excavation of water-saturated archaeological sites on the north-
west coast of North America. Archaeological Survey of Canada (National
Museum of Man, Mercury Series) 50.
Deetz, James
1960 The Howlands at Rocky Nook: An Archaeological and Historical Study.
Supplement to The Howland Quarterly XXIV,4.
1979 Plymouth Colony Architecture: Archaeological Evidence from the
Seventeenth Century, in A.L. Cummings, ed.. Architecture in Colonial
Massachusetts, pp. 43-59. Boston: The Colonial Society of America.
DePaoli, Neill, and Maxine Farkas
1982 Patterns of Settlement and Land Use: Contact Period, in Massachusetts
Historical Commission, historic and Archaeological Resources of
Southeast Massachusetts, pp. 33-46. Boston.
Emery, K.O., and A.S. Merrill
1979 Relict oysters on the United States Atlantic continental shelf: A
reconsideration of their usefulness in understanding late Quaternary
sea-level history: Discussion and reply. Geological Society of
America Bulletin 90,1: 689-94.
Gray, John
1795 Plan of Kingston. Massachusetts Archives, Town Plans 1795, 9: 19.
1831 Plan of Kingston. Massachusetts Archives, Town Plans 1830, 14: 20.
Kurd, D. Hamilton, comp.
1884 History of Plymouth County. Massachusetts. Philadelphia: J.W. Lewis 5 Co.
Iwanowicz, H. Russell, Robert D. Anderson, and Barry A. Ketschke
1974 A Study of the Marine Resources of Plymouth, Kingston, and Duxbury Bay.
Monograph Series 17, Division of Marine Fisheries, Department of
Natural Resources, Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
-------
Jones, Henry M.
1926 Ships of Kingston. Plymouth: Memorial Press.
Kaye, Clifford S., and Elso S. Barghoom
1964 Late Quaternary Sea-Level Change and Crustal Rise at Boston,
Massachusetts, with Notes on the Autocompaction of Peat. Geological
Society of America Bulletin 75: 63-80.
Kellogg, James L.
1910 Shell-Fish Industries. New York: Henry Holt 5 Co.
McManamon, Francis
1982 Prehistoric Land Use on Outer Cape Cod. Journal of Field Archaeology 9,1:1-20
Melville, Doris J.
1976 Major Bradford's Town: A History of Kingston 1726-1976. Kingston:
Town of Kingston.
Oldale, Robert N.
1981 Pleistocene Stratigraphy of Nantucket, Martha's Vineyard, The
Elizabeth Islands, and Cape Cod, Massachusetts, in G.L. Larson
and B.D. Stone, eds., Late Wisconsinan Glaciation of New England.
Dubuque: Kendal1-Hunt.
Redfield, A.C., and Meyer Rubin
1962 The age of salt-marsh peat and its relation to recent changes in
sea level at Barnstable, Massachusetts. National Academy of Sciences
Proceedings 48: 1728-35.
Richards, L.J., § Co.
1903 Atlas of Surveys of Plymouth County and Town of Cohasset, Norfolk
County, Mass.
Salwen, Bert
1978 Indians of Southern New England and Long Island: Early Period, in
W.C. Sturtevant and B.G. Trigger, eds., Handbook of North American
Indians, vol.15: Northeast, pp. 160-176. Washington: Smithsonian
Institution.
Starbuck, David R., ed.
1980 Seventeenth Century Historical Archaeology in Cambridge, Medford,
and Dorchester. Boston University.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
1969 Soil Survey of Plymouth County, Massachusetts.
Walker, Geerge H.
1879 Atlas of Plymouth County, Massachusetts. Boston: George H. Walker § Co.
Walling, Henry F.
1857 Map of the County of Plymouth, Massachusetts. Boston: D.R. Smith § Co.
Williams, John R., and Gary D. Tasker
1974 Water Resources of the Coastal Drainage Basins of Southeastern
Massachusetts, Wier River, Hingham, to Jones River, Kingston.
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-504.
Yonge, C.M.
1960 Oysters. London: Collins.
-------
PERSONS CONSULTED
Mary Cherry, Kingston Historical Society
George Cushman, Kingston Town Clerk
Edward H. Holmes, Kingston Historical Commission
Russell Holmes, President, Massasoit Chapter, Massachusetts Archaeological Society
Marjorie T. LaPlante, Kingston Historical Commission
Herbert Macy, Kingston Planning Board
Catherine Macy, Kingston Board of Health
Chris Mason, C E Maguire, Inc, Providence, RI
Rose Po, Kingston Town Clerk's Office
Valerie Talmadge, Massahcusetts State Archaeologist
William Twohig, Kingston
Margaret Warnsman, Kingston Historical Commission
Elizabeth Woodward, Kingston
-------
-------
American Public Health Association, 1980. Standard Methods for the
Examination of Water and Wastewater, Fifteenth Edition.
Brandes, Marek, 1978. Accumulation Rate and Characteristics of Septic
Tank Sludge and Septage. Journal of the Water Pollution Control
Federation, May 1978.
Food and Drug Administration, 1975. Department of Health, Education,
and Welfare, Public Health Service, Food and Drug Administration,
Shellfish Sanitation Branch. Plymouth Harbor, Massachusetts Report
on Sanitary Survey, May 1975. Northeast Technical Services Unit,
Davisville, RI.
General Accounting Office, 1977. Unnecessary and Harmful Levels of
Domestic Sewage Chlorination Should Be Stopped. Report to the
Congress by the Comptroller General of the United States. CED-77-
108 August 30, 1977.
Iwanowicz, H. Russell, et al. 1974. A Study of the Marine Resources
of Plymouth, Kingston and Duxbury Bay, Massachusetts Department of
Natural Resources, Division of Marine Fisheries. Monograph Series
#17.
Laak, Rein, 1980. Wastewater Engineering Design for Unsewered Areas.
Ann Arbor Science Publisher, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Old Colony Planning Council, 1978. Kingston 208 Report.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1980. Summary
Characteristics for Governmental Units and Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Areas, Massachusetts. PHC80-3-23.
U.S. Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey, 1981.
Water Resources Data, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, Water Year
1981. U.S.G.S. Water Data Report MA-RI-81-1. USGS/wrd/HD-82/023
Dec. 1982.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1975A. Process Design Manual,
Wastewater Treatment Facilities for Sewered Small Communities.
US EPA 625/1-77-009. October 1977.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1975B. Process Design Manual
for Nitrogen Control US EPA October 1975.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976A. Quality Criteria for Water.
US EPA, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976B. Patrick, W.H. Jr., et al.
Nitrate Removal From Water at the Water-Mud Interface in Wetlands.
EPA-600/3-76-042 April 1976.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976C. Effects of Wastewater and
Cooling Water Chlorination on Aquatic Life. August 1976 EPA-600/
3-76-098.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1976D. Environmental Pollution
Control Alternatives: Municipal Wastewater. EPA 625/5-76-012.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1977. Process Design Manual for
Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater. EPA 625/1-77-008.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1978A. Innovative and Alternative
Technology Assessment Manual, February 1980. EPA-430/9-78-009.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1978B. Management of Small Waste
Flows. EPA-600/2-78-173.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1979. Performance Evaluation of
Existing Aerated Lagoon System at Consolidated Koshkonong Sanitary
District, Edgerton, Wisconsin. EPA-600/2-79-182.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1980. On Site Wastewater Treatment
and Disposal Systems Design Manual. Office of Water Program Operations,
Office of Research and Development, Municipal Environmental Research
Laboratory.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1982. Impacts of Wastewater Disin-
fection Practices on Cold Water Fisheries. July 1982. EPA 901-82-
000.
Valiela, I., and J. Teal, 1979. The nitrogen budget of a salt marsh
ecosystem. Nature 280:652-656.
Valiela, I., J.M. Teal, and W.J. Sass, 1975. Production and dynamics
of salt marsh vegetation and the effects of experimental treatment
with sewage sludge. J. Appl. Ecol. 12:973-981.
Valiela, I., J.M. Teal, and N.Y. Persson, 1976. Production and dynamics
of experimentally enriched salt marsh vegetation: below ground
biomass. Limnol. Oceanogr. 21:245-252.
Whitman & Howard, Inc., 1975. Report on Proposed Sewerage System for the
Town of Kingston, Massachusetts.
Williams, John R. and Tasker, Gary D., 1974. Water Resources of the
Coastal Drainage Basins of Southeastern Massachusetts, Plymouth to
Weweantic River, Wareham. U.S. Department of the Interior, United
States Geological Survey. Hydrologic Investigations Atlas HA-507.
-------
0
-------
The following provides definitions for some of the
environmental terms used in this EIS. Except where
otherwise noted, these definitions are taken from the
EPA Office of Public Awareness publication "Common
Environmental Terms" (1977).
abatement; The reduction in degree or intensity
of pollution.
absorption; The penetration of one substance into
or through another.
adsorption: The attachment of the molecules of a
liquid or gaseous substance to the surface of a
solid.
advanced wastewater treatment; The tertiary stage
of sewage treatment.
aeration: To circulate oxygen through a substance,
as in wastewater treatment where it aids in puri-
fication.
aerobic; Life or processes that depend on the pre-
sence of oxygen.
algae; Simple rootless plants that grow in bodies of
water in relative proportion to the amounts of
nutrients available. Algal blooms, or sudden
growth spurts can affect water quality adversely.
anaerobic; Life or processes that can occur without
free oxygen.
aquifer; An underground bed or layer of earth, gravel,
or porous stone that contains water.
bacteria: Single-celled microorganisms that lack
chlorophyll. Some cause diseases, other aid in
pollution control by breaking down organic matter
in air and water.
benthic region; The bottom layer of a body of water.
bioassay; Using living organisms to measure the
effect of a substance, factor, or condition.
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD); The dissolved oxygen
required to decompose organic matter in water. It
is a measure of pollution since heavy waste loads
have a high demand for oxygen.
-------
biodegradable: Any substance that decomposes quickly
through the action of microorganisms.
biomass: The amount of living matter in a given unit
of the environment.
biota; All living organisms that exist in an area.
bloom: A proliferation of algae and/or higher aquatic
plants in a body of water, often related to pollu-
tion.
BODs: The amount of dissolved oxygen consumed in 5
(Jays by biological processes breaking down organic
matter in an effluent.
brackish water: A mixture of fresh and saltwater.
chlorination: The application of chlorine to drinking
water, sewage, or industrial waste to disinfect or
to oxidize undesirable compounds.
coliform organism: Organisms found in the intestinal
tract of humans and animals, their presence in
water indicates pollution and potentially dangerous
baterial contamination.
comminutor: A machine that grinds solids to make
waste treatment easier.
cultural eutrophication; Increasing the rate at which
water bodies "die" by pollution from human activi-
ties.
decomposition: The breakdown of matter by bacteria.
It changes the chemical make-up and physical appear-
ance of materials.
dilution ratio: The relationship between the volume
of water in a stream and the volume of incoming
waste. It can affect the ability of the stream to
assimilate waste.
disinfection; A chemical or physical process that
kills organisms that cause infectious disease.
Chlorine is often used to disinfect sewage treat-
ment effluent.
dissolved oxygen (DO): A measure of the amount of
oxygen available for biochemical activity in a
given amount of water. Adequate levels of DO are
needed to support aquatic life. Low dissolved
oxygen concentrations can result from inadequate
waste treatment.
-------
dissolved solids; The total of disintegrated organic
and inorganic material contained in water. Ex-
cesses can make water unfit to drink or use in
industrial processes.
dredging; To remove earth from the bottom of water
bodies using a scooping machine. This disturbs the
ecosystem and causes silting that can kill aquatic
life.
ecological impact; The total effect of an environ-
mental change, natural or manmade, on the community
of living things.
ecology; The relationships of living things to one
another and to their environment, or the study of
such relationships.
ecosystem: The interacting system of a biological
community and its nonliving surroundings.
effect; Effects include: (a) Direct effects, which
are caused by an action and occur at the same time
and place. (b) Indirect effects, which are caused
by an action and are later in time or farther
removed in distance, but are still reasonably
foreseeable. Indirect effects may include growth
inducing effects and other effects related to
induced changes in the pattern of land use, popu-
lation density or growth rate, and related effects
on air and water and other natural systems, includ-
ing ecosystems.
Effects includes ecological (such as the effects on
natural resources and on the components, structures,
and functioning of affected ecosystems), aesthetic,
historic, cultural, economic, social or health,
whether direct, indirect, or cumulative. Effects
may also include those resulting from actions which
may have both beneficial and detrimental effects,
even if on balance the agency believes that the
effect will be beneficial. (U.S. Council on Environ-
mental Quality, 1978)
enrichment: Sewage effluent or agricultural runoff
adding nutrients (nitrogen, phosphorus, carbon
compounds) to a water body, greatly increasing the
growth potential for algae and aquatic plants.
environment: The sum of all external conditions
affecting the life, development and survival of an
organism.
-------
environmental impact statement; A document required
of Federal agencies by the National Environmental
Policy Act for major projects or legislative pro-
posals. They are used in making decisions about
the positive and negative effects of the undertak-
ing, and list alternatives.
estuaries; Areas where freshwater meets saltwater
(bays, mouths of rivers, salt marshes, lagoons).
These brackish water ecosystems shelter and feed
marine life, birds, and wildlife.
eutrophication; The slow aging process of a lake
evolving into a marsh and eventually disappearing.
During eutrophication the lake is choked by abun-
dant plant life. Human activities that add nut-
rients to a water body can speed up this action.
eutrophic lakes: Shallow murky water bodies that have
lots of algae and little oxygen.
fecal coliform bacteria; A group of organisms found
in the intestinal tracts of people and animals.
Their presence in water indicates pollution and
possible dangerous bacterial contamination.
floe: A clump of solids formed in sewage by biologi-
cal or chemical action.
flocculation; Separation of suspended solids during
wastewater treatment by chemical creation of clumps
of floes.
flowmeter: A gauge that shows the speed of wastewater
moving through a treatment plant.
fly ash; Noncombustible particles carried by flue
gas.
fungi: Tiny plants that lack chlorophyll. Some cause
disease, other stabilize sewage and break down
solid wastes for compost.
grant; Award of funds or other assistance by a written
grant agreement or cooperative agreement under 40
CFR Chapter I, Subpart B. (EPA 40 CFR Part 6)
groundwater; The supply of freshwater under the Earth's
surface that forms a natural reservoir.
-------
habitat: The sum of environmental conditions in a
specific place that is occupied by an organism,
population, or community.
human environment: Human environment includes the
natural and physical environment and the relation-
ship of people with that environment. (U.S. Council
on Environmental Quality, 1978)
hydrogen sulfide (H2S): The gas emitted during organic
decomposition that smells like rotten eggs.
hyperbaric; Utilizing oxygen at higher than normal
pressure (Random House Dictionary).
hypolimnion: The deep layer of a lake removed from
surface influences (Ruttner 1952).
incineration; Disposal of solid, liquid or gaseous
wastes by burning.
infiltration; The action of water moving through small
openings in the earth as it seeps down into the
groundwater.
interceptor sewers: The collection system that con-
nects main and trunk sewers with the wastewater
treatment plant. In a combined sewer system inter-
ceptor, sewers allow some untreated wastes to flow
directly into the receiving streams so the plant
won't be overloaded.
lagoon; A shallow pond where sunlight, bacterial
action, and oxygen work to purify wastewater.
lateral sewers; Pipes running underneath city streets
that collect sewage.
leachate; Materials that pollute water as it seeps
through solid waste.
leaching; The process by which nutrient chemicals or
contaminants are dissolved and carried away by
water, or are moved into a lower layer of soil.
lead agency; Lead agency means the agency or agencies
preparing or having taken primary responsibility for
preparing the environmental impact statement. (U.S.
Council on Environmental Quality, 1978)
-------
limiting factor: A condition whose absence, or exces-
sive concentration, exerts some restaining influence
upon a population through incompatibility with
species requirements or tolerance.
methane: A colorless, nonpoisonous, flammable gas
emitted by marshes and dumps undergoing anaerobic
decomposition.
mgd: Millions of gallons per day. Mgd is a measure-
ment of water flow.
microbes: Tiny plants and animals, some that cause
disease are found in sewage.
mitigation; Mitigation includes: (a) Avoiding the
impact altogether by not taking a certain action or
parts of an action. (b) Mimizing impacts by limit-
ing the degree or magnitude of the action and its
implementation. (c) Rectifying the impact by
repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected
environment. (d) Reducing or eliminating the
impact over time by preservation and maintenance
operations during the life of the action. (e) Com-
pensating for the impact by replacing or providing
substitute resources or environments. (U.S. Council
on Environmental Quality, 1978)
monitoring; Periodic or continuous sampling to deter-
mine the level of pollution or radioactivity -
muck: Earth made from decaying plant materials.
NEPA: The National Environmental Policy Act (42 USC
4321 et. seq.)
nutrients: Elements or coumpounds essential to growth
and development of living things; carbon, oxygen,
nitrogen, potassium and phosphorus.
open space: A relatively undeveloped green or wooded
area provided usually within an urban development
to minimize feelings of congested living.
organic; Referring to or derived from living organ-
isms. In chemistry, any compound containing carbon.
organism: Any living thing.
outfall: The place where an effluent is discharged
into receiving waters.
tff
-------
overturn; The period of mixing (turnover) by top to
bottom circulation, of previously stratified water
masses. This phenomenon may occur in spring and/or
fall; the result is a uniformity of physical and
chemical properties of the water at all depths.
oxidation; Oxygen combining with other elements.
pathogenic; Capable of causing disease.
percolation; Downward flow or filtering of water
through pores or spaces in rock or soil.
phosphates: Chemical compounds containing phosphorus.
phosphorus; An essential food element that can con-
tribute to the eutrophication of water bodies.
plume; Visible emission from a flue or chimney.
point source; A stationary location where pollutants
are discharged, usually from an industry.
pollutant; Any introduced substance that adversely
affects the usefulness of a resource.
pollution; The presence of matter or energy whose
nature, location, or quantity produces undesired
environmental effects.
potable water; Appetizing water that is safe for
drinking and use in cooking.
ppm; Parts per million; a way of expressing tiny con-
centrations. In air ppm is usually a volume/volume
ratio; in water, a weight/volume ratio.
precipitate; A solid that separates from a solution
because of some chemical or physical change.
pretreatment; Processes used to reduce the amount of
pollution in water before it enters the sewers or
the treatment plant.
primary treatment; The first stage of wastewater
treatment; removal of floating debris and solids
by screening and sedimentation.
pumping station; A machine installed on sewers to
pull the sewage uphill. In most sewer systems
wastewater flows by gravity to the treatment plant.
-------
raw sewage; Untreated wastewater.
receiving waters: Any body of water where untreated
wastes are dumped.
recharge: Process by which water is added to the zone
of saturation, as recharge of an aquifer.
recycling: Converting solid waste into new products
by using the resources contained in discarded mater-
ials.
runoff: Water from rain, snow melt, or irrigation that
flows over the ground surface and returns to streams.
It can collect pollutants from air or land and
carry them to the receiving waters.
salinity: The degree of salt in water.
salt water intrusion; The invasion of fresh surface or
groundwater by saltwater. If the saltwater comes
from the ocean, it's called seawater intrusion.
sanitary sewers; Underground pipes that carry only
domestic or commercial waste, not storm water.
scope; Scope consists of the range of actions, alterna-
tives, and impacts to be considered in an environ-
mental impact statement.
secondary treatment; Biochemical treatment of waste-
water after the primary stage, using bacteria to
consume the organic wastes. Use of trickling fil-
ters or the activated sludge process, removes float-
ing and settleable solids and about 90 percent of
oxygen demanding substances and suspended solids.
Disinfection with chlorine is the final stage of
secondary treatment.
seepage: Water that flows through the soil.
septic tank: An enclosure that stores and (processes)
wastes where no sewer system exists, as in rural
areas or on boats. Bacteria decompose the organic
matter into sludge, which is pumped off periodi-
cally -
settleable solids; Materials heavy enough to sink to
the bottom of wastewater.
sewage; The organic waste and wastewater produced by
residential and commercial establishments.
-------
sewer; A channel that carries wastewater and storm
water runoff from the source to a treatment plant
or receiving stream. Sanitary sewers carry house-
hold and commercial waste. Storm sewers carry
runoff from rain or snow. Combined sewage are used
for both purposes.
sewerage; The entire system of sewage collection
treatment, and disposal. Also applies to all
effluent carried by sewers.
significantly; Significantly as used in NEPA requires
considerations of both context and intensity: (a)
Context. This means that the significance of an
action must be analyzed in several contexts such as
society as a whole (human, national), the affected
region, the affected interests, and the locality.
Significant varies with the setting of the proposed
action. For instance, in the case of a site-speci-
fic action, significance would usually depend upon
the effects in the locale ratfrer than in the world
as a whole. Both short- and long-term effects are
relevant. (b) Intensity. This refers to the sever-
ity of impact. Responsible officials must bear in
mind that more than one agency may make decisions
about partial aspects of a major action. The fol-
lowing should be considered in evaluating intensity:
1. Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse.
A significant effect may exist even if the Fed-
eral agency believes that on balance the effect
will be beneficial.
2. The degree to which the proposed action affects
public health or safety.
3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area
such as proximity to historic or cultural re-
sources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands,
wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical
areas.
4. The degree to which the effects on the quality
of the human environment are likely to be highly
controversial.
5. The degree to which the possible effects on the
human environment are highly uncertain or involve
unique or unknown risks.
6. The degree to which the action may establish a
precedent for future actions with significant
effects or represents a decision in principle
about a future consideration.
-------
7. Whether the action is related to other actions
with individually insignificant but cumulatively
significant impacts. Significance exists if it
is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively sig-
nificant imact on the environment. Significance
cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary
or by breaking it down into small component
parts.
8. The degree to which the action may adversely
affect districts, sites, highways, structures,
or objects listed in or eligible for listing in
the National Register of Historic Places or may
cause loss or destruction of significant scien-
tific, cultural or historical resources.
9. The degree to which the action may adversely
affect an endangered or threatened species or
its habitat that has been determined to be
critical under the Endangered Species Act of
1973.
10. Whether the action threatens a violation of
Federal, State, or local law or requirements
imposed for the protection of the environment.
(U.S. Council on Environmental Quality, 1978)
sludge: The concentration of solids removed from
sewage during wastewater treatment.
storm sewer; A system that collects and carries
rain and snow runoff to a point where it can soak
back into the groundwater or flow into surface
waters.
stratification; Separating into layers.
suspended solids (SS); Tiny pieces of pollutants
floating in sewage that cloud the water and require
special treatment to remove.
tertiary treatment; Advanced cleaning of wastewater
that goes beyond the secondary or biological stage.
It removes nutrients such as phosphorus and nitro-
gen and most suspended solids.
tolerance; The ability of an organism to cope with
changes in its environment. Also the safe level of
any chemical applied to crops that will be used as
food or feed.
-------
topography; The physical features of a surface area
including relative elevations and the position of
natural and maranade features.
turbidity; Hazy cloudy condition in water due to sus-
pended silt or organic matter.
urban runoff; Storm water from city streets, usually
carrying litter and organic wastes.
variance; Goverment permission for a delay or excep-
tion in the application of a given law, ordinance,
or regulation.
vector; An organism, often an insect, that carries
disease.
wastewater; Water carrying dissolved or suspended
solids from homes, farms, businesses, and indus-
tries.
water pollution; The addition of enough harmful or
objectionable material to damage water quality.
water quality criteria; The levels of pollutants
that affect use of water for drinking, swimming,
raising fish, fanning or industrial use.
watershed: The land area that drains into a stream.
water supply stream; The collection, treatment, stor-
age and distribution of potable water from source
to consumer.
water table; The level of groundwater.
11
-------