-------
   is based on Table 4-11, Groundwater Levels  in  East Bridgewater,
   which was compiled by U.S.  Geological  Survey.   This three-month
   period has been incorporated into the  Bridgewater
   Board of Health Regulations  to limit  groundwater tests  for
   questionable areas only.   However, this leaves open the
   definition of which sites are "questionable".

       Evaluation:  This alternative is the most  reliable method
   to conduct groundwater test even though groundwater elevation
   in these three months can vary up to 3 feet from year to year
   depending on the amount of precipitation in a  given year.  This
   three month limitation may impose planning  constraints on
   developers, home builders, and home buyers.  However, such
   impacts may be mitigated by careful preparation and planning.

   3)  Determine Period of Year of High Groundwater Levels  from
       Test Hells Throughout the Town

       Description:  Periods of high groundwater  may be determined
   by monitoring test wells at several locations  throughout a
   town.  Prior to groundwater elevation  tests, the general ground-
   water levels may be checked in the test wells  in the vicinity
   of the proposed construction.  If the  test  well groundwater
   elevation is more than a few feet from the  maximum elevation,
   then the groundwater test would be postponed.   This method is
   used by the Town of Hanson.

       Evaluation:  For this alternative  to be effective, there must
   be several wells located throughout the town.   This can  be a
   costly procedure unless there are existing  wells which may be
   utilized.  Existing unused, private or town water supply wells
   are ideally suited for this purpose.

b.  Require Expansion and Upgrading of Septic  Systems When  Homes
    are Converted from Seasonal to Year Round  Use

    Description:  Prior to the adoption of the new State Environmental
Code, Title 5 (July 1, 1977) the State Environmental Code permitted
leaching facilities, which were to be used only during the  summer
to be reduced by 20 percent (Title 5, February, 1975, Regulation 7.11)
When those homes are converted to year-round use, the conversion
rarely includes the upgrading of the septic system.  The conversion
will result in increased flows of wastewater which are likely to
cause septic system failures because of the undersized disposal
area.

    This alternative would be administered by  coordination
between the building inspector and the health  agent.  When  a
request is made to the building inspector, he  would refer the
                           4-67

-------
applicant to the Board of Health to assure that the septic system
meets the current standards.   After the Board of Health approves
the disposal system, the applicant would apply for a building permit.
The two towns in the OCPC 208 region in which this alternative
is most applicable are Hanson and Pembroke with 75 and 77 summer
connections to town water supply respectively.  Summer water-
supply connections are indicators of seasonal homes, with the
actual number being much larger since most seasonal homes utilize
private water supplies.

    Evaluation:  This alternative is addressed to a small percentage
of the total number of homes in a community.   But this small
percentage of homes can account for a large percentage of septic
system failures.  This alternative will result in little added
administrative costs to the town while it prevents potential
septic system failure.

c.  Prohibit the Use of Garbage Grinders (Disposals) With On-site
    bys terns'

    Description:  Garbage grinders are one of the biggest contributors
of organic materials in wastewater.  Garbage grinders add large
amounts of organic material to septic tanks and cesspools which
accumulate, increasing the frequency that pumping is needed.
Garbage grinders also put an added strain on the leaching area as
evidenced by the Title 5 requirement that leaching areas be
increased by 50 percent when garbage grinders are installed.
Title 5 specifically states that "Garbage grinders are not recommended
where they discharge to subsurface disposal facilities" (Title 5,
July 1 , 1977, Regulation 6.2).

    Garbage grinders would be regulated by the coordination of the
plumbing inspector and the Board of Health.  Permits for the
installation of garbage grinders are required by the State
Plumbing Code.  Before approving a permit for the installation
of a garbage grinder the plumbing inspector would check with the
Board of Health to assure that it was in compliance with the
Board's regulations.

    Evaluation:  This regulation would be incorporated into the
Board of Health Regulations.  The town of Bridgewaterhas adopted
a regulation prohibiting garbage grinders with all on-site systems
and Pembroke prohibits them with cesspools.  This is a low cost
alternative which would lead to the more efficient and economical
operation of septic systems.  However, homeowners may be opposed
to prohibiting garbage grinders because of their own convenience.

d.  Prohibit Use of Acid Treatments or Enzymes

    Description:  Acid treatments are commonly used by septage
haulers to attempt to alleviate clogged drain fields.  However,
                           4-68

-------
   acid  treatments  and  enzymes  have  not been shown to have any  long-
   term  beneficial  effects  on the operation of septic systems.

      Homeowners are frequently advised  by septage haulers  to  use
   acid  treatments  and  enzymes.  This  regulation would be implemented
   by  including  it  in a provision in the  Septage Handler's Permit
   which is  issued  by the Board of Health  (Title 5, July 1,  1977,
   Regulation  2.3).

      Evaluation:   This  regulation  would  contribute to proper
   operation  of  septic  tanks.   There may  be opposition to this
   restriction from homeowners  who sincerely believe that acid
   treatment  and enzymes  are  improving the operation of their
   septic systems,  but  this opposition has no evidence for support
   of  its point  of  view.

   e.  Require that Septic  Tank Manholes  be Installed at Finished
      Grade

      Description:  The  installation  of  septic  tank manholes at
   finished  grade would allow for the  convenient location and access
   to  septic  tanks  for  inspection and  pumping.

      Evaluation:   There are few additional expenses incurred  with  such
   a regulation.   In fact,  the  inspection  and pumping costs  may be
   reduced because  of easy  access.   Some  homeowners may be displeased
   with  such  a regulation because manholes are not considered aesthetic
   in  appearance.   However, manholes at grade will facilitate the
   maintenance of the septic  system.

   f.   Require As-built Plans with Professional  Engineer's Certification

       Description: The  requirement of as built plans with  professional
   engineers  certification  is the most reliable  method to assure that
   septic systems  are properly  located and installed.  This  provision,
   by  necessitating that  a  professional engineer certify as-built  plans,
   would require that all elevations be measured with a transit, thus
   ensuring their precise location.

       Evaluation:   The recording of the  precise location of septic
   systems by the requirement of  an  as-built plan assures that  any
   changes made  from the proposed plan will be recorded.  This  alter-
   native will impose an  additional  expense on the homeowner of
   approximately $60 for the  preparation  of the  as-built plans  and
   the professional engineer's  certification.

3.   Increase Public Awareness of  the Need for Septic System  Maintenance
    Through Education

                  One of the  major causes of septic system failure
is  a lack of knowledge  of how the system  operates and how it should
                              4-69

-------
be maintained.  Increasing public awareness will  reduce septic system
failures without commiting the town to large expenditures  of money,
but the major shortcoming is that it does not guarantee septic system
maintenance.

   a.   Organize Annual Workshop to be Sponsored and Organized by the
       OCPC and the Plymouth County Extension Service

       Description:  Annual  workshops would increase public awareness
   by concentrating on various aspects of septic  system installation,
   operation, and maintenance.  These workshops would be directed to
   health agents and Board of Health members as well as the general
   public.  Topics which would be discussed include soils  testing and
   soil characteristics; septic system design, operation and maintenance;
   and septic system regulation.   The OCPC and Plymouth County Extension
   Service would be responsible for organizing the workshop.  Speakers
   and panel members could be local health agents, Board of Health
   members, septage pumpers, septic system designers and installers,
   Department of Environmental Quality Engineering engineers, and
   soils specialists from the Soil Conservation Service.  The workshops
   would beheld at a location that would be easily accessible to all
   the towns of the OCPC region.

       Evaluation:  Workshops are mechanisms to develop public
   awareness that enable in depth discussions and the dissemination
   of detailed information.   A sucsessful workshop requires careful
   planning and organization, which would be supplied by the OCPC
   and the Plymouth County Extension Service.

   b.   Distribute Booklets and Brochures

       Description:  The distribution of booklets and brochures is an
   ideal format to provide information to homeowners about the operation
   and maintenance of their septic systems.  These brochures could be
   written by the OCPC.  It is also possible that the brochures could
   be purchased from the U.S. Public Heal th Service  or other state and
   planning agencies.  The printing could be funded either by the
   OCPC or by the towns.

       The booklets and brochures could be distributed by  a variety
   of mechanisms.  A small one page leaflet could be sent  with the
   water bills or annually with the tax bills.  Larger, more detailed
   brochures could be given to homeowners by banks as new  homeowners
   take out mortgages and by the Board of Health  to all homeowners
   with septic systems.

       Evaluation:  Booklets and brochures are an excellent
   mechanism to inform every homeowner in a town  or the region of the
   proper maintenance required by septic systems.  The major disadvan-
   tage of this alternative is that not every homeowner will read the
   brochure and maintain his septic system as the brochure recommends.
                              4-70

-------
   c.  Notification by the Board of Health of Voluntary Annual
       Inspection and Pumping

       Description:  Since a major cause of septic tank and cesspool
   failure is not pumping the system out, the Board of Health can
   eliminate this problem by notifying homeowners annually that their
   systems should be inspected and pumped if necessary.  These
   notices could be easily mailed with the town water bills at
   staggered intervals to each home.  The only added cost would be
   the administration of the program, which would be carried out by
   a part-time employee.

       Evaluation:  The voluntary notification of when systems should
   be inspected and.pumped will  fulfill  the education and awareness
   aspects of septic tank management but it does not provide any
   assurance that the systems will be maintained.

4.  Institute a Mandatory Maintenance Program

    A mandatory maintenance program would require homeowners to
inspect and/or pump septic systems at regular intervals.   A mandatory
maintenance program is an essential aspect of the 208 planning
program.   Mandatory maintenance is the only way to guarantee that the
major cause of system failure, lack of maintenance, will  no longer
be a problem.

    There are two major obstacles to the implementation of any type
of mandatory maintenance program:  cost and social acceptance.  The
cost of operating a mandatory maintenance program, especially the
initial  start up costs for  bookkeeping  and administration will be
substantial.   Furthermore any mandatory maintenance program might
encounter public opposition.  It can be veiwed as "an infringement
upon the  rights of the individual, and a homeowner has a  right to
maintain  his  own house as he chooses" (comment from Water Quality
Workshop).  But, these difficulties must be balanced with the benefits
that mandatory maintenance will  provide.  First, septic system failure
will  be greatly reduced; thus, improving water quality and neighbor-
hood environments.  In addition, homeowners will be far less likely
to be forced  into major repairs  to their septic systems which could
cost up to $7,500.  Finally, a regular maintenance program will enable
use of on-site disposal  to continue where without such regulations a
public sewerage system would be  the only feasible alternative.

   a.   Inspect all Systems Annually and  Require Pumping When Necessary

       Description:   This alternative would require a two to three
   year start-up period before the system could operate on a regular
   basis.   The two to three year lag time is necessary to carry out
                              4-71

-------
the first inspections on each home which will  take longer than
subsequent inspections because many homeowners have never had their
systems pumped nor do they know where the systems are located.  It
will require a considerably longer period of time to locate and dig
out these systems to inspect them.  Once all systems have been
located and inspected once, the septic systems will be more easily
inspected.

    The town could hire special septic system inspectors, use
highway department personnel or combine septic system inspections
with other inspections.  The inspector would have the inspection of
septic tanks as his/her sole responsibility.  The position would
be full time during the seasons of the year when inspections are
possible.

    Town highway departments could assume the responsibility of
septic tank inspections but additional full-time personnel would
be needed to carry out the increased responsibility.  Using the
highway department has the advantage of hiring full-time personnel
and having the flexibility of having other town-related work for
the inspector(s) when weather does not permit inspections.

    Septic system inspection could also be combined with other
regular town inspection.  One possibility is to combine water meter
reading with septic tank inspection.  Since both tasks require
street-by-street house inspections combining these functions would
eliminate non-productive travel time.

    Evaluation:  Mandatory inspection with required pumping when
necessary guarantees that all septic systems will be inspected and
pumped when necessary.  This alternative is the most economical
method to assure that septic systems will be maintained without
adding unnecessary expenditures to the homeowner or town.  Since
the town will be responsible for conducting the inspections,  there
will be fewer problems with quality control, and homes will be
able to be inspected on a street-by-street basis, which will  be
the most efficient use of manpower.  Travel time between  inspections
will be greatly reduced.  There might be public opposition to this
alternative, since homeowners might not want to be forced to  pump
their septic tanks nor to have their septic tanks  inspected by the
town.  However, this alternative would assure the maintenance of
septic systems and thus eliminate a major cause of failure and the
associated public health hazards.  In addition, homeowners will
be protected from major septic system repairs which are necessitated
from a lack of maintenance.  For homes that have been pumped  within
a year of the scheduled inspection, the inspection would  not  be
necessary.

    There are various mechanisms which may  be adopted to  fulfill
the  task of septic system inspection.     Inspections would be made
                           4-72

-------
in three seasons of the year, spring, summer, and fall  where manholes
are not at grade, since frozen ground would prevent winter inspections,
For the number of inspectors which would be required for each town
see Table 4-12.

    The implementation of this alternative may require  the passage
of a town by-law to give the health agent the authority to inspect
all septic systems.  There is no question that the health agent
has the authority to inspect a septic system that is suspected of
failure.  However a blanket inspection program may not  be authorized
under existing State enabling legislation.  As long as  there is
no specific State statute prohibiting such inspections, the town
may adopt such a by-law to formally recognize the health agent's
authority.  The courts would be generally favorable to  approving
access to a septic tank since it does not isolate the privacy of
a homeowner by entering his house.  Most homeowners would have no
objection to the inspection of their septic systems.

b.  Inspect all Homes Annually and Pump on a Specified  Schedule

    Mandatory pumping, like mandatory inspection will  ensure the
proper maintenance of septic systems.  There are a variety of
programs and pumping intervals that could be adopted.

    Mandatory pumping has the major advantage of assuming that
all septic tanks will be pumped regularly with the disadvantage
that some homes will be pumped prematurely.  The tradeoff is added
periodic cost to the homeowner to prevent the major costs of system
failure and public health hazards.

   1)  Require Annual Pumping

       Description:  Annual pumping of each home is the most reliable
   system of mandatory maintenance.

       Evaluation:  However this alternative does mean  that some
   homes will  be pumped prematurely.

       There is no research to document the appropriate time interval
   to pump out septic tanks and cesspools.  The solids  that accumulate
   in septic tanks and cesspools accumulate at varying  rates,
   even with identical volumes of wastewater.   This is  partially
   due to varying types and rates of activity of bacteria which
   can reduce approximately 40 percent of the solids.

       Annual  pumping will  eliminate septic tank failures resulting
   from a buildup of solids and the clogging of the leaching area.
   Annual pumping will reduce the concentration of septage and
   thus enable easier treatment of the septage.   But this reduction
   in cost will not be reflected in reduced costs for several years.
                            4-73

-------
                                         TABLE 4-12
                           NUMBER OF SEPTIC SYSTEM INSPECTORS REQUIRED
                            FOR A MANDATORY INSPECTION PROGRAM

ABINGTON
AVON
BRIDGEWATER
BROCKTON
EAST BRIDGEWATER
EASTON
HANSON
PEMBROKE
WEST BRIDGEWATER
WHITMAN
1970 Homes
with On-Site
Disposal
Systems
3,243
1,397
2,313
2,881
2,299
3,075
1,917
3,046
1,677
3,543
No. of Man days1-
for
Inspection
463
200
330
412
328
439
274
435
240
506
No. of 3
Inspectors
Needed
2 1/4
1
1 3/4
2
1 3/4
2 1/4
1 1/4
2 1/4
1 1/4
2 1/2
1.   U.S.  Bureau of the Census, Census of Housing:   1970 Detailed Housing Characteristics
    Final  Report HC (1)-B23, Massachusetts. U.S.G.P.O.,  Washington D.C.  1972.

2.   It is  expected that one man will  inspect seven septic tanks or cess pools per day.

3.   Fractions of inspectors indicate  part-time inspectors (rounded to the nearest 1/4)
                                             4-74

-------
   2)  Require Biannual  or  Less Frequent Pumping

       Description and Evaluation:  Biannual  or less frequent
   pumping will reduce the pumping costs but  increase the possibi-
   lity of failing systems because of a buildup of solids.

c.  Town Owns and Operates Pumper to Pump All  Homes at Adopted Interval

    Description:  Any town can purchase and operate a septage
truck (honey wagon).  The truck would be operated and maintained
by the town Department of Public Works.  Each  home would be pumped
at the designated interval.   The costs would  be paid for as part
of the towns general operating expenses.

    Evaluation:  The major advantage of a town-owned pumping truck
is that the purchase cost of the truck is eligible for Federal
funding under Section 201  of P.L. 92-500.

    The town would be eligible for 75 percent federal and 15 percent
state funding for the purchase of a septage pumping truck.   Another
advantage of this system if the town also does the operating, is
that it would eliminate any illegal dumping by septage haulers  and
assure that acid treatments and enzymes, which have not been
shown to have any beneficial effect on septic  systems would not
be used.  The major problem with the town buying a septage  pumper
is that the town must incur the additional administration costs.
Negative impacts of the town purchasing and operating the septage
truck is that it eliminates the free competition and free enter-
prise among septage pumpers.  A town could purchase the septage
truck and then lease it to private haulers. (Tables  4-7,  4-8,  4-9)

d.  Town Contracts with Pumper

    Description:  A second mechanism to achieve mandatory periodic
pumping is for the town to contract with a private pumper to
pump each house at a regular interval.  The town would administer
the program, and would tell  the pumper when to pump the homes of
each section of town.

    Evaluation:  This alternative is very similar to the one above
except that it maintains the free enterprise  system by allowing
the pumpers to bid for the contract to pump all homes in town.
The town is still able to monitor the haulers  operations to assure
that there is no illegal dumping of septage.   The per pump  costs
would be high, since the town would still be  responsible for the
administrative aspects of septic tank management but the town
would not have the advantage of a town-owned  pumping truck  to
reduce operating expenses.
                           4-75

-------
         e.  Require Permits for Septic Systems

             Description:  This alternative would require the homeowner to
         obtain a permit for the operation of a septic system.  This would
         have the effect of an occupancy permit.  The septic tanks permits
         would be issued periodically when the homeowner produced proof (a
         pumping receipt) that his septic tank had been pumped.   If a home-
         owner was tardy in pumping his septic tank or in renewing his
         permit, the town would initially send reminders, then issue a
         fine, and finally put a lien on the property, similar to the
         procedure for failure to pay a water bill.

             Evaluation:  Requiring a permit for septic tank operation is a
         maintenance system which puts a great deal of responsibility on the
         homeowner.  The costs to the Board of Health to enforce such a permit
         system if the public was not conscientious could be prohibitive.
         The permit system would necessitate a tax or fee of approximately
         $5 - $10 for administrative and clerical expenses.   This alternative
         provides an adequate maintenance program without putting too
         -reat a burden on a town to hire new personnel.  If homeowners
         were not conscientious about maintaining their septic systems or
         renewing their permits then more intensive mandatory maintenance
         programs, such as periodic inspection and pumping would be
         required.


III.  Septage Treatment and Disposal


    The Old Colony Planning Council 208 study area, except for the City
of Brockton, the downtown area of Bridgewater and a small section of
Abington, is unsewered and currently relies on on-site systems for the
disposal of wastewater.  Although 201 facilities planning studies are
currently on-going in the area at both the regional and local level, it is
safe to assume that some portion of the OCPC 208 study area will  continue
to make use of on-site disposal systems for many years to come.

    Associated septage volumes will continue to be generated by  these
systems and provision for the effective disposal of the septage  will be
required.  Present disposal practices vary in the area and the level of
awareness as to how and where septage is presently disposed of varies
greatly from community to community.  It is, however, clearly evident that
the issue of septage disposal has historically been handled very casually by
most communities which has increased the potential for illegal dumping and
has led to the current lack of refined septage management programs.  In
addition, the state-of-the-art of septage treatment has as yet not reached
a level at which state regulatory agencies feel it would be reliable for
use as a local  in-town disposal and treatment option.  As a result, state
requirements have limited the ability of communities to address  septage
disposal locally.   For the most part, the only disposal practice which
meets with general acceptance with state agencies is disposal and treatment
at a municipal  wastewater treatment facility.  In many cases, a  direct
                                    4-76

-------
result has been for a community to rely entirely on the discretion of a
septage hauler to select a reasonable site for septage treatment and
disposal.

    Within the OCPC 208 area, legal  septage disposal  is currently limited
to the City of Brockton's wastewater treatment facility.   Several communities
which had  previously relied on in-town septage disposal are no  longer able
to do so as a result of the failure of these same disposal  areas to comply
with state regulations.  Presently,  there are several  sites outside of the
208 boundary which accept septage loads from OCPC community haulers; how-
ever, long-term reliance on these facilities is not a  reasonable assumption,
nor is it  reasonable to expect the City of Brockton to serve the entire
region as  the sole septage treatment and disposal facility.

    In the OCPC 208 study area, it is expected that two regional wastewater
treatment  facilities will be available as alternatives for the  treatment
and disposal of septage.  Currently, the existing Brockton facility accepts
septage from outside of the Brockton area and the proposed OCWPCD facility
is also expected to institute a septage acceptance policy.   In  general,
wastewater treatment facilities are presently considered the best alternative
means of treating and disposing of septage.  Within the area under the
jurisdiction of the Southeastern Regional office of the Department of
Environmental Quality Engineering in Lakeville, those  septage treatment
and disposal options other than wastewater treatment facilities are currently
experiencing operational problems in one form or another.   Although current
operational problems at these alternative facilities do not preclude their
use in the future, it does lend support to the use of  wastewater treatment
facilities until such time as alternative systems reach a  satisfactory
level of operational integrity.

    Use of a regional wastewater treatment facility for the treatment and
disposal of septage will allow for disposal at a facility  with  an approved
effluent discharge based on the Division of Water Pollution Control's
modelling  studies.  Such discharges, if within the desired levels are not
expected to negatively impact in-stream water quality.  Disposal at a
regional facility will be in accordance with the state's anti-degradation
policy which aims to reduce the number of surface discharges in the area.
Although each regional facility will operate an advanced wastewater treat-
ment scheme, it is expected that these facilities will afford some economy
of scale in the overall treatment costs at the facility.

    Within the realm of a regional option, communities in  addition to
selecting  between the available wastewater treatment plant options for
treatment  and disposal of septage, will also be required to select and
engage in  long-term management policies.  Often times, the transition from
local management (i.e., regular pumpout programs, etc. discussed in previous
section) to regional management (haul to disposal at out-of-town site)
has been awkward and ineffective due to the failure of management systems
to define  the role of communities versus private haulers in the program.
Communities in the OCPC area have, for the most part,  not  actively engaged
themselves in septage management at the regional level and in many instances
the role of the hauler vs. the community in the assignment or selection
of treatment/disposal options have gone undefined.
                                    4-77

-------
A.   Selection of Treatment/Disposal  Sites

   1.   Private Selection of Treatment/Disposal  Site

       Description:   The availability of such an option is  highly
   dependent on the  policies to be established  for the acceptance of
   septage by the regional  wastewater treatment facilities  (Brockton,
   OCWPCD).  In order for selection  of a treatment site to  be left to  the
   discretion of a private hauler, the regional  facilities  must not
   require membership and/or cost assessment beyond the charge to dump.
   As part of such an option, private haulers would seek out and engage
   in long-term disposal agreements  with the regional  treatment facilities.
   Costs charged to  the haulers as part of their dumping fees would
   reflect the O&M costs of treating a septage  load as well  as a portion
   of the capital costs for the construction of the facility.  Community
   participation in  this alternative would be minimal, requiring only
   that local haulers have designated a treatment/disposal  site and have
   engaged in the necessary agreements guaranteeing disposal.  Regis-
   tration would be  required through the Board  of Health.

       Evaluation:  Such an alternative, in conjunction with the permit
   system discussed  above with periodic checking by the Board of Health
   will reasonably guarantee the safe and reliable disposal  of septage.
   Costs incurred as a result of instituting such a program would be
   borne entirely by the residents having their systems pumped.  Remaining
   at the private level will preclude the application  of the overall
   capital cost assessment to the general tax rate requiring that it be
   applied on an individual basis via a pump by pump assessment.  Opting
   for private selection and designation of a treatment or  disposal site
   is essentially continuing the existing system with  several stricter
   guidelines.

   2.  Community Selection or Designation of Treatment Sites

       Description:   The availability of this alternative is predicated
   on a significant level of community participation in selected
   regional treatment/disposal options.  Communities would  be required to
   select and designate a facility as its disposal site in  any instance
   where eligibility for septage disposal is dependent on either member-
   ship in the facility or engagement in a long-term intermunicipal
   agreement.  This  would require participating communities to engage
   in all the necessary legal agreements in order to become eligible
   for disposal of septage at the facility and the community would inform
   all local pumpers that the selected facility is the single disposal
   site available to the community.   If the town owned and  operated the
   septage trucks, then it would dispose of septage at the  designated
   site.

       Evaluation:  Community participation in a regional facility as
   part of this alternative will require the selectmen to engage in
                                 4-78

-------
   the necessary agreements and will require the program to be overseen
   by the Board of Health.  If the community designates a facility
   requiring membership, then a town meeting vote will  be required to
   ratify the agreement.  Costs of such a program would be applied on a
   town-wide basis.  A charge to pump a resident's system would be
   assessed on an individual basis by the pumper.   This may reflect O&M
   costs at the treatment facility or may reflect just  the cost of hauling
   to the facility.  The cost applied on a town-wide basis would reflect
   the capital cost of the treatment facility for that  portion of the
   facility which treatment of a community's  septage is expected to
   require.

B.   Treatment at Wastewater Disposal  Facilities

   1.  Treat Seotage at the Old Colony Hater Pollution  Control  District
       (OCWPCD)                                      ~~—	

       Description:   The OCWPCD is  currently planning for a  regional
   wastewater treatment facility to be constructed  in Bridgewater with
   a  discharge to  the Town River which would initially  serve Abington
   Whitman,  West  Bridgewter, and Bridgewater and which  would be capable
   of expanding  to  service the  additional  communities of  East Bridgewater
   Easton, Hanson  and Pembroke.  In addition  to planning  for the  collection
   and treatment  of municipal wastewater,  the OCWPCD's  facilities  plan
   proposes  that  the  treatment  of municipal  wastewater, the  OCWPCD's
   facilities  plan  proposes  that the  treatment plant can  "reasonably
   be expected to  receive  essentially  all  of  the septage  produced  in the
   eight-community  study area".  Accordingly, the OCWPCD  facility  is an
   alternative for  septage  treatment and disposal for a service area
   comprised  of Abington,  Bridgewater,  East Bridgewater,  Easton, Hanson,
   Pembroke,  West Bridgewater,  and  Whitman.

      Evaluation:  Access  to a septage treatment and disposal  at  the
   OCWPCD wastewater  treatment  plant in conjunction with new  septage
   collection programs  should reduce the potential for  illegal  septaqe
   dumping.  Such a result will have a  positive impact on the areas
   surface waters.

      Although the organic and nutrient strength of septage  is often
   exponentially stronger than that of sewage, it is not expected that
   treatment of septage at the OCWPCD facility will  have a negative
   impact on the operational integrity of the facility which would
   prevent the facilities discharge from meeting its present effluent
   levels.

     a.   Membership in the District

         Currently only four of the eight communities  in  the OCWPCD
      septage service area" are members of the  District.   Although no
                               4-79

-------
policy has been set by the OCWPCD Board,  it may be  that prior to
eligibility being extended to a community for disposal  of its
septage at the treatment facility, membership in the OCWPCD may
be required.  Such a requirement may be regarded warily by several
of the presently non-member communities.   If membership were to
be optional, long-term agreements between each community and the
OCWPCD would be drafted.  These agreements would set the period
for which a community would be eligible for disposal at the facility
as well as detailing the apportionment of treatment facility costs.
In either case, (i.e., membership vs.  agreement) communities will
be required to share in the treatment plant's capital  cost which
would be applied on a town-wide basis.   Operation and maintenance
costs could be apportioned in several  ways for the  District as
discussed in the following alternatives.

   1)  OCWPCD Required Membership (Abington, Bridgewater, East
       Bridgewater, Easton, Hanson, Pembroke, West  Bridgewater,
       Whitman)

       Description:  In order to be eligible to dispose of septage
   at the District facility, membership would be required in the
   District.

       Evaluation:  District membership will result in each community
   being assessed on a yearly basis for its portion of the capital
   costs incurred in constructing the plant in addition to its
   portion of the yearly operation and maintenance  of the system.
   Non-sewered District communities would be assessed solely on
   the septage costs of the treatment plant.  For the first three
   years of operation of the facility, O&M costs are to be
   apportioned to member communities on the basis of population.
   It is expected that a similar arrangement would  be expanded
   to include non-sewered District communities.  After the initial
   three-year period, non-sewered communities would likely be
   assessed on septage volumes dumped at the facility at a cost
   which would be determined by the District based  on the treatment
   requirements for the septage.  It is expected that costs to haul
   septage to the regional facility will  increase for several
   communities due to increased distances of travel.

   2)  OCWPCD (same towns -- District members; same towns -- inter-
       municipal agreements)

       Description:  This alternative would not require membership
   in the District for septage disposal.

       Evaluation:  This alternative would probably be considered
   more desirable by those communities having serious reservations
   concerning the impacts of membership in the OCWPCD.  Non-
   membership in the District would eliminate those communities
                            4-80

-------
   so inclined from the policy decision making process conducted
   by the District Board.   Non-member communities participating in
   the septage disposal program would be subject to those decisions
   made by the Board without benefit of representation on the
   Board.

       Communities would be required to draft and engage themselves
   in long-term arrangements mututally agreeable to the District.
   These agreements would detail  the requirements for septage
   disposal at the facility.

       Non-membership in the District would still require participating
   communities to share in a portion of the capital cost with such
   cost apportionments and payment being determined by the District
   and included in the drafted agreement between the District and
   the community.

b.   Operation and Maintenance Cost Apportionment

   1)  Assessment Through  Fee of Hauler Charged to Homeowner

       Description:  Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs at the
   treatment facility will  be increased by the additional  burden
   on the facility of treating septage.  O&M costs can be reflected
   in the fee charged to a hauler at the facility and thus passed
   directly onto the homeowner whose system is being pumped.   The
   O&M cost would be in addition  to the fee ordinarily charged by
   the hauler to cover his/her time and equipment costs.

       Evaluation:  Such a system would likely greatly increase
   present fees for septage pumping to the homeowner.   There may
   be problems in establishing a  reasonable fee to cover the
   operation and maintenance costs for a single pumpout of a  system.

   2)  Assessment Through  Fee From Regional  Facility Directly to
       the Community

       Description:  This  alternative would entail  the facility
   establishing a reasonable cost for treating a standardized
   septage load.   The facility would record the number of loads
   per year and assess the community on the basis of the total
   loads  times standardized O&M cost per load.   The assessment,
   when  received by the community, can be apportioned on a town-
   wide  basis  in a general  fee such as a sewer or water bill.   The
   hauler pumping the system would not be charged for dumping at
   the facility; he would  in turn charge residents  only for his
   time  and vehicle expenses.

       Evaluation:  The obvious  problem with  a town-wide  assessment
   of O&M fees is that problem homes which require  several  pumpings
                           4-81

-------
      would be assessed the same rate as a home pumped once every one
      or two years.   Regulations should be prepared whereby such
      chronic or severe problem homes are assessed additional  monies
      after a reasonable number of pumpouts have occurred (such a
      number should be set by the Board of Health).  The cost  to the
      homeowner on a per pump basis charged by the hauler should
      decrease or remain fairly low.   There will be added municipal
      costs for billing and fee collecting.  It is expected that the
      cost for hauling septage to the OCWPCD treatment facility will
      increase from that presently incurred for several  communities
      due to increased hauling distances.

2.  Treat Septage at the Brockton Wastewater Treatment Plant

    It is currently the policy of the City of Brockton to accept
septage from all communities within the OCPC 208 study area as well
as accepting septage from several neighboring non-OCPC communities.
It is expected that Brockton's current septage policy will  continue
as facilities for septage handling have been included in the provisions
of the recommended facilities plan.

    As a regional septage treatment and disposal facility,  Brockton
will  be considered in two service area configurations.  The City of
Brockton has engaged itself in inter-municipal agreements with the
towns of Abington and Avon as part of their 201 facilities  construction
program.  The areas serviced on the basis of these agreements  can be
considered a long-term finalized alternative.  However, those  communities
not engaged in inter-municipal agreements with the City, but disposing
of septage at the treatment facility have no such long-term guarantees.
These communities are Abington, Avon, Bridgewater, East Bridgewater,
Easton, Hanson, Pembroke, West Bridgewater and Whitman.

    The operational efficiency of the upgraded and expanded Brockton
STP is not expected to be negatively impacted by continued acceptance
and treatment of septage.  Accordingly, the quality of the effluent
discharged by the facility is anticipated to be within the limits
set by the Division of Water Pollution Control (DWPC) Westboro.

    Brockton's wastewater treatment facility is being considered as
a long-term alternative for septage disposal for the 1,000 acre portion
of Abington naturally draining into the Beaver Brook watershed, and
the entire town of Avon in addition to those small areas of Brockton
itself which remain on on-site disposal systems.  Such a septage
service area is considered a reliable long-term alternative.  Both
Abington and Avon are presently engaged in long-range intermunicipal
agreements with the City of Brockton which provide for the treatment
and disposal of municipal wastewater.  The existing agreements could
be expanded to provide for septage disposal during the same long-term
program arrangement.
                              4-8;2

-------
          The  length of time for which the Brockton facility will remain
      accessible  is subject to several variables.  It seems likely that
      with  the construction of the OCWPCD treatment facility, for which
      eight of the communities are designated for membership, Brockton
      officials will reassess the need and advisability of their facility
      providing septage treatment and disposal for these communities.
      The communities themselves or haulers servicing the community will
      have  to evaluate the costs of treatment at each facility as well
      as time and travel costs incurred by hauling to the facility.   Costs
      of hauling  and treatment will be presented by community in the draft
      208 Plan.

          Disposal of septage at the Brockton STP currently requires each
      load  to pass a sampling evaluation at the treatment plant.  Costs
      for dumping at the facility are currently $10/load for a standard
      sized hauler and $25/load for larger trailer type haulers which
      several pumpers have begun to use.  In addition, disposal at the
      facility requires the hauler to register at the plant stating which
      community the septage load was pumped from.


IV.  Reducing Wastewater Disposal  Problems Through Water Conservation


    Water conservation to reduce sewage flows can be an option for reducing
water quality problems from wastewater disposal  and for reducing the costs
of treatment.  This possibility holds true whether on-site systems or
collection systems are relied on for wastewater disposal.   To offer some
examples of the relationships between water conservation and wastewater
disposal :

   •Limiting water use can reduce the burden on a septic system leaching
•field and reduce the possibility of septic system failures in cases  where
a system is undersized for the amount of flow to which it is subjected.

   'Where existing sewage lines or treatment plants are near or above
capacity, water conservation may be a partial  alternative to the construction
of new facilities and may prevent overflows that degrade water quality.

   •Water conservation can reduce the needed size of new sewage lines and
treatment facilities now being planned and result in cost savings.

   •Reduction of flows to a sewage treatment plant could reduce plant
operating costs to some extent by  allowing longer detention times and
reducing chemical  costs of advanced treatment.   (Note:   In some cases,
treatment costs are largely dependent on the quantity of pollutant loadings
and independent,  within limits, of the volume of flow.)

   'Where a community belongs to a regional  treatment system and is  assessed
a share  of the system's operational  costs  based  on the  volume of the town's
flow, water conservation in the town could reduce the town's assessment.
                                    4-83

-------
   •Where individual  homeowners  are charged  for sewage  on  the  basis  of  the
flow, water conservation can result in a cost savings to  them  beyond the
savings on water and  energy costs.

   •Any reduction in  the costs of sewerage which could  be  achieved  through
water conservation would reduce  the financial  impacts of  sewerage  installation
and make it more acceptable politically.

   •For industries, water conservation is a  means of reducing  those  industrial
cost recovery charges imposed for reasons of high flow  volumes.  For firms
which treat wastes prior to stream discharge or which pretreat wastes before
discharging to a sewer system, water conservation can reduce the size of
necessary treatment facilities and resulting costs.

    The significance  of water conservation to water  quality management  is
reflected in at least two sections of the 1972 Federal  Water Pollution
Control Act (P.L. 92-500). Section 104(o)(l) states  that  the Administrator
of EPA "shall conduct research and investigations on devices,  systems,
incentives, pricing policy, and  other methods of reducing  the  total  flow
of sewage, including, but not limited to, unnecessary water consumption in
order to reduce the requirements for and the costs of sewage and waste
treatment services.  Such research and investigations shall be directed to
develop devices, systems, policies, and methods capable of achieving the
maximum reduction of  unnecessary water consumption."

    Paragraph 2 of the same section directs  that an  annual  report  be made
to Congress on this subject and  recommendations made "for any  legislation
that may be required  to provide  for the adoption and use  of devices, systems,
policies, or other methods of reducing water consumption  and reducing the
total flow of sewage."

    Also, Section 212(2)(B) defines "treatment works" eligible for federal
assistance as including methods  or systems for "preventing" or "reducing"
municipal waste.  The EPA publication Guidance for Preparing a Facilities
Plan directs that 201 plans consider water conservation measures,  including
flow reduction measures for households.

    A community will  have other  reasons for  conserving  water beyond those
related to wastewater disposal.   Reductions  in water consumption can save
a community and its residents the considerable expenses of locating, obtaining,
and (possibly) treating new supplies, as well as the costs of  building  new
and larger water mains, storage  towers, and  pumping  stations.  The need for
additional facilities may result from that part of water  consumption which
does not enter wastewater disposal systems -- namely, outdoor  water use for
gardens, lawns, car washing, etc.  These uses create a  peak demand in the
summer which places a special burden on water supply systems and which  will
often be the reason why new facilities are needed.  In  this report,  water
conservation will be  discussed only as it relates to wastewater disposal.
Water conservation is discussed  more fully in an OCPC publication,
Opportunities for Water Conservation (1977).
                                    4-84

-------
    Approximately 75 percent of the water used in  an  average home  is  used
either by showers and baths or by toilets.   Consequently,  reducing the
water consumption in bath and toilet fixtures  would result in a  noticeable
decrease in wastewater flow from the individual  home.   Water conservation
can also be applied to other household appliances  and fixtures (such  as
washing machines, dishwashers, garbage disposals,  and bathroom and kitchen
sink faucets), but since these account for less  of the total  flow, savings
in these areas will usually mean smaller reductions overall, though the
impact will vary from home to home.  Also, leaks from faucets or toilets
can waste up to hundreds of gallons per day and  quickly overload a septic
system.  In the case of industrial  and commercial  establishments and  such
public buildings as schools, recycling of cooling  water or changes in
processes may be ways of reducing the bulk of  water consumption.

    The following discussion of alternatives for water conservation is
presented under four headings, depending on the  type  of structure:  existing
residential buildings, new residential buildings,  commercial/industrial
buildings, and public/semi-public buildings.  The  relative significance
of these topics to a community will depend on  its  present  types  of use and
the degree to which the community is expected  to grow in population:   for
example, a community whose population is projected to increase substantially
will have more reason to stress alternatives for water conservation in
new structures than one which is expected to grow  slowly.   Table 4-13
offers a guide to the relative importance of each  topic to each of the
OCPC 208 communities.  Because existing structures will account for most
of the water consumed in each community over the next twenty years,
"existing residential" is listed as the most important topic for each
community.  However, as will be pointed out below, it may  be easier
administratively and less costly to stress conservation by some other
class of users, such as future residential or commercial/industrial.
Also, priorities may depend on the system of wastewater disposal and the
type of problems being encountered in a community.  For example, were Whitman
seeking to minimize its total wastewater flow to a regional treatment
plant, reducing commercial and industrial flows  would be a significant step;
however, if it were seeking to lessen the failures of existing septic
systems, then water conservation in existing homes would rate priority.

   A.  Promote Water Conservation in Existing Residential  Structures

       Description:  Concentration would be placed on encouraging replacement
   and modification  of showerheads and toilets (often called "retrofitting")
   to make them use less water, and on detecting leaks.  Two approaches  are
   outlined:  one  involving an educational campaign only;  the second, a
   more active publicly-sponsored effort to make retrofitting widespread.

       Evaluation:  This alternative would reach most users in the town
   at one  time; the impact and effectiveness would be greater because of
   the focusing of public attention in this way.  Where septic system problems
   are being experienced because systems are undersized for current flows
    (either because they were built too  small  originally or because year-
   round conversion of seasonal homes has occurred), water conservation may
   be  a means of improving septic  system operation.
                                    4-85

-------
                                    TABLE 4-13



     ALTERNATIVES FOR WATER CONSERVATION:  RELATIVE SIGNIFICANCE BY COMMUNITY



     The four topics discussed in the text are existing residential (abbreviated here



to Exist. Res.); future residential (Fut. Res.); commercial/industrial (Comm/Ind. ),



which includes hospitals; and public/semi-public (Pub.), including schools and colleges.



For each community, the topics are listed according to their relative importance for



a community-wide program of water conservation.
Abington



Avon



Bridgewater



Brockton



East Bridgewater



Easton



Hanson



Pembroke



West Bridgewater



Whitman

Exist.
Exist.
Exist.
Exist.
Exist.
Exist.
Exist.
Exist.
Exist.
Exist.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Fut.
Comm.
Fut.
Comm.
Fut.
Fut.
Fut.
Fut.
Fut.
Comm.
Res.
/Ind.
Res.
/Ind.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
Res.
/Ind.
LCCLbl. llll|JUr LdNL
Comm
Fut.
Pub.
Fut.
Comm
Pub.
Comm
Pub.
Comm
Fut.
./Ind.
Res.

Res.
./Ind.

./Ind.

./Ind.
Res.
Pub.
Pub.
Comm.
Pub.
Pub.
Comm.
Pub.
Comm.
Pub.
Pub.


/Ind


/Ind

/Ind


                                        4-86

-------
 1•   Distribute  Information on Hater Conservation Methods

     Description:   Information would be distributed to homeowners on
 the  availability  and  advantages of such devices as inserts to reduce
 toilet water  use  and  low-flow showerheads, methods for detecting leaks,
 and  general tips  on reducing water usage.  Another inducement to
 water conservation would be to print on individual water bills the
 total consumption during the billing period and also the average per-
 day  consumption by the household, so that people could more easily
 follow their  usage patterns.  Flyers and leaflets would be prepared
 by the OCPC staff or  purchased in bulk from an outside group (such
 as the American Water Works Association) and included in regular
 bill mailings.

     Evaluation:  By using existing mailings, costs could be kept down
 to those for  preparation of the flyers and printing of them.  If one
 flyer were prepared and used throughout the OCPC 208 Area, costs
 would probably be under $100 per 10,000 people.  Changing billing
 information would be more costly and would be most feasible for
 communities on computerized billing systems (including Brockton and,
 shortly, Whitman).

     The effectiveness of this alternative would rest on individual
 initiative.   It would probably not result in a sizable decrease in
 total community consumption, but it might furnish helpful  ideas to
 those people who have problems with septic systems.  This  alternative
 could allow individuals to reduce their own water, energy, and (in
 several  areas) sewer costs, if they so chose.   Individuals might,
 however, find it difficult to obtain water-saving devices  readily at
 retail  outlets, and this could lessen the impact of an educational
 effort.

 2.  Sponsor Community-Wide Retrofitting with Public Funds

    Description:   Water-saving devices (low-flow showerheads,  toilet
 inserts)  would be purchased in bulk by the  community  and distributed
 to every homeowner.   The purchase could be  financed either by  town
 funds or under a Section 201  facilities construction  grant.   Technical
assistance would be furnished to  homeowners  upon request.

    Evaluation:   This  alternative would have the potential  for
 reducing  community consumption more than  the first option,  since  the
homeowner would not have to go to the  effort of personally  obtaining
the devices.   Individual  costs would  be lowered by purchasing  in
quantity.   This  alternative would be  particularly appropriate where
the community  was  seeking to  reduce total sewage flow,  whether  to
save  on  allocated  operational  costs or to  reduce flows  in  overloaded
1ines.

    Use  of 201 funds  appears  possible  under  the statute  language.
It is unclear  whether  grants  under Section  201  would  in  fact be
                                 4-87

-------
   given.   (Where water conservation  was  felt  to  be  a means of  reducing
   septic  system failures,  water  conservation  could  seemingly be the
   subject of a 201  grant application which  did not  involve sewerage
   construction.)

       Administrative  costs of ordering and  distributing  the devices
   could be minimal, particularly if  volunteer help  were  obtained  from
   local service groups.  Providing assistance on request could be diffi-
   cult unless a person were hired for a  short-term  position and trained
   to offer the help (perhaps by  the  commercial distributor  of the
   devices).

B.   Promote Water Conservation in Future  Residential Structures

    Description:  Steps would be  taken to encourage  or  require  installation
of water-saving models of toilets and showerheads as original equipment
in new houses, apartments,  and condominiums.   Three  alternatives are
presented:  one, leaving the use  of water-saving  models  to the  operation
of private economic forces; the second,  providing positive or negative
incentives to individuals to achieve  water conservation;  and the third,
requiring water-saving devices in all new residential  buildings.

    Evaluation:  Encouraging water conservation  in new  residences  is
feasible and cost-effective.  Water-saving models can  be  purchased at
no additional cost compared to standard  models,  and  offer savings  on
water, energy, and sewage treatment costs.  Inertia  is  more of  a present
obstacle than is outright resistance.  It is simpler to  promote such
devices in new buildings than to  encourage replacement  of existing fixtures
by homeowners.  This alternative, however, would  not affect a community's
septic system problems if those problems  are associated  with older pre-
Code homes or if they result from faulty  installation  or  inspection  of
new home systems.

   1.  Rely on Private Market Forces  to  Achieve  Water  Conservation

       Description:  Public authorities  would leave  decisions on  use of
   water-saving models to the discretion  of builders and  developers.

       Evaluation:  The rationale for such an approach  would  be that,  in
   an era of rising energy  costs, homebuyers will be more conscious  of
   a home's energy consumption, and developers will  adopt water-saving
   models as a selling point with buyers.  (One  condominium  development
   in Bridgewater has in fact mentioned  this in  recent newspaper  adverstise-
   ments.)  Also, developers of apartment complexes  who will  be paying
   for water, sewer, and in some instances heating bills  will  have their
   own reasons to use water-saving models.  Plumbing suppliers  interviewed
   by the OCPC staff said  that the larger residential  developers  were
   aware of water-saving models and were using them more frequently.
   In short, since water-saving models of toilets and showerheads  have
   economic advantages, it may not be necessary for public authorities
                                 4-88

-------
to actively promote their use.   On the other hand,  this  approach
requires that both developers and buyers be knowledgeable about
water conservation, and this may not yet be the case.

2.  Provide Incentives for the  Use of Hater-Saving  Devices

    Public authorities would encourage conservation by providing
indirect financial incentives.   Two are suggested here.

   a.  Reduce Leaching Field Size Requirements  for  Homes with
       Water-Saving Fixtures

       Description:  The size of leaching fields required under the
   State Environmental Code is  based on anticipated flows, which are
   now computed on the basis of 110 gallons per bedroom.  Under this
   alternative, variances would be granted allowing field areas based
   on smaller flows in cases where water-saving fixtures were to be
   used.

       Evaluation:  The potential  savings on the construction of the
   leaching field would be an incentive for the use of water-saving
   devices.  However,  several reasons can be presented for not allowing
   reductions in field size for this purpose.   There would have to be
   additional supervision to ensure that water-saving  models  were used
   as promised, and the Board of Health would need  information on the
   model to be used to be sure  that flows would be  as  projected.
   Allowing variances  for this  cause opens up the potential of
   negotiated decisions on leaching area, which is  contrary to the
   spirit of the State  Code as a set of minimum  requirements.   Low-flow
   showerheads could be replaced by regular models  at  some future
   date without the Board of Health's knowledge (and with probably
   little awareness on the homeowner's part as  to the  potential  impact
   on his septic system).   The  informational  requirements which the
   board of health would have to impose, to make a  proper decision,
   might be more than  a developer would wish to bother with.

       In cases where  systems were to be replaced or repaired, this
   alternative might merit consideration, particularly for small
   (10,000 square foot or less)  lots.  For example,  in considering
   an application for  system repair on a small  lot,  a  board of health
   might allow a smaller leaching  area on the condition  that  water-
   saving devices be used, in order to leave room on the lot  for the
   reserve area now required under the State Code for  new systems.

   b.  Impose System Development Charges, Based on  Projected  Flow

       Description:  To provide a  fund for future water  system
   expansion, a fee would be levied on new users and set aside for
   this purpose.  The  fee would be based on projected  flow, and so
   would be less where water-saving devices were to  be used.
                             4-89

-------
          Evaluation:  The only OCPC  208 Area community with such a
      charge  now  is Abington.  The  fees would be more significant to the
      decisions of commercial  and industrial users than to residential
      users.   However, the imposition of such a charge would serve to
      remind  the  developers  of the  possibility of using water-saving
      models.

   3.   Require that Hater-saving Devices be  Used in New Residential
       Structures

                     All  new structures would be required to use low-
   flow showerheads and  low-flush toilets.   Requiring water-saving
   devices would  actually save homeowners money, but would remove the
   freedom to choose.  (This would  be little problem for toilets, where
   there would be no  impact  on performance,  but would make a difference
   with showerheads,  since the change is noticeable.)  The impact on
   costs and  requirements for future  public  facilities (i.e., water system
   expansion)  would be a reason for imposing such a requirement, since
   the burden of  non-use of  water-saving models may eventually  be borne
   by  the public  at large.   As long as  an adequate period were  allowed
   for using  up stocks of old models, such a requirement would  not be
   disruptive to  the  plumbing industry, since water-saving models are
   already being  made.

       The requirement that  water-saving devices be used in new residential
   buildings  would be implemented through the State Plumbing Code.  The
   State Plumbing Code would be amended by the State Board of Examiners
   of  Plumbers to specify maximum allowable  rates of flow.  This would
   create uniformity, which  is stated as a purpose of the Code, while
   promoting  water conservation, also stated as a purpose:

       "Plumbing  must be designed and adjusted to use the minimum
        quantity  of water consistent  with proper performance and
        cleaning."

   A community would  then through  its by-laws rely on the state Plumbing
   Code principle of  water conservation and  adopt maximum flow  standards
   for new construction.

       Local  regulations would be  an  alternative if the State Board
   were reluctant to  impose  a general requirement at this time.  A town-
   by-town approach would allow  for local options but would create a
   lack of statewide  uniformity.   That, however, should not be  a serious
   objection, since  there is a lack of  uniformity now, with some
   structures using water-saving devices and others not.

C.  Promote Water Conservation in  Commercial/Industrial Structures

    Description:  Water  conservation would be encouraged for firms which
use water for other  than common  sanitary purposes.  These would include
                                 4-90

-------
processing industries (leather, metals,  electrical  equipment,  and others),
carwashes, restaurants, and supermarkets (which may use large  quantities
for cooling water).   Three of the suggested measures rely on economic
incentives to promote water conservation,  another on persuasion.   Business
firms offer the potential  for significant  reduction on a "one-shot"
basis -- i.e., one firm can make more difference for    total  consumption
than many individual  homes.  However, the  connection to wastewater disposal
planning may be hard  to make.  For instance, if the OCWPCD sewer  system
is sized to serve present  flows and firms  adopt water conservation prac-
tices after the system is  installed in order to reduce their sewer use
and ICR charges, the  system may operate  inefficiently because  of  the
reduced flows and operational costs will not be reduced by much.

   1 -  Require New Firms to Estimate Future Flows

       Description:   Before being allowed  to connect to the public water
   system, new users  in this category would be  required to file with the
   water department an estimate of the firm's water needs.

       Evaluation: This would give the  water department an opportunity
   to suggest water conservation practices  to a firm and even  refuse
   connections altogether  where the burden  on the water system would be
   too great.  This practice is currently  followed  in Avon.

   2.  Impose a System Development Charge

       Description:   To provide a fund for  future water system expansion,
   a fee would be levied on new users.   The fee would be based on projected
   flow and so would  be less where water-saving systems were used.

       Evaluation: Imposing such a charge  could be a strong incentive;
   the effectiveness  would depend on the alternatives available to a
   firm,   where the firm was able to recycle water  or use an alternative
   process, the charge would promote conservation;  where such  a choice
   was  unavailable,  the charge would merely make the business pay its
   fair share of future system expansion costs  without actually causing
   conservation.

   3.   Impose Charges on Large Flows Under  the  Industrial  Cost Recovery
       Program

       Description:   Under the Industrial Cost  Recovery Program,  the
   capital  cost of the sewage treatment  facility attributable  to  industry
   is  apportioned on the  basis of flow  and pollutant load.  Where a firm
   is able to reduce  its flow,  it would  be  able to  reduce its  costs  under
   the Industrial  Cost Recovery Program.

       Evaluation:  This is,  in effect,  a system development charge  for
   sewers.   A firm can reduce its  charges by reducing its  flow (and
   pollutant loadings),  so this is  an  incentive for conservation.  The
   ICR program applies to  existing  firms as  well  as  new ones,  and so is
                                    4-91

-------
   more extensive than  a  water  system  development  charge  imposed only
   on new users.   Of course,  where  sewers  are  not  and will  not  be
   installed,  a  water system  development charge  is  the  only way of
   affecting water consumption.

   4.  Adopt Flat Rate  Pricing  for  Water

       Description:  The  same price would  be charged for  each gallon of
   water used, regardless of  quantity.  There  would be  no discount  for
   large users.   Presently, the following  OCPC 208  Area communities have
   flat-rate pricing (above a certain  minimum  which even  most residential
   users exceed):  Abington,  Avon,  Bridgewater,  and Easton.  The others --
   Brockton, East Bridgewater,  Hanson,  Pembroke, West Bridgewater,  and
   Whitman --  have "sliding scale"  pricing,  in which the  rate per gallon
   drops as the  quantity  used increases.

       Evaluation:  Sliding scale pricing  makes  water cheaper for large
   users, and  so discourages  water  conservation.   Flat  rate pricing would
   have its greatest impact on  firms which must  view water as a raw
   material and  make decisions  accordingly as  to how much of it to  use.

D.   Promote Water Conservation  in Public and Semi-Public  Buildings

                  This  category includes schools,  colleges, and public
housing.  Elementary and  secondary  schools use water principally for
cafeterias, toilets, and  gymnasiums; colleges  have  residential  dormitory
use as well.  In the OCPC 208 Area, Bridgewater  State College in
Bridgewater  and Stonehill  College  in  Easton are substantial water
users.  (Stonehill obtains  its  water from  Easton but is connected to the
Brockton sewer system.)  As with businesses, water conservation could be
accomplished at  less administrative costs  for  a  single  large user than
for many smaller ones.   If government  units  are  to  promote water conserva-
tion on the part of others,  they must, to  be credible,  do so themselves.

   1.  Bill Public Users

       Description:  The  water  departments would meter  and bill all
   users, including the school  departments.   (Fire departments, which
   draw from unmetered hydrants, would not be  billed.)

       Evaluation:  Such  a practice would  force  public  users to be  conscious
   of the cost of water and encourage  conservation. A  school department
   superintendent would be able to  compare usage in similar schools  and
   see where savings could be made.

   2.  Install Water-Saving Devices

       Description:  Gymnasiums, dormitories,  and  apartments  in public
   housing units would be retrofitted  with water-saving devices, and new
   structures  would be required to  use such  models.
                                 4-92

-------
    Evaluation:  The same economic  savings  would  apply  as  for  private
units; retrofitting costs would be  lower,  since  it  would  be  possible
to purchase in bulk and install  using  existing maintenance personnel.
There would be beneficial impacts  in terms  of publicity for  water
conservation, and manufacturers and distributors  would  be  more aware
of the market for water-saving devices.

    The Department of Community Affairs  now requires  water-saving
models in new state-assisted housing units.
                              4-93

-------
        CHAPTER 5
Industrial  Wastewater Disposal

-------
                           Table of Contents


                                                                 page

Types of Industrial Discharges In The OCPC 208 Area              5-1


NPDES Permits In The OCPC 208 Area                               5-2


Municipal Waste Water Dischargers                                5-3



Industrial  Wastewater Discharge Alternatives

I.   Wastewater Treatment and Disposal by On-Site                 5-7
    Subsurface Systems


II.   Continued Discharge Under The NPDES Permit System           5-8
III.   Wastewater Treatment and Disposal  by Tieing into a         5-10
      Municipal  Wastewater Collection and Treatment System
IV.   Discharge to a Surface Water Body for New Industries        5-12
     With Installation of Facilities Capable of Tertiary
     Treatment of Effluent

-------
    Within the OCPC 208 study area, the impact of industrial wastewater on
surface and groundwater quality has not been shown to be a serious problem.
Industrial development which has taken place in the region is located primarily
in the City of Brockton and the downtown area of Bridgewater which are the
two major sewer service areas in the region, and in the Avon Industrial
Park which is unsewered.

    While not a serious water quality problem, the means by which industrial
wastewater is disposed of varies in the area making the issue relatively
complex.  Generally the industries when grouped according to wastewater dis-
posal practices, fall into five categories.

    Type  I   - Sanitary wastewater only (or insignificant industrial wastewater)
               discharged to subsurface system

    Type  II  - Same as Type I except discharged to municipal sewage treatment
               plant

    Type  III - Sanitary and industrial wastewater discharged to municipal
               sewage treatment plant

    Type  IV  - Sanitary and industrial wastewater; sanitary discharged to
               subsurface disposal system; industrial discharged directly to
               stream and regulated by Environmental  Protection Agency/
               Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control discharge
               permit system (NPDES).

    Type V   - Same as Type IV but discharges to stream without NPDES permit


    Most of the Type II and III industries are in the City of Brockton, although
there are a few type IV industries.  In the non-Brockton communities, the
industries fall primarily into Type I, IV, and V categories with a majority
of them being Type I industrial discharges.

    In approaching the issue of industrial wastewater disposal, OCPC con-
ducted a regional  industrial wastewater survey in two parts: Brockton and
non-Brockton industries.  This was deemed the most efficient approach based
on the number  of industries in the City of Brockton.  The results of the
survey and evaluation of existing National Pollution  Discharge Elimination
System Permits (NPDES permits) are available in Industrial Wastewater Survey
of the OCPC 208 Area.

    Work related to industrial wastewater in the City of Brockton was done
in conjunction with the firm of Fay, Spofford & Thorndike ( FST) and was
related to the development of the Industrial Cost Recovery program for the
city.   In Avon, OCPC has worked with its 208 consultant Anderson-Nichols, Inc.
(ANCo).   In the other eight 208 communities, results  from an industrial
wastewater survey conducted by Camp Dresser and McKee as part of the regional
201 facilities study were used.
                                 5-1

-------
    The ability of an industry to treat its wastewater or to arrange for
the treatment of its wastewater at a site other than the industrial  plant
itself is influenced by several factors.   Historically, it has been  least
costly for industry to dispose of its water by discharging untreated waste
directly into a neighboring water body.   Certainly the nation's initial
efforts to eliminate such discharges have been the impetus for treatment
and efficient disposal of industrial wastewaters.   The fact, however, that
industry will seek the least costly alternative meeting the mandated dis-
charge improvement /elimination establishes cost as the bottom line  criteria.
Evaluation of an industry1 s wastewater disposal options includes  assessing
a receiving water's ability to assimilate the industrial effluent or the
ability of a firm's wastewater to be disposed of in an on-site treatment
system.  Of particular importance to determining treatment options is the
establishment of the toxicity of a firm's waste, which if of sufficient
degree will preclude the use of "standard" treatment and disposal practices.

 NPDES permits  are the primary means of regulating industrial discharges.
NPDES permits in Massachusetts are currently issued jointly by the En-
vironmental Protection Agency and the Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution
COntrol, under the mandates of Section 402 of P.L. 92-500.  They allow for
the discharge of effluents from municipalities and industries if the discharge
is meeting limits established for specific parameters contained in the effluent.
The permit system also contains provisions for those industries and  municipal-
ities whose discharges are not meeting established effluent quality  levels.
To bring these discharges up to acceptable levels, permits for non-complying
firms prescribe various corrective measures and a schedule by which  the
corrective steps are to be completed.

    Currently a total of approximately 20 discharges in the OCPC 208 Region
have either applied for a permit to discharge or have been issued a  permit.
Among these twenty are permits for municipal sewage treatment facility dis-
charges, municipal water treatment facility discharges and industrial dis-
charges.  Those area industries currently under the jurisdiction of  the  permit
system are listed below.  (See Table 5-1)

Abington
    Rumford Litho, Inc.

Avon
    Hermetite

Bridgewater
    Cumberland Farms,  Inc.
    Mclntires Dairy

Brockton
    Brockton Sole & Plastics
    Drew Tanning
    E. L. LeBaron Foundry

East  Bridgewater
    Foxboro Company
                                 5-2

-------
Eastern
    Steadfast Rubber

Hanson
    Ocean Spray Cranberry, Inc.

Pembroke
    None

West Bridgewater
    None

Wh i tma n
    USM-Corp.
    McCarthy Brothers Ice Cream
    Whitman Plating


    In addition to the industries on the NPDES permit system are the four
existing wastewater treatment facilities - Abington, Bridgewater  (Town
and MCI), and Brockton.   The Abington permit and Town of Bridgewater are
discussed below.  OCPC comments   on the MCI and Town of Bridgewater and
Brockton facilities permits are  as  follows:

    1.  MCI, Bridgewater/MA 0102237 - There are several pieces of information
OCPC requires before any changes to MCI's permit can be recommended.  OCPC
will need to discuss with both EPA and DWPC the following issues:

    -The availability of DWPC sampling information for the discharge
    -Current compliance status with permit construction requirements
    -Reduced treatment requirement  as opposed to those set for the OCWPCD
     Treatment Facility
    -Potential for land application

EPA's response to these issues was as follows:  "The treatment plant has
been under construction throughout most of the permit's life and the minimal
communication indicates that it will be completed on schedule.  No monitoring
reports have been received due to lack of testing facilities and failure to
obtain testing elsewhere.  EPA relied on MDWPC for enforcement."

    Division of Water Pollution Control response was as follows:  "The DWPC
cannot sample the discharge until the construction of the facilities.  The
discharge is now a primary treated effluent 50 percent of which bypasses the
sand filters during construction."

    2.  Bridgewater STP/MA 010061 - As in the case of the MCI facility, there
are several issues related to the Bridgewater facility which must be resolved
prior to OCPC's recommending permit revisions. Such issues include:

    -The facilities waste load allocation
    -The basis of the waste load allocation (i.e., secondary plus water
     quality limitations)
                                5-3

-------
                                                          TASLE 5-1
                                          INDUSTRIAL  DISCHARGES IN THE OCPC 208 AREA
                                                 ON THE  NPDES PERMIT PROGRAM
       DISCHARGER

    1.  Hermetite Corp.

    2.  Cumberland Farms*

    3.  MeIntire's Dairy

    4.  Brockton Sole &  Plastics

    5.  Drew Tanning, Inc.**

Y"   6.  E.  L. LeBaron Foundry
*•
    7.  U.S.M.  Corp.

    8.  McCarthy Bros.  Ice Cream

    9.  Whitman Plating

   10.  Foxboro Co.

   11.  Rumford Litho Inc.
ADDRESS
100 Ladge Dr.,  Avon

143 Curve St.,  Bridgewater
PERMIT NUMBER

 MA0004022

 MA0110001
792 Plymouth St., Bridgewater   MA0025755

53 Spark St., Brockton          MA0003212

62 Watson St., Brockton         MA0005380

14 E.  Union St.,  Brockton       MA0005945

98 Myrtle Ave.,  Whitman         MA0001171

205 Commercial St.,  Whitman     MA0023922

256 South Ave.,  Whitman         MA0021741

200 Highland St., E.Bridgewater MA0004103

380 North Ave.,  Abington        MA0023299
CITY OR TOWN/RECEIVING HATERS

  Avon/Trout Brook

  Bridgewater/Taunton and the
              Winnetuxet Rivers
  Bridgewater/South Brook

  Brockton/Salisbury Plain River

  Brockton/Salisbury Pal in River

  Brockton/Salisbury Plain River

  Whitman/Meadow Brook

  Whitman/Shaumatuscacant River

  Whitman/Hobart1s Pond

  E.  Bridgewater/Meadow Brook

  Abington
                 *(Cumberland  Farms)  There  is  no  issued  permit
                **Tied  into  Brockton's  STP

-------
               \\  \WBridgewater \
Fig. 5-1     r    J
Existing Permitted (NPDES)
Industrial Discharges
                                          Scale in Miles

Old Colony Planning Council/208 Pr  gram, 1977

-------
    -The ability of new solids handling equipment to rectify existing
     treatment problems

    -The impact of I/I rehabilitation on wet weather flows

Information obtained from EPA relative to the permit indicates that an
Enforcement Compliance Schedule level (ECSL) has been issued for the dis-
charge.   The ECSL provides for extending the schedule for completion of
sludge dewatering facilities and sludge disposal.

    OCPC proposes no revisions to the existing revised permit.

    3.  Brockton STP/MA 0101010 - The City of Brockton has recently completed
its Step I Facilities Planning Study and is currently beginning its Step II
Design Phase for the system.  Preliminary planning and design work have been
based on DWPC effluent locads which will have to be reflected in the facilities
new permit which will be effective upon the expiration of the existing permit
on July 1, 1977.

    Information obtained from EPA indicates requirements of the new permit
to be written for the facility had originally been used on the Water Quality
Management Plan which recommended a Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODr) load of
322 Ib/day.  At a monthly average flow of 15 mgd the final BOD5 effluent con-
centration would have to be 2.6 mg/1 which represents a 98-99 percent BODc
removal.  EPA has indicated that BOD5 and TSS (Total Suspended Solids) effluent
requirements levels will be set at a more relaxed level of 95 percent removal.
In response to this recommendation, OCPC has several questions.

    -In light of the fact that flows of the receiving waters  for Brockton's
      discharge are extremely  low with limited assimilative capacity should
      Brockton's removal requirements be as stringent as possible?
    -What will the cost difference be to the operation and maintenance
      budget for 99 percent  vs. 95 percent removal rates?
    -How reasonable, on a purely operational basis,  is the expectation of
     a 98-99% removal requirement?

OCPC  recommends implementing  the following recommendations as part of the
City's municipal wastewater disposal program.

    On the basis of existing  pretreatment guidelines  (1973) OCPC recommends
that  the City of Brockton consider implementing  EPA  pretreatment require-
ments for incompatible  pollutants on the following  firms:

          Alden Products
          Barbour Welding Company
          Churchill Linen
          Columbia Tanning
          Garland Corporation
          Hesse-Eastern
          Rifor Precision Plating Corp.
          Stone-Tarlow  Sole Corp.
                                  5-6

-------
     -That  existing  pretreatment guidelines be expanded to  include BOD and
      SS, for  all  industries.

     -That  water  saving devices and  techniques be mandated  in  large water users
      of  .050  mgd  or more.

     -That  a waste oil residual management program be established.  The program
      should require licensing of waste oil collection firms;  reporting
      procedures  for service stations with tie-ins to the municipal sewer
      system,  and  an inspection system by the city to insure oil  trap main-
      tenance.

     -That  rules  be  established regulating sizing and frequency of cleaning
      for restaurant grease traps.

     -That  an  industrial wastewater monitoring program be established to im-
      plement  the  Industrial Cost Recovery and pretreatment programs.

     -That  the pretreatment requirements for industries, service  stations and
      restaurants  be included in the City's Sewer Use Ordinance.

OCPC  recommends adopting the following changes in the overall permit program:

     -For the  purposes of issuing, revising or renewing permits for any given
      area, the affiliated 208 agency should be notified and involved in the
      process.

     -Follow up on monitoring and reporting information mandated  by permits
      should be given increased priority by regulatory agencies.  Such in-
      formation should be sent to the 208 agency.

     -All permits should indicate the basis for their effluent limitations.

     -All permit applications past and future should be referred  to the 208
      agency.


I.  Wastewater Treatment and Disposal  by On-site Subsurface Systems

    Description:   This alternative requires industries to provide for treat-
ment  and disposal of wastewater at or within close proximity of their plant's
location at a  site  suitable for subsurface disposal.

    Evaluation:   Use of subsurface disposal  and treatment for industrial
wastewater will  be available only to those industries for which site character-
istics are suitable for on-lot disposal.   Volume of flow will  be particularly
influential in the evaluation  of the suitability of such  a system.   Effluent
containing toxic  parameters should be precluded from the  discharge in areas
where groundwater quality may  be impacted.   (See groundwater protection  for
siting criteria).
                                5-7

-------
 II.  Continued Discharge to Surface Hater Body

     Description:  On the basis of existing facilities planning in the
area and previously expressed community sentiment towards installation of
municipal sewage collection and treatment systems, it is assumed that
several existing discharges will continue to discharge relying on indivi-
dual treatment systems.  See page 5-12, 13 for evaluation.

     Such permittees in the OCPC area are:

          1.  Abington-Rockland Joint Water Works, Abington

          2.  Hermetite Corporation, Avon

          3.  Cumberland Farms, Bridgewater

          4.  Brockton Sole and Plastics, Brockton

          5.  E.  L. LeBaron Foundry, Brockton

          6.  East Bridgewater Schools, East Bridgewater

          7.  Steadfast Rubber Company, Easton

          8.  Foxboro Company, East Bridgewater

          9.  Ocean Spray Cranberry, Inc. Hanson

         10.  Howard School, West Bridgewater

         11.  USf1 Corp., Whitman

         12.  Whitman Plating, Whitman

         13.  Town of Whitman

     1.  Abington/Rockland Joint Water Works/MA 0025658 - Monitoring reports
information provided by EPA indicate that the Myers Ave. plant is meeting
the effluent limits in its permit.

     2.  Hermetite Corp./MA 0004022 - The Hermetite Corporation has recently
completed installation of treatment facilities required by their current
permit.  Limitations established for the firm appear to be a combination of
BPT (Best Practicable Treatment) and drinking water standrads, (DWPC infor-
mation indicates  effluent guidelines stricter than those generally applied
to electroplating industries were used), which on the basis of the firm's
proximity to Avon's wells was originally requested by OCPC and the town of
Avon.   After operational levels for the newly installed system have been
achieved, OCPC recommends the following:

     -Based upon  the results of the discharge monitoring and water quality
      samples taken from the well  waters in Avon's downstream wells, the
      Regional Administrator and the Director should make a determination by
      December 31, 1978 if a tie-in to a municipal sewage system is necessary.
                                5-8

-------
     -The  Hermetite Corp. shall notify the Avon Water Department immediately
      if the  treatment  facilities malfunction and cause untreated process
      wastes  to  be discharged  to Trout Brook.  Should the discharge of un-
      treated waste result from a system malfunction, it shall cease as soon
      as practicable.

     3.  Cumberland Farms/MA 0110001:  Considerable confusion exists in re-
gards to  the necessity of permitting the existing agricultural operation at
the  site.  OCPC recommends on the basis of the OCPC wet weather surface water
sampling  data which indicates periodic discharge from the site, that a permit
be required for Cumberland  under  the NPDES    regulations related to confined
animal feedlot  operations (Refer to Chapter 7).

     4.  Brockton Sole and Plastics/MA 003212 - OCPC proposed no revisions
to the existing permit.  OCPC had suggested as part of our interim outputs
that  process related information contained in the permit be up-dated.  In
response  to  the comments EPA  indicated that there had been no quarterly
monitoring report since August 1976 and that enforcement proceedings would
be initiated.

     5.  E. L. LeBaron Foundry/MA 0005945 - Information provided by EPA
indicates that  the firm has eliminated its process discharge while a second
storm drain  system discharge  is continuing.  DWPC states that the remaining
discharge consists of storm drainage and compresser cooling water only and
that  no need to eliminate this discharge exists.   OCPC recommends no changes
to this permit.

     6.  East Bridgewater Schools/MA 0022446 - EPA has stated that effluent
monitoring results at the facility indicate that the facility is in compliance
with  discharge  requirements.   As discussed in OCPC's interim outputs the
permit currently calls for the tie-in of the discharge to the OCWPCD collection
facility when it becomes available.   OCPC proposes no revisions to this permit
(EPA  indicated  that BOD loadings from the school  are very low requiring
allocation of very few pounds of load to the flow).

     7.  Steadfast Rubber - OCPC has not received this permit and will comment
upon  receipt of this permit.

    8.  Foxboro Company/MA 0004103 - The Foxboro Company currently has two
existing discharges, one industrial  and one sanitary.  The permit requires
submission of a report on how the firm intends to attain effluent levels
capable of meeting waste load allocations.   It is unclear whether such limits
have  been developed.   If the Foxboro Company is incapable of meeting waste
load  allocations,  the permit requires a tie-in to an East Bridgewater system.
OCPC does not recommend any changes to this permit.

    EPA comments on  the permit are  as follows:

    "The (1973) Taunton River Basin  Hater Quality Management  Plan  designates
no target effluent load for this  permit.   However,  it is  meeting secondary limits
for treating its sanitary discharge.   At 21,500 GPD  (from 1000 employees)  and
30 mg/1  average BOD5 the total oxygen demand  load would  be  only 7.9  Ib/day.   More
comprehensive waste  load allocations in  the Upper Taunton River Basin  are
truly needed."
                                 5-9

-------
    9.   Ocean Spray Cranberries/MA 0110019 - Having moved their processing
operation out of the region, OCPC felt that comments on the permit were not
necessary.  EPA comments on the permit were very informative and are below.

"This is a bog and may require a general  permit.  A general permit is to
cover situations such as irrigation, where there are very many contaminated,
dispersed discharges."

   10.   Howard School/MA 0101753 - EPA reported that as stated by OCPC pre-
vious reporting information showed the treatment facility meeting effluent
limits.  No monitoring reports have been  received during the past (76) school
year.  The file has been referred to the  EPA water compliance section for
enforcement.  The new permit will not require any treatment improvements but
will require tie-in to any sewer system when an interceptor is accessible to
the school.

   11.   USM Corp., Whitman Metal Stamping Division (MA 0001171) - On the basis
of OCPC interim output recommendations relative to this permit, EPA has pro-
posed the  following:

    -Information on additional, significant parameters for effluent limitations
     will  be sought
    -Permit modification will be prepared for these and higher average flow
     reported
    -If any discharged parameters are detrimental to water quality, tie-in
     to an available sewer interceptor will be required

OCPC recommends no further changes to the permit.

   12.   Whitman Plating Company, Inc., (MA 0021741) - OCPC recommends that if
after design operational levels of the firm's treatment system are reached,
the Regional Administrator or the Director determine a significant impact, the
firm's discharge should tie-in  to Whitman's collection system when it comes
on-1 ine.

   13.   Town of Whitman/MA 0101028 - EPA has informed OCPC that this permit
is classified as no  permit required (NPR) because it applies to the town's
septic tanks.  EPA will keep the permit on file and on NPR - inclusive print-
outs for  reference.  EPA stated that Whitman may have a treated discharge  in
the future.  Division of Water  Pollution Control comments on OCPC's interim
outputs  state that the exisiting permit regulates an "existing, proven point
source of  pollution" referring  to the town's drainage system.  OCPC recommends
that the  apparent  controversy be investigated.


HI. Wastewater Treatment  and Disposal by Tieing in to a Municipal
     Wastewater Collection and  Treatment System

     Description:   Industries presently discharging  to surface water are those
industries for which sub-surface disposal is inadequate.   They would tie-in
to municipal wastewater collection and treatment systems.
                                  5-10

-------
     Evaluation:  Certainly the applicability of a municipal wastewater col-
 lection and treatment facility will be dependent on the availability of this
 alternative in the OCPC 208 area.  Current planning for the regional OCWPCD
 municipal collection and treatment system provides capacity for industrial
 wastewater flows in the system.  There are, however, only two existing munici-
 pal  collection and treatment systems in the entire region into which an in-
 dustry not presently discharging to a collection system may connect i.e.
 Brockton and Bridgewater.  If municipal facilities become available, indus-
 tries will have to evaluate the costs to be incurred which will include the
 connection charge, user charge, Industrial Cost Recovery charge and costs due
 to pre-treatment of the firm's wastewater if necessary.

     Those discharges which are likely to be eliminated as a result of imple-
 menting current facilities planning studies are:

     1)  Town of Abington Filter Bed System
     2)  Rumford Litho, Inc.
     3)  Mclntire's Dairy, Bridgewater
     4)  Drew Tanning, Brockton
     5)  McCarthy Brothers Ice Cream, Whitman
     6)  Whitman-Hanson Regional High School, Hanson


     1.  Town of .Abington Filter Bed System/MA 0101443 - The permit granted
 for  the Abington filter bed system calls for the elimination of the discharge
 via  a tie-in to the Rockland or the Old Colony Water Pollution Control District's
 treatment facility.   The recently completed local 201 facilities study re-
 commends that the northwest sector of Abington which includes the filter beds
 be tied into the Rockland system.

     -Abington shall prepare a time schedule by December 31, 1977 for a pro-
     posed tie-in to the Rockland Sewage Treatment Plant.  Tie-in to Rockland
     and elimination of the Abington discharge shall  be achieved upon certi-
     fication by the Regional Administrator and the Director that the Rockland
     STP is sufficiently capable of handling Abington's wastewater.
     -Abington and Rockland shall  execute an intermunicipal  agreement by
     June 30, 1978.

     2.  Rumford Litho, Inc./MA 0023299 - OCPC is not recommending any changes
 in the permit requirements for the firm.  The permits schedule of compliance
 calls for elimination of the discharge by October of 1977.   Information ob-
 tained through EPA indicates that Abington granted the firm permission for the
 use  of a holding tank to store the firm's wastes between pumpouts.

     3.  Mclntire's Dairy/MA 0025755 - A draft permit based on site inspection
 by the state has been written.  Possible tie-ins to the Bridgewater Sewage
 Treatment Plant (STP) by June 1,  1978 or to the OCWPCD facility in 1983
are suggested.   In  addition,  the  permit provides for  investigating  treating
the existing effluent for a  direct discharge  meeting  effluent  limits.   OCPC
does  not propose any changes  to this  permit.
                                  5-11

-------
    4.  Drew Tanning/MA 0005380 - As indicated in the interim outputs pre-
pared by this office, Drew Tanning has tied in its discharge to the City of
Brockton's municipal collection and treatment system.  The facility will re-
main in EPA MISCS /computerized listing, classified as No Permit Required
(NPR).  EPA has indicated that NPR (tie-ins, discharge cessations etc.) re-
main in the computer file, properly labeled for accountability and reference.

    5.  McCarthy Brothers Ice Cream/MA 0023922 - EPA in responding to interim
output recommendations has indicated that a permit for the firm's discharge
will be drafted, drafting of the permit, however, is of low priority.

    6.  Whitman-Hanson Regional High School/MA 0101354 - EPA has provided
OCPC with the proposed permit issuance for the facility.  Advanced treat-
ment effluent limits are proposed allowing for continued discharge from the
facility.  Status of the tie-in to a municipal collection and treatment
system in Whitman must be reported annually.  OCPC proposes no changes to
the permit.


    In light of the fact that costs associated with industrial waste treat-
ment (i.e., ICR, pretreatment, etc.) are based on the volume and constituents
of the firm's wastewater flow,measures taken to reduce either flow volume
or constituents will provide for reduced treatment requirements and costs.

   A.  Provide for In-House Process Changes to Reduce Effluent Parameters

       Description:  Implementation of in-house process changes would en-
   tail changes to the system(s) used in the production of the firm's product
   or using less toxic or more easily treated raw or process materials.

       Evaluation:  Reduction of parameters in the effluent or increasing
   the treatability of the effluent by using a more easily treated material
   will reduce treatment costs.

   B.  Provide for Hater Conservation Practices to Reduce Wastewater Flows

       Description:  Apply water conservation measures as discussed in Chapter
   4 to both existing and new industries.

       Evaluation:  Although discussed as part of the municipal treatment and
   collection facilities, alternative wastewater conservation will improve
   the treatment capability and reduce the costs of any industrial waste-
   water treatment alternative.


 IV.   Discharges  to a .Surface  Water Body. For New Industries  After
      Installing Facilities Capable of Tertiary Treatment of the Effluent

    Description:  Discharge  to a surface  water body  in  the  OCPC area
will require tertiary treatment.   Firms opting for this alternative will be
required to install and operate the necessary treatment systems to attain the
effluent parameters levels set by  the Division of Water Pollution Control
(Westboro).
                                   5-12

-------
    Evaluation: Surface water discharge may be desirable for
several reasons.  If an industry is meeting discharge limits set for it
by the DWPC and included in its NPDES permit, it is not expected that
such a discharge would negatively impact the existing water quality of
its receiving water.  In addition, a surface discharge with tertiary
treatment may be of comparable cost to tieing in to a municipal  waste-
water collection and treatment system.  Certainly a firm which will be
required to pre-treat its effluent prior to discharging into a municipal
collection system, in addition to expending monies for hook up to the
system, plus paying user and ICR charges will be faced with significant
costs.  When compared to a surface discharge of tertiary effluent for
which tax incentives for the purchase of treatment equipment exist and
which eliminates the need for long term community assessments, tie-in to
a municipal  system may not be as desirable an alternative as expected.

    It should be noted that new industrial  discharges will  have  to comply
with the anti-degradation policy as established by the DWPC.  No new dis-
charges will be allowed upstream of existing municipal wastewater treat-
ment facility discharges.
                                 5-13

-------
                  CHAPTER 6



Urban Runoff/Construction and Development

-------
                           Table of Contents


Background

   -Impacts of urbanization

   -Stormwater control investigations under the 208 program


I.   Control Urban Runoff in Brockton

   A.  Control Urban Runoff Through Best Management Practices

      1.  Place Priority on the Ellis Brett Pond and
          French's Brook Watersheds

      2.  Implement Nonstructural  "Best Management Practices"
          Throughout the City of Brockton

   B.  Require an Urban Runoff Control Program Through the
       NPDES Permit System

      1.  Issue a General  Permit to Brockton For Stormwater
          Runoff Under the NPDES Permit System

      2.  Make Stormwater Control  a Condition of the
          Brockton Sewage Treatment NPDES Permit
II.   Control  Urban Runoff in Other Urbanized Areas

   A.   Apply  the NPDES General  Permit System to All
       "Urbanized" Areas

   B.   Investigate Stormwater Runoff Through a Continued
       208 Program
III.   Adopt Preventive Measures for Future Development

   A.   Impose Controls Under Subdivision Regulations

   B.   Impose Controls Within the Zoning By-Law

   C.   Impose Controls Through a New Municipal  By-Law

   D.   Require Local  Environmental  Impact Statements on
       New Developments
Page
 6-1
 6-9
6-11

-------
            a^jte^jfeA, u
           '
g .  PC-*
                          3L*W-

-------

-------
    The topics in this chapter are related to the impacts  on  water  quality
from the creation and existence of developed urban areas.   "Urbanization",
as this process of development is called, has effects  beyond  the  municipal
and industrial wastewater disposal problems discussed  in  Chapters 4 and  5.
During construction, when vegetation is removed from previously forested or
grassed lands, erosion can occur more readily, and sediment can be  carried
into streams.  This can reduce the flow capacity of a  stream  and  increase
flooding, and also damage the aquatic life by covering bottom vegetation
and spawning areas with silt.  Once development is completed, an  urban
area permanently alters the characteristics of streamflow, in terms of
both water quality and water quantity.

   •Water quantity:  Urbanization increases impervious surfaces by  creating
paved and ouilt-upon areas in place of pre-existing vegetation.   The result
is that the proportion of rainfall which infiltrates into  the earth is  reduced
and the proportion which runs off across the land surface  is  increased.
Surface runoff reaches streams more rapidly than water percolating  through
the ground; the net result of reduced perviousness, then,  is  to increase the
quantity of water which reaches streams shortly after  storms. Also, the
collection and transport of runoff waters in storm sewers  heightens this
effect by increasing the speed at which surface runoff reaches streams.   These
changes therefore cause higher peak flows after storms, and hence more
frequent and more severe flooding.  (The use of floodplains and wetlands
for urban development still further aggravates the situation  by eliminating
areas which serve to store water at periods of high flow  and  release it
later.  Wetlands and floodplain protection are discussed  in Chapter 9.)

   « Water quality:  Water quality problems in streams  are  often at  their
worst in periods of low flow, when less water than normal  is  available  to
dilute continuous pollutant concentrations (as from wastewater and  indus-
trial discharges).  By reducing infiltration and increasing the amount  of
streamflow immediately after a storm, urbanization thereby lessens  the  amount
of precipitation which reaches groundwater and reduces the flow of  ground-
water into streams.  It is this flow which furnishes most  of  the  flow in
streams during periods of little rain.   Therefore, urbanization reduces
this "base flow" and aggravates low flow conditions.

    When storms do occur, water quality in streams draining urban areas
is degraded by the pollutants carried into the streams by  the runoff.  These
can include oil, grease, and metals from automobile bodies and exhaust,
oxygen-demanding organic loadings from animal droppings and leaves  and
garden debris carried into the storm sewers, and sediment  from sand and
dirt on street surfaces.  Less directly, water quality can be degraded  if
stormwater runoff overloads sewage treatment plants and causes them to
bypass wastes without treating them.

    Urbanization can also affect water quality by raising  stream  temperatures.
Clearing of vegetation from streambanks allows sunlight to reach  and heat
the waters; runoff from paved areas is warmed by the heat  stored  there;  and
the reduction in groundwater flow lessens the cooling  effect  of such water.
                                6-1

-------
     Other  adverse water quality impacts of urbanization are aesthetic ones:
 erosion  of streambanks from  increases in the volume and speed of storm
 flows; sedimentation of streams; and human misuse and abuse of streams for
 trash dumping.

     Where  urbanization has not yet occurred, a preventive process can be
 instituted to  lessen these adverse impacts.  Controls can be placed on the
 manner of  development to minimize erosion and sedimentation, and measures
 can  be required  to  reduce the rate, quantity, and pollutant loadings of
 surface  runoff.  Applying such measures to areas already developed is more
 difficult  and  costly.

     Unlike municipal wastewater collection systems, in which waste is
 collected  from a wide area and transported to one place for treatment,
 municipal  storm  drains collect water from small catchment areas and dis-
 charge those waters into nearby streams.  (There are no combined sewer
 systems  in the OCPC 208' Area — i.e., there are no systems in which
 storm flows .are  directed into sewage mains for joint treatment at a central
 location.)  Consequently, it is a matter of definition as to when individual
 drains are extensive enough  in a community to be considered as a storm
 sewer "system".  Storm sewers serve most developed areas of Brockton and the
 downtown area  of Whitman.  Elsewhere in the OCPC 208 Area, storm drains
 have been  built  for individual streets and subdivisions on a less systematic
 basis.

     At the commencement of the OCPC 208 project, the extent and relative
 significance of  local urban  runoff pollution had been investigated only in
 a  limited  fashion.  As part of its planning efforts for the Taunton River
 Basin, the Division of Water Pollution Control sampled five sites in
 Brockton in 1972 and 1973 during one dry-weather and two wet-weather periods.
 The  sampling indicated that the background water quality of Salisbury and
 Trout Brooks in dry weather was good, but that levels of total and coliform
 bacteria,  BOD, suspended solids, and phosphorus increased downstream of the
 downtown area  during storms.  (Division of Water Pollution Control. Taunton
 River Basin:  Water Quality Management Plan (1973), pp. 56-58.)  This
 evidence suggested that stormwater runoff was a pollution problem which
 merited attention in the 208 program.

    The sampling programs which have been carried out during the two-year
 OCPC 208 project are described in Chapter 1, and sampling results are  presented
in the Appendix.   In addition to several in-stream sampling programs,
 OCPC contracted with a consultant for the collection of stormwater
 samples from three drainage areas in Brockton, through the sampling of
 drainage pipes which discharge to streams.   Samples were collected at
 short time  intervals (24 samples during a 3 1/2 hour period) by automatic
 sampling equipment, during three storms.  (The sampling results are contained
 in a report entitled:  "Section 208 Stormwater Measurement Program Results",
 prepared for OCPC by its consultant, Energy and Environmental  Analysis (EEA). )
 The  results are  now being used by EEA to estimate emissions for the city
                                  6-2

-------
as a whole.  This analysis will be completed later in the summer.   The
sampling programs in Brockton have shown the stormwater runoff problem to
be a complicated one.  The sampling results from dry-weather periods (see the
Appendix)  revealed significant total and fecal  coliform bacteria  problems
at many locations in Brockton, and instances of high nitrate, phosphorus,
and chloride levels.  Therefore, the judgment expressed in the DWPC
Taunton River Basin Plan of 1973, that background water quality during dry
weather is good, would now have to be reconsidered, based on this  additional
evidence.  It does, however, remain true that wet-weather samples  from
Salisbury Brook, Trout Brook and the Salisbury Plain River show substantial
increases in pollutant loadings over dry weather results for certain
parameters, especially total coliform bacteria.

    Additional difficulties in interpreting the sampling results are caused
by the variation in pollutant loadings from one storm to the next  and by
the limited data on stream impacts from the temporary surge of pollutant
loadings associated with stormwater runoff.  Some conclusions can  be made,
however, which should be considered in selecting a stormwater runoff control
program for the OCPC 208 area:

    1)  Within Brockton, the closing of Ellis Brett Pond to swimming is an
instance where urban runoff has a definite impact on use of local  water
resources.  Urban sources upstream of the pond therefore deserve attention.

    2)  The wet-weather sampling in Brockton showed that the French's Brook
area in south-central Brockton had pollutant loadings (in terms of concentra-
tion and loadings per acre) well above those found in other areas.  If it
were necessary to single out one area within downtown Brockton for further
scrutiny and control measures, the French's Brook area would deserve priority.

    3)  At the present time, it is difficult to separate direct stormwater
runoff pollution from wastewater pollution in Brockton.  The high  coliform
bacteria counts found in both dry and wet-weather samples upstream of the
Brockton treatment plant could be due to sewage discharges into storm
drains, either through direct tie-ins or by leaks in sanitary sewer mains.
Also, the Brockton plant is overloaded during storms because of infiltration
and inflow from storm sewers into sanitary sewers.  The result is  that
sanitary sewage on occasion flows directly into the Salisbury Plain River
without treatment or with only chlorine dosing.   These problems are being
corrected through the expansion of the Brockton plant under the 201 program
and work to reduce infiltration and inflow problems.

    5)  Although phosphorus levels in the Brockton streams do rise during
storms, the phosphorus concentration below the treatment plant is  much
higher than upstream of the plant (at least five times higher, sometimes
more than 20 times higher).  Consequently, while urban runoff controls may
be desirable to reduce phosphorus loadings, high levels of phosphorus
removal by the treatment plant would be more significant in reducing the
concentration of phosphorus in the Salisbury Plain River.
                                  6-3

-------
    6)  The quantities of pollutants and the location of their emissions
varied from one storm to the next,  making it difficult to select one control
over another on the basis of that control's effectiveness for a particular
parameter.  Besides French Brook, some areas of the city warrant further
field investigation, since   variations  among storms suggest the existence
of special intermittent sources which would not be corrected through general
maintenance practice.  I.e., if the problem is a sanitary sewer line which
overflowed during one of the three storms sampled, additional  street
sweeping or catch basin cleaning would not eliminate the problem.

    7)  Although the sampling results indicate that control  of runoff
pollution is complicated, they do not justify a conclusion that such
pollution is unavoidable.  The variability in the data, both from one site
to the next in the same storm and for each site among the different storms,
suggests that there are indeed factors which cause pollution to occur in
one instance and not another.

    8)  A stormwater control program can involve unexpected  gaps in the
availability of basic and necessary data.  In this particular case, the
lack of an up-to-date and complete drainage system map for the City of
Brockton has been a problem for the 208 stormwater studies.

    The remainder of this chapter is organized in three sections:  storm-
water control in Brockton; stormwater control in other urban areas; and
preventive controls for urbanizing areas.


I.  Control Urban Runoff JJT^ Brockton


    This section discusses alternative strategies and regulatory programs
for achieving a reduction in stormwater pollution loadings from Brockton.
Control of urban runoff is likely to take a number of years, with some
short-term measures possible and other measures dependent on the collection
of more data and improvements in the state-of-the-art of stormwater control.
What will be necessary is to identify more specifically the types of non-
point sources which are contributing to identified urban runoff problems.
This sort of inspection and analysis will in itself be expensive, requiring
manpower and sampling capabilities.  Control measures can vary in cost from
fairly low (as for training drivers in  improved sweeping procedures) to
high (if structural solutions are warranted).  If requirements are imposed
on the City of Brockton and no financial or technical assistance is made
available, the fiscal impacts would be heavy, and environmental gains would
be slowed by resistance to the requirements.

    A.  Control Urban Run-off Through Best Management Practices

                     Two alternatives are presented: one, focusing on the known
     problem  areas of Ellis Brett Pond and French's Brook Watershed: the
    second, applying controls to the city as a whole.  In the short run,  the
    first alternative has advantages of being tied to existing problems or
    to sites for which data exists on current emissions.  However, to accomplish


                                 6-4

-------
a larger goal of abating water pollution in the Salisbury Plain River
and its tributaries, a program which corrects runoff pollution through-
out the city would be necessary.  Therefore, the expertise gained in
localized areas would ultimately have to, be applied city-wide.  Thus,
the second alternative could be viewed as a long-term measure.

1.  Place Priority on the Ellis Brett Pond and French's Brook Watersheds

   Description:  Priority would be given to two known problem areas.
A proposal to restore Ellis Brett Pond to swimmable conditions, pre-
pared by the 208 staff and the City of Brockton, has received approval
from EPA, which will fund 50 percent of the costs, with  the other 50
percent from local and state funds.  A mix of structural  and non-
structural measures may be required to correct problems associated with
nearby commercial development and upstream sources.  French's Brook, as
mentioned above, showed the highest levels of stormwater pollution in
the wet-weather sampling program.  Field investigations and additional sam-
pling   would be conducted, and proposals developed to correct the
problems identified.

   In addition, the drainage sampling information already in hand for two
catchment areas within Brockton would be used as the basis for "pilot
project" tests of nonstructural runoff controls.  One area, in the
Tremont Street-Warren Avenue neighborhood, is an older area of single-
family and two-and three-story apartment houses; the other, around
Reece's Circle in northeast Brockton, is an area of post-World War II
single-family housing.      (The third area sampled was Westgate Mall,
which would be covered by the Ellis Brett Pond program.)   "Best Manage-
ment Practices" suggested in stormwater control literature, such as more
frequent street sweeping,  use of more advanced sweepers able to pick up
smaller particles, and catch basin cleaning, would be followed in various
mixes, and sampling conducted to check on the effectiveness of these
controls for various storms.

   Evaluation:  The concept of this alternative is to use the data
gathered under the 208 project in ways that would be productive in the
relatively short run.  Estimated cost of the Ellis Brett project would
be $213,000, and would result in a significant water quality improvement.
The French's Brook project would provide a chance to determine whether
localized pollution problems of this sort can be readily corrected, and
at what cost.  A rough estimate of the cost for the investigatory and
sampling work would be $3,000.  Structural solutions might be required,
such as the rebuilding of sanitary sewers and storm sewers.  The priority
of such a project for 201 assistance (for the rehabilitation of an ex-
isting system) would have to be determined.  The Tremont Street and
Reece's Circle pilot projects would have to be carried out over a long
enough time (perhaps two years) to allow for testing of practices during
a variety of storms.  $10,000 would be a rough estimate for such a pro-
ject.   These test areas would allow the evaluation of various techniques
at the local level and provide a basis for deciding whether to require
controls on a wider scale.
                            6-5

-------
   2.  Implement Nonstructural  "Best Management Practices"  Throughout
       the City of Brockton

      Description:  Under this  alternative,  improved surface maintenance
   practices would be applied throughout the city.   As  examples:
   sweeping would be conducted  more frequently and  catch  basins would be
   cleaned regularly.  More litter baskets would be placed  in public  areas.
   Alternated de  parking regulations would be adopted to  allow  for
   efficient street sweeping.  An ordinance  would be passed setting stand-
   ards for the maintenance of  privately-owned areas, such  as shopping
   center parking lots.  Residents would be  required to bag leaves  and
   leave them at curbside for pickup.

      Evaluation:  Some capital costs  would  be associated with this al-
   ternative, since it would probably  be necessary  to purchase additional
   street sweepers.  Operational  costs would include the  time spent by
   personnel in street cleanups,  time  necessary for training in  proper
   operation, and the costs of  publicizing and enforcing  new regulations.

      To the extent that this option involves adoption  of new regulations,
   there is liable to be political resistance to the program, and some
   of the regulations may be difficult to enforce.   This  will particularly
   be true if it cannot be demonstrated that the controls will have a
   significant impact on water  quality.  A continued stream monitoring
   program would be warranted to  check on the effectiveness of the  control
   program, and this would impose additional costs.  Without a determin-
   ation as to the actual sources of wet-weather pollution  loadings (i.e.,
   whether they are related to  surface activities or caused by sewerage
   interconnections), it cannot be said that better surface maintenance  is
   necessarily the most cost-effective .solution to  Brockton's urban runoff
   problems.

B.  Require an Urban Runoff Control Program  Through the NPDES Permit  System

                 Two alternatives are  discussed for means by which  an urban
runoff control program could be made a mandatory part of  overall  water
pollution control efforts as a  part of the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES).  A  formal  requirement for a stormwater  control
program appears warranted, on the basis of the sampling results  obtained
through the OCPC 208 program.  The formal procedure imposes requirements
on both the issuer of the permits and  on the permittee.  The issuer has
the responsibility of assessing the effectiveness of the  stormwater control
program and justifying requirements by relating them to water quality
impacts.  The permittee is obligated to reduce stormwater pollution insofar
as it is possible, and has the  opportunity to formulate a control program
and demonstrate good faith efforts to identify and  abate  pollution.

   Without a formal stormwater control program, it  will be  difficult  to
justify controls upon other nonpoint sources, such  as landfills  and agricul-
tural operations.  It may be easier to identify pollution from,  and specify
control measures for, those sources, but if  stormwater  is contributing far
more of the total load, control programs for other  sources  may not  be
sufficient to achieve water quality goals.
                               6-6

-------
1.   Issue a General Permit to Brockton for Stormwater Runoff Under
    the NPDES Permit System

   Description:  Under Section 402 of the Federal  Water Pollution
Control Act, permits have been issued to point source dischargers,
specifying limits on effluent quality and schedules  for upgrading  to
meet water quality standards.  In accordance with  recent court decisions,
EPA has proposed to extend the permit program (known as the "National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System" or NPDES for short) to urban
storm sewer systems.  EPA proposes to issue general  permits.  The
permits will apply to publicly and privately-owned storm sewer drains
within a geographical area (which may conform with 208 Area boundaries).
Individual permits could be issued for significant pollution sources or
where there is evidence of noncompliance with approved 208 plans.   The
rationale for the proposed approach (which is being applied to some
agricultural activities as well) was explained by  EPA in the Federal
Register, February 4, 1977  (A BMP is a "best management practice"):

      ...EPA is not prepared to impose uniformly applicable BMP
      requirements on all communities with stormwater pollution
      problems.  Instead, BMP's must be tailored to the specific
      area which they serve, taking into consideration local
      variations in geography, geology, meteorology,  rainfall,
      (and) topography...

      ...Given the variable nature of pollutant discharges from
      separate storm sewers ... and the inability  to impose
      nationally applicable substantive requirements at this time,
      most first generation general permits will authorize current
      discharges.  However, a failure to develop and implement ad-
      equate 208 plans may compel more substantive restrictions in
      second generation general permits or in individual permits,
      which could include conventional effluent limitations, man-
      agement practices, or other appropriate requirements.

   Under this alternative, it would be expected that the Massachusetts
Division of Water Pollution Control would issue a  corresponding state
permit under the Clean Waters Act.

   It would be possible to incorporate one of the  best management  practices
alternatives listed above within the terms and conditions of the permit.
Also, it would be possible to use the permit initially as a data-gathering
tool, by requiring the submission of information on frequency of street
sweeping, volume of material collected, etc.

   Evaluation:  If the permit system is to be an effective tool for
abating stormwater pollution, both EPA and the DWPC will have to assign
personnel with expertise in stormwater pollution analysis to overseeing
such permits.  While lack of national standards allows flexibility to
meet local conditions, it also requires the ability and willingness of
local water pollution control agencies to set significant conditions
on their own initiative.  The continued existence  of a technical capability
                            6-7

-------
within OCPC would be important to the operation of a permit system,
since the intent of EPA is that the storm sewer permits be closely tied
to the 208 plan.  An obstacle to the effective use of a permit system
is the lack of financial  incentives, in that storm sewers  are not now
eligible for Section 201  construction grants.   A commitment would have
to be made for continued monitoring, which is  expensive for stormwater
analysis.  See Chapter 5 for further discussion of the NPDES permit
system, since some comments offered there on the present administration
of the NPDES program would be applicable to this new extension of that
program.

2.  Make Stormwater Control a Condition of the Brockton Sewage
    Treatment Plant / NPDES Permit

   Description:  Under this option, urban runoff from Brockton would
be viewed as a component of Brockton's total pollution loading to the
Salisbury Plain River, along with the treatment plant effluent.  The
NPDES permit for the Brockton plant would therefore be rewritten as a
joint permit for Brockton's stormwater and wastewater discharges.  The
compliance schedule for stormwater control would specify a series of
actions to identify and reduce stormwater runoff, including data gathering
and reporting, changes in municipal ordinances  such as those mentioned
above and corrective measures where needed.

   Evaluation:  This alternative would tie stormwater control more
closely to an existing program.  It would provide a stronger, more
enforceable set of controls than under the first alternative, since 201
grant assistance for wastewater treatment would be linked  to observance
of a stormwater control schedule.  A joint permit system would encourage
an integrated approach to setting allowable loads based on stream cap-
acity.  For example, if Brockton's allocated load were fixed, then the
city and the DWPC could consider which mix of stormwater controls and
levels of treatment plant operation would be most cost-effective in
meeting that load allocation.  DWPC plans to have the capability to in-
corporate wet-weather loadings into its dry-weather river  basin models,
so as to determine the total allowable load, by the end of 1977.

   An objection which would probably be raised to this alternative is
that it would disrupt the present administrative arrangements for issu-
ance of municipal permits and make the process more complicated.  Also,
it would require coordination between those heretofore responsible for
overseeing conventional treatment plant permits and those  with expertise
in stormwater control.  A response to this would be that such coordination
will be necessary in any case if permit conditions are to  be based on
actual loadings from all sources.

   Under this approach, Brockton is made responsible for regulating both
private and public stormwater discharges in the city.  A permit of this
sort could not cover upstream sources outside the city limits and there-
fore beyond Brockton's control, which would have to be controlled under
separate permits for those areas.
                            6-8

-------
II.   Control Urban Runoff in Other Urbanized Areas

                  Stormwater control  programs would be applied to other dev-
eloped areas besides the City of Brockton.   Since no special  wet-weather
sampling program has been applied to  these  areas under the 208 program (due
to the priority given to assessing runoff levels in Brockton), a control
program would consist initially of sampling to assess the needs for controls
and collection of information on the  extent of drainage systems and present
maintenance practices.   (The experience of  the 208  program in Brockton in-
dicates that keeping an up-to-date municipal drainage map is  of primary im-
portance.)   Where problems were identified, control measures  would be developed,
as for Brockton.  Connections of waste discharges to storm drains are alleged
to be a problem in Whitman and may exist in other downtown areas, so that as
with Brockton, a survey would be required to isolate those problems which
are due to permanent dry-weather flows from those actually related to storm-
water runoff.  As is the case for Brockton, the investigation and control of
runoff in other urban areas will involve additional costs.   Lacking data on
the present extent of runoff pollution, it  is not possible to estimate the
environmental improvement that would  result from a  control  program.  Priority
for investigation might best be given to places where urban runoff could
potentially be significant to particular water bodies, such as Island Grove
Pond in Abington, Hobart Pond in Whitman, and Forge Pond in East Bridgewater,
all  of which are close to developed areas.

   Two alternatives are presented here for  implementing such  a program.

   A.  Apply the NP'DES General Permit System to All "Urbanized" Areas

       Description:  The applicability of the NPDES point-source permit
   program to storm sewers was described above in the section on Brockton.
   Under the terms of the EPA regulations,  all separate storm sewers are to
   be covered by the general permit system  (unless  they are otherwise covered
   by individual permits).  The term  "separate storm sewer" is defined by
   EPA as:

            ...a conveyance or system of conveyances (including but
            not limited to pipes, conduits, ditches, and channels)
            located in an urbanized area and primarily operated for
            the purpose of collecting and conveying storm-water runoff.
            (40 CFR 125.52)

       The term "urbanized area" has  a specific official meaning:  it refers
   to those areas so designated by the Bureau of Census.  Figure 6-1 shows
   the portions of the OCPC 208 Area  which  are presently so designated.   In-
   cluded are the entire city of Brockton,  southeastern Avon, northeast Easton,
   most of Whitman, the eastern and southern parts  of Abington, East Bridgewater
   Center, a portion of West Bridgewater adjacent to the Brockton line,  and
   a small  area in Hanson along the Indian  Head River.   No areas in Bridgewater
   or Pembroke are designated as "urbanized areas".

      Outside of these areas, the storm sewer permit program would only apply
   if the EPA Regional  Administrator  designated a particular storm sewer system
   as a "significant contributor of pollution" to navigable waters.
                                 6-9

-------
    City of Brockton

    Urbanized Area Outside
    the City of Brockton
 [~1 Not an Urbanized Area
Fig.6-1: Bureau of the Census" Urbanized
        Areas" in the Old Colony 208 Area
Scale in Miles
                                                   WV*«IW II  IIIV^O
       The Old Colony Planning Council/208 Program, 1977

-------
      General permit conditions are to be the same for all  storm sewers  with-
   in a particular geographical area.   EPA is to designate  these geographical
   areas (called "General  Permit Program Areas", or GPPA's  for short).   Given
   the different level of problem and  the amount of sampling data available
   for Brockton as opposed to the other areas, it would be  best to establish
   one GPPA for Brockton and another for all  other urbanized areas in the 208
   Region.

      The general permit program would be used to require the control program
   outlined above (including data collection  as an initial  step).  Additionally,
   the general permit system would be  a means for requiring the adoption of
   preventive measures, such as those  described below (see  part III).

      Evaluation:  The general permit  system  would be a way to implement in-
   vestigation of stormwater runoff outside of Brockton.   The permit program
   would be difficult to implement without the existence of an on-going  208
   agency able to carry out the investigations and assign priorities. Also,
   the expense of such work, based on  the funds expended under the 208 program
   for stormwater runoff studies in Brockton, could be in the tens of thousands
   of dollars.  Investigation and elimination of wastewater tie-ins to storm
   drains might be fundable under a local 201 program, but  otherwise, obtaining
   funds would be a problem.  The use  of the  Bureau of Census definition for
   urbanized areas has drawbacks for the establishment of stormwater control
   regulations.  For example, Bridgewater center is more heavily developed
   than some of the designated urbanized areas, and yet none of Bridgewater
   is so designated.

   B.  Investigate Stormwater Runoff Through  a Continued 208 Program

       Description:  OCPC would continue to play a role in  the investigation
   of nonpoint sources, including stormwater  runoff.  Provision would be made
   for stormwater sampling in urbanized areas outside of Brockton to determine
   if stormwater runoff were a problem.

       Evaluation:  This approach would leave open the priority to be given to
   this topic on a region-wide basis within an on-going 208 program.lt would
   allow for investigations or case studies of a selected number of areas, rather
   than uniform data collection as might be legally required under a general
   permit.  Where a problem were found to exist, recommendations could be made
   to EPA on the imposition of individual or  general permits.  The cost  would
   be less than that to implement a full-scale general permit program, since
   administrative costs for reporting  information would be  reduced, and  costs  .
   of sampling and fieldwork could be  limited by the selection of areas  for
   investigation.  However, sources of funding would still  have to be found for
   whatever work was to be done.

III.   Adopt Preventive Measures for Future Development

    Description:  Each town would institute a series of controls to minimize
adverse water quality impacts from construction and land development. (Waste-
water disposal is discussed in Chapter 4.) A control  program would consist
                                  6-11

-------
of measures related to the following topics:

   •Sediment and erosion control  -- during the construction  period when land
surfaces are exposed, steps would be required to prevent erosion and subsequent
sedimentation.   They would include limits on  the land surface to be exposed
at any one time, requirements for mulches or  plant covers on exposed areas,
diversion of drainage from exposed areas, and prompt revegetation upon  project
completion.

   •Drainage controls — Drainage needs to be engineered in  such a way  as to
prevent flooding on the site while not causing flooding problems downstream —
i.e., a system which rapidly removes water from a project area may solve
problems there while creating new ones by increasing runoff  rates and volumes
downstream.  Also,   fast-moving water can carry greater sediment loads (and
the pollutants which are attached to soil particles), so "efficient" drainage
can increase pollutant loadings.   Proposed drainage systems  should therefore
be reviewed with environmental considerations in mind.   The  objective should
be to have runoff patterns after construction resemble as closely as possible
those existing beforehand.  Devices to slow direct runoff to streams (such
as detention basins or temporary ponding areas) and use of natural systems as
much as possible (such as providing dry wells for rooftop and gutter drainage
in preference to connections with storm drains) would be considered.  The
drainage "system" would be considered in the  widest sense as involving  the design
measures which can minimize the rate or volume of runoff as  well as the channels
or pipes provided for the carrying and discharge of stormwater.

   -Surface maintenance -- To reduce the pollutant loadings  carried in  storm-
water, regular cleaning of paved areas and catch basins would be required.

   •Wetlands and floodplain protection -- As  mentioned earlier, these natural
areas are important for water storage, and their development leads to changes
in stream flow.  Measures to offset the loss  of wetland storage capacity through
manmade storage structures are expensive and  often ineffective.   Measures to
protect wetlands and floodplains are discussed separately in Chapter 9.

    A control program would therefore include a requirement that development
proposals be reviewed for the adequacy of sediment and erosion controls and
drainage provisions, and that surface maintenance be required after a develop-
ment is completed.  Regulations would need to apply both to  residential sub-
divisions and to developments which occur without subdivision of land (such
as commercial and industrial projects and apartments).

    Of the ten Old Colony 208 Area communities, only two (Abington and Pembroke)
presently require sediment control plans in subdivision proposals.  Four towns
(Abington, Avon, Easton and Pembroke) require that drainage computations be made.
No communities now require such measures of non-subdivision  developments.

    Construction of state highways or other state facilities would generally
be outside the jurisdiction of communities to regulate.  The review process under
the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act would be the most appropriate manner
in which to impose such requirements.  The extension of Route 495 into
Bridgewater would be a case where such review is warranted.
                                   6-12

-------
    Evaluation:  For the OCPC 203 Area, one cannot overemphasize the im-
portance and environmental significance of establishing controls on future
development.  The 208 Area is due to undergo substantial development in the
next twenty years, as suburbanization and urbanization occur throughout the
region to one degree or another.  OCPC's population projections (see the
Introduction) are that, between 1975 and 1995, the 208 Area's population will
grow by over 50,000.  The increase in the total regional population will be
27.8%.  Six of the communities (Bridgewater, East Bridgewater, Easton, Hanson
Pembroke, and West Bridgewater) are projected to undergo population increases
of 40% or greater, with Bridgewater the highest at 59.6%.  Over 7000 acres
(more than 11 square miles) are expected to be developed for residential
purposes alone.  Unless water quality protection is established as an active
purpose of development controls in each community, pollution from sedimentation
and urban runoff is highly probable, both during the period of construction arid
for all the years thereafter.  While it is true that all of the proposals
would increase the workload of administrative authorities and require a degree
of expertise on the part of those reviewing plan proposals, there would be
substantial public benefits from lessened adverse environmental impacts and
less need to rectify, often at public expense.errors made in drainage system
installation.

    Each of the approaches discussed below has its limitations.  Because of
the limited coverage of each approach, a combination may be wisest:  for
example, a municipal by-law requiring sediment and erosion controls, drainage
system review, and surface maintenance, supplemented by provisions on the same
subjects within the subdivision regulations.  An impact statement requirement
may be particularly desirable for large projects in which issues of significant
impacts are likely to be raised in any case.  The effectiveness of administration
for any of these approaches will  depend on the expertise of enforcing authorities.
It would be desirable to have professional  engineering assistance available,
and beneficial  to arrange with the Conservation District and SCS for their help
as warranted.

    Listed below are alternative municipal  actions to control  problems associated
with construction and development.

   A.   Impose Controls  Under Subdivision Regulations

       Description:   Subdivision controls would be amended to improve the
   environmental  soundness of new developments.   Table 6-1, "Subdivision
   Regulation Practices", identifies present controls.   (The table is reproduced
   from an OCPC report, Land Use Policy and Implementation: Subdivision Control
   (1976).   That report discusses fully the measures listed in the table and
   the reasons for including them in subdivision regulations.)  The Planning
   Board would, under enabling law,  remain  the approving authority, but provisions
   would be made for review of all  development proposals by the Conservation
   Commission and the Highway Department.

       In order for such regulations to be  effective,  the Planning Board would
   need to have technical  expertise  available  to review the subdivision plans.
   Bridgewater, Easton  and Brockton  have municipal  engineers;  other towns use
   consulting engineers.   For review of sediment and erosion control  plans,  towns
                                 6-13

-------
could seek assistance from the Soil  Conservation Service through referral
by the Conservation District.

    Evaluation:  Additional informational  and review requirements would
impose costs upon the developer and the community (which might raise review
fees to cover its own costs).   However, these costs would be offset by the
benefits of preventing sedimentation during construction and later problems
with inadequate or improper drainage.  At present rates of development, SCS
would probably be able to offer assistance for review of subdivision pro-
posals, but it might at a future time have to seek additional  funding from
the federal government or from local authorities through a fee system to
cover manpower costs.

    Subdivision regulations could not be used to require future surface
maintenance, since the final acceptance of the completed subdivision would
end the developer's responsibility.   However, since the streets of an
accepted subdivision are generally maintained by the local highway department
anyway, this would not be much of a drawback.  Subdivision regulations do
not apply to land development which occurs on a single parcel   or on
frontage of an established street,so that subdivision control  in itself would
be insufficient to control all significant developments.

B.  Impose Controls Within the Zoning By-law

    Description:  Regulations would be included in the zoning by-law to
require sediment control and drainage plans on the part of all developments
and to require maintenance of parcel surfaces in privately-owned areas. The
building inspector would be the agent responsible for enforcement, with
the Board of Appeals having regulatory authority.

    Evaluation:  Under this option, all developments, including those which
did not involve land subdivision, would be covered.  A training program
for building inspectors would probably be necessary before they could carry
out this new responsibility adequately; the workload of the inspectors would
increase substantially, if every new development involved the filing of a
sediment and erosion control plan.  A possible confusion in authority could
arise between the Planning Board and the Board of Appeals, in cases where
the Planning Board wished to impose its own requirements under the subdivision
control regulations.

    Imposition of maintenance controls under the zoning by-law would face
the problem of covering existing developments.  Controls can in fact be
placed on existing structures, but there is a strong inclination to view such
developments as "non-conforming uses" which should be exempted when a new
regulation is adopted.  This attitude would be a drawback to using the zoning
ordinance for such a regulation.

C.  Impose Controls Through a New Municipal By-Law

    Description:  Controls on sediment and erosion, drainage, and surface
maintenance would be adopted under the general municipal by-law provisions
                              6-14

-------
                      TABLE 6-1
Subdivision  Regulation  Practices
 Practice included
 in the regulations
  Definitive Plan
Hj

1















•


1 Proposed topography
1 Soil conditions
1 Identification of outstanding
• natural features
1 Locus map with zoning
1 Drainage computation?
9 Multi- departmental* review
••
3 Performance Guarantee
1
4 Maintenance costs. term
•M Contingency factor
•
• Planning Board alteration of
• performance guarantee
I Formal procedure for construct -
• ion cost estimate
1 Formalized inspections by the
1 responsible agencies
As -built plan
Planning Board determination
of which natural features
might be preserved
Underground utilities

Bicycle paths


e

Tree preservation regulation
f a


Minimum guidelines lor public Innd
QlTO

o • »•
rTOieciive covenant

2 years
10%
•
•
•
•

•
•






•


•

A\ I«.I1| 5 .



2 years
10%
•
•
•



•









•

* lcas


•




















•






















•


















•
•
•
•

•


















•
10%
•


















•
•
•
•
•
reductiun
only
•
•


•

•












•




















•




















     Source:  OCPC, Land Use^ Policy and^ Ir.iplGmentation: Subdivision Control (197G)

                        6-15

-------
of Chapter 40 of the General  Laws.   Enforcement authority could be granted
to any town board, such as the Planning Board, the Conservation Commission,
Board of Selectmen, or the Board of Appeals.

    An option under this approach would be to sign an agreement with  the
county Conservation District, providing for a review by the District  sup-
ervisors and the Soil  Conservation Service (SCS)  of sediment control  programs.

    Evaluation:  This  approach allows more flexibility in administration
then the zoning by-law route.  The Conservation Commission would in some
cases be the logical permitting authority, based  on its previous experience
with water quality impacts of development.  Alternatively, the Planning
Board might be the most logical choice, because of its general  oversight
of new development.  Under Chapter 40, municipal  by-laws cannot forbid soil
disturbance carried out as part of an approved subdivision plan.  This means
that separate subdivision regulations would be necessary to prevent a loophole
in the town by-law; also, that the assignment of by-law authority to  the
Planning Board would have the advantage of placing all sediment control
responsibility in one  place.

    Enforcement of surface maintenance regulations would be administratively
difficult.  The proper person to oversee this would probably be the municipal
highway superintendent or director of public works.

D.  Require Local Environmental Impact Statements on New Developments

    Description:  Subdivision plans and site plans would be required  to  include a
statement of expected  impacts on the environment (including pollution of
water, land erosion or increased consumption of water.)  Easton added such
a requirement to its zoning by-law in 1974, but has not recently enforced  it.

    Evaluation:  This  approach encourages a broader view of the impacts  of
development than do specific  requirements on sedimentation, drainage, etc.
However, the expertise may be lacking for adequate use of this  provision:
who will judge the developer's assessment of the impacts?  Will the developer
himself have the expertise to make such an assessment?  This approach is an
open-ended one, in that it is difficult to specify the level of detail which
such an impact statement should entail;  the administering authority  would
have to draft regulations explaining the requirements in more detail, to
lessen the delays and  revisions to filed statements which would otherwise
be necessary.  If the  requirement is purely an informational one, it  may be
less effective than the approaches previously described, in which requirements
are imposed so that environmental impacts, if any, will be minimized.
                               6-16

-------
 CHAPTER 7



Agriculture

-------
                           Table of Contents

                                                                 page

Background                                                       7-1

   -Agricultural  Types and Acreage in the OCPC 208 Area

   -Extent of Water Quality Problems

   -Management System Functions Considered in the Alternatives
I.   Continue Existing Arrangements for the Control               7-6
    of Agricultural Pollution
II.   Establish a.Formal  System of Coordination                   7-11
     Among Existing Agencies
III.   Establish a Regional  Agricultural  Non-Point Source         7-18
      Management Agency

-------
     Agriculture  presently accounts  for about 9300 acres in the OCPC 208
 area,  or about 8.4%  of  the  total  land area.  Principal types of agriculture
 are cranberrying,  livestock (especially dairy cattle), and fruit and
 vegetable farms.   Most  of the area's cranberry bogs are located in the towns
 of Hanson and Pembroke;  bogs are  also located in Bridgewater, East Bridgewater,
 and Easton.  Dairies  and vegetable  farms are most extensive in Bridgewater,
 East Bridgewater,  and West  Bridgewater, but every OCPC 208 Area community
 has at least some  agricultural land.  Table 7-1 summarizes data on
 agricultural land  use.

     Section 208  (b)  (2)  (f) of the  1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act
 Amendments directs that  208 plans include:

     ...  a process  to  (i)  identify, if appropriate, agriculturally and
     silviculturally  related nonpoint sources of pollution, including
     runoff from manure disposal areas, and from land used for livestock
     and  crop production, and (ii) set forth procedures and methods (including
     land  use requirements)  to control to the extent feasible such sources . . .

     The  potential  pollution problems associated with agriculture depend on
 the type  of agriculture  practiced and the materials used:

     •  Cranberries-Pollutants potentially associated with cranberry operations
 include  pesticides and fertilizers applied to bogs, and organic debris
 remaining after harvesting.

     •  Livestock Operations-Pollution problems potentially associated with
 such operations involve  the storage and use of animal  wastes, and the direct
 contact of animals with waterways.

     •  Fruits and Vegetables-Fruit and vegetable operations in the Old Colony
 208 area  include the growing of sweet corn and other garden vegetables, the
 cultivation of blueberries and strawberries,  and the raising of-'field corn
 for animal feed.   Potential  pollution problems from such operations include
 pesticide runoff, erosion and sedimentation,  and fertilizer nutrient runoff.

    Sampling programs conducted during the OCPC 208 study are discussed in
 Chapter 1, Documentation, and results from problem sites are presented in
 the Appendix.   Evidence of agricultural  pollution  has  been found at several
 locations.  The most troublesome source type  is dairy  farming.   Table 7-2
 presents, town by town, a summary of documented agricultural  pollution problems,
with reference to site numbers given in the Appendix.   In some cases, ag-
 riculture is not  the only suspected  source.  Also  shown  in Table 7-2 for each
 town are the source types which warrant a  program  to prevent problems from
arising in the future.  Prevention of future  problems  will  be significant
 to a community relative to the type  and amount of  agricultural  land in the
town.

    The water bodies  appearing to be the most significantly affected by
agricultural  pollution are the Taunton River  and Lake  Nippenicket  in
                                 7-1

-------
                                    TABLE  7-1

                  AGRICULTURAL  LAND USE  IN  THE  OCPC  208  AREA
                   Total  Acreage    Agricultural    Agricultural  Land
                                     Acreage       as  %  of  Community
Community




ABINGTON

AVON

BRIDGEWATER

BROCKTON

EAST BRIDGEWATER

EASTON

HANSON

PEMBROKE

WEST BRIDGEWATER

WHITMAN

  TOTAL 208 AREA


a - Excludes 501 acres of agricultural land in public ownership

b - Includes only agriculturally assessed land

c - Includes cranberry bogs only
   % of Total
  Agricultural
Land in 208 Area
6,381
2,790

17,466
13,872
11,105

18,842
9,978

15,040
10,031
4,467
109,972
157
16
a
2,312
136
1,579
b
512°
1,733
r
483
2,047
293
9,268
2.5%
0.6%
a
13.2%
1.0%
14.2%
b
2.7%
17.4%
r
3.2%C
20.4%
6.6%
8.4%
1.7%
0.2%
a
24.9%
1.5%
17.0%
b
5.5%
13.7%
r
5.2%
22.1%
3.2%
100.0%
Source:  Land Use/Water Quality Issues in the Old Colony 208 Area.   OCPC,  1976.
                                      7-2

-------
                TABLE 7-2:  DOCUMENTED AGRICULTURAL POLLUTION PROBLEMS AND RECOMMENDED PREVENTIVE PROGRAMS
                          DOCUMENTED PROBLEMS
                         (Site numbers refer to Appendix)
COMMUNITY
PREVENTIVE PROGRAMS RECOMMENDED FOR:
-vl
I
CO
     AVON

     ABINGTON


     BRIDGEWATER
BROCKTON

EAST BRIDGEWATER


EASTON


HANSON

PEMBROKE



WEST BRIDGEWATER
                      Dairy Processing (see Chapter 5,
                       Industrial Uastewater Disposal)

                      Dairy Farming:
                       Taunton River and tributaries (BRI-4, TR-03, TR-06)
                       Lake Nippenicket (BRI-6, EEA-N-3)
                      Dairy Processing (see Chapter 5,
                        Industrial Wastewater Disposal)
                           Dairy Farming:
                            Black Brook (EB-6,  EB-06)

                           Dairy Farming:
                            Poquanticut Brook and New  Pond  (EEA-N-1)
                            Cranberrying:
                             Stetson  Pond  (neighborhood  complaints
                                of organic debris)

                            Dairy Farming  and/or Field Corn:
                             Town River (TW-02)
       Livestock Operations
          (Dairy Farming)
       Livestock Operations
          (Dairy Farming)
            Cranberrying

            Cranberrying
       Livestock Operations
          (Dairy Farming)
       Fruits  and Vegetables
     NOTE:   In some cases,  agriculture is  not  the only suspected  source.

-------
Bridgewater and the Town River in West Bridgewater.   These are instances
where abatement of agricultural  pollution should receive priority.   In
addition, discharges from dairy  processing firms are pollution sources in
Abington and Bridgewater.  These are more properly categorized as  industrial
wastewater disposal problems and so are discussed in Chapter 5.

    This chapter discusses a number of control  measures  to curb  existing
agricultural pollution and to prevent any future problems.  Some of these
measures are applicable to agriculture  in general;  others are,  for legal
or technical reasons, applicable to a separate  source type, whether
cranberries, livestock operations, or fruits and vegetables.  Based on the
present location of these agricultural activities, control measures specific
to each of them will be of more  interest to some communities than  to others.
Control programs for these three source types are most applicable  to the
following communities:

     • Cranberries - Hanson and Pembroke.

     • Livestock Operations - Bridgewater, East  Bridgewater and West Bridgewater.

     • Fruit and Vegetables - West Bridgewater.

    For each of these three agricultural types, the suggested control  programs
are designed to define and assure compliance with "Best Management Practices"
("BMP's", for short).  The Environmental Protection Agency defines  that term
as follows (EPA, Guidelines for  State and Areawide Water Quality Management
Program Development, Chapter 7,  pp. 2-5)7

    "The term "Best Management Practice" refers to a practice or combination
    of practices, that is determined by a State (or designated areawide
    planning agency) after problem assessment,  examination of alternative
    practices, and appropriate public participation to be the most effective,
    practicable (including technological, economic,  and institutional
    considerations) means of preventing or reducing the amount of  pollution
    generated by nonpoint sources to a level compatible with water quality
    goals".

    For cranberrying, Best Management Practices cover the amount,  timing,
and method of chemical application, and bog flooding and draining  procedures
(including cleanup of organic debris).  A tangential problem is  the impact  on
pond water levels when water is  withdrawn from ponds for use on  bogs or returned
to ponds after such use.  Sprinkler systems (now used on about 80% of
Massachusetts bogs) should be encouraged, since they allow a more  controlled
method of pesticide application  than use of airplanes, and also  reduce water
needs for irrigation and prevention of frost damage, thus lessening conflicts
with other water users.

    For livestock operations, BMP's need to address procedures for manure
storage and disposal, grazing practices, and means of minimizing direct runoff
to streams.
                                  7-4

-------
    For fruit and vegetable growing, BMP's need to cover the use of chemicals
for pest control and fertilization, and the prevention of erosion and
sedimentation.

    Three alternatives are presented below for control of agricultural
pollution.  The alternatives consist of "packages" of controls, with the
first alternative generally reflective of existing programs and the succeeding
alternatives representing in turn increasing levels of public activity.   The
items within each package are not necessarily mutually dependent, but they
are presented as a package to indicate the types of measures which would
follow from a commitment to a particular objective.  Each of the packages
represents a "management system"--!'.e., an arrangement of agencies with
powers to carry out the various tasks that are involved in pollution control,
including establishment of standards, provision of technical and financial
assistance, monitoring, and enforcement.  The management system may be
centralized in one agency or be distributed among agencies.  The more central-
ized systems could have higher administrative costs and would take more
effort to implement, but could be more effective.  It might be possible  to
select, in the short run, an alternative which required few changes and  move,
ultimately, towards an alternative distinctly different from present
arrangements.

    Under any alternative, there could be advantages to formalizing agency
roles in relation to pollution control.  For example, the experiment stations
and extension services are now financed partially from state funds appropriated
through the University of Massachusetts budget.  If the funds used to pay for
those functions related to pollution control (such as sampling, research,
and some forms of technical assistance) were so identified, it might be
possible to use those expenditures as the state matching share for federal
grants and increase the total funds available for pollution control manage-
ment in Massachusetts.

    The following functions will be considered in describing and evaluating
the management system alternatives:

    • Definition and updating of Best Management Practices

    • General educational  programs

    • Site-specific technical assistance

    • Financial assistance

    • Controls on pesticide use

    ' Monitoring

    • Investigation of complaints

    • Encouragement of voluntary compliance with BMP's

    • Enforcement of mandatory controls
                                     7-5

-------
I.  Continue Existing Arrangements for the Control  of Agricultural  Pollution

    Description:   Presently, a number of agencies  are responsible  for
providing technical  and financial  assistance or enforcing  pollution controls.
Among the agencies with current roles are:  the U.S.  Department of Agriculture,
through the Soil  Conservation Service (SCS) and the Agricultural Stabilization
and Conservation  Service (ASCS); the agricultural  experiment stations of the
University of Massachusetts; the Cooperative Extension Service  of  the
University of Massachusetts and the U.S. Department of Agriculture; the
county Conservation Districts; the Environmental  Protection Agency; the
Division of Water Pollution Control; and the State Pesticide Control  Board.
In some instances, there are formal arrangements between agencies  (as between
SCS and the Conservation Districts); in other cases,- cooperation is informal
and ad hoc.

    Management system functions are presently performed as follows:

  •Definition and Updating of Best Management Practices—No agency is formally
responsible for establishing the scope and content of BMP  standards for any
agricultural activity.  In practice, a number of agencies  do suggest practices
which are widely followed on a voluntary basis.  For cranberrying, the
Cranberry Experiment Station in East Wareham is looked to  for guidance.  The
Station is funded by the University of Massachusetts to carry out  research
on cranberry growing and provide technical assistance to growers.   Since it
came into existence in the early 1960's, the Station has been investigating
the costs and environmental impacts of various methods for controlling pests
and increasing cranberry yields.  It distributes charts on pesticide and
fertilizer use to growers.  The Station has laboratory facilities  and full-time
chemists.  For livestock operations, investigation of manure storage and
spreading methods has been conducted through the UMass Department  of
Agricultural Engineering.  In practice, the Cooperative Extension  Service
county livestock specialists assist farmers in determining BMP's on a case-
by-case basis.  Also, the Soil Conservation Service (SCS)  provides specifications
for manure handling facilities when it is called upon for assistance.  For
fruit  and vegetable growing, the Waltham Experiment Station is comparable
to the Cranberry Experiment Station for cranberrying.  SCS provides specifications
to farmers on measures to control  erosion and sedimentation on a case-by-case
basis.

  •General Education Programs—The Cranberry Experiment Station, as mentioned,
issues publications and conducts workshops for the benefit of growers.  The
Cooperative Extension Service provides similar information for other fanners,
as does the Waltham Experiment Station, as well as education through 4-H.

  •Site-Specific Technical Assistance—The Cranberry Experiment Station will,
when requested, provide assistance and advice to an individual  grower.  The
Cooperative Extension Service field specialists in livestock and vegetables
will do the same for their categories.  Farmers may, at their own  initiative,
seek the assistance of SCS in the preparation of a "conservation plan" for
their property.  The county Conservation  District is responsible for authorizing
SCS assistance.  Conservation plans can include provisions for crop rotation,
                                  7-6

-------
manure storage and application, erosion and sedimentation controls, and
irrigation systems (including cranberry bog sprinkler systems).

  •Financial Assistance—Two principal sources  of aid exist.  First, under
the Agricultural Conservation Program, the Agricultural Conservation and
Stabilization Service (ASCS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture may make
grants to farmers for up to 50% of the cost of measures needed to carry out
a conservation plan, up to a limit of $2,500 per farming operation.  Second,
the Small Business Administration (SBA) may make long-term loans to business
enterprises for the cost of pollution control measures.  The interest rate
for such loans corresponds to the rate for federal borrowing, and is currently
just over 6 percent.  To be eligible, the project must be certified by EPA
as a pollution control measure.  Under recent EPA-SBA agreements, agriculturalists
are eligible for these loans.  The loans could offset the cost portion of
control measures not covered by ASCS grants.

  • Controls on Pesticide Use—The Pesticide Control Board, presently located
in the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering, oversees use of
pesticides.  To place Massachusetts in compliance with the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), as amended (P.L. 92-516), the
Pesticide Control Board has been conducting courses and examinations for
commercial applicators (who must be certified by October, 1977 to be eligible
to use "restricted-use" pesticides, as defined by EPA).  "Pesticide", as
defined under FIFRA, includes insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides.
To be certified, applicators must demonstrate general  knowledge of proper
pesticide use and specific competency for the type of operation in which they
are involved.

  • Monitoring—The Cranberry Experiment Station has performed some stream
sampling in its investigation of the potential  for pollution from cranberrying
and does undertake investigations upon request.  OCPC has conducted sampling
for agricultural sources under the 208 program.  The Division of Water
Pollution Control has legal responsibility for both point and nonpoint sources
of pollution and can investigate at its choosing specific agricultural  problems.
The Ocean Spray Cranberry Company, a grower's cooperative, samples random
batches of berries brought to it for processing to detect any pesticide residues
and keep contaminated berries from being used.

  • Investigation of Complaints—It is unclear to whom complaints of agricultural
pollution are to be directed.   Complaints can be made to the Cranberry Experiment
Station or the Division of Water Pollution Control.  There is no formal means,
however, by which an individual  or official  body can bring forth a complaint
and have it aired before all  agencies which might have a role in its resolution
short of legal  enforcement action.

  •Encouragement of voluntary compliance with BMP's—Nearly all  of the agencies
mentioned to this point act in one way or another to encourage voluntary compliance.
Also, farmers'  groups, such as the Cranberry Growers Association,  the Farm
Bureau, and the Grange are interested in protecting the overall  reputation of
agriculture from actions of individuals.   As just mentioned,  however, there is
no organized way presently to bring the power of "peer group pressure"  to bear.
                                 7-7

-------
  •Enforcement of Mandatory Controls—Federal  and state regulations  on
pesticide use are mandatory controls which are,  as mentioned  above,
enforced by the Massachusetts Pesticide Control  Board.   The Division of
Water Pollution Control has general  authority  over all  pollution  sources.
No specific requirements, like those imposed on  municipal  and industrial
wastewater dischargers, have yet been placed on  any agricultural  operations
with the exception of those "concentrated animal  feeding operations"
(feedlots) which are considered to be point sources under the 1972  Federal
Water Pollution Control Act Amendments (P.L. 92-500).   Those  agricultural
point sources are subject, like other point sources, to the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program (the  NPDES
program is explained in Chapter 5, Industrial  Hastewater Disposal).  The
regulations issued by EPA on the applicability of the NPDES program to
feedlots are summarized in Table 7-3.  To date,  no feedlot in the OCPC  208
Area has been issued an NPDES permit.  EPA has recently proposed  a  general -
permit program which would apply to cranberries.   Since this  program is not
yet in existence, it is not discussed here but is instead discussed under
Alternative II.

    Evaluation:  Given the number of agencies  with long-standing  experience
in this field, retention of the present system has advantages, in that  it
would involve no administrative changes and would rely on rapport between
the agencies and agriculturalists for voluntary compliance.  However, the
existence of pollution problems (see Chapter 1,  Documentation) suggests that
the present system has not been entirely effective in controlling agricultural
pollution.  Also, forthcoming changes in federal  regulations  (particularly
as applies to cranberries) may make it desirable to formalize and define the
roles of existing agencies.

    The following is an evaluation of present  functions:

  •Definition and Updating of Best Management  Practices--BMP's are, in  effect,
being recommended to farmers by existing agencies, more formally  in the case
of cranberry growing and fruit and vegetable growing than for livestock
operations.  Recommended practices for cranberries, fruits, and vegetables
appear to conform to the EPA definition of Best Management Practices, except
that organic debris clean-up has not yet been  a subject of Cranberry Experiment
Station recommendations.  For livestock operations, BMP's appear  to be  more
subject to individual discretion and are, necessarily, more dependent on a
case-by-case evaluation.

  • General Education Programs—Existing programs appear sufficient  to
provide guidance to those farmers who are  interested in drawing  upon the
expertise of agricultural agency specialists.   Nearly all cranberry growers
receive instructional information regularly.  Other agricultural  categories
are less closely organized, but opportunities  exist through Extension Service
mailings and farm association newsletters to reach a substantial  percentage
of agriculturalists.

  • Site-Specific Technical Assistance—Existing agencies appear to  have
sufficient manpower and expertise to provide assistance upon request.
                                  7-8

-------
                               TABLE 7-3

  THE NPDES PERMIT PROGRAM AND "CONCENTRATED ANIMAL FEEDING OPERATIONS"



An "animal feeding operation" is a lot or facility in which:

     (1)  Animals are confined and fed for a total of at least 45 days in
          any twelve-month period,

                AND

     (2)  Crops, vegetation, forage growth, or post-harvest residues are not
          sustained in the normal growing season over any portion of the lot
          or facility.

Only "concentrated animal feeding operations" are subject to the NPDES permit
system.   An "animal feeding operation" is considered to be "concentrated" if
it meets one of the following conditions:

     (1)  More than 1000 animal  units* are confined and there is a discharge of
          a pollutant which reaches navigable waters,

                OR

     (2)  More than 300 animal  units* are confined and pollutants are dis-
          charged to navigable waters through man-made pipes or ditches or
          are discharged directly to waters coming into direct contact with
          the confined animals,

                OR

     (3)  Less than 300 animal  units* are confined and pollutants are dis-
          charged to navigable waters through man-made pipes or ditches or
          are discharged directly to waters coming into direct contact with
          the confined animals,  AND the EPA Regional  Administrator designates
          the facility as a concentrated animal  feeding operation based on
          factors relative to the significance of a pollution problem.

EXCEPTION:  An operation is not  subject to the permit requirement if a dis-
charge occurs only in the event  of a 25-year, 24-hour storm event.

*  The number of "animal  units"  is computed by adding:

     (Slaughter and feeder cattle) x 1.0
   + (Mature dairy cattle) x 1.4
   + (Swine over 55 pounds) x 0.4
   + (Sheep) x 0.1
   + (Horses) x 2.0

   Also, 30,000 laying hens or  broilers equal 1000 animal  units and 9,000
   hens  or broilers equal 300 units,  for facilities with liquid manure handling
   systems.

   SOURCE:  Summarized from 40  CFR 124.82, effective March 18, 1976.

                               7-9

-------
  •Financial Assistance--ASCS grants are presently being made for  such
purposes as the installation of sprinkler systems in cranberry bogs and
the construction of manure storage facilities.   The fact that measures
must be long-term in nature to be eligible for  ASCS grants  limits this
program's application to fruit and vegetable operations. The $2,500 limit
on an ASCS grant is an obstacle to the financing of manure  storage
facilities, which can cost in the tens of thousands of dollars.   The SBA
loan program has not yet been utilized by the area's farmers.  One reason
is a lack of publicity for the program; but even were that  to be overcome,
there would be other reasons for a lack of interest in the  program.  First,
although the SBA interest rate is below commercial rates, it is  still high
enough to be a problem for those unable to finance a loan through other
channels.  Second, EPA will still have to determine a procedure  for certifying
that certain measures are for the purpose of pollution control and thereby
eligible for a loan.  A simplified procedure will be necessary to encourage
participation.

  • Controls on pesticide use—The regulatory program of the State Pesticide
Control Board will cover all commercial applicators by October.   Federal aid
has helped to pay for the initial program of training and testing.  The
state will have to furnish sufficient funds to  the Board for any future  re-
testing of applicators for new substances.  The applicator  licensing program
provides a basis for enforcement against violators, but doesn't ensure  that
violators will be detected or that the Board will have sufficient manpower
to investigate complaints or to initiate its own investigations.

  - Monitoring—There is no permanently established program  of periodic  stream
sampling for agricultural sources (which would require fairly expensive  and
sophisticated analysis for a range of pesticides).  Sampling of crops by
cranberry companies does provide a strong existing incentive for following
directions on pesticide use: a grower whose crop is rejected for processing
because of pesticide residues loses his entire year's revenue.  The fact that
no pesticides are found on the product does not rule out the possibility of
pesticides being released to surface water during the course of the growing
season, but  it does increase the likelihood that growers would follow the
directions of the Experiment Station on pesticide use, out of self-interest.

  •Investigation of Complaints—The only agency clearly responsible for in-
vestigating  complaints is the Division of Water Pollution Control.  Oversight
of municipal and industrial point source dischargers is viewed by the Division
of Water Pollution Control as having priority in the allocation of its  resources.

  • Encouragement of Voluntary Compliance with BMP's—Overall, voluntary compliance
seems  to be  effective for cranberry and fruit-and-vegetable operations,  where
there  is a  large measure of self-interest in observing BMP's.  For cranberry
growers, minimizing use of chemicals minimizes costs, and growers are sensitive
to the adverse publicity that would result from any evidence of pesticide
misuse by cranberry growers.  Experiment Station personnel  believe that most
growers closely observe the instructions on pesticide and fertilizer use
mailed to them by the Station.   Fruit and vegetable growers are aware that
control of  erosion protects the  long-term productivity of their land.
Observation  of BMP's can in many cases be in the  interest of dairy farmers,
                                  7-10

-------
especially for those who are able to use manure effectively in place of
commercial fertilizers.  However, if more manure is produced than can be
absorbed by the land available, or if storage facilities are required to
prevent pollution, BMP's may impose costs upon farmers which they would not
incur voluntarily unless they were sensitive to the pressure exerted by the
airing of complaints.

  •Enforcement of Mandatory Controls--Despite the requirements of the
Massachusetts Clean Waters Act, which does apply to both point and nonpoint
sources, the Division of Water Pollution Control is in fact exercising a
very limited jurisdiction over nonpoint sources at the present time.  If
Alternative I is selected, then the implication will  be that the current
level of enforcement should be continued.  The sampling data collected under
the 208 program suggests that a stronger basis for enforcement action, whether
through formal adoption of BMP's or the creation of a permit system, is
warranted for some agricultural sources.


II.  Establish a Formal System of Coordination Among Existing Agencies

    Description:  Under this alternative, existing agencies would continue
to be relied on, but formal agreements or Memoranda of Understanding (MOU's)
would be signed to define roles, areas of responsibility, and procedures
for mutual assistance.  The purpose of these agreements would be to ensure
that gaps in authority are overcome and to define agencies with specific
legal responsibilities.  This alternative would also provide a means for
implementing proposed permit systems, as described below.

    To make a coordinated approach effective, it would be necessary to
designate one agency as a "lead agency" with overall  responsibility for
coordination.  This agency would be responsible for keeping records of
actions involving more than one agency, for reviewing the effectiveness
of interagency arrangements, and for reporting annually on the relevant
activities of the agencies it oversees.  If this alternative is selected
for the final plan, the county Conservation Districts would be recommended
to be the lead agencies for the towns in the respective counties:

    Norfolk County: Avon

    Bristol County: Easton

    Plymouth County: Abington, Bridgewater, Brockton, East Bridgewater,
Hanson, Pembroke, West Bridgewater and Whitman

    In the short run, OCPC would assist the Conservation Districts in
establishing this coordinated approach.  Once the interagency agreements
were established, OCPC would participate as one of the interested parties,
but the Conservation Districts would act as the lead  agencies without OCPC
staff assistance.  Priority would be given in the initial period to the
Plymouth County Conservation District, which includes 94% of the agricultural
land in the OCPC 208 Area.
                                 7-11

-------
    Following is a description of how the most important management
functions would be carried out under this alternative:

  •Definition and Updating of Best Management Practices—
For cranberries, the Cranberry Experiment Station in  East Wareham would
be delegated the responsiblity for this task.  It would  prepare a
statement of Best Management Practices and present it to the  Conservation
District for approval.  The Station would seek the active participation
of cranberry growers in defining BMP's.  The Conservation District would
circulate the statement of BMP's to Conservation Commissions, the
Division of Water Pollution Control, OCPC, SCS, ASCS, the Cooperative
Extension Service, and any other interested environmental  groups or agencies
for their comments before acting to approve or modify the statement of
BMP's.  The Station would inform the Conservation District annually of any
recommendations for change.

    For livestock operations, the Massachusetts Livestock Manure and Waste
Management Committee would be designated to prepare a statement of BMP's.
This Committee, which includes both farmers and faculty  members of the UMass
Department of Food and Agricultural Engineering, has  already  prepared  a draft
report on this subject.  The Committee would complete its report to serve
as guidance on BMP's.  The Conservation District would,  as with the state-
ment on cranberrying, circulate the statement to interested parties before
adopting or modifying the statement.  The Chairman of the Department of
Food and Agricultural Engineering would inform the Conservation District
annually of any recommendations for change.

    For fruits and vegetables, the Waltham Experiment Station would prepare
a statement of BMP's and seek the participation of vegetable  farmers in
defining these practices.  Provisions for public comment, adoption by  the
Conservation District, and updating would correspond  to  those for cranberries
and livestock operations.

    Once adopted, these statements of BMP's would serve  as official guidance
to technical personnel for agricultural assistance agencies and would  become
the basis of  conditions specified in any state or federal permits or  other
enforcement action.

  • General Educational Programs—Agencies would continue to perform their
present functions.  As statements of BMP's were adopted, they would be
supplied to all agriculturalists to inform them of what  was considered
desirable and achievable.  The Conservation District  would serve as a  channel
for providing information  to farmers on any new federal  or state regulations,
and workshops would be conducted as needed.

  »Site-Specific Technical Assistance—Provisions for technical assistance
would  remain as at  present (see Alternative I).  SCS, the Extension Service,
and the Cranberry Experiment Station would inform the Conservation District
of assistance provided, and  the District would keep a record  of this assistance.

  •Financial Assistance—ASCS assistance for measures included in conservation
plans  would continue  as at present.  The 208 plan would  contain a recommendation
to Congress that the  $2,500  ceiling on grants to a single agricultural operation
                                  7-12

-------
be removed.  To make the Small  Business Administration  loan  program most
workable, EPA would delegate to the Conservation Districts the responsibility
for certifying that a proposed  measure was for the purpose of pollution
control and thereby eligible for loan assistance.

  •Controls on Pesticide Use—The State Pesticide Control Board would  remain
responsible for enforcement of  pesticide regulations.   It would inform
the Conservation District of any actions taken affecting applicators
within the District's jurisdiction.

  • Monitoring--A nonpoint source sampling program would be established on
a permanent basis.  Presently,  the Division of Water Pollution Control
conducts periodic sampling to provide data for its river basin water quality
models.  This would be supplemented by a sampling program geared to the
identification of nonpoint sources and monitoring of known problem areas.
As the agency responsible for updating the 208 plan, OCPC would conduct  this
sampling program (contracting with a private firm, Bridgewater-State
College, the Cranberry Experiment Station, or the DWPC  for the analysis).
OCPC would meet with the Conservation District to discuss the selection  of
the sampling sites and to review findings.  Existing monitoring programs,
such as the self-monitoring of  growers for pesticide residues, would continue.

  •Investigation of Complaints  / Encouragement of Voluntary  Compliance
with BMP's--As part of a voluntary compliance system,  procedures would
be established to receive complaints, investigate them, and  apply
pressure for changes in practices where complaints were found to be
valid.  The following is suggested as the model for such a procedure:

    Complaints (whether from a  town, public agency, or  individual) would
be filed with the Conservation  District, which would then  refer the complaint
to a standing Advisory Committee.  This Committee would include
representatives of the Extension Service, Cranberry Experiment Station,
SCS, the DWPC, OCPC, and other  interested agencies, as  well  as local
farmers and representatives of  conservation commissions and  watershed
associations.  The Committee would investigate the complaint, arrange
where  necessary for the collection and analysis of samples,  review
agricultural practices, and report its findings and recommendations
to the Conservation District.  (The Committee might prefer  to organize
separate sub-committees on cranberries, livestock operations, and
fruit  and vegetables, since different individuals would be  involved
in each category.  Also, the Bristol and Plymouth County Conservation
Districts would probably wish to consider having joint  committees).
The District would inform the complainant and the farmer of  the
Committee's findings and recommendations, and would make sure that
the farmer was aware of the assistance available to him for  carrying
out any needed changes in practices.

  • Enforcement of Mandatory Controls--In the short run, mandatory
controls would be placed only on those activities now subject to EPA
permits orproposed  for inclusion in the NPDES permit program, and on
operations identified as problems in the OCPC 208 sampling  program.
                                  7-13

-------
The mandatory controls would be as follows:

        --Cranberries:  In accordance with judicial decisions, the
Environmental Protection Agency has proposed to place cranberry operations
under the NPDES point-source permit program.  Cranberry growing qualifies
for the NPDES system as an agricultural point source because it involves
the application and return flow of irrigation and harvesting waters.
(See the Federal Register, July 12, 1976.  Regulations are contained at
40 CFR 124.84.)  Instead of issuing permits to individual cranberry
growers, EPA proposes to issue a general permit for a geographical area
(called a "General Permit Program Area," or GPPA for short) and require
that all growers within that area observe Best Management Practices.  (See
the Federal Register, February 4, 1977.)  Separate GPPA's could be established
along the boundary lines of the 208 agencies in southeastern Massachusetts
(OCPC, the Southeastern Regional Planning and Economic Development District,
and the Cape Cod Regional  Planning and Economic Development Commission), or
along county lines (Bristol, Plymouth, and Barnstable), but the simplest
arrangement would be to establish one GPPA for the three-county area,
with uniform BMP's recommended by the Experiment Station to the
Conservation Districts and accepted by EPA as the basis for its permits.
Growers operating under the general permit system would not be required
to provide sampling results like those required now from industrial and
municipal point dischargers.

     The DWPC, which is responsible for enforcing other permit programs,
would enforce this general permit program as well.  However, the DWPC
would follow different procedures for complaint investigation than it
does for more conventional point sources:  it would instead rely initially
upon the mechanism described above for voluntary compliance, with investi-
gation of complaints through the Conservation District and its Advisory
Committee.   If the grower refused to accept the findings of the
Advisory Committee and follow its recommendations, or if the original
complainant were dissatisfied with the findings, the case would be referred
to the DWPC for investigation and enforcement.   Violators of the general
permit would be subject to the same enforcement orders and penalties as
other point dischargers.  One option available to the DWPC and EPA would
be to require an individual permit for growers found to be violating
general  permit conditions, with specific standards for operation and
self-monitoring and reporting requirements.

     The DWPC would still  act on complaints independently, rather than
through the Conservation District, in cases where speed was essential
to prevent continuing pollution.

        --Livestock Operations:  On March 18, 1976, EPA revised its
regulations as to which animal  feeding operations were to be considered
agricultural  point sources subject to the NPDES permit system.  The
revised regulations were in response to judicial review of earlier 1973
regulations.   Table 7-3, presented in Alternative I, summarizes the
1976 regulations.  The regulations define which farms are "concentrated '
animal  feeding operations" and are therefore required to obtain indivi-
dual  permits under the NPDES system.   Operations with more than 1000
                                   7-14

-------
 animal  units  are all subject to the permit system if they result in
 discharges, whether or not the discharge is through a man-made
 conveyance.   As OCPC interprets these regulations, at least one dairy
 operation  in  the 208 Area, Cumberland Farms of Bridgewater, should be
 placed  under  the NPDES permit system.  The status of the Cumberland
 Farms permit  is discussed in Chapter 5.  Operations with over 300 animal
 units would be subject to the permit system if discharges reach streams
 through man-made conveyances, and those under 300 units are subject if
 the  EPA Regional Administrator determines the discharge to be a significant
 one.  OCPC has data on problem sites; it would ask the DWPC to investigate
 these sites and determine whether they should be included under the NPDES
 program.

     For farms which did not qualify for inclusion under the Federal
 NPDES program, the DWPC would still be able to impose controls under the
 powers granted to it by the Massachusetts Clean Waters Act.  One option
 for  carrying  out these responsibilities would be for the DWPC to issue
 a general  permit to all livestock operators, specifying BMP's (as
 established by the Conservation District), and then require individual
 permits on a  case-by-case basis in those instances where sampling revealed
 the  existence of pollution.  Based on its own sampling, OCPC estimates
 that 5 to  7 sites would deserve priority for investigation by the DWPC.
 An initial condition of an individual state permit could be a requirement
 that the farm operator seek SCS assistance through the Conservation
 District in developing or updating a conservation plan, and that the
 operator demonstrate a commitment to carrying out the plan.

     For any complaints of noncompliance with federal  or state permits
 on livestock operations, the DWPC would follow the procedure just outlined
 for cranberry operations, with a reliance as far as possible on voluntary
 cooperation and pressure via the Conservation District.

       --Fruit and Vegetables:  No fderal  permit program exists which
would apply to fruit and vegetable growing in the OCPC 208 Area.   The
 DWPC could adopt a permit program under the Massachusetts Clean Waters
Act, but given the current lack of evidence of pollution problems from
 this type of agriculture, such a permit system appears unwarranted.
The DWPC would therefore rely on the voluntary procedures for adoption
of BMP's, and require individual  permits only if future sampling  by the
DWPC or OCPC revealed that a specific operation was causing a pollution
problem.  As with livestock operations, an initial  condition of such a
permit could be the preparation of a conservation plan.

    Evaluation:  Such a management system would involve added administrative
costs in coordination,  but in return would result in  more efficient use
of existing expertise and lead to environmental  improvements.   The
exercise of defining roles would  result in a better understanding of
agency functions  and lead to an elimination of duplication as  well  as  a
recognition of gaps in  responsibility.

    The  greatest  additional  burden,  in  comparison with  present
arrangements,  would be  placed on  the Conservation Districts.   The
                                  7-15

-------
Districts presently exercise some of the functions  of a lead agency, in that
they help to coordinate local  activities of SCS,  ASCS,  and  the  Extension
Service.  However, the Conservation Districts  presently have  no full-time
staff of their own.  It would  be advisable for the  Plymouth and Bristol
County Conservation Districts  to have a staff  able  to handle  records,
arrange meetings, and answer inquiries.   Present voluntary efforts  by
the District supervisors would probably not suffice for this.   One
possibility would be for the Cooperative Extension  Service  to serve as  the
staff to the Districts, since the workload is  not expected  to be so great  as
to require a full-time staff solely for work on pollution control  activities.
Additional state financial  support should be provided for the Conservation
Districts if they are designated as lead agencies under this  alternative.   OCPC
would also incur staff time expenses during the initial two years  of  this  program
in setting up administrative arrangements and  fostering interagency cooper-
ation.  OCPC has, during the course of the 208 program, met on  several
occasions with agricultural agency officials and farmers, both  separately
and as part of day-long joint meetings on the  208 program's relationships
to agriculture and the definition of BMP's.  The approach suggested in  this
alternative appears workable, if the reaction  of those involved in these
meetings can be taken as a guide.  Farmers and existing agencies are  eager
to participate actively in a control program for agriculture:  statements
on BMP's for cranberries and dairy operations  have  already  been drafted by
agency personnel with the assistance of farmers.  This alternative maximizes
the role of existing agencies and the participation of farmers.

    Since this second alternative is, to a large measure,  an  extension
and expansion of the first, many of the  comments  in the  evaluation  of
the first alternative apply here.  Some additional  comments may be made
on the functions just described:

  • Definition and Updating of Best Management Practices—Formal adoption
of BMP's, as provided for under this alternative, would establish a con-
sensus as to what should properly be expected of farmers.   It would encourage
uniform enforcement of regulations and would provide a standard to which
the public could refer in seeking resolution of complaints.  The Experiment
Stations and the UMass Department of Agricultural Engineering would have
to be assured of continued funding to allow for research  on updating  BMP's.

  •General Educational Programs—Existing  programs  provide  a means for
reaching farmers through sources which  they are familiar with and respect.
It would be less costly and more effective to use these programs for dis-
seminating information on new programs  than to attempt to organize
instructional efforts by separate regulatory agencies.  Given the degree
of self-interest for farmers in pollution  control and  the difficulty and
expense of monitoring programs, educational efforts  rate priority in  an
agricultural pollution control  program.

  •Site-Specific Technical Assistance—The Conservation District would
play  somewhat more of a coordinative role  than at present, to assure that
all agencies which could assist on a particular problem were in fact
called  upon.
                                   7-16

-------
  .Financial Assistance—Delegation of SBA loan certification to the
Conservation Districts would encourage farmer participation,  since it would
allow the farmer to deal more comfortably with a local  agency.   Raising
the $2,500 limit for ASCS grants would be most significant to the
construction of manure storage facilities.

  • Controls on Pesticide Use—Proper use of pesticides  could  be best
achieved by the Pesticide Control Board's regulations on when pesticides
may be used, and the advice of the Experiment Stations  on which pesticides
should be used and how to use the least amount possible.

  • Monitoring—A, regular program of sampling would serve as a check on
the effectiveness of educational and technical assistance programs, and
also as evidence to judge the need for regulatory programs.  Even a minimal
sampling program would cost several thousand dollars per year,  however,
and sampling cannot in itself be relied on to spot all  nonpoint pollution
problems, given the dispersed and intermittent nature of the  source discharges,

  •Investigation of Complaints / Encouragement of Voluntary Compliance
With BMP's—Voluntary compliance minimizes costs of administration and en-
forcement.  Voluntary compliance lacks a means of forcing noncooperative
farmers to observe BMP's, but there are some incentives and pressures
which could achieve that end.  For instance, cranberry  growers  have reasons
for wishing to see BMP's observed universally, since an incident involving
one grower could have serious adverse impacts on all.  Use of an Advisory
Committee under the Conservation District to investigate complaints could
promote voluntary compliance through a sort of peer pressure, since the
Committee would include both public representatives and practicing farmers.
It would encourage farmers to "keep their own house in  order" and share
responsibility for compliance.  Such a mechanism would  also provide a check
on the success of voluntary compliance and be a means of evaluating it:
farmers would realize that, if voluntary compliance failed to prevent
pollution, there would ultimately be pressure for stricter mandatory controls.

  •Enforcement of Mandatory Controls--Some administrative costs will be
associated with the proposed controls.  However, the proposals  have been
designed to minimize costs, both for the regulatory agencies  and the farmers,
by limiting the number of individual permits which had  to be  issued.  For
cranberries, the general permit system would, in effect, rely largely on
voluntary compliance, since no self-monitoring or individual  reporting would
be required by those operating under the general permit system.  It would,
however, provide a basis for enforcement action, since  operators would, like
industrial dischargers under the NPDES system, be subject to  penalties for
failure to observe the conditions of the permit.  The general permit system
would be a mandatory compliance mechanism with a minimum of paperwork.  For
livestock operations, only those few already identified as problems would
become the subject of DWPC investigation.  The proposed system would there-
fore provide priorities for the work of regulatory agencies and allow farmers
to avoid permit system burdens by observing BMP's.
                                  7-17

-------
III.   Establish a Regional  Agricultural  Non-Point Source Management Agency

    Description:  Under this alternative, a new agency would be created with
responsibility for functions now carried on by the several  agencies mentioned
throughout this chapter.  This agency would be responsible  for control  of
all agricultural non-point sources.   (In the future it could expand to
include all non-point sources with the exception of urban runoff..)   Its
functions would include setting standards, monitoring, offering technical
assistance, and taking enforcement action.

    Evaluation:  This alternative would require substantial  changes in
existing arrangements and, in some cases, statutory changes  at both the
state and federal levels to allow for delegation of technical  and regulatory
functions to such an agency.  For this reason, it can only  be viewed as an
alternative for the long run.  Such an agency would offer administrative
efficiencies, since there would be clear authority within the agency for
organizing its own functions (as compared with the first two alternatives,
where responsibilities must be determined by interagency negotiation).   Also,
this alternative in the long run would allow for a better overview of all
pollution problems than would exist under the other alternatives, which
would focus more narrowly on agricultural pollution.  In a  regional agency
of this sort, planning would not be separated from control  enforcement.
Such an agency would be able to incorporate some existing agencies, but
others would be replaced.  This would make necessary the creation of new ties
with fanners and might lessen the degree of voluntary compliance.  On the
other hand, it would free the enforcement agency from any existing habits
and assumptions which might lessen enthusiasm for enforcement.

    OCPC, as the regional planning agency, could serve as the nucleus for
a regional water quality management agency.  Another possibility would be
the Conservation District, and a third would be a regional  state water
quality office incorporating the various functions now fulfilled by several
agencies in the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs and the Water
Resources Commission.  Under any of these options, the problem of public
representation would have to be considered, so that decisions made by the
management agency would be subject to local review.

    The concept of a regional water quality management agency is discussed
further in Chapter 10.
                                  7-18

-------
     CHAPTER 8



Residuals Management

-------
                           Table of Contents

                                                                 page

Introduction                                                     8-1


I.   Identify an Agency to Carry Out the Planning
    Mandates of P.L.  94-580, The Resource Conservation
    and Recovery Act

    Alternatives

   A.   Assign OCPC (The 208 Water Quality Planning
       Agency) as The Solid Waste Planning and
       Management Agency

      Previous OCPC Solid Waste Studies

      Existing Community Disposal Methods

   B.   Assign Some Other Agency as the Solid Waste
       Planning and Management Agency
II.   Identify All  Residuals Generated in the OCPC 208            8-9
     Area and Identify Problems Associated with Their
     Disposal Practices

    Alternatives

   A.   Provide Additional  Surveillance and Evaluation of
       Those Residuals For Which Disposal Methods are
       Not Presently Known to be Impacting Water Quality

   B.   Evaluate NPDES permits Existing Municipal and
       Industrial  Discharges to Asses Volumes of Sludge

   C.   Provide for Expanding On-Going Sampling Programs
       for Those Residual  Disposal  Techniques Presently
       Known to be Impacting Water Quality
III.   Identify Control  Measure for Disposal of Residuals         8-10
      on Land or in Excavation to Protect Ground and
      Surface Water Quality

-------
     The  disposal of  residual wastes  in the OCPC 208 area  is one of the more
 complex problems with which the region is faced.  Due to the very nature of
 the  generation of residuals and the great variety of sources of residuals
 no one disposal alternative offers adequate safeguards as  a long term technique
 for  the preservation  of surface and groundwater quality in the OCPC 208 area.
 The  region presently  faces disposal problems with residuals generated by
 existing  sewage treatment facilities, industries, automotive service companies,
 restaurants,  building demolition operations and the municipal residuals
 nenerated by  the average homeowner (see the OCPC publications Solid Waste
 Management. Industrial Cost Recovery. Industrial wastewater Survey and Chapter
 4 of this document).Although several of these residuals  are not, as yet,
 evident as water quality problems, the management and disposal of these same
 materials is  highly inefficient.  The area's landfills are the primary source.
 of water quality problems related to residuals disposal.

     It is expected that a great deal of the work done to date as part of OCPC's
 208  program will be incorporated into the program to be established under the
 mandates of P.L. 94-580, the Resource  Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
 The  stated objectives of that Act are to promote the protection of health and
 the  environment and to conserve valuable material  and energy.  In order to
 fullfill the  objectives of the Act an extensive evaluation of solid waste
 disposal practices and techniques is to be undertaken.  The Act calls for
 providing technical and financial assistance for the development of solid waste
 management plans.   Future open dumping on the land will  be prohibited under
 the  mandates  of the Act in addition to requiring the conversion of existing open
 dumps to facilities which do not pose a danger to the environment or to health.
 The  disposal   of hazardous wastes is to be investigated and regulations are to
 be promulgated for their treatment, storage, transportation and disposal.
 Research for  improved solid waste management and resource conservation techniques
 will be promoted.

     The alternatives presented here identify processes  to control  the disposition
 of all  residual waste generated and the disposal of pollutants on land or in
 subsurface excavations in the OCPC 208 area which  could  affect water quality
 and are intended to provide for eventual  compliance with the RCRA (Resource
 Conservation  and Recovery Act).   The alternatives  identify an agency to carry
out  the mandates of the RCRA;  identify the residuals generated in the OCPC 208
area; and identify control  measures for disposal of residuals on land or in
excavations while protecting ground and surface water quality.

 I.  Identify an Agency to Carry out the Planning Mandates of P.L.  94-580,  the
   Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.

     Clearly  any process which will  fulfill  the 208 plan requirements of Sections
b(2)(j) and b(2)(k)  will  require assimilating  data  gathered as part of the 208
study program into the planning  efforts of P.L.  94-580.

   A. Assign  OCPC  (the 208  Water Quality Planning Agency)  as  the Solid  Waste
      Planning and Management  Agency.

      Description:  As  a  208 agency the Old  Colony Planning  Council  would  be
                                  8-1

-------
designated as the solid waste planning and management agency for the region.

      Evaluation: On the basis of both previous planning and current studies,
a regional agency such as OCPC which already has planning capabilities in
other environmental areas makes a logical choice.  OCPC has done the following
previous planning:

      •Identification of disposal practices and needs - OCPC has previously
completed a report evaluating regional alternatives for disposal of municipal
residuals entitled 1974 Solid Waste Management.  The report recommended that
those communities with existing landfills upgrade their operations to meet
current Massachusetts regulations and that the towns of Abington, East Bridge-
water, Hanson, Pembroke and West Bridgewater dispose of their wastes at a
regional landfill in East Bridgewater (see figure 8-1).  This recommendation
was based on the expectation of significant cost savings as well as the assumed
reduction in the potential for environmental problems with the operation of a
single centralized landfill.

      •Survey of past and present landfill operations - Past, and in many
instances present, disposal practices, as well as disposal site selection
criteria have contributed to landfill-related water quality problems and have
created the potential for more serious long term water quality problems.  Within
the region, municipal landfills are in operation in East Bridgewater, Easton,
Pembroke, and West Bridgewater.  Of these four landfills, the landfills in East
Bridgewater, Pembroke and West Bridgewater have been cited by the State Department
of Public Health for various operation problems.  The remaining OCPC 208 com-
munities have sought and engaged themselves in alternative disposal practices.
Avon, Brockton and Whitman currently contract for residuals disposal at a
privately-owned and operated resource recovery and recycling facility located
in East Bridgewater.  The communities of Abington, Bridgewater and Hanson are
currently disposing of their municipal  residual   wastes at disposal sites
outside of the OCPC 208 area.  The disposal practices of each OCPC 208 community
are discussed below:

      Abington: Abington is presently disposing of its refuse and garbage in
Randolph.  Refuse had formerly been disposed of at an in-town, municipally
operated landfill located on Groveland Street.  As indicated in the water quality
sampling results (see the appendix), the former site is a suspected source of
several elevated levels of pollution parameters in the Stream River.  The former
landfill site is extremely wet and a small stream passes directly through the
landfill.  On the basis of an inspection of the site additional in-stream and
boring samples for leachate flows are presently being taken at the site.

      Avon: Avon is presently engaged in a long-term refuse disposal agreement
with the East Bridgewater Resource Recovery Center.  Due to severe operational
problems the former in-town municipally operated landfill on Wales Street was
closed in 1974.  The closed landfill site is being developed into an industrial
area.

      Bridgewater: Refuse collected in Bridgewater is presently disposed of in
Plainville.  The town has formerly disposed of its refuse at a privately owned
                                  8-2

-------
Regional Landfill
Local Solid Waste Centroids

Recommended Regional Landfill
Solid Waste Management Report 1974
Old Colony Planning Council
208  Program Area, 1977
Fig.8-2

-------
                              '»• r E.Bridgewater»
                 \V \WBridgewater
 Closed Landfill Sites

 Open Landfill Sites
Landfill Sites in the
Old Colony Planning Council
208 Program Area, 1977
Fig. 8-2
 0 \ 1   2
 !•••!
Scale in Miles

-------
landfill site off Winter Street.  The former landfill site had limited room
for expansion and had recurring operational problems which necessitated its
closing.  As a result of comments received at a 208 water quality workshop
held in Bridgewater additional surface water sampling as well as boring
samples to assess leachate generation at the site is presently being conducted.

      Brockton: Brockton presently disposes of its municipally collected refuse
at the East Bridgewater Resource Recovery Center and has done so since 1973.
Prior to that Brockton operated a landfill on Thatcher Street.  According to
information provided by Brockton officials, the former landfill  site, although
closed, has not been sealed.  Efforts are currently under way to seal the
landfill.

      East Bridgewater:  Refuse is currently disposed of at a municipally owned
and operated landfill in East Bridgewater.  The landfill has recently been cited
for several operational problems in response to which East Bridgewater has
initiated several corrective practices.  As indicated in the water quality
sampling results leachate from the landfill is suspected of contributing to water
quality problems in the Matfield River.  Additional sampling is to be done by
OCPC at the site.

      Easton: Easton presently disposes of its refuse at an in-town municipally
owned and operated landfill on Prospect Street.  The landfill has, in the past
operated successfully and is expected to continue doing so.  In 1974 it was
projected that the present site was adequate for approximately 20-25 years of
operation.   In addition it was estimated that adequate cover material was
available for at least ten years.  There is a closed landfill at the end of
Baldwin Street in North Easton.   Two of the town wells are located 2000 feet
from the site.

      Hanson: The town of Hanson presently disposes of its refuse in Berkely.
A transfer station, owned and operated privately, is located at the site of
the former Hanson landfill.

      Pembroke: Pembroke presently disposes of its refuse at a municipally
owned in-town landfill located on Hobomock Street.  The landfill  has frequently
been cited by the State Department of Public Health for various  operational
inadequacies of which generation of leachate has been one of the more recent
problems.   In light of existing operational problems, wet conditions at the
site and the fact that expansion of the site has been proposed,  surface and
boring samples are presently being collected at the site to assess existing
leachate generation.

      West Bridgewater: Refuse is presently disposed of at the town-owned
landfill  on South Elm Street.   The existing site was converted from an open
burning dump and its transition  to a landfill ing operation has not been very
successful.  The State Department of Public Health has cited the landfill several
times in recent years.  In light of the problems with the present iste and a
proposed closing of the site by October 1977 a committee has been formed in West
Bridgewater to study the situation.
                                  8-5

-------
      Whitman: Whitman has opted for disposing of its refuse at the East
Bridgewater Resource Recovery Center.   In so doing Whitman signed a 10 year
contract with East Bridgewater Associates who run the facility.  There are
presently problems at the former Essex Street landfill  site.  The area
surrounding the site is extremely wet with wetlands located directly behind
the landfill  site.  Frequent outbreaks of leachate have been a problem at
the site.  On the basis of reported outbreaks of leachate and discussions at
the 208 water quality workshops held in Whitman the closed landfill was
selected for additional sampling by OCPC.  This sampling is currently on-going.

      East Bridgewater Resource Recover Center: At the present time the East
Bridgewater plant is primarily an incinerator.  Its present processing capacity
is 1200 tons per day (TPD) but can be expanded to 1800 TPD.  In-coming refuse
is shredded before going through a magnetic separation process where metals
are separated from the refuse; the remaining refuse is further classified and
shredded before it is incinerated.  The amount presently incinerated amounts
to approximately 67% of the waste.  Included at the Resource Recovery Center
is a 35 acre landfill which is used to landfill the residue from the operation.

     'Mapping of past and present refuse dumping sites (see figure 8-2).

     rIdentification of future disposal needs - OCPC is currently conducting a
regional survey of former and existing landfill sites to evaluate leachate
generation at each site.  The results of this survey will serve as the basis
for the need for alternative disposal  practices or alternative disposal sites
in those communities where water quality is shown to be impacted by leachate.

     'Study of industrial residual disposal practices - As discussed in Chapter
5 of this report Brockton is the primary location of major industrial operations
in the 208 area.   OCPC's 208 program funded, in conjunction with the City of
Brockton's 201 facilities study, the preparation of the Industrial Cost Recovery
(ICR) program required for the upgrading and expansion of the City's wastewater
treatment facility.   Development of the ICR program involved the preparation of
an industrial wastewater survey and preparation of a report.  In addition to
identifying industries which will be required to participate in the pre-treatment
and ICR programs  (see Table 8-1), residual  wastes including waste oil and grease
were examined.  Generation and disposal practices were identified as a result
of surveying all  of the City's gas stations and its major restaurants (see
Tables 8-2 and 8-3).  As a result of the industrial wastewater survey, preliminary
projections as to volume and constituents of pre-treatment of residuals to be
generated by affected firms are currently being made, (see the OCPC publications
Report Upon Industrial Cost Recovery Program and Industrial Wastewater Survey
Report No. 1).

   B. Assign Some Other Agency as the Solid Waste Planning and Management Agency

      Description: Other possible agencies for assignment could be the counties
of the State Bureau of Solid Waste.

      Evaluation: While having programatic functions in regulation of solid
waste, neither the counties nor the state agencies have a regional configuration
                                  8-6

-------
00
                                            TABLE 8-1

                                 INDUSTRIAL  COST  RECOVERY  PAYMENTS
        INDUSTRY
   Major  Wet  Industries
Alden Products Co.
Barbour Welting Co.
Churchill Supply Co.
Columbia Tanning Corp.
Drew Tanning Co.
Garland Corp.
Hesse-Eastern Div.  of
    Norris, Ind.
Howard D. Johnson Co.
Rofor Precision Plating Co.
Stone-Tarlow Sole Corp.
F. B. Uashburn Candy Co.
Wind Specialty Co.

     Sub-Total

Minor Wet Industries

Enterprise Publishing Co.
CTR Mfg. Corp.
Liberty Baking Co.
Orange Crush Bottling Co.
Superior Baking Co.
Tarpy, Inc.

     Sub-Total
                               WASTEWATER LOADING
Flow
gpd
7,175
20,260
18,825
60,000
21,090
11,550
21,400
98,180
10,560
1,200
20,000
7,400
BCD
Ib/day
0
230
210
350
88
3
5
418
0
11
6
0
ss
Ib/day
0
80
113
168
150
2
6
122
1
5
6
0
                              297,640
                                  130
                                  830
                                  825
                                2,520
                                  975
                                1,360

                                6,640
1,321
    0
    0
    1
    1
    1
    1
653
  0
  0
  1
  1
  1
  1
                        ANNUAL COST PER PARAMETER
                                              COST RECOVERY PAYMENTS
Flow
$
$ 224.22
633.13
588.26
1,875.00
-659.06
360.94
668.75
3,068.13
330.00
37.50
625.00
231.25
BOD
$
$ 0
749.11
683.97
1,139.95
286.62
9.77
16.29
1,361.43
0
35.83
19.54
0
SS
$
$ 0
328.56
464.09
689.98
616.05
8.21
24.64
501.05
4.11
20.54
24.64
0
  1,301.26
$    4.06
    25.94
    25.78
    78.75
    30.47
    42.50

$  207.50

Annual
$
$ 224.22
1,710.80
1,736.34
3,704.93
1,561.73
378.92
709.68
4,930.61
334.11
93.87
669.18
231.25
Recovery
Period
. $ (20 years)
$ 4,484.40
34,216.00
34,726.80
74,098.00
31,234.60
7,578.40
14,193.60
98,612.20
6,682.20
1,877.40
13,383.60
4,625.00
$4,302.51   $2,681.87   $16,285.64   $325,712.80
$





0 $
0
3.26
3.26
3.26
3.26
0 $
0
4.11
4.11
4.11
4.11
4.06
25.94
33.15
86.12
37.84
49.87
$ 81.20
518.80
663.00
1,722.40
756.80
997.40
                                 $   13.04   $   16.44   $   236.98   $  4,739.60
   Total
   Wet Industries
                           304,280
1,325
657
$9,508.76     $4,313.55   $2,698.31   $16,522.62   $330,452.40

-------
                                                            TABLE  8-2

                                                   SERVICE  STATIONS  CONNECTED
                                                  TO  THE  SANITARY  SEWER  SYSTEM

                                                     Brockton, Massachusetts
    STREET
    ADDRESS

    Ashland Street

    210 East
    253

    Belmont Street

    351

    485
    827
oo   899
oo   945
    1012
    1016
    Center Street

    170
    234
    365
    491
    530
    731

    Court Street

     70
    369
     NAME
Vinny's Sunoco
Ashland St. Shell
Corayer's Service Station
Carney Brothers & Fairside
Fairgrounds Citgo
Ronnie's West Side Sunoco
Arco Tire
Sneider's Texaco
Coe's Mobil
Dreystad Cadillac
Berretta Buick-Opel Inc.
Imperial Service Station
Center St. Arco
Saba's Citgo
Eastway Service Station
Belmosto's Service Station
A & B Automotive
Armand's Exxon Station
OIL TRAP - MAINTAINED
   No
   Yes
   No
   No
   Yes
   Yes
   Yes
   No
   Yes
   Yes
   No
   No
   Yes
   No
   Yes
   No
   No
   Yes
No
No
Yes
No

No
No
No

No
No
                       WASTE OIL TANK - COMPANY
500 gal. - Northeast Waste Removal
500 gal. - not certain
500 gal. - not certain
275 gal. - Peirce Oil Service
Yes - not certain
Yes - P.P.C. Resources
Yes - not certain
Yes - MacDonald & Watson Waste Oil
300-500 gal. - Peirce Oil Service
Yes - Peirce Oil Service
Yes - Peirce Oil Service
Yes - MacDonald Watson Waste Oil
500 gal. - Western Waste Oil
Yes - Western Waste Oil
Yes - P.S.C. Resources, Inc.
500 gal. drum - not certain
Drums - not certain
500 gal. - Western Waste Oil
       (Partial  list—taken from Industrial  Wastewater  Survey  Report  No.  1_,  October  1976  (Brockton  Sewer Department,
                    Fay,  Spofford,  & Thorndike,  Inc.  EngineersT)

-------
                                                 TABLE 8-3 - MAJOR RESTAURANTS
    Street
oo

VO
       Number
Belmont Street

       525
       606
       708
       726
       885
      1005

Crescent Street

       665
       675
       696
       741
       775
       782
       793

Main Street

       265
      1245
      1267
      1507
      2079
                              Name                Grease
                                                  Trap(s)
                       McDonald 's                      2
                       Burger King                      1
                       Friendly Ice Cream Shop          2
                       Producer's Dairy Restaurant      2
                       Burger Chef                      1
                       Royal Rib Restaurant             3
Burger King                      1
Papa Gino's Restaurant           1
Friendly Ice Cream Shop        none
Jack-in-the-Box                  1
JB's Big Boy Family Rest         1
Christo's                        2
Dip 'n Sip                       1
                       Wah Sun Restaurant               1
                       Jack-in-the-Box                  1
                       Kentucky Fried Chicken           1
                       Capeway Manor                    2
                       Friendly Ice Cream Shop          2
                                                            Grease Disposal
                                                         withspecial pickup
                                                       solid wastes      (sold)
                                                                           yes
                                                            yes
yes
yes
yes


yes

yes




yes
 n
yes
                               Garbage
                               Disposal
                                Unit(s)
                                 none
                                                                                                                    none
                                                                                             none
                                                                                             none
                                                                                             none
                                                                                               1
                                                                                             none
         (Partial  list—taken from Industrial  Wastewater Survey Report  No.  1_,  October  1976  (Brockton  Sewer Department,
                       Fay,  Spofford,  & Thorndike,  Inc.  Engineers)  )

-------
with elected officials of the towns as part of their structure.  In addition
coordination with the water quality planning activities on the regional level
would be more difficult.

II. Identify all Residuals Generated in the OCPC 208 Area and Identify Problems
    Associated with their Disposal Process.

     As discussed above, OCPC's efforts have determined several of the sources
of residuals in the area as well as determining that water quality problems
exist with the disposal of these same residuals.

   A. Provide Additional Surveillance and Evaluation of Those Residuals for which
      Disposal Methods are Not Presently Known to be Impacting Mater Quality

      Description: This alternative will require the expansion of the residuals
survey program relative to the disposal of waste oil and grease into the non-
Brockton OCPC communities (i.e. gas stations and restaurants).  In addition,
an areawide evaluation of disposal practices for demolition wastes, industrial
residuals, toxic wastes (i.e. pretreatment residuals as well as septage hauler
.loads refused at wastewater treatment plants ) and  scrap storage (i.e. junk
cars, metals, etc.) will be required.

      Evaluation: This alternative provides for the establishment of a preventive
program whereby early detection of "problems" due to the disposal of these
residuals is possible.  In addition survey data will equip the solid waste planning
agency with an  accurate assessment of present disposal techniques.

   B. Evaluate NPDES permits for Existing Municipal and Industrial Discharges
      to Assess Volumes of Sludge

      Description: Revised NPDES permits written for discharges within the OCPC
208 area would be reviewed.  Effluent limitations,  in comparison to existing
effluent quality would be examined.  201 Facilities planning performed in
conjunction with NPDES permit requirements for elimination of discharges would
be reviewed by the designated Solid Waste Planning  and Management Agency.

      Evaluation: Evaluation of existing effluent quality in comparison to NPDES
permit required effluent quality will provide the basis for projecting a residual
waste volume and its parameter characteristics.

   C. Provide for Expanding On-Going Sampling Programs for Those Residual
      Disposal Techniques Presently Known to be Impacting Water Quality

      Description: As discussed in the previous section landfills in the area
are currently the object of a sampling program being conducted by OCPC.  This
alternative provides for the establishment of an on-going subsurface and surface
water sampling program on an areawide basis.

      Evaluation:  In light of the fact that several surface water bodies are
presently being impacted by leachate from both closed and operating landfills,
continuous monitoring at both existing problem landfills and those landfills
                                  8-10

-------
 not  presently  known to  be a water quality problem will provide data capable
 of serving as  an accurate indicator of leachate problems.  The sampling data
 will  serve as  the  impetus for taking various corrective measures where
 determined necessary.

 III.  Identify  Control Measure for Disposal of Residuals on Land or in
      Excavations to Protect Ground and Surface Water Quality

      Within the OCPC 208 region the only means for the disposal of residual
 wastes  is disposal in the area's landfills.  In light of the fact that currently
 operating landfills as  well as former landfills in the areas are negatively
 impacting surface  water quality, existing control measures require extensive
 revamping.  In addition previously recommended control measure must be reassessed
 (such as those in  the OCPC report Solid Waste Management).

   A. Provide  for  Elimination of Existing Landfill Related Problems Impacting Water
      Quality

      1. Assess the Advisability of Providing Structural Corrective Measures  to
         Landfills Shown to be Leachate Problem Sources

         Description:   Various structural methods for correcting landfill site
 inadequacies from which leachate problems have been detected will be evaluated
 at those landfills shown to be problems by the on-going landfill sampling program.
 Landfills presently being sampled are in Abington (closed), Bridgewater, East
 Bridgewater, East Bridgewater Resource Recovery Center, Pembroke, Rockland (at
 the Hanson border), West Bridgewater and Whitman.

         Evaluation: Leachate is the primary source of water quality problems
 related to landfills in the OCPC 208 area and as such a majority of the corrective
 measures assessed will  address the leachate generating characteristics of land-
 fills.  Availability of adequate treatment capabilities of the collected leachate
 will  be reviewed.

      2. Assess the Operational  Integrity of Currently Operating Landfills and
         the Advisability of Continued Operation of These Same Facilities

         Description:  Information in regard to leachate generation,  expandability
 of the existing landfill, availability of cover material, proximity  to wetlands
 (for both operating area and expansion area), projected useful  life  of the site
 and projected costs to correct any current operational  deficiencies  to comply
with regulatory agency mandates  should be assessed for each landfill.   Upon
evaluation of these criteria the advisability of continued operation  of the
existing landfill will be assessed.

         Evaluation:  Upon completion of this assessment accurate evaluations of
 in-town landfills will be available  for applicable communities.   Costs of
continued operation of a landfill  such that the potential  of impacting water
quality is reduced  "or eliminated will  be available.
                                   8-11

-------
      3. Re-evaluate Community Attitudes Towards Regional Solid Haste Solutions
         in Those Communities where Continued In-town Landfill ing Seems
         Infeasible

         Description: Based on information gathered in alternative B above,
several alternative measures of residual disposal proposed as part of the 1974
Solid Waste Management Report (i.e. a regional landfill  in East Bridgewater
and disposal at the East Bridgewater Resource Recovery Center) will be given
renewed evaluation.  In order to assess the implementa&ility of the alternatives
considered, local attitudes towards regional configurations of disposal options
were surveyed in the 1974 report.  At that time, which was prior to the imple-
mentation of more stringent enforcement programs and landfill operational require-
ments, community attitudes were strongly opposed to regional landfilling operations.
This alternative will require that those communities presently operating in-town
landfills be reconsidered as part of a regional  solid waste disposal operation.

         Evaluation: For several of the areas existing local landfill operations,
compliance with state regulations related to landfill operational practices has
and will continue to result in significantly higher expenditures of local funds
as part of landfill operational budgets.  When these costs are evaluated in
conjunction with projected useful life of the landfills, the results may result
in a change of community opinion.
                                  8-12

-------
               CHAPTER 9



Local  Environmental Management Programs

-------
                             Table of Contents
                                                                      Page
Description of Environmental  Management Problems                      9-1
I.  Lakes Management                                                   9-10
   A.  Shoreline Regulations                                           9-14
   B.  Limit the Use of Phosphate Detergents                           9-15
      1. Voluntary Limitation of Phosphate Detergent Use
      2. Adopt a State Law Prohibiting the Sale of Phosphate
         Detergents
   C.  Remove Nutrients From Lakes or Lessen Their Impacts             9-15
   D.  Seek Outside Funding to Implement Programs                      9-17
II.  Wetlands and Floodplain Protection                                9-17
   A.  Protection of Wetlands  by Means of the Wetlands Protection Act  9-18
   B.  Protect Wetlands by Means of Wetlands Protective Orders         9-23
      1. Coastal and Inland Restrictions Programs
      2. Conservation Restrictions
      3. Scenic River Designation
   C.  Protect Wetlands by Designation as an Environmentally Critical
      Area                                                            9-25
   D.  Protect Wetlands and Floodplains Through Enactment of
      Provisions in the Zoning By-Law                                 9-25
      1. Wetlands and Floodplain Protection Districts
      2. Other Provisions of  Zoning By-Laws
   E.  Protect Wetlands and Floodplains in Town By-Laws                9-27
   F.  Utilize Provisions of Federal  Legislation to Protect Wetlands
      and Floodplains                                                 9-28
      1. HUD National Flood Insurance Program
      2. Utilize the Army Corps of Engineers 404 Program
      3. Environmental Protection Agency's Policy Statement:
         Protection of Nation's Wetlands
      4. Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands

-------
III. Earth Removal                                                    9-30
   A. Incorporate Water Quality Objectives in Sand and Gravel
      Regulations                                                     9-34
      1. Update Earth Removal By-Laws
      2. Impose State Permit Requirements on Sand and Gravel
         Removal under the Massachusetts Clean Waters Act
   B. Provide for Regulation of Coal Mining                           9-35
      1. Adopt Municipal Regulations for Coal Mining
      2. Adopt State Regulations for Coal Mining
IV. Preservation of Agricultural Land                                 9-36
V. Natural Areas Protection                                           9-37
   A. Prepare Open Space and Conservation Plan
   B. Designation of Critical Environmental Areas
      1. Designate the Hockomock Swamp as a Critical Environmental
         Area
VI. Pesticide Programs (Non-Agriculturally Related)                   9-40

-------
     Hydrologically sensitive areas, those that play a significant role in
the flow, storage, and recycling of water, include aquifer recharge areas,
wetlands, floodplains, ponds and streams and shorelines.  In the past,
natural characteristics of hydrologically sensitive lands, such as permea-
bility of the soil, elevation of the groundwater table, and the proximity
of streams and wetlands have been ignored by land owners, builders, and
developers.  Many of the existing water quality problems 'in the OCPC 208
area result from the lack of a full understanding of the natural functions
of the land.  Such an understanding may be developed through an environmental
management program, designed to prevent future water quality problems.

     Environmental management enables the on-going protection of land and
water resources, as well as the continued monitoring of potential pollution
sources and the eventual abatement of these hazards.  Environmental manage-
ment programs are unlike many pollution control programs because they
include the entire spectrum of land and water resources.

     Local environmental management programs begin with public education
and awareness of local resources.  Next a detailed, accurate, field-
checked inventory of town land use should be prepared.  Land use categories
would inlcude but not be limited to: wetlands, floodplains, ponds and lakes,
agriculture (intensive and extensive), mature woodland, and residential,
commercial and industrial land.  Further analysis of the land would include
the mapping of soils, aquifer recharge areas, depth to groundwater,
drainage basins, wildlife habitats, and endangered species habitat.

     One goal of the 208 study is to identify environmentally sensitive
areas.  This is not intended to be a complete identification of all
environmentally critical areas because the 208 study is a water quality
study and thus the areas inventoried are only those that have a potential
for affecting water quality.  The types of areas inventoried include
drainage basins, soils, mature forests, wetlands, floodplains, aquatic
environment - ponds, streams, and lakes, and endangered species habitat
and groundwater.

     Drainage basins were mapped using the U.S.G.S. topographic sheets
which are at a scale of 1" = 2000', the drainage basins were delineated
and a drainage map was made, also at the 1" = 2000' scale.  The drainage
basin map was used to help determine water quality sampling sites and is
being used in sewer service area delineation.   It is also used for site
specific technical assistance to determine which surface water bodies
various activities occurring on the land, such as the placement of a salt
pile, might be affecting.

     Soils of the OCPC 208 area have been surveyed and mapped by the Soil
Conservation Service and published in the Plymouth County Soils Report,
the Eastern Soil Report  and the Avon Soil  Report.  The soils were
originally mapped at a scale of 1" = 1320'  and had an inclusion rate of
15-30%.  Inclusions are areas of a soil  type other than that of the soil
designated.   In order to use soils information on a more site specific
basis, it is necessary to have a town soil  report made.  Table 9-1 lists
the towns in the OCPC 208 area that have detailed soils surveys and the
year that they were completed.
                                 9-1

-------
                    TABLE 9-1
       COMMUNITIES WITH  DETAILED  SOIL SURVEYS
               IN THE  OCPC  208  AREA
                                    Year Soil  Survey
      Community                        Completed
Abington
Avon                                     1963*
Bridgewater                              1970
Brockton
East Bridgewater                         1966
Easton                                   1969
Hanson                                   1973
Pembroke                                 1968
West Bridgewater                         1972
Whitman                                  1963*
*Note:  These early community soil surveys map general
 soil characteristics only.  They are not as detailed
 as the current series of town soil  reports.
                       9-2

-------
     Mature forests in the OCPC 208 area have been mapped based on forest
types from the Massachusetts Map Down program carried out by Professor
MacConnell at the University of Massachusetts.  Utilizing knowledge of the
normal mature height of the most commonly occurring trees in the 208 area,
a map was prepared at the 1" = 2000'  scale of mature forests.

     Although on the level of the two year 208 study it is not possible to
quantify the effect, it is possible to qualitatively assess the impact of
large scale residential construction or construction of sewage treatment
facilities on areas of mature dense forests.  A forest normally evapo-
transpires large amounts of water.   Water present in the soil is taken in
through the root hairs, conducted up the trunk and either evaporates from
the tree or is transpired through small pores in the leaves called stomata.
When mature, dense forests are felled, the water that had been removed to
the atmosphere via the trees moves into brooks and streams and raises the
level of the brook and increases the size of the downstream floodplain.  In
New England many of the soils.are subject to fragipan formation - the
formation of an impermeable layer at the top of an iron oxide or aluminum
oxide layer.  Where tree roots are present  this layer is broken up and
penetrated allowing the downward percolation of water.   With the removal of
the trees and their roots an impermeable layer can form which impedes
water flow, making the soil unsuitable for septic tanks.  The leaves of
trees break the fall of precipitation which reduces the kinetic energy and
thus the eroision of the soil below.   In addition the litter layer on the
forest floor breaks the fall and promotes infiltration.  Together these
qualities promote the movement of water into the soil and down to the
groundwater and prevent rapid overland flow by water which would cause
sedimentation of downstream surface waters.

     Wetlands and floodplains were mapped for each community at a scale
of 1" = 1000' and for the region as a whole at 1" = 2000' using four
infromation sources: the MacConnell Map Down maps, HUD preliminary flood-
plain maps, community wetlands maps, and U.S.G.S. topographic maps.  The
Pembroke Conservation Commission wetlands map was utilized in Pembroke as
the only source of information.  The MacConnell  Map Down maps were not able
to be utilized exclusively both because they were made six years ago and
because the definition of wetlands used in that study does not include
wooded swamps as being a wetland.

     Table 9-2 illustrates the changes in non-wooded wetlands in the 208
area from 1951 to 1971 according to MacConnell Map Down figures.  It is
interesting to note that five of the communities have shown an increase in
the amoun.t of land shown as wetland.   This is partly due to the
eutrophication of shallow water bodies over the 20 years (see also Fig. 9-1),

     No field check of these lands has been performed to date so that the
wetlands and floodplains maps show the approximate location and size of the
various wetlands and floodplains, but can not be used for site specific
work.
                                 9-3

-------
ABINGTON
AVON
BRIDGEWATER
BROCKTON
EAST BRIDGEWATER
EASTON
HANSON
PEMBROKE
WEST BRIDGEWATER
WHITMAN
TABLE 9-2
CHANGE IN
(area
1951
280
208
1,292
416
710
1,309
1,218
1,648
1,344
416
WETLANDS, 1951-1971
in in acres)
1971
266
179
1,146
243
745
673
1,256
1,818
707
438


Change In
Acres
- 14
- 29
-146
-173
+ 35
-636
+ 38
+170
-637
+ 22
Percent
Change
 - 5.0%
  13.9%
 -11.3%
 -41.6%
 + 4.9%
 -48.6%
 + 3.1%
 +10.3%
 -47.4%
 + 5.3%
Source: MacConnell, W.P., Remote Sensing, 20 Years  of Change  in  Plymouth,
        Bristol  and Norfolk Counties. Massachusetts,  1951-1971.  Planning
        and Resource Development Series No.  23,  Cooperative Extension
        Service.
                                9-4

-------
             15%
  Percent
  Of Land
  Wetland
10%
I
tn
              5%
                                                     FIGURE 9-1

                                      RELATIVE  PERCENT OF  LAND  IN WETLAND
                      West Bridgewater
Whitman
 Hanson
                   Easton
              Bridgewater
         East Bridgewater

                 Abington
                 Pembroke
                 Brockton
                     Avon
Whitman

Hanson


West Bridgewater

East Bridgewater

Pembroke
Bridgewater
Easton
Abington
Brockton
Avon
                                    1951
                                                                                  1971
                  (Source:  MacConnell,  Massachusetts  Map  Down)

-------
     The wetlands and floodplains maps were used to determine the amount of
available, developable land and to make the land use projections.  They have
been given to the Old Colony Water Pollution Control District in order that
they may avoid these areas when laying out interceptor routes and siting the
treatment plant.  The maps will be used in environmental  impact assessment
work of the 208 staff.  For a further discussion of wetlands and floodplains
see below.

     Discussion of the aquatic environment is divided into three categories,
ponds, streams and rivers, and potential  for restoration  of fishing.

     Initially it was felt that the inventory of water bodies was essentially
done.  Further examination showed that more extensive work was necessary to
inventory all the ponds and lakes in the  area.  The initial source of
information was obtained from the University of Massachusetts pond inventories
for Plymouth, Norfok and Bristol  counties.  This information was checked by
using aerial photographs and U.S.G.S. topographic maps.   A check was  then
made at the assessor's offices to determine the location  of the ponds and
to add additional ponds and lakes.  This  proved to be a  very fruitful source
of information, as many ponds and lakes were found that  had not been
previously noted.  This information was then checked with the local  Conser-
vation Commissions.  A profile sheet (an  example is given in Table 9-3)
was prepared for each pond or lake which  gives the areal  characteristics, the
ownership, past and present usage, including potential for fish productivity,
and water quality.  The information for the profiles were obtained from a
variety of sources including the Massachusetts Division  of Fish and Wildlife,
the Division of Waterways, the Public Access Board, and  the Division  of Water
Pollution Control.  The ponds information was used in the land use projections
and will be used to consider proposals for any changes in water quality
standards and for implementation of the 208 study.

     Stream and river characteristics were obtained from the Division of
Water Pollution Control water quality sampling programs  and from OCPC
sampling programs (see the Appendix). This information is  used to help
identify potential pollution sources and  to correlate trends and patterns of
water quality.

     Streams which are capable of being restored for fishing are being
compiled based on water quality sampling  performed by the 208 study and on
criteria set forth by the Environmental Protection Agency.  Both chemical
and biological constituents of the waters are being examined in evaluating
pollutants effects on fish.  Additional information was  obtained through
interviews with the Massachusetts Division of Fish and Wildlife and the
Division of Marine Fisheries and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

     Another environmentally critical area of concern to the 208 program
are endangered species habitats.   Under the Endangered Species Act of 1973
no federal funds can be utilized for an activity that would be detrimental
to an endangered or threatened species, such as the building of a sewer
interceptor.  Unfortunately, although a list can be compiled (see Table 9-4)
of such species in this area, not enough  information is  available to map
the location of their habitat.  This list was compiled from information
available through the Grey Herbarium, the Oakes Ames Herbarium, the Arnold
Arboretum and the Museum of Comparative Zoology and Harvard University; the
Mass. Division of Fish and Wildlife and the State Conservationist, U.S.
                                  9-6

-------
                            TABLE 9-3
                             NAME OF POND:  CLEVELAND POND
Areal Characteristics
    Location:  Ames  Nowell  State  Park
        Town:  Abington
        Stream System:  Beaver  Brook
        Street Access:  Linwood Street
        Assessors Map:
    Elevation:  143  feet
    Number of Acres:  88 (100 acres)
    Drainage Area:    2150  acres
    Mean Depth:       3  feet        Maximum Depth: 6  feet
    Pond Type:        Artificial


Ownership
    Owner:  Public,  State-owned —  DNR  (Part of Ames-Nowell State  Park)


    Great Pond: No
    Flowing Rights:


Uses
    Pond Margin Uses: Wooded,  park and swamp

    Pond Uses:
        Present:  Fishing,  camping  and  aesthetic

        Past:  in  past was  named  Semi oh Pond  (1930)

    Potential for fishing:   Present productivity  — 60  to  100  Ibx  of  fish  per
                            acre; potential over  100  Ibs of fish per  acre


Water Quality
    Classification:  B
    Water Type:      Warm.Water;  not suitable  for trout
    Data:  Surveyed 8/4/75
    Temp,  profile  - not  stratified; D.O. profile  - depleted on bottom,  surface
= 7.9 mg/1, 6' = 1.1 mg/1.   This  depletion is  probably  temporary;  pH  -  low at  6.6;
alk. - higher than other ponds  but still low  at 20 mg/1; susp. solids - 8  mg/1
(high for lakes);  total  solids  -  124 mg/1; NH3 .  Beaver Brook  inlet high at 0.39  mg/1
surface 0.03 mg/1, 5' -  0.12 mg/1;  N03  - present  in Beaver Brook  inlet  at  0.2  mg/1
but undetectable elsewhere; T.P.  -  high in Beaver Brook inlet  at 0.55 mg/1; surface
0.09 mg/1, 5'  = 0.11 mg/1,  high for a pond; transparency low at 2.5 feet,  color
was high in the pond inlet  = 300, surface = 130,  5' = 140.
    Possible Pollution Sources:  -   . .      *.*•-,        j     -10.1     fc
                                 Septic system failures and agricultural runoff
other comments:  Mass. Water Resources  Study  -- potential  reservoir site (TA-480Z)
                 Dam height 6'j^ from level of pond
Water Quality data continued:   Algae analysis: only  greens found  at  344 ASU.   This
was most greens of the 7 lakes  investigated,  but  still  not too bad.  Because of
its shallowness the whole pond  experiences weed growth. Particularly widespread
were pickerelweed, fanwort, milfoil, watershield, duckweed and pondweed with about
4 other types found medium  to sparse.   This  is a  shallow,  weed-infested pond.
Beaver Brook inlet apparently contributes heavily to  the eutrophication of this
pond.  Noteworthy, however, was the absence of N03 in the  pond.
                               9-7

-------
                                     TABLE  9-4

                     ENDANGERED SPECIES IN THE OCPC 208 AREA

FAUNA
   Southern Bog Lemming - Synaptomys Cooperi Stonei
       Status - Undetermined
       Habitat - bogs;  dense swampsi cool, dense forest undergrowth
       Locale - Plymouth County

   Plymouth Red-Bellied Turtle - Chrysemys rubriventris bangsi
       Status - Endangered
       Habitat - quiet, shallow, warm-water ponds
       Locale - Plymouth County
                Boot Pond, Plymouth - type locale
                southshore of Nawshon Island

   Spotted Salamander - Ambystoma maculatiim
       Status - Endangered
       Habitat - underground im moist woodland
       Locale - statewide
                collected in Barnstable and Dukes Co-nties  in  1974,  and
                Holbrook in 1973.  Previously collected in  Newton, Maiden,
                Lynn, Lexington, Brookline, and Cambridge

   Marbled Salamander - Ambystoma opacum
       Status - Endangered
       Habitat - woodlands
       Locale - Plymouth and Bristol Counties
                previously collected in Westport Woods  (1960),  Wareham,
                Charlton, Sudbury, Waltham, Worcester,  Arlington,  and
                Salem

   Eastern Box Turtle - Terrapene Carolina
       Status - undetermined
       Habitat - fields, meadows, open woodland; usually near  water
       Locale - statewide
                Previously collected in Moose Hill, Sharon  (1975); Barnstable
                County, Wareham, Sandwich, Concord, Springfield and  Lancaster


FLORA
   Orchidaceae
    Isotria medeoloides (= Pogonia affinis) - Small Whorled Pogonia
       Status - Endangered
       Habitat - dry woodland
       Locale - New Hampshire and Vermont south to North Carolina.   Massachusetts
                is at the northern extension of its range.   Previously collected
                in East Hadley

    Cypripedium arietinum - Ram's-Head Lady's-Slipper
       Status - Threatened
       Habitat - damp or mossy woods or bogs
       Locale - Canada  south to northern New England, rarely to central  and
                western Mass.  Previously collected at  Mount Toby  and in
                Sunderland.

                                     9-8

-------
                                TABLE 9-4  (cont.)
Scrophulariaceae
   Aqallnus acuta (= Gerardia acuta)  - Gerardia
      Status - Threatened
      Habitat - Dry sandy soil
      Locale - Cape Cod to Long Island, inland to Middlesex and Worcester
               Counties.  Previously  collected in Natick,  Pocasset,  Clinton
               and West Tisbury.

Cistaceae
   Helianthemum dumosum - Rockrose
      Status - Threatened
      Habitat - dry sands, barrens and open woods
      Locale - Southeast Mass., Block Island,  Rhode Island and Long
               Island.   Previously collected at Buzzards Bay and
               West Tisbury.

Compositae
   Eupatorium leucolepsis var.  novae-angliae - White scaled Joe-Pye-Weed of
                                                   New England
      Status - Threatened
      Habitat - sandy and peaty pond  shores
      Locale - Plymouth County, Mass, and Washington County, R.I.   Previously
               collected on the damp  sandy shore of Loon Pond, Lakeville;
               on the gravelly upper  beach of King Pond, Plymouth  County, at
               the edge of Triangle Pond in Plymouth, and  on the shore of Smelt
               Pond in  Kingston

Cyperaceae
   Scirpius longii - wool grass
      Status - Threatened
      Habitat - meadows, swamps and fresh marshes
      Locale - Nova Scotia to North Carolina.
               Previously collected on an open, mucky marsh in a sand plain
               in the southern part of Easton, in a large  swamp on the main
               road to  Taunton, in the Charles River meadows in Dedham, and
               the Neponset River meadows near Canton

Isoetaceae
   Isoetes eatom'i - Quillwort
      Status - Threatened
      Habitat - fresh ponds,  streams  and shores or tidal flats
      Locale - southern New Hampshire to New Jersey
               Previously collected submerged  in the mud of a cove of Lake
               Pearl in Wrentham
                                 9-9

-------
Conservation Service.

     The final environmentally critical  area of concern is gorundwater
which is discussed in detail in Chapter 3.

     For an environmental management program the information that has been
compiled would be reviewed and compared to the projected land use patterns.
Spatial land use projections were made for each community on the basis of
present trends.  After environmentally sensitive areas are mapped the
projected land use maps are overlaid to determine an environmental land use
plan.  Although the population numbers do not change, the spatial arrangement
of land use may very well need to change and also public services to support
that population may need to change.  This would be developed into a preferred
land use plan. Recreation, open space and environmentally critical areas would
be delineated and protection and management strategies considered.  The
information prepared by such a program would form the basis of an environ-
mental management program.

     Environmental management programs at the local level can be  implemented
through a variety of mechanisms, including zoning, subdivision control, open
space  and conservation plans, land acquisition, Board of Health  regulations
and  town by-laws.  State and federal programs which may be utilized  include
floodplains and wetlands regulations, funding for the acquisition of outdoor
recreation and conservation lands, and state agricultural land policies
(including the purchase  of  development rights).  An additional element  in
an   environmental management program is water conservation  (see  Water
Conservation  in Chapter  4)  which whould be promoted at all  levels of govern-
ment.

     There are many components of  a local environmental management program
such as lakes management, floodplains and wetlands protection, earth removal
control, agricultural  and open space preservation, designation of environ-
mentally critical areas  such as  the Hockomock Swamp,  and  pesticide control
programs (non-agriculturally related).

I.  Lakes Management

     The numerous lakes  and ponds  in the OCPC 208  area  provide a variety  of
uses to  many different segments  of the population.  These include drinking
water  supplies,  irrigation  and all  types of  recreational  uses.   Table  9-5
is  an  inventory  of all alkes and ponds in  the OCPC  208  area with a surface
area greater  than five acres.  Also  included in this  table  are  pond  uses,
availability  of  sampling information,  identified water  quality  problems,
acreage and  Great Ponds.

      Lakes  and ponds  deserve  special  planning  consideration because  they
act as sinks  which  retain  the  drainage flows from  the surrounding watershed.
Nutrients  and pollutants contained in  this  runoff  water accumulate  in lakes.
Natural  lakes maintain a delicate balance  of nutrients  which control the
growth of  vegetation.  Alteration of the major  nutrient sources, phosphorus
and nitrogen, directly affect the rate of  algae and aquatic plant growth.

      As  indicated by the sampling results  of the OCPC 208 program (Appendix)
several  pollution-indicating  parameters  exceed recommended levels in lakes
 in the region.  These parameters include dissolved oxygen, total coliform
and fecal  coliform,  total  phosphorus,  nitrate-nitrogen, and chlorides.
                                  9-10

-------
                                                        TABLE 9-5
                                     INVENTORY OF LAKES AND PONDS IN OCPC 208 REGION
    ABINGTON

    Cleveland Pond
    Gushing Pond
    Hunts  Pond
    Island Grove  Pond
    Shumatuscacant River Pond

    AVON

    Brockton Reservior
    Waldo  Lake

    BRIDGEWATER

10   Carver Pond
^   Clay Pit Pond
"""   Cross  Street  Pond
    Great  Hill Pond, Mosquito  Pond
    Ice Pond
    Lake Nippenicket
    East Nippenicket Pond
    Nunkets Pond,  Nuggerty  Pond

    BROCKTON

    Bigney Pond
    Ellis  Brett Pond
    Lower  Porter  Pond
    Upper  Porter  Pond
    Thirty Acre Pond
    Waldo  Lake

    EAST BRIDGEWATER

    Forge  Pond
    Jones  Pond
    Plymouth Street Pond
    Robbins Pond
                                                                Water             Water    Water Quality
                                       Swimming  Fishing Boating Supply Irrigation Sampling Problems	
                x
                x
                                                         Great
                                                         Pond    Acres

                                                                  88
                                                                  88
                                                                  10
                                                                   6
                                                           x       38
                                                                   5
                              89
                              70
                                                                  35
                                                                   8
                                                                  26
                                                                   7
                                                                   6
                                                          x      354
                                                                   5
                                                          x        8
x
x
X
X
X
X
X


X
  4
drained
  6
 13
 30
 70
                               6
                               5
                             117
                             124

-------
           TABLE 9-5 (cont.)                                    Water              Water     Water  Quality   Great
                                       Swimming  Fishing Boating Supply   Irrigation Sampling  Problems         Pond   Acres

    EASTON

    Ames  Pond                                                                                                        12
    Ames  Long  Pond                          x        x                                                           x     65
    Bigney Pond                                                                                                       4
    Dean  Pond                                                                                                         2
    French Pond                                                                                                      63
    Leach Pond,  Wilbur Pond                                 x                                                   x    102
    Little Cedar Swamp Pond                                                   x                                       11
    Monte Pond                                                                                                       7
    Morse Pond                                             x                            x                       x     10
    New Pond                                                                           x                             16
    Old Pond,  Furnace Village Pond                                                                                    7
    Picker Pond                                                                                                x     10
    Puds  Pond                               x                                                                         16
    Reservoir                                                                 x                                       30
    Shovel Shop  Pond                               x                                                           x     10
    Ward  Pond                                                                                                         9
L   HANSON
    Burrage Pond                                                             x                                      202
    Chandler Mill  Pond                                                                                               6
    Gushing Pond                                                                                              x     40
    Elm Street Pond                                                                                                 58
    Factory Pond                                                                       x                       x     58
    Indian Head Pond                       x               x                  x                                 x    118
    Maquan Pond                            x       x        x                            x                       x     48
    Monponsett Pond                        x       x        x       x           x          x                       x    528
    Reservoir                                                                                                       14
    Wampatuck Pond                         x       x        x                            x                       x     62

    PEMBROKE

    Arnold School  Pond                                                                                              12
    Chaffin Reservoir                                                        x          x                             16
    Lower Chandler Pond                                                                                       x     30
    Upper Chandler Pond                                                                                             10
    West Chandler Pond                                                                                        x     12
    Dyer's Factory Pond                                                                                       *
    Furnace Pond                           x       x        x       x                     x                       x    107
    Herring Brook Pond                             x                                                                  6

-------
10
I
   TABLE 9-5 (cont.)

PEMBROKE (cont.)

Hobomoc Pond
Howard Pond
Mill Pond
Oldham Pond
Pel ham Pond
Reservior
Great Sandy Bottom Pond
Little Sandy Bottom Pond
Silver Lake
Standish Street Pond
Stetson Pond
Tubbs Meadow Brook Pond

UEST BRIDGElrJATER

Mill Pond
West Mewdow Pond
Town River Pond

WHITMAN

Hardings Pond
Hobarts Pond
Peat Hole
                                                               Water              Water     Water Quality  Great
                                      Swimming Fishing Boating Supply   Irrigation Sampling  Problems	  Pond    Acres
                                                  x

                                                  x
                                                                 X


                                                                 X
                          X
                          X


                          X


                          X
                           X


                           X


                           X





X
X
X

X

5
8
235
5
100
109
61
640
8
93
5
X
X
X
X
X
 8
25
18
                                                                                                                      15

-------
Suspected sources of these pollutants are failing septic tanks and runoff
from agricultural land and paved surfaces.

     A fundamental component of a lakes management program is sampling.
Sampling programs may be initiated for two major purposes, 1) for the
identification of pollution sources so that corrective action may be taken
and 2) to monitor a suspected pollution source.  The regular sampling of
public water supplies is currently required by State laws, as is the
collection of bathing beach water samples at approved bathing beaches at
least twice monthly during the bathing season by the local Board of Health.
Another existing sampling program is administered by the Division of Water
Pollution Control as part of their lakes surveys.

     A lakes management program would initiate an in-depth sampling program
to isolate pollution sources and recommend abatement and cleanup measures.
Samples would be taken during each season of the year at various locations
and depths of the lake and also in the main tributaries.  To facilitate
water quality analysis the State Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering (DEQE) could be responsible for taking and analyzing the samples
and laboratories for water quality analysis would be the same that are to
be used for the  implementation of the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act (see
Chapter 3).  Such a program would have the advantage of standardizing all
water quality testing by a community.  It also would allow local Boards of
Health more time to devote  to  other public health problems such as
on-site disposal of wastewater.

     Another major component of a lakes management program would be to
control the flow of pollutants from the land into lakes and ponds.  Pollution
sources include  failing septic tanks and cesspools (see Chapter 4),
agricultural runoff (see Chapter 7), solid waste disposal (see Chapter 8),
and new construction  (see Chapter 6).  The types of regulations which should
be considered in a lakes management program are the requiring of sediment
and erosion control plans for new construction (Chapter 6), requiring
special Board of Health regulations around ponds such as  requiring the
expansion of leaching areas for seasonal homes being converted to year-
round use (Chapter 4), best management practices for agriculture (Chapter 7),
and requiring a  setback of either a fixed or flexible distance for other
land uses which  may contribute pollutants to the pond via shoreline regulations.

   A. Shoreline  Regulations

        First shoreline regulations need to define exactly what the "shoreline"
   is.

        A fixed  definition of the shoreline  would define it  as being a
   specified distance from the banks or edge of  the water body.  This could
   vary from 50'  to 300' depending on  the degree of regulation and the
   administrative capabilities of the  review board.  Fixed boundaries have
   the advantage of being easily defineable, but the distinct shortcoming
   that they may not  be comprehensive  enough to  protect the water  body.

        A second method to define a  shoreline  is to have  flexible  boundaries
   which would  vary as  needed to allow for adequate protection of  the lake
   or pond.  One way  would be to adopt a specified elevation  above the mean
   water level  that would be  included  in the regulated  zone  of the adjacent

                                   9-14

-------
shoreline.  The distance from the lake would vary depending on the slope
of the land.  Another possibility is to establish a fixed distance from
the crest of the nearest slope to the lake.  Flexible boundaries are
difficult to define but can provide adequate protection for lakes and ponds.

     Second, shoreline regulations, need to define permitted and prohibited
uses.  Shoreline regulations may be utilized to prohibit all uses in a
specified area with distinct boundaries.  Uses which would be prohibited
include sanitary landfills, sand and gravel removal operations, and
high density development.  Shoreline zoning may be adopted as an
amendment to zoning by-laws or ordinances.  Presently Easton is the only
town in the OCPC area to have adopted any special shoreline regulations
and that is for a five foot setback from streams established in the
subdivision regulations.  Shoreline regulations can be an effective
method to distinguish lake and pond shorelines from other less critical
areas so that special regulations may be adopted.

B. Limit the Use of Phosphate Detergents

     Lakes are particularly sensitive to increased phosphorus levels
which act as a fertilizer to aquatic plants.  High phosphorus levels can
cause algal blooms and increased weed growth, thus limiting potential
uses of the lake.  This alternative would limit the use of one of the
major sources of phosphorus, laundry detergents on a town-wide basis.  In
order for such regulations to be effective, limitation of the use of
phosphate detergents would be necessary on a state-wide basis.

   1. Voluntary Limitation of Phosphate Detergent Use

        Description:  This alternative would encourage the voluntary
   reduction of phosphate detergent use in home adjacent to or near lakes
   or ponds.  Voluntary limitation would be encouraged through educational
   programs directed toward homes that have the greatest impact on the
   pond.

        Evaluation: Voluntary limitations have no enforcement provisions
   and therefore may not be completely effective, but with the appropriate
   educational program and the possible threat of more stringent regula-
   tions, this alternative could reduce phosphate pollution.

   2. Adopt a State Law Prohibiting the Sale of Phosphate Detergents

        Evaluation: This is the most effective alternative for the reduction
   of phosphoruse levels in lakes and ponds.  Legislation of this type has
   been introduced into the State legislature as House Bill No. 3407.  It
   would "restrict the sale of detergents containing phosphates and
   prevent further pollution of lakes and waters within the Commonwealth".

C. Remove Nutrients From Lakes or Lessen Their Impacts

     The removal of nutrients approaches lake pollution from the point of
view of removing or minimizing the impacts of pollutants after they are
in the lake or pond (This section is based on "Weeds Got You Down", Southern
Rockingham Regional Planning District Commission, N.H.).

                              9-15

-------
     This method is best suited to situations where the pollution sources
are not possible to be identified or would require great expense to correct.
However the removal of nutrients and minimizing of impact of high nutrient
concentrations can only provide temporary short-term relief from the
increased plant and algal growth associated with high nutrient levels.
This method will have no effect on the pollution sources, thus a re-
occurrence of the problem is inevitable.

     Nutrient removal may be accomplished by dredging, aeration and
chemical controls.

     Dredging is very effective in the removal of nutrient-rich bottom
sediments which support rooted aquatic plants.  This method is a
relatively long term solution to aquatic plant removal because re-
growth is unlikely for several years.  However  dredging will reduce
the clarity of the water, which could lead to a temporary suspension of
swimming.  In addition, dredging may actually increase the nutrient
concentrations in the water by disturbing the bottom sediments.  The
costs of dredging are approximately $1.50 per cubic yard.

     Aeration of lakes and ponds is used to control algae or non-rooted
aquatic plants by the use of air compressors and air nozzles to bubble
air into the deepest sections of the lake.  This process will mix
surface water which has high nutrient concentrations with deeper water
which has fewer nutrients.  It also introduces oxygen into the water.
Aeration will result in the decrease of surface water nutrient
concentrations and water temperatures which will inhibit the growth of
algae in the sunlit zone.  However, aeration must be continuous to
prevent the return of algal growth.  Aeration will have no effect on
the total amount of nutrients in the lake which can be used for future
growth.  The costs of an aeration program for one year in a lake of 180
acres would be approximately $6250.

     Chemical controls are divided into two categories, those that kill
plants and algae (herbicides and algicides) and chemicals that inactivate
nutrients.  Algicides and herbicides are able to kill algae and aquatic
plants in one.week with a minimum amount of manpower.  However, repeated
applications are necessary to prevent the growth of new vegetation.
Another problem is that if the dead aquatic plants are not removed,  they
will decompose, releasing nutrients into the water and adding to the
bottom sediments.  The costs of chemical treatment range from $100 to
$200 per acre.   Nutrient inactivation utilizes non-toxic chemicals such
as lime and alum to physically bond nutrients to compounds that will
settle to the lake bottom.   Nutrient inactivation is most effective  in
eliminating high phosphorus levels.   The chemicals used in this process
are safe to both animals and plants.   This method is usually used in
conjunction with aeration.   The cost for the aeration equipment and  the
chemical  treatment range from $300 to $500 per acre.
                              9-16

-------
   D. Seek Outside Funding to Implement Programs

        One possible source of funding is Section 314 of the Federal  Water
   Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (P.L. 92-500) which provides for
   lakes restoration for publically-owned lakes and ponds.  The goals of
   the Section 314 program are to develop and demonstrate new or improved
   methods for the prevention, removal, reduction and elimination of
   pollution in lakes including the undesireable effects of nutrients and
   vegetation.  Approved projects are eligible for 50% federal funding with
   the remainder to be supplied by state and local programs.

        Polluted and degraded lakes may be restored for recreational  uses
   by two methods, restricting the input of nutrients and pollutants and by
   providing in-lake treatment for the removal of or inactivation of
   undesireable materials.  Reducing or eliminating the sources of pollution
   may be sufficient to restore lake water quality.  In other lakes with
   more severe problems, in-lake methods may be required.

        A 314 grant was recently awarded to the City of Brockton for the
   restoration of Ellis Brett Pond the Thirty-Acre Pond.  The application
   was conceived of and applied for by the OCPC 208 staff.  Ellis Brett
   Pond is a five acre pond which is located in the city owned D.W. Field
   Park.  A popular swimming area in the City for many years, Ellis Brett
   Pond has been closed since the mid-601s because of stormwater runoff
   from the adjacent Westgate Mall.

II. Wetlands and Floodplain Protection

     Wetlands and floodplains are important to the preservation of surface
and groundwater quality  for a variety of reasons.  Wetlands have a natural
capacity to filter sediments and nutrients from flowing water.  Flood-
plains, by reducing streambank alteration, reduce erosion and consequent
sedimentation during floods.  Wetlands and floodplains are able to absorb
large amounts of water.  This function has several consequences.  First, it
means that wetlands can serve as recharge areas for water supplies.  Second
it means that filling of the wetland or floodplain decreases the water
holding capacity of the land which leads to greater storm flows.  Having
larger amounts of water during a flood which is also moving at a greater
velocity leads to erosion of stream banks and also to greater infiltration/
inflow in sanitary sewers and greater flow in storm sewers.

     The connection between the filling in of the wetland and the flooding
in a business district downstream due to over-flowing storm sewers is often
not made by the average person.  Nor is the connection made between the
filling of the upstream wetland and the increase in dirty water downstream
or the filling of the wetland and the drop in water table level at the town
wells.

     For all these reasons it is necessary to protect the physical, biological
and chemical integrity of wetlands and floodplains to assure that there
will not be future degradation of surface or groundwater.

                                 9-17

-------
     Table 9-6 shows the status of the local  wetland and floodplain regulations
in each of the 208 communities.  Table 9-7 was done by the Soil  Conservation
Service as part of their floodplain inventory in 1976  It is interesting
for it surveys local opinion and knowledge about the status of floodplains
and floodplain zoning.  The yes answer under floodplain zoning for Hanson
refers to the fact that Hanson has an Agricultural-Recreation Zone which
has some relevant provisions to wetland and floodplain protection. Hov/ever
not all wetlands or floodplains are included in this zone.  The yes answer
for West Bridgewater as to whether it has floodplain zoning is incorrect,
it does not.

   A. Protect Wetlands by Means of the Wetlands Protection Act (M.G.L.A.
      c.131 s.40)

        Description: Any person wanting to remove,  fill, dredge or alter
   a wetland must first obtain all locally required variances or permits
   for the development and file a Notice of Intention with the Conservation
   Commission, the Department of Environmental Engineering (DEQE)  and the
   Department of Public Works (DPW).   The Conservation Commission  within
   21 days makes a determination as to whether the  land comes under the
   provisions of the Act.  This determination is not appealable.

        After a public hearing is held, the Conservation Commission makes
   a determination as to whether the  proposed work  is significant  to a
   public or private water supply, to a groundwater supply, to flood
   control, to storm dammage prevention, to prevention of pollution, to
   protection of land containing shellfish or to protection of fisheries.
   If the proposed work will be significant,  the Conservation Commission
   may impose and Order of Conditions on the owrk which may effectively
   halt the proposed work.

        This determination may be appealed to DEQE  either by DEQE  itself,
   the applicant, abutters of the land, or any ten  residents in  the town.
   DEQE may then make superceding Orders of Condition.  Final orders are
   recorded with the Registry of Deeds.

        Evaluation:  Many of the problems inherent  in the administration
   and enforcement of the Wetlands Protection Act are also problems with
   other means of protecting wetlands and floodplains.  Thus they  will
   be discussed in full  here and then merely referred to in other  parts.

        The first problem is one of notification -  notification  to the
   public that the Wetlands Protection Act is applicable to them and
   notification to the Conservation Commission that someone proposes to
   do work in a wetland.  Many times  new residents  will  purchase a house
   with the intention of filling in a part of the wetlands to make a
   garden or to build a swimming pool  or other structure without knowing
   that they must file with the Conservation  Commission.   When they are
                                  9-18

-------
                    TABLE 9-6



STATUS OF LOCAL WETLAND/FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS
                                                         HUD Flood Insurance Program
Conservation Commission
Community Wetlands Protection Act
Abington
Avon
Bridgewater
o Brockton
i
^ East Bridgewater
Easton
Hanson
Pembroke
West Bridgewater
Whitman
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Zoning By-Law Provision Status of Flood Insurance Rate
Wetland Floodplain Watershed Protection
X X
X X

x X X
x X
X

Final,
Draft,
Draft,
Draft,
Draft,
Draft,
Study
Sept., 1977
August, 1977
December, 1977
July, 1977
October, 1977
March, 1978
Not being studied
X X

X X
Draft,
Draft,
Not be
Sept., 1977
October, 1977
ing studied

-------
ID
I
ro
o
                                                         TABLE  9-7

                                              SCS FLOODPLAIN  INVENTORY,  1976

                                 Development Pressure
                     Floodplain     in Floodplain       Flood Management      Plans  to  Acquire
                                   (local  opinion)      Plan for Reservoirs   Floodplains,  Wetlands
Communi ty
Abington
Avon
Bridgewater
Zoning
Yes
Yes
No
(local opin
Limited
Limited
Moderate
     Brockton
    Yes
     East Bridgewater    Yes
     Haston
     Hanson
     Pembroke
    Yes
Moderate
                 Limited
Limited
    Yes*         Limited
 (agricultural-
recreation zone)
    Yes
Limited
     West Bridgewater    Yes*         Limited
                      (incorrect)
     Whitman
    Yes
Limited
No



Yes


No



No



No



No



Yes



No



No


No
                                                                                   No
                                                                                   Yes
                                                                                   Yes
Yes
                                             Yes
Yes



Yes



Yes


Yes
Three Most Important
   Inland Wetlands
   (local opinion)

Beaver Brook
Shumatuscacant River
   tributaries

Scattered wetlands of
   small acreage

Taunton River
Lake Nippenicket
Carver's Pond

Washburn Meadow
D.W. Field Park
Salisbury River & Brook

Poor Meadow Brook
Satucket River
Meadow Brook

Hockomock Swamp
Borderland Swamp
Little Cecar Swamp

None
Cedar Swamp
North River
Kingston St. Swamp

Hockomock Swamp
Black Betty Swamp

Hobart Pond
Bear Meadow
Peat Hole

-------
informed of this by a neighbor or by the Conservation Commission,
usually after the work has already begun, the Conservation Commission
may be reluctant to enforce the regulations  and impose the costs of
removing the fill.  In addition the Conservation Commission often  does
not know what work is being done unless someone tells them and many
times neighbors are reluctant to inform on their neighbors.  One method
which can be used to help with this problem is to have all requests for
building permits, septic system installation approvals and subdivision
approvals referred routinely to the Conservation Commission.

     A second problem is that the Conservation Commission is a volunteer
group, is often lacking in knowledge or expertise, often has no paid
staff and can often be at odds with the rest of the community or  other
town boards.  At a recent town meeting in the Old Colony area the  entire
budget of the Conservation Commission was deleted, although it was
restored at a later town meeting.  In addition, the Conservation  Commission
may find itself at odds with the Board of Selectmen or other boards
about decisions as to where to site public facilities such as sewage
treatment facilities, police or fire stations, or schools.

     A third problem is that the Conservation Commission must determine
whether or not the land involved in the proposed project is a wetland.
Clearly the preferred alternative would be to have the wetlands mapped
onto the assessor's sheets with a copy of the assessors sheets at the
building inspector's office, at the Planning Board, at the Board  of
Health and at the Conservation Commission.  This is an expensive  task
and only the more sophisticated communities have had the resources to
do mapping at all, if not on assessors sheets.  The communities of
Abington, Bridgewater, Brockton, East  Bridgewater, Easton, and Pembroke
have wetlands maps.  In Hanson the wetlands were mapped on the basis
of the soils map using only the criteria of "very poorly drained" soils.
The Soil Conservation Service says that all "very poorly drained" soils
are wetlands and that some "poorly drained" soils are wetlands.  Wetlands
on poorly drained soils were not included in the Hanson mapping so
that it is not complete.   In Whitman the wetlands were mapped on the
basis of the surficial geology (landforms) with alluvial soils being
used as the basis to demarcate the wetlands.  Like Hanson  this does not
give a complete mapping of the wetlands.  Another source of information
that has been used are the MacConnell Map Down maps referred to above
which are based on aerial photographs.  The difficulty with using them
i.e. the fact that wooded swamps are not included as wetlands has been
discussed above.

     A fourth problem is in the determination of whether an action is
significant.  Each case is presented on a case-by-case basis so that
there is little way to assess cumulative impacts.  In addition with
each case coming  in individually there  is not way to do long range
planning for the  protection of wetlands.  The problem of cumulative
impacts is a more severe one however.   Under the HUD flood  insurance
program discussed below, no filling of  floodplains may occur if it will
raise the 100 year flood level by more  than one foot.  Each person may
fill to less than one foot but either the last person must  be denied
because his fill would take it above one foot or the cumulative impact
of each fill will raise the flood  level more than the one  foot limit.
                               9-21

-------
     A  fifth problem  is  the  taking  issue.   If a public regulation renders
 apiece of  land  substantially without value and does not compensate
 the  owner for the  loss in value, the courts may declare such regulation
 a  taking.   Courts  in  Massachusetts  have found that for floodplain
 regulations  as much as 80% of the value of  the land could be lost by the
 enforcement  of the regulation and that it is not a taking if the
 enforcement  was  done  to  protect the public  health and safety.  However
 if the enforcement were  to be for the  enhancement of wildlife values
 or to protect the  biological integrity of the wetland, the courts might
 rule otherwise.  In addition the taking issue does serve to restrain
 the  actions  of the Conservation Commissions to impose Orders of Conditions
 that effectively prohibit action rather than regulate actions.

     A sixth  problem  is  that the Orders of Conditions may be superceded
 by DEQE.  DEQE can initiate  review of a case on its own as well as
 hearing appeals  from  an  aggrieved person.   In some communities this
 has  led to a  sense of frustration on the part of Conservation Commission
 members who  feel that the state will over-ride anyway so why bother
 to be very strict  or  to  try to make a case for a more uncertain project.

     A seventh problem is that certain actions such as mosquito control
 projects, flooding and draining of cranberry bogs,  agricultural lands,
 anything so designated in a special  act of the legislature, or emergency
 projects are  exempt from the provisions of the Act.  In the West
 Bridgewater and  Bridgewater areas, at many of the water quality workshops,
 many expressions of frustration have been registered about the agricul-
 tural exemptions to the Wetlands Protection Act.

     The last problem is one of the more important  problems and that
 is the problem of  enforcement of the Act.  The Conservation Commission
 can enforce the  Act, as well  as a Natural Resources Officer, but it has
 not police power.  The Conservation  Commission can  issue a Cease and
 Desist Order, but  his has no statutory standing.   It  only tells the
 violator that he is in violation and that the Conservation Commission
 intends to prosecute.   The Conservation Commission  can also issue a
 Request for Compliance, but this has even less weight than a Cease
 and Desist Order.

     After the issuance of a Cease and Desist Order, civil  action in
 Superior Court can  be initiated which asks the court to order the
 violator to stop, to refrain from future activity,  to restore the wetland,
 to file a Notice of Intent,  to  record an Order of Conditions, to
 comply with an Order of Conditions,  or to complete  required work.
This  civil  action must be in the name of the town and must be handled
by Town Counsel.   It has  happened  in this area that the town has refused
to let the Conservation Commission use the Town  Counsel  so that the
Wetland Protection  Act could  not be  enforced by  civil  action.   A
criminal  action may also  be  filed  in District  Court,  but  that court  can
only  impose a punishment  or  fine for past violation and cannot force
the completion of required work, etc.   Some  judges  will  hold the
threat of a fine or even  imprisonment over a person however to force
compliance.


                             9-22

-------
B. Protect Wetlands by Means of Wetlands Protective Orders  (Coastal
   Restrictions M.G.L.A. c.130 s.105; Inland Restrictions,  M.G.L.A.  c.
   131 s.40A; Conservation Restrictions, M.G.L.A.  c.184 s.23-33;
   Scenic Rivers, M.G.L.A. c.21 S.17B)

   1. Coastal and Inland Restrictions Programs

        These programs are administered by the Department of Environmental
   Management (DEM) which identified the wetlands, holds public hearings,
   and gives notice of the proposed protective orders to the affected
   owners.  If an inland wetland is involved , DEM gets approval from the
   Board of Selectmen  or the City Council.   DEM then adopts orders
   regulating, restricting or prohibiting dredging, filling, removing,
   altering or polluting wetlands,  Final orders are recorded in the
   Registry of Deeds.

        Evaluation: Like the Wetlands Protection Act, the taking issue
   is a problem with wetlands protective  orders.   However, if the courts
   find that there has been a taking, DEM can take a fee or lesser interest
   in the land through eminent domain proceedings.

        Another problem is in the identification of wetlands.  Although
   some 17,000 acres of coastal wetlands have been identified and
   orders recorded, in eight years of the inland restrictions program
   only wetlands in the Charles River basin have been restricted and
   even there the program is not complete.  In the 208 area, only
   wetlands along the North River in Pembroke have been included in
   the coastal restrictions program  (Figure 9-2).

        An advantage of the restrictions program is that it does allow
   for comprehensive planning.  All  the wetlands in a river basin are
   included.  Another advantage is that orders can be put on even small
   activities which cumulatively can add up to larger problems.

   2. Conservation Restrictions

        Description: Conservation restrictions are given by a private
   landowner  (or sold) to a public agency or charitable corporation.
   The person giving the  restriction receives in return a lowered
   property  tax assessment and estate taxes.

        The  private owner (often after being approached by the Conser-
   vation Commission) gives a  restriction, easement, covenant or condition
   on a deed  or will, etc. appropriate to retaining the wetlands in
   their  natural condition.  A restriction can run with any kind of
   land but  is being discussed in  its applicability to wetlands.
   The approval of the  Board of Selectmen  is obtained and meeting with
   the Board  of assessors is held.   A form is filed with the Dept.
   of Environmental  Qualtiy Engineering  (DEQE) which performs a field
   inspection and  legal  review of  the instrument.   If the restriction
   is to  be  held by  the  city,  town  or a  commission, DEQE approves it.
   If it  is  to be  held  by a charitable  corporation, it  is approved by
   the Mayor,  the  Board  of  Selectmen or  Town Meeting.  The  restriction
   is then  recorded  with  the Registry of Deeds.
                               9-23

-------

Fig. 9-2
Area of Wetlands Restrictions
Along  the North River

Old Colony Planning Council
208 Program, 1977

-------
         Evaluation: The  problems are  clearly that the program  is entirely
    voluntary  and  depends not only on  the good will of the private  land-
    owner but  also on  his or her financial ability to give the  restriction.

    3.  Scenic  River Designation

         Description:  Under the Scenic Rivers Act, the Department of
    Environmental  Management (DEM) may designate a river as a Scenic River
    and place  restrictive orders on lands within 100 yards  of  the  bank
    of  the river.  Thus where there are wetlands or.floodplains within
    100 yards  of a river, restrictive orders like the Wetlands  Protective
    Orders may be  placed on the wetlands and floodplains.

         Evaluation:   At the present time the North River has been  named
    as  a pilot project for designation as a Scenic River.  The  communities
    of  Hanson  and  Pembroke as well as the Old Colony Planning Council 208
    program are represented on the Advisory Committee which is working
    with  DEM to determine the kinds of restrictive orders.

        At the same time as the pilot project is going on, DEM is
    reviewing  other rivers in the Commonwealth as to possible designation.
    Rivers with great  scenic value and active citizen involvement would
    be  given greatest priority.   Proposals for Scenic River designation
    for  other  rivers are being requested by DEM.

C.  Protect Wetlands by Designation as an Environmentally Critical Area

     Wetlands, like other kinds of environmentally critical  areas,  may
be designated by the Secretary of the Executive  Office of Environmental
Affairs.  For a discussion of this see below.

D. Protect Wetlands and Floodplains  Through  Enactment of Provisions in
   the Zoning By-Law (Zoning Enabling Act, M.G.L.A.  C.40A)

   1.  Wetlands and Floodplain  Protection Districts

        Description:  Under the  provisions of the Zoning  Enabling Act a
   community may enact floodplain, wetland or watershed  protection  zoning
   in  their zoning by-laws.   In general  such by-laws  restrict certain
   uses in areas designated as  floodplain, wetland  or watershed for
   the purposes  of protecting  the  natural  resource  involved,  protecting
   the public  health,  and protecting  the public  safety.   The  provisions
   are enforced  by the Bui Idling  Inspector and variances  are  given  by
   the Board of  Appeals.   Most  floodplain and wetland districts are over-
   lay districts.   All the  fules and  regulations  that apply to  the
   underlying  zoning  district  (i.e.  residential,  commercial,  industrial
   etc.) apply with  the special regulation pertinent  to  the floodplain
   or  wetland  applying to  the areas delineated in addition.   Table  9-8
   lists each  community as  to whether  its floodplain/wetland/watershed
   protection  zoning  by-law is  in conformance with a  suggested  model
   by-law which  would  protect surface  and groundwater.
                              9-25

-------
                         TABLE 9-8
COMMUNITY CONFORMANCE WITH MODEL PROVISIONS OF WETLANDS,
         FLOODPLAIN, WATERSHED PROTECTION ZONING
Prohibited Board of Appeals
Community Name of District Purposes U e Proc d r s























Abington Floodplain and Wet-
lands Protection
District
Avon Floodplain District
Watershed Protec-
tion District
	 Bridgewater None 	
Brockton Floodplain, Water-
shed & Wetland
Protection District
East Floodplain & Wet-
Bridgewater lands Protection
District
Easton Floodplain District
Hanson Agricultural -
Recreation District
has some relevant
procedures
Pembroke Floodplain & Water-
shed Protection
District
West None
	 Bridgewater 	 	
Whitman Floodplain & Water-
shed Protection
District

T3
11

ro
?
S-
01

at
3
-4-1
OJ
i *
o

Q.
o3
fli
w
^_
0) I/)
t/> "O
01 C
i. ro
O. r—
X


X
X


X



X

X
X



X












1
1
e
i
i
i
B

|
I I/)
3 01
3 ••-
71 'o
_ 5
- 1/1
ro
4J J-
C 01
r- 4->
10 ro
s: 3



X
X


X










X




X


g








in
1 •*->
t/>
O
: o

) -0
> o
> 0
i.

J  o
5 3
J T3
>  t(__
u s-

_ i/;




X













X

















I/I
Ol
c
•^
•D
•r~
3


3
S
^

o
•z.




X


X



X

X




X




X




H
• ^
ro
L
1
•

£
j

n
^

U
- rjj
in ^:
i in
c s-
o 01
-p
O re
z 5




X


X



X











X



•o  E
ro in M-
•o 3 in o
C 01
(0 S- ryi T3
i— O in S-
ro (O
4- -O O
•r- C r— CO
ro re
^43 C °
c ai o>
o 3 E -o
c  4-
Q.I— C 01
<: o ui a:
X XX



X


A



X

X X




X









1


1
\ ^3
i O
— OQ
J
i cr
i c
n c
~ (O
D •—
J D-
D O
-> -M
3 "O
D OJ
-
- ^
J AJ
- *^
J fl;
£. UL.
X X



A A


A A

-------
         Evaluation:  Many of the problems of floodplain or wetland zoning
    are the same as with the other wetland/floodplain  protection  measures
    (i.e.  the problem of how to identify the wetlands  or floodplain,  the
    taking issue, the determination as  to the significance  of the wetlands
    or floodplain, and the lack of public knowledge  as to the applicability
    of the floodplain or wetland zoning before purchase of  land).

         One problem with the zoning by-law route  is that variances  are
    granted by the Board of Appeals, often with  no Conservation Commission
    input.   The Building Inspector and  the Board of  Appeals  in addition
    may lack the expertise to make adequate determinations  as to  the
    involvement of wetlands or floodplain or as  to their significance.
    As is  pointed out in Table 9-8 a model  by-law would have  a variance
    granted only if it could be shown that the land  in question was  not
    actually in the floodplain or not a wetland.   In addition an
    environmental  impact statement would be required for a  variance  and
    all  requests for variances would be referred to  the Board of  Health,
    to the  Conservation  Commission and  to the  Planning Board.

        However,  an advantage of having floodplain  and wetland zoning
    is that under the provisions  of the Wetland  Protection Act the person
    proposeing to do the work must obtain all  zoning permits  and  require-
    ments  first before going to the Conservation Commission for a wetlands
    act  determination.   Thus putting wetlands  protection  in the zoning
    by-law  can preclude  DEQE review and possible override.

    2.  Other Provisions  in  the Zoning By-Law

        Description:   In  addition  to the  creation of  wetland  or floodplain
    districts,  other provisions can  be  written into the  zoning by-law which
    would protect wetlands  and floodplains.  The Town  of  Easton,  for  example,
    has  a requirement  that  any use  permitted by  right  or  special  permit
    in any  District  be done  in  conformance with certain  Environmental
    Performance  Standards.   This  provision  reads in part  as follows,
    "Any use  permitted by  right or  special  permit in any  District shall
    not  be  conducted  in  a manner  as  to  emit any  ... substance, conditions
    or element  in an  amount  as  to affect  adversely the surrounding environ-
    ment."

        Evaluation:  As with  all performance standards the problem is
    to enforce them. . There  has to  be someone to notice that there has
    been a  violation, to measure  the  violation, to prove  it and then to
    enforce  the  standard.

E-  Protect Wetlands and Floodplains  by Provisions in Town By-Laws

     Description:  The Town of Dennis has recently enacted general wetlands
by-laws as a part of the town by-laws rather than as a part of the zoning
by-laws.  No communities in this area have done so.   In it "The
Conservation Commission is empowered to deny permission for any  dredging,
filling or altering of subject lands within the town,  if, in its
judgement such denial is necessary to preserve environmental  quality
of either or both the subject lands and contiguous lands".
                                9-27

-------
     Evaluation: Having such a town by-law has some clear advantages.
First unlike all of the above wetlands and floodplain protection
measures, lands which are not actually wet or floodplain but which if
left unregulated could destroy or harm the wetland or floodplain are
included in the regulation.  Second since a person proposing to do any
work must receive Conservation Commission approval  first under the town
by-law, review and possible override by DEQE is precluded.  Third the
Conservation Commission is empowered to prohibit activities as well as
to regulate them.  Some lawyers have questioned the legality of having
such a town by-law but to this date there has been no litigation to test it.

F. Utilize Provisions of Federal Legislation to Protect Wetlands and
   Floodplains

   1. HUD National Flood Insurance Program

        Description:  The purpose of the HUD flood insurance program is
   to make flood insurance available to homeowners and others in towns
   which have areas considered to flood hazard after the community has
   enacted land use management tools to reduce the risks of flooding
   in that community.  All of the communities in the 208 area have
   areas with flood hazards and all of them are in the Emergency Program.
   Table 9-6 summarizes the status of the communities in relation  to
   the HUD flood insurance program.

        Flood Hazard Boundary maps were initially drawn up to determine
   which communities would come under the provisions of the Act.
   These were very crudely drawn and rapidly made.   If a community
   felt that it had no  flood hazard areas, it could appeal and
   withdraw from the flood insurance program.  Once  the Flood Hazard
   maps were made a town entered the emergency program and federally
   subsidized flood insurance  became available.

        A final map called a  Flood  Insurance  Rate Map is  then drawn
   with precise and accurate  boundaries.  Once that  map is adopted
   by the community, the community must require that the  bottom floor
   of any new buildings be elevated or floodproofed  for a  non-
   residential  building to a  level  equal  to the elevation  of  the 100
   year flood.  And secondly  the community must prohibit  any  filling
   in of the flood hazard  area which would  raise  the 100 year flood by
   more  than one  foot.

         Evaluation:  The objective  of  this  program  is to  prevent the
   expenditures  of  Federal money for  flood  relief by preventing
   building in  the  floodplain in the  first  place  or  insuring  that  what
   building is  there  is  flood-proofed, and  to prevent loss of human
   lives.  The  objective  is  not  necessarily  to  protect  the land or the
   water quality.   Any large  scale  developer  who  has a  piece  of land
   located such that  it  would pay  to  flood-proof  the property would  be
   allowed  to  locate  in  the  floodplain.   Such large  scale developers
   may well find  that  the  low cost of floodplain  land and the presence
   of  flood insurance  would  make  it worthwhile.   Stricter floodplain
   regulations  are  necessary in  order to  protect  against  the  loss  of
   floodplain  by  development.
                               9-28

-------
2. Utilize the Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Program

     Description:  Under Section 404 of P.L. 92-500, the Corps is
authorized to give permits for all dredge and fill operations on
all costal and inland navigable waters and contiguous or adjacent
costal and freshwater wetlands.  In affect this covers all natural
lakes larger than 5 acres, and all streams with a flow of greater
than 5 cubic feet per second and a drainage basin of greater than
3 square miles.  Agricultural operations and conservation practices
such as terracing, check dams and land levelling will not require
a permit.  A system of general permits is being considered for such
activities as minor modifications of roadways, logging roads, small
pilings and piers and minor soil and water conservation projects.
For a wetland to come under the provisions of this permit system, it
must be periodically inundated by a stream and have vegetation that
relies on that inundation.

     Evaluation:  Many of the previously discussed limitations to
wetlands protection measures also apply to the Corps 404 permit
program, especially the public notification problems and the iden-
tification of affected wetlands.  Since a permit is required, the
program is potentially a powerful tool for the protection of wetlands
and floodplains from dredging and filling.  The full application of
this permit program began in July, 1977 and thus it is difficult to
tell how effective it will be.

3. Environmental Protection Agency's Policy Statement: Protection of
   Nation's Wetlands

     Description:  This policy statement outlines four goals of EPA to
protect wetlands: 1) to give particular cognizance to any proposal that
has the potential to damage wetlands in its decision-making; 2) to
minimze alterations in the quantity and quality of the natural  flow of
waters into wetlands and to prevent violation of applicable water
quality standards; 3) "to not grant Federal funds for the construction
of municipal wastewater treatment facilities...which may interfere with
the existing wetland ecosystem", and 4) to promote environmentally
protective measures in waste treatment facilities under a Federal grant
program or as a result of a Federal  permit.  A public hearing may be
held if there is a projected significant environmental impact to a
wetland from a sewage treatment plant on the wetlands issue.

     Evaluation:  This policy statement is not widely known or followed.
If it were adhered to in the planning for sewage treatment facilities
or in permits it could have far-reaching effects.

4. Executive Order 11990 Protection of Wetlands

     The President in futherance of the National  Environmental  Policy Act
has set forth the following policies in order to avoid long, and short
term adverse impacts associated with the destruction and modification of
wetlands: 1) "each agency shall  provide leadership and shall take action
to minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands, and to

                           9-29

-------
      preserve and enhance the natural  and beneficial  values  of
      wetlands in carrying out agency responsibilities..."  and
      2)  each agency shall avoid providing assistance  for new
      construction located in wetlands  unless  there is no praticable
      alternative and the proposed action includes  all practicable
      measures to minimize harm to wetlands.

           In carrying out these policies, each agency shall  consider:
      a)  public health safety, and welfare,  including  water supply,
      quality, recharge and discharge;  pollution;  flood and storm
      hazards; and sediment and erosion;  b)  maintenance of natural
      systems including conservation and  long  term  productivity of
      existing flora and fauna, species and  habitat diversity and
      stability, hydrologic utility, fish, wildlife, timber,and food
      and fiber resources; and c) other uses of wetlands in the public
      interest, including recreational, scientific, and cultural  uses.

III.   Earth Removal

       Removal of vegetation and soil from the land surface can allow erosion
to occur-and raises the possibility of sedimentation of streams and  ponds.
Soil  disturbance may occur either as part of construction activities or for
the purpose of removing sand and gravel for building materials.  Construction-
related earth removal is discussed in Chapters,   Urban Runoff/Construction
and Development.  This section discusses  municipal  earth removal  laws as they
relate to sand and gravel mining.

       Sand and gravel mining currently occurs in  all  OCPC 208 area  communities
except Avon, Abington, and Whitman.  Easton, Hanson, Pembroke,  and Bridgewater
have most of the active sites.  Figure 9-3 is  a map of active sand and  gravel
sites in the OCPC 208 Area, based on field surveys  in  1976 and 1977.

       Based on local perceptions as to the relative significance of sand and
gravel operations as a pollution source,  OCPC  has  not  given high priority to
investigation of sand and gravel operations.  Some  streams below sand and gravel
operations were tested as part of the non-point source sampling program, but
not all sites were so monitored, and there was no  field inspection of such sites
within the 208 program.  To this point, then,  no water quality problems from
this source have been identified, but additional  investigation may be warranted.

       Besides causing stream sedimentation, sand  and  gravel  removal raises a
potential problem of groundwater contamination should  the water table be exposed
and activities occur at the site which could allow pollutants to reach  the
groundwater.  This possibility, and the desirability of regulations  to  forestall
it, are discussed in Chapter 3.

       Reasons unrelated to water pollution control have been principally
responsible for the adoption of earth removal  regulations in every OCPC 208 Area
community.  Surface mining can create nuisance conditions, including dust, noise,
heavy truck traffic, vibration, unpleasant aesthetic impacts, and safety hazards.
Because it depends on the on-site availability of  a particular resource, sand
and gravel removal can pose conflicts with adjacent landowners affected by the
nuisance.

                                  9-30

-------
                            Whitman  S\\
                            E.Bridgewater
    J
                     Bridgewater
                r
              Raynham
Sites Where Sand and Gravel Is
Presently Being Mined.
                                   Middteborough
                                             Scale in Miles
Fig. 9-3 Sand and Gravel Removal
        Operations

Old Colony Planning Council/208  Program,1977

-------
       Earth removal can be regulated either through a general by-law adopted
under Chapter 40 of the General Laws or through a zoning by-law adopted under
Chapter 40A.  Under Chapter 40 by-laws, the permit power may be given to any
regular or special board.   Under Chapter 40A by-laws, the permit power must
be given to the zoning board of appeals or the selectmen.  Existing operations
may be exempted from a permit requirement under a grandfather clause, but
this is up to a town's discretion -- existing operations can be regulated, if
the town so chooses.

       Table 9-9 presents information on the current status of earth removal
regulations in the OCPC 208 Area communities, with emphasis on those regulations
which would pertain to water quality protection.  The towns with the most
complete regulations overall are Easton, Hanson, Pembroke, and East Bridgewater.
Following is an explanation of the items in the table:

       1) Type of By-law -- eight communities have general by-laws, one (East
Bridgewater) has a zoning by-law provision, and one (Whitman) has both.  In
Easton, earth removal is regulated under general by-law, but the zoning by-law
(1973) limits this activity to the industrial districts and (by special permit)
to the floodplain district.  In all of the communities with general by-laws,
permits are issued by the Board of Selectmen.  The Board of Appeals issues
permits in East Bridgewater.

       2) Review by other boards -- In Abington, East Bridgewater, and West
Bridgewater, the Planning Board may review the proposal and make comments; in
Easton, the building inspector does so.

       3) Date of by-law -- Newer by-laws tend to include more specific regulations.
The date is significant for towns which exempt pre-existing operations.

       4) Regulations of pre-existing operations -- Avon and West Bridgewater,
by not specifically excluding such operations from permits, seem to include them.
Four towns regulate existing operations to some degree, as stated in the notes.

       5) Stone/rock removal covered by by-law -- See comments below on "Coal
Mining".  Those towns whose earth removal laws specifically apply to "stone"
and "rock", and not just soil, loam, clay, sand, or gravel, may have a basis
on which to regulate coal mining.

       6) Features required in plans -- four towns specify information which
must be presented when a permit is applied for, usually in terms of both existing
and proposed conditions.  Only Easton and Pembroke require that streams and
other surface waters be shown on maps, and only Easton requires that the ground-
water elevation be determined and shown.

       7) Plan preparation by engineer or surveyor -- three towns state that a
registered engineer or surveyor must prepare the applicant's plans.

       8) Deposit for municipal review expenses - Easton and Pembroke require
the applicant to pay a deposit out of which the town pays the cost of arranging
professional review of the applicant's plans.

       9) General authorization to impose conditions -- although the power to


                                 9-32

-------
                                          TABLE  9-9
                              CURRENT  EARTH  REMOVAL  REGULATIONS









1.


2.


3.
4.


5.

6.
















Type of By-Law
(Z:Zoning (Ch. 40A) ,
fi: General (Ch. 40))
Recommendation or
review by other
boards or officials
Date of By-law
Regulations apply to
pre-existing
operations
Stone/rock removal
covered by by-law
Features required in
plans:
Topography (contours)
Location of surface
waters
groundwater elevation
drainage
vegetative cover

c
o
4-*
Ol
c c

.a >
< <
G G


PI.
Bd.

1977 1967
X


X









I
at 01
•*-> -a
«J C -r-
301-
0) +J CD
cr. it
-0 (J 4J
•r- O l/>
^ ^ 10
ca oa LLJ
G G Z


PI.
Bd.

1950 1958 1973
(2)


X



X



X
X



c c
o o
*j i/>
ul C
(O IU
UJ 31
G G


Bid.
Insp.

1972 1972
(3) (4)


(5) X



X
X

X
X


aj
.^





a.
G





1974
(3)


X



X
X


X
X
I
Ol
•a

c
CO

4-)
(/)
QJ
2
G


PI.
Bd.

1957
X






X







c





2:
(i)





1956













 7.   Engineer or surveyor to
       prepare plans

 3.   Deposit for municipal
       review expenses

 9.   General  authorization
       to impose conditions

10.   Specific conditions
       stated on:
        a) mi mi mum distance
           between excavation
           and natural  streams
        b) no direct  drainage
           to streams ft ponds
        c) standards  for
           restoration
        d) protection of  ground-
           water table
        e) maximum exposure of
           uncovered  land at
           one time
        f) prohibition  of snow
           dumping

11.   General  authorization to
       requi re bond
12.   Specific requirement for
       bond

13.   Maximum period for permit
       (years)
 S25/
 acre
S500
 100'   50'
 5 ac.  5 ac.
S3000/ S1000/(6)
 acre  acre
      notes:

      (1)   llhitman  has  a  general by-law but also has a zoning by-law provision making
      earth removal  allowable  by special pemi t only in General  Residential, Hiqhway
      Business,  General Business, and  Industrial Districts.  Therefore, to conduct earth
      removal  in Whitman, one  would have to obtain a special permit from the Board of
      Appeals  under  the zoning hy-law  and then a permit from the Board of Selectmen under
      the  earth  removal by-law.

      (2)   Existing  operations were covered unless they had been in continuous operation
      for  the  five years  preceding the by-law adoption.

      (3)   Restrictions are  placed on  the expansion of current operations without a permit.

      (4)   Existing  operations subject to the by-law as of 1973.

      (5)   Stone only.

      (6)   Amount to be determined based on estimated cost of site restoration.
                                              9-33

-------
impose .conditions may be implicit in the power to issue a permit, the
permitting authority may be on stronger ground legally where the by-law
is clear in granting the power to set conditions.

       10) Specific conditions -- most of the by-laws leave to the discretion
of the permitting board standards by which to set conditions.   In Easton and
Hanson, specific conditions are established within the language of the by-law.
A buffer strip must be left between the edge of the excavation and a "natural
stream"; "drainage shall not lead directly into streams or ponds"; restoration
of loam and vegetation is provided for; and erosion potential  is minimized
by allowing active operations on only five acres at a time.  Easton is the only
town which mentions groundwater protection:

              No gravel shall be removed closer to the maximum groundwater
              elevation than would preclude its subsequent re-use according
              to existing public health standards.

       The language suggests a minimum distance of 5 to 10 feet between the
bottom of the excavation and the maximum groundwater elevation, to allow for
the four-foot distance between the bottom of a leaching field  and the water
table required under the State Environmental Code.

       None of the municipal earth removal by-laws in the OCPC 208 Area include
prohibitions on snow dumping (i.e. disposal of snow removal from highways and
parking areas) in sand and gravel pits.  As explained in Chapter 3, Groundwater
Protection, such a regulation would be desirable to prevent sodium pollution
of groundwater.  OCPC is not now aware of current uses of pits locally for this
purpose.

       11) and 12) Bonding -- Six towns grant authority to require bonds.  Three
towns specifically require such bonds.

       13) Permit period -- four towns place no limit on the permit period in
the by-law.  The others provide for periodic review by limiting the permit
period (generally to a maxiumum of one year).

A.  Incorporate Water Quality Objectives in Sand and Gravel Regulations

       As a preventive measure, water quality objectives can be incorporated
into regulations on sand and gravel  operations.  The following provisions would
be the most important for protecting ground and surface waters:

       .Require plans showing present and proposed surface contours,  drainage
provisions, and vegatative cover, as well as location of surface waters and
groundwater elevation.

       .Establish requirement for a minimum buffer distance to streams and to
groundwater.

       .Prohibit direct drainage to streams and ponds.

       .Prohibit snow dumping at sand and gravel pits.


                                9-34

-------
        .Limit land exposed for excavation at any one time.

        .Require a bond for restoration.

        .Limit permits to one year and review site operations before
granting renewals.

        .Apply regulations to existing as well as future operations.  Such
regulations could either be adopted by amending existing by-laws or by
instituting state controls.

1. Update Municipal Earth Removal By-Laws

     Description:  Existing municipal by-laws would be amended to incorporate
the measures just listed.

     Evaluation:  The changes required would depend on present regulations,
as listed in Table 9-9 and discussed above.  Easton most closely meets these
suggestions.  Hanson, Pembroke, and East Bridgewater would need somewhat
more detailed regulations than they now have, but to have relatively strong
by-laws already.  Other towns have weaker ordinances.   Considering the location
of sand and gravel deposits and present municipal regulation, Bridgewater and
West Bridgewater would appear to be most in need of revisions to local  regulations.
Additional  public costs of amended regulations would be minimal; a community
might wish to follow the example of Easton and Pembroke and impose a fee to
cover plan review costs.   Private expenses on the part of the operator would
include the costs of plan preparation and site restoration, and the revenue not
realized if regulations restrict excavation close to the water table or near
streams.

2.  Impose State Permit Requirements on Sand and Gravel  Removal Under the
   Massachusetts Clean Waters Act (G.L. Chapter 21)

     Description:  The Division of Water Pollution Control (DWPC) has the
authority to regulate both point and nonpoint sources,  and could exercise this
power to regulate sand and gravel removal, either through a system of general
permits imposing these environmental standards, or by individual permits for
each operator.

     Evaluation:  The DWPC is reluctant to involve itself in regulating this
type of source,  considering its limited manpower and its perception of pollution
control priorities.   Given the existence of earth removal  laws in every OCPC
208 Area community,  amending these by-laws seems a simpler matter than
superceding them with a new layer of state regulation.

B.   Provide for Regulation of Coal  Mining

     Description:  In the late 19th and early 20th century, coal  was mined
from several small operations in Rhode Island and southeatern Massachusetts
(the closest to the OCPC  208 Area being Mansfield).   With  the rise in energy
prices, interest in coal  mining locally has been renewed,  and some preliminary
explorations have been conducted by the Boston College  Weston Observatory,


                                 9-35

-------
funded by federal and private grants.   It is still too early to say whether
local coal deposits are extensive enough or of sufficent quality to make their
development economically feasible.  The Narraganset Basin formation which is
being investigated underlies the entire OCPC 208 area with the exception of
Avon, northern Brockton, northern Easton, Abington, and eastern Pembroke.
Initial  explorations by the Boston College research group found coal seams in
Mansfield, Mass,  and Bristol and Portsmouth, R.I.  The only hole drilled in
the OCPC area, in West Bridgewater, did not show the presence of coal.   More
exploration is planned in both the Mansfield area and towns to the each which
are still largely unexplored.  Weston Observatory -- Boston College, Interim
Report:  The Pennsylvania Coal-Bearing Strata of_ the Narragansett Basin, 1977.

1.  Adopt Municipal Regulations for Coal Mining

     Description:  Communities could specify coal and other subsurface materials
as  within the purview of the municipal  earth removal by-law.

     Evaluation:   Presently, "stone" and "rock" are included in the items
subject to the by-laws of Avon, East Bridgewater, Easton (stone only), Hanson,
and Pembroke.   However there is a legal question as to whether chapter 40
by-laws can be applied to minerals other than sand and gravel.

     Evaluation:   A problem with municipal regulation of coal mining would be
lack of local  expertise in evaluating the proposals.  Also, from the point of
view of the prospective mining company, a system of municipal regulations could
be more difficult, since it would become necessary to secure permits and answer
to varying regulations in a number of towns whenever the deposits overlapped
town boundaries.   Conversely, a town would have no way to protect itself from
operations in a neighboring community that had environmental (and social impacts)
on the first town.

2.  Adopt  State Regulations for Coal Mining

     Description:  Coal mining would be regulated under new state statutes, with
the Executive Office of Environmental  Affairs responsible for administration
and enforcement.

     Evaluation:   Under this option, full scale environmental impact reviews
would be ordered, and a professional staff would be available to review plans.
Operations affecting more than one municipality could be assessed more readily
than with a municipal regulatory system.  This is not at all an immediate
pollution problem,  but it is a potential one, and it would be wise to have
regulations in place rather than seek toimposethem after mining has begun:  for
all concerned, including the operators, it would be better to know the "ground
rules" (all puns intended) ahead of time.

IV.  Preservation of Agricultural Land

      Agricultural land is a major component in not only the open space and
environmental  management programs of a town but also the "quality of life and
the character of a town".  Major agricultural activity in the OCPC area includes
fruit and vegetables, dairy, and cranberry operations.  As in other areas of
Massachusetts, New England, and the Northeast, agricultural land acreage is
constantly decreasing (see Table 7-1).  Agricultural land in the region is

                                 9-36

-------
able to produce a significant amount of food for local  consumption.   The
preservation of agricultural  land is consistent with the state agricultural
land preservation policy which has the goals of working toward self
sufficiency in food production.   For a complete discussion of agricultural  land
preservation refer to the separate publication, Agricultural  Land and
Preservation Issues in the OCPC 208 Area. April. 1977.   For a discussion of
the water quality problems associated with agricultural operations,  see
Agriculture, Chapter 7.

V.   Natural Areas

      Open space may be defined as land in public ownership or quasi-public
such as educational institutions, church, and sportsman's associations.  These
lands may be open, non-wooded lands, agriculture, wetlands, or woodland.

      Open space land can play a significant role in the maintenance of water
quality through natural ecological processes.

      Open space may be acquired by a variety of techniques from outright
acquisition, to purchase of conservation easements, or preferential  tax
assessments.  Open space is utilized for different uses ranging from active
recreation, to walking trails and picnic areas, to land which is maintained
for its natural value.

A.  Prepare Open Space and Conservation Plan

      Open space conservation plans are usually prepared by the conservation
commission, a private consultant, or a specially appointed town committee.
Open space and conservation plans should be prepared to meet the minimum require-
ments established by the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund and the Mass.
Self Help Program.  The Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund, established by
Act of Congress, 1965, provides up to 50 percent reimbursement for the acquisition
and development of outdoor recreation land.  The Massachusetts Self-Help
Program ( General Laws Chapter 132A, Section 11) will reimburse communities up
to 50 percent for the acquisition only of conservation lands.  To receive
assistance through either or both of these two programs, a municipality must
submit an approved conservation and/or recreation plan.  For approval, the
conservation or recreation plan must include the following:

     1. A statement of agency participation and methodology of plan development

     2. Background data on physical, social, and economic factors important to
        open space and/or recreation policies

     3. A statement of municipal conservation and/or recreation goals and
        objectives

     4. An inventory of public, quasi-public, and private (but used by the
        public) conservation and/or recreation facilities

     5. An analysis and statement of community conservation and/or recreation
        needs


                                    9-37

-------
  6. A  five year  action program

  7. Written comments on the plan from the local planning board and
     the Regional Planning Agency

  For a complete listing of the status of each OCPC 208 area community's
conservation plan see Table 9-10.

B. Designation of Critical Environmental Areas

     Description:  Under Section 8.2 of the Regulations of the Executive
Office of Environmental Affairs adopted under the Massachusetts Environ-
mental Policy Act (C.30, S.62) the Secretary of Environmental Affairs
may designate Areas of  Critical Environmental Concern.  The Massachusetts
Environmental Policy Act (MEPA) causes all projects or activities that
require state permits to file an environmental assessment form.  For
projects or activities  "which may cause damage to the environment"
environmental impact reports must be prepared.  State agencies are
granted "categorical exemptions" for projects and activities which are
deemed to have an insignificant environmental impact.  The designation
of a critical environmental area would invalidate all categorical exemptions
for that particular land area.

     Areas of Critical  Environmental Concern must be in danger of uncontrolled
development which could result in irreversible damage to the environment.
These areas may include, "inland and coastal wetlands, rare and valuable
ecosystems and habitats, rivers, streams, and floodplains; natural areas;
Great Ponds, reservoirs, soils and aquifers determined to be of regional
significance; parks, reservations, forest, recreation or open space
lands determined to be  of regional significance; and fish, bird or other
wildlife management areas.  The proposed designation of a critical
environmental area would be open to public review and comment, which
would include a public  hearing.  In addition, the area of critical
environmental concern must be clearly defined.

     Evaluation: Critical  environmental area designation is only a viable
alternative for resources which have regional significance.  The
designation process will require a great deal of public involvement to
assure support for the  proposed designation.  The major limitation is
that it has a direct affect on only those state projects for which
categorical exemptions would have been granted.   This means that most
development proposals will be required to submit the same environmental
assessment forms as would be required without designation.  State
projects which had previously been exempt would be required to submit
environmental assessment for any activity in the designated area.  Changes
in the regulations are  necessary so that not all  activities, no matter
how trivial, would be included.  However, a secondary impact of the
designation is that there would be an increased awareness by the general
public of the significance of the designated area.   This increased
awareness and public concern would discourage development proposals that
would face strong public opposition.  Further designation by the State
would provide an incentive for the towns to take action to protect the
critical area from any environmentally harmful development.


                                 9-38

-------
                                     TABLE 9-10

                  STATUS OF LOCAL CONSERVATION/RECREATION PLANS
                                               Land & Water
                 Conservation/                 Conservation
                 Recreation Plan   Self Help   Fund (L&WCF)
Abington              No

Avon                  No

Bridgewater           Yes



Brockton              Yes


East Bridgewater      Yes

Easton                Yes


Hanson                No

Pembroke              Yes

West Bridgewater      No

Whitman               No
     Comments
1969 Plan - too old to
be eligible.  Must be
updated.

Eligibility pending final
report.

Plan has been submitted.

Must add active recreation
for L&WCF.
Need more background info.
          X   Eligible

          0   Eligibility conditional  on  provision  of further  information
                                      9-39

-------
       1-  Designate  the Hockomock  Swamp as a Critical Environmental Area

            Description:  The Hockomock Swamp  is a 6000 acre wet and wooded
       area  which  lies within six  southeastern Massachusetts towns: Easton,
       Raynham,  Tuanton, West Bridgewater, Bridgewater and Norton.  The nearly
       10  square mile Hockomock Swamp is the largest wetland in Massachusetts.
       It  is mostly  privately owned.  It is largely in its natural condition
       having  few  roads or trails  penetrating  it.  The Hockomock Swamp holds
       in  storage  approximately 7  1/2 billion  gallons of water which lessen
       flood crests, stabilizes groundwater levels and maintains water flow
       during  dry  weather.

            The  Hockomock Swamp is under an increased threat of development
       resulting from the proposed construction of the Interstate Highway
       Route 495 Extension with interchanges   at Routes 123 and 138.  The
       actual  highway construction will necessitate the acquisition of
       approximately 27 acres of swamp.  However, a more imminent threat will
       be  the  increase in land values near the highway interchanges, and
       the development proposals that will follow.

           The  process for critical environmental area designation would
       begin with  the precise delineation of the area to be designated.  Such
       a delineation would be on maps of similar detail  as town assessor's
       maps. Information would be gathered to document the significance of
       the Hockomock Swamp (much of which has already been done and published
       in  the  booklet entitled "Hockomock Wonder Wetland").  After the
       designation request had been transmitted to the Executive Office of
       Environmental Affairs (EOEA) the EOEA would conduct public hearings
       and review  the documents and comments before making a designation
       decision.

           Evaluation:  The designation of the Hockomock Swamp as a critical
       environmental area will aid the preservation of the Hockomock and
       supplement the acquisition efforts of the Mass.  Division of Fish and
      Wildlife.  Although only state projects  would be directly affected by
       the critical area designation, it would  add to community awareness and
      be an incentive to other protection mechanisms.  (See Figure 9-4)

VI. Pesticide Programs (Non-Agriculturally Related)

     A number of programs  exist under which chemicals  are used for the control
of insects, vegetation, or plant diseases.  These include spraying for
mosquito control,  use of herbicides to  kill  aquatic weeds, tree spraying,
spraying for gypsy moth,  arid use of herbicides along utility company easements.

     To some extent the chemicals used  and the individuals involved in
chemical application are  regulated by the Massachusetts  Pesticide Control
Borad and the Environmental  Protection  Agency  under the  Federal  Insecticide,
fungicide, and Rodenticide Act  (FIFRA).   This  law provides for the
identification and labelling of pesticides subject to  restricted  use and
the licensing of applicators (who must  pass  exams  on their knowledge of proper


                                 9-40

-------
                                .Bridgewater ^
                     XW.Bridgewater
                   Raynn
                          Iridgewater
Fig: 9-4 Hockomock Swamp
       Old Colony Planning Council
       208 Program, 1977
Scale in Miles

-------
pesticide use).  In recent months controversy has arisen in Massachusetts
over the use of Baytex for mosquito control, since the label  instructions
for that product point to potential hazards for aquatic  life and domestic
animals.  The controversy indicates that the pesticide registration and
applicator licensing programs have not answered all  questions about the
use of these chemicals.

     In the case of agricultural use of pesticides, federal and state
pesticide controls are supplemented by advice to farmers from the Cooper-
ative Extension Service and the agricultural experiment stations on
selection of chemicals, timing and method of application, and frequency
of application.  Such  advice is not so readily available presently for
those involved in publicly sanctioned or sponsored pest control programs.
Also no agency is now engaged in assessing the cumulative impacts locally
of all uses of these chemicals or in closely monitoring the observance
of label instructions.  This would in fact require an extensive and
expensive sampling program to test for the presence of numerous chemicals.

     At this point documentation is lacking on the present and potential
extent of this problem and specific control alternatives cannot be
presented and evaluated.   The 208 staff intends to investigate further
into the extent of these chemical treatment programs and to present
alternatives at a later date.
                                 9-42

-------
                 CHAPTER 10





Regional  Water Quality Management Alternatives

-------
                           Table of Contents

                                                                 page
Background
   -Reasons for a Regional Approach to Water Quality             10-1
    Management

   -Functions of a Regional  Water Quality Management
    Planning Agency
I.   OCPC Gives Advice to, Refers Information to, and             10-4
    Coordinates with the Management Agencies
II..   OCPC  Assumes the Lead as the Areawide Water Quality        10-5
     Management Planning Agency
III.   Create a Regional  Water Quality Management Agency          10-5

-------
     Water has a distressing tendency to flow downhill.  In the portion of
the 208 area that forms the headwaters of the Taunton River, most streams
flow from north to south and all eventually merge to form the Taunton River.
The other communities in the area are in the headwaters of the North River
(with a portion in the Neponset and Jones Rivers headwaters) which flows
east to the sea.  Thus the activities of all of these communities greatly
affect their downstream neighbors.  It is for this reason that a regional
or areawide perspective is necessary to achieve and maintain fishable/
swimmable waters.  No one community is independent of the decisions made
by other communities.

     Local^regional, state and federal control mechanisms are discussed
above under each of the functional areas, i.e. public participation,
groundwater protection, municipal wastewater, industrial wastewater,
urban  run-off, agriculture and residuals management.

     However, beyond the strictly functional areas there is a need for a
regional approach, a regional  water quality perspective, a regional water
quality management planning agency.  The Old Colony Planning Council should
be this agency.  As such, the  functions wich  should  be  included are  to:

          Update the 208 plan annually
          Coordinate the designated management agencies
          Coordinate water quality planning with land use planning
          Use planning expertise to increase the public awareness
            of the need for water quality implementation
          Help communities find the financial resources to solve
            their water quality problems
          Help communities with technical  assistance on water quality
            problems

     These are discussed as follows:

        • Up-date the 208 Plan Annually -  As a part of the Federal
Regulations  (Federal  Register  Vol.  40, No.30, Section 131.22)  the designated
areawide planning agency must  review and,  if necessary, revise  the water
quality management plan at least annually.

     To do this the OCPC should be funded  to continue its water quality
sampling program with the water quality sampling contracted as in the past
to the Massachusetts Division  of Water Pollution Control (DHPC) and/or to
Bridgewater  State College.   This sampling  program is necessary, above and
beyond the normal  sampling program of the  DWPC,  to continue the identifica-
tion of new  non-point sources,  to pinpoint sources only suspected  from
previous sampling efforts or suspected from the  public participation
process,  and  to monitor the results of implementation of the 208 plan.

     In addition,  continued wet-weather sampling will be necessary  in
Brockton to  determine what sort of urban runoff  control  program will  give
the most economic results for  water quality control.

     The identification of new pollution sources and the pinpointing of


                                 10-1

-------
suspected sources may result in recommendations for new permits such as
agricultural  permits and stormwater permits and modifications in other
permits.

     In addition, sampling should be done in Kingston, a member of the
Old Colony Planning Council in which no 208 planning by any agency has
been done, to determine whether there is a need for 208 planning.  There
have been reports of repeated septic system failures in the Rocky Nook
and downtown portions of Kingston for which a 201 Facilities Study is
currently being done.  Brockton is currently attempting to gain permission
to divert the Jones River in Kingston to Silver Lake to augment its water
supply and it is feared that the diversion might increase the salinity of
Kingston Bay.  Study is needed of the potential impacts of the diversion
on the surface water quality of Jones River and Kingston Bay.  The large
Pembroke aquifer that serves as a water supply for Brockton, Hanson,
Whitman, Abington, Rockland and Pembroke extends into Kingston.  Its
extent in Kingston needs to be delineated and groundwater protection
measures enacted.  And lastly the potential water pollution impacts of
several in-town sources need to be investigated: these include sediment
flowing into Fountain Head Brook from sand and gravel operations, the
sediment from the numerous other sand and gravel operations in town,
and battery acid and other substances from an auto wrecking yard which
drains into the Jones River (see Kingston:  Land Use/Mater Quality Profile,
Old Colony Planning Council, 1976).

    • Coordinate the Designated Management Agencies -  It is anticipated that
rather than a designation of one over-arching water quality management
agency in this region, there will be a designation of several management
agencies, at least in the short term, to carry out the functions of the 208
plan and to meet the requirements of the Act.  Thus there will be a need
to coordinate the activities of the various management agencies.  The
mechanisms by which this can be accomplished are through regular informal
meetings, through formal Memoranda of Understanding (MOU's), through the
A-95 review process  (OCPC  is the regional clearinghouse for review of
all projects involving state or federal money), and through comments on
environmental impact statements under the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) and the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act  (MEPA).

    • Coordination  Water Quality Planning with  Land Use Planning -  Coordination
of water quality planning with  land use  planning can  be done in  three ways:
through review of permits, through the  input of water quality objectives
into land use  planning and through formal review processes  such  as those
mentioned above, i.e.  the  A-95, MEPA and NEPA  reviews.

     Review of permits after their preparation by  the Division of Water
Pollution Control based upon the DHPC's  modeling efforts is  desirable
to ensure over-all coordination and as  a way to  input  land  use  information.
For example, one of  the industries proposed for  a  permit in  the  208 area
was discharging  directly upstream of a  town's  well fields.   Review by  the
208 agency enabled the permit  to be re-written  in  light of  the adjacent land
use considerations.  Agricultural permits can  be reviewed with an eye  to
coordination with agricultural  preservation efforts  (such  as transfer  of
development  rights)  and with financial  efforts  (such  as grants  from ASCS

                                   10-2

-------
 and  loans  for  pollution  control).

      Putting water  quality  objectives  into  land use planning can be done
 through  a  variety of means,  such as  through the:

           Master Plan  -  by  incorporating water quality objectives into
                         the  purposes;
           Subdivision  Regulations -  especially controls on erosion and
                                     sedimentation, drainage, and limitations
                                     on the amounts of large impermeable areas;
           Zoning By-Laws/Ordinances  - by making water quality an objective
                                      of the by-law or ordinance and including
                                      wetland, floodplain, shoreline or well
                                      protection district zoning;
           Board of  Health Regulations - by making protection of water quality
                                        an objective as well as protection
                                        of public health •
           Capital Improvement Programs - by the purchase of lands important
                                         hydrologically; and
           Open Space and Conservation Plans - by the planning for and acquisi-
                                              tion or protection of lands
                                              which function in the hydrolo-
                                              gic cycle.

     Review of plans through the A-95, HEPA or NEPA processes (discussed
above) can also be  a way to  incorporate water quality objectives into land
use planning.  Review of projects from a water quality perspective with
comments on improvements can be an effective water quality management tool.

   • Use Planning Expertise  to Increase the Public Awareness of the Need for
Water Quality Implementation - As discussed above in Chapter 2 there is an
important  need for  public involvement if the 208 plan is to be implemented
at the local level.   There is a need for the regional  water quality planning
agency to  coordinate, support, and sometimes initiate public involvement.
Two primary means to accomplish this are through education efforts such as
writing of water quality brochures on the need for maintaining septic
systems, the need for water conservation,  or how to get help from state
agencies on water quality problems,  and for staff support of on-going
public involvement  programs, whether they be through an on-going Policy
Advisory Committee  to the Old Colony Planning Council  or through support
for the North and South Rivers Watershed Association and the Taunton
River Watershed Association.

   • Help Communities Obtain the Financial  Resources to Solve Their Water
Quality Problems - Many of the water quality problems  in a community can be
solved if the community can find the financial  resources.   Often the
communities with the most disparate  and complex water  quality problems
are the least able to maintain an awareness of state or federal  resources
or are financially unable to find the resources for matching grants.  Many
communities in this  area have only part-time officials  who hold  full-time
jobs  elsewhere.   Four sources of funds currently being  explored  or already
obtained for the communities in the  208 area include:   money from the
Department of Public Works for salt  pile storage,  application for an area-

                                10-3

-------
wide Community Block Grant for the rehabilitation of septic systems, lakes
and ponds restorations grants (a successful 314 application has already
been made for Ellis Brett Pond in Brockton), and applications for Bureau
of Outdoor Recreation and Self-Help funds (successful  application was
made for a purchase on the North River in Pembroke).  This kind of assis-
tance will be needed even more in the future.

    « Provide Technical Water Quality Assistance to the Communities - The
kinds of technical assistance which OCPC has either already performed or
should perform in the future include:

          review of proposed landfill siting designations (Pembroke,
            Bridgewater);

          review of large subdivision proposals for their impact on water
            quality (Pembroke);

          application to the Environmental  Protection  Agency for sole source
            aquifer designation  (Pembroke);

          referral of communities and individuals to the appropriate state
            or federal agency for solution of their problem, i.e. a local-
            state/federal liason (all communities);

          definition of well recharge areas (Avon, Abington, East Bridgewater,
            Easton, Hanson, Bridgewater, Pembroke, West Bridgewater and
            Whitman);

          assistance to Boards of Health in evaluation of in-town septage
            disposal facilities  (Bridgewater) and in printing and distribu-
            tion of septic system flyers with water bills (East Bridgewater);

          review of zoning by-laws for water quality impacts (Hanson,
            Abington);

          assistance to regulatory agencies in the  investigation  of reports
            of illegal discharges of effluent (Hanson, Brockton, East
            Bridgewater);

          investigation of. citizen complaints about water quality violations
            (Easton, West Bridgewater, Pembroke, East  Bridgewater, Brockton);

          liason among communities on water quality problems originating in
            one community but affecting another (Brockton/East  Bridgewater,
            Pembroke/Abington ).

     The possible means by which such functions could  be carried out are
discussed below:

I.  OCPC Gives Advice to, Refers Information to, and Coordinates Uith the
    Management Agencies

     Description:   In this alternative the Old Colony  Planning Council role
would be limited to strictly one of giving advice, referring information,
and coordination.

     Evaluation:  This is the current role of the OCPC, but perhaps slightly

                                 10-4

-------
expanded.  It would require little in the way of additional  funding and
would see a reduction in the 208 staff to one person.   Up-dating of the 208
Plan would be based on no new information.  Technical  assistance would be
minimal.  A-95, MEPA and NEPA reviews would continue.

II.  OCPC Assumes the Lead as the Areawide Mater Quality Management Planning
     Agency

     Description:  In addition to the activities outlined above the OCPC
would retain its water quality staff.  It would enter into formal agreements
via Memoranda of Understanding with the designated management agencies and
would formally coordinate their activities.  OCPC would provide water
quality-related technical assistance to the communities.

     Evaluation:  This alternative would most closely correspond to the
intent of P.L. 92-500, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
of 1972 and the regulations written thereunder which require an annual
revision and up-date of the 208 plan.  This option would require funding
from the Environmental Protection Agency of $120,000 for the ensuing year,
the time when retention of an in-house staff will be required to carry
through on  administrative and technical tasks associated with plan imple-
mentation, including negotiation of Memoranda of Understanding with  and
among other agencies, assistance to communities on needed subdivision
regulation and zoning by-law revisions, and  review  of local sewerage
planning efforts.  Funding from EPA would decline in future years as
programs become operational, other funding sources were found, and water
quality problems were solved.  This alternative would ensure that the
208 Plan was actually implemented.

III. Create a Regional VJater Quality Management Agency

     Description:  In the long-term a single, regional water quality
management agency would be created which would assume the water quality
functions of the previously designated management agencies.

     Evaluation: A single management agency would have the obvious
technical advantage of being able to assess, evaluate, and manage all
water quality problems in the region.  It, however, would have political
and institutional problems with being created and might ultimately only
end up as another layer of government, rather than as a fully functioning
organization which reduced and streamlined water quality management.  In
concept it is the ideal arrangement.  In practice it would  greatly depend
on how it was created.  Given the highly negative response by the communi-
ties in this region to suggestions for new regional agencies raised
during the Massachusetts Growth Policy process it is unlikely that such
a new agency would be implementable in the near future.
                                 10-5

-------
           APPENDIX



Water Quality Sampling Results

-------
                  MEASURES OF WATER POLLUTION
      FLOWING  WATER:

Dissolved oxygen:
CLASS B WATER QUALITY
BOD5 - Biochemical oxygen demand
Total Coliform Bacteria
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Total Phosphorus
(both inorganic and organic
 phosphorus)
Ammonia-Nitrogen
Nitrate-Nitrogen
Chlorides
Cadmi um
               Must be above 5 mg/1 at all times.
               Levels below that can be harmful to
               fish life.

               Above 3 mg/1 is indicative of un-
               decomposed organic wastes.

               Not more than 1000 per 100 ml.  Levels
               above that may indicate presence of
               human or animal wastes.

               Not more than 200 per 100 ml.  Levels
               above that may indicate presence of
               human or animal wastes.

               Should be less than 0.05 mg/1 at any
               stream flowing into a lake or pond, and
               less than 0.10 mg/1 in all streams.
               Levels above those limits can accelerate
               eutrophication.

               Should be less than 3.5 mg/1 (at pH of
               7.0 and temperature of 77 F.) to
               avoid harm to fish life.  Levels
               greater than 1 mg/1 indicate presence
               of partially decomposed organic
               wastes.

               Levels greater than 1 mg/1 indicate
               presence or organic wastes and may
               corroborate other evidence of human
               or animal pollution.

               Should be less than 25 mg/1 in streams
               which drain into a surface water supply
               or which contribute recharge to a
               groundwater supply.  Not harmful in
               itself, but indicates presence of
               sodium, for which the drinking water
               standard is 20 mg/1.  Sources include
               highway salt and septic system leachate.

               Should be less than .001 mg/1 to
               avoid harm to aquatic life.
                               A-l

-------
                      MEASURES OF WATER POLLUTION (continued)
     LAKES AND PONDS
Dissolved oxygen
Total coliform
Fecal coliform
Nitrate-nitrogen


Total phosphorus
Ammonia-nitrogen

Chlorides
Sodium
Turbidity

Transparency (Secchi Disk)

Cadmium

Chromium
Lead
Manganese
Water Supplies (Class A)
not less than 5 mg/1
not more than 50 per 100 ml
none
not more than 10 mg/1;
levels above 1 mg/1 indi-
cate presence of organic
wastes
not more than .025 mg/1
levels above 1 mg/1 indi-
cate presence of organic
wastes
should be less than 25 mg/1
not more than 20 mg/1
not more than 1  Turbidity
Unit
           N.A.

not more than .01 mg/1 for
water supply or .001 mg/1
for aquatic life
not more than 0.05 mg/1
not more than 0.05 mg/1
not more than 0.005 mg/1
Recreational Lakes (Class B)
not less than 5 mg/1
not more than 1000 per 100 ml,
not more than 200 per 100 ml.
levels above 1  mg/1 indicate
presence of organic wastes

not more than 0.025 mg/1
levels above 1  mg/1 indicate
presence of organic wastes
           N.A.
           N.A.
           N.A.
should be greater than 4 feet
for public swimming area
not more than 0.001 mg/1 for
aquatic life
not more than 0.1 mg/1
           N.A.
     GROUNDWATER (drinking water standards)
Nitrate-nitrogen
Sodium
Chlorides

Cadmiurn
Chromium
Lead
not more than 10 mg/1
not more than 20 mg/1
should be less than 25 mg/1 where data on sodium
is unavailable, to correspond to a sodium standard
of 20 mg/1.
not more than 0.01 mg/1
not more than 0.05 mg/1
not more than 0.05 mg/1
           A-3

-------
           SAMPLE SITEU977
             PROBLEMS FOUND
A-4
             NO PROBLEMS FOUND
         Abington

-------
                                  ABINGTON
I.   BEAVER BROOK
       At Plymouth  Street  in  Holbrook  (EEA-AB-1)
          8/25/76  - Total  coliformT  1,200,000/100 ml.
                    Fecal  coliform   :   900/100 ml.
                    Total  phosphorus:   0.17 mg/1.
          Suspected source(s):   septic  system leachate

       East Inlet  Brook  to Gushing  Pond (AB-01)
          1/11/76  - BOD,             :   3.15 mg/1.
                    Total  Phosphorus:   0.06 mg/1.
          Suspected source(s):   septic  system leachate

       Gushing  Pond (EEA-AB-6)
                                                                                      At Groveland Street (BE-01)
                                                                                         6/12/75 - Dissolved oxygen:
                                                                                                   Total phosphorus
                                                                                         7/22/75 - Dissolved oxygen
                                                                                                   Total phosphorus
                                                                                          4.9  mg/1.  (during  rainstorm)
                                                                                          0.12 mg/1.
                                                                                          3.8  mg/1.
                                                                                          0.03 mg/1.
                                                                                         Suspected source(s):  septic system leachate
                                                                             II.  SHUMATUSCACANT RIVER
           ing
           /25.
8/25/76 - Dissolved oxygen:
          Total  coliform  :
          Fecal  coliform  :
          Total  phosphorus:
Suspected source(s):   sol 1
4.9 mg/1.
1400/100 ml.
1/100 ml.
0.05 mg/1.
                                                                                      At Randolph Street, 10 meters upstream (AB-04)
                                                                                         1/9/76 - BODci3.1 mg/1.
                                                                                                  Total coliform:  3200/100 ml.
                                                                                                  Fecal coliform:  not tested
                                                                                         Suspected source(s):  septic system leachate

                                                                                      At Central Street (SA-01, AB-05) - drains into Island Grove Pond
       East  Outlet  from  Gushing Pond  (EEA-AB-3)
          8/25/76 - Total coliform   :  30,000/100 ml.
                   Fecal coliform   :  0/100 ml.
                   Total phosphorus:  0.13 mg/1.
          Suspected source(s):  soil

       West  Outlet  from  Gushing Pond  (EEA-AB-4)
          8/25/76 - Total coliform:   25,000/100 ml.
                   Fecal coliform:   37/100 ml.
          Suspected source(s):  soil

       Western Tributary to Cleveland Pond at Chestnut Street (EEA-AB-5, AB-1)
          8/25/76 - Dissolved oxygen:0.5 mg/1.
                   Total phosphorus:  0.06 mg/1.
          4/29/76 - Dissolved oxygen:  10.1 mg/1. .
                   Total phosphorus:  0.11 mg/1.
          Suspected source(s):  unknown

       Tributary to Beaver Brook at Chestnut Street  (EEA-AB-2)
          8/25/76 - Dissolved oxygen:  3.9 mg/1.
                   Total coliform   :  550,000/100 ml.
                   Fecal coliform   :  650/100 ml.
          Suspected source(s):  septic system leachate

       Inlet to Cleveland Pond (DWPC)
          8/4/75 - Total phosphorus:  0.55 mg/1.
          Suspected source(s):  unknown
                                                                                                   6/10/75 -
                                                                                                   6/12/75 -
                                                                                         1/9/76  -
Dissolved oxygen:
BOD5             :
Total phosphorus:
Chlorides        :
Dissolved oxygen:
BOD5             :
Fecal coliform   :
Chlorides        :
Nitrate-nitrogen:
3.6 mg/1.
4.2 mg/1.
0.04 mg/1.
44 mg/1.
N.A. (during rainstorm)
3.9 mg/1.
1900/100  ml.
31 mg/1.
1.47 mg/1.
                                                                                         Suspected source(s):  septic system leachate, highway salting

                                                                                      Island Grove Pond (AB-06, AB-3, DWPC)
                                                                                         1/11/76 - Nitrate-nitrogen:  1.46 mg/1.
                                                                                         5/4/76  - BOD5            :  3.3 mg/1.
                                                                                                   Nitrate-nitrogen:  1.29 mg/1.
                                                                                         Suspected source(s): unknown

                                                                                      Behind Meyers Avenue Well (AB-4)
                                                                                         5/4/76 - Nitrate-nitrogen:   1.28 mg/1.
                                                                                         Suspected source(s):  unknown

                                                                                      Stream River, 10 meters above  Groveland Street (AB-03)
                                                                                         1/9/76 - Total  coliform:2200/100 ml.
                                                                                                  Fecal  coliform:   not tested
                                                                                         Suspected source(s):  landfill  leachate
                                                                             III.   FRENCH STREAM/NORTH  RIVER

                                                                                      Spruce Street in  Rockland  (NR-01)
      Cleveland Pond (EEA-AB-7)
         8/25/76 - Total coliform
                   Fecal coliform
                   Total phosphorus
                   Secci disk
         Suspected source(s):  soil
                             5800/100 ml.
                             0/100 ml.
                             0.058 mg/1.
                             3.5
                                                            6/5/75 - BOD5
                                                                     Total  coli form
                                                                     Fecal  coliform
                                                                     Total  phosphorus
                                                            7/29/75 -Total  coliform
                                                                     Fecal  coliform
                                                            Suspected source(s):
                  5.4  mg/1.
                  98,000/100 ml.
                  not  tested
                  0.33 mg/1.
                  3000/100 ml.
                  3000/100 ml.
            septic system leachate

-------
         North Avenue Bridge In Rockland (NR-02)
cr>
            6/3/75 - BOD5             :
                     Total coliform   :
                     Fecal coliform   :
                     Total phosphorus:
                     BOD5             :
            6/5/75 -  Total coliform   :
                     Fecal coliform   :
                     Total phosphorus:
            7/29/75- Total coliform   :
                     Fecal coliform   :
                     Nitrate-nitrogen:
                     Total phosphorus:
                                  5.1 mg/1. (during rainstorm)
                                  25,000/100 ml.
                                  4300/100 ml.
                                  0.22 mg/1.
                                  4.5 rag/1.
                                  43,000/100 ml.
                                  not tested
                                  0.28 mg/1.
                                  2000/100 ml.
                                  1000/100 ml.
                                  1.1 mg/1.
                                  0.22 mg/1.
            Suspected source(s):  septic system leachate
   Railroad Bridge  (NR-03)
      6/3/75 - BOD5             :
               Total coliform   :
               Fecal coliform   :
               Total phosphorus:
      6/5/75 - BOD5             :
               Total coliform   :
               Fecal coliform   :
               Total phosphorus:
      7/29/75  Total coliform   :
               Fecal coliform   :
               Nitrate-nitrogen:
               Total phosphorus:
5.4 mg/1. (during rainstorm)
12,000/100 ml.
not tested
0.24 mg/1.
4.5 rag/1.
24,000/100 ml.
430/100 ml.
O.Z6 mg/1.
20,000/100 ml.
1000/100 ml.
1.1 mg/1.
0.18 mg/1.
            Suspected source(s):  septic system leachate

         Below  North Abington Sewage Treatment Plant,  in Rockland  (NR-04)
            6/3/75  - BOD5
                     Total coliform
                     Fecal coliform
                     Total phosphorus
                     BOD5
                     Total coliform
                     Fecal coliform
                     Total phosphorus
                     Chlorides
             7/29/75- BOD5
                     Total coliform
                     Fecal coliform
                     Nitrate-nitrogen
                     Total phosphorus
                                   5.7 mg/1.  (during  rainstorm)
                                   70,000/100 ml.
                                   24,000/100 ml.
                                   0.6 mg/1.
                                   9.3 mg/1.
                                   250,000/100 ml.
                                   not tested
                                   1.7 mg/1.
                                   25 mg/1.
                                   7.2 mg/1.
                                   1,500,000/100  ml.
                                   18,000/100 ml .
                                   1.1 mg/1.
                                   0.3 mg/1.
             Suspected  source(s):  Abington  Sewage  Treatment  Plant
 IV.
WELLS
Meyer's Avenue
Year
1970
1972
1974
1975
Chlorides
37
73
35
42
Sodium
16
28
21
24
              Suspected source(s):   highway  salting,  septic  system leachate

-------
  SAHPLE SITEU977
    PROBLEMS FOUND
    NO PROBLEMS FOUND	Q
                          Avon
A-8

-------
I.
                                     AVON
BEAVER BROOK - Class A -   All  these sites  are  on  a  portion  of  Beaver Brook
               which drains  into a  public  water supply.

    At  Route  24  Interchange  (AV-1)
       4/29/76  -  Total coliform:  290/100 ml.
                 Fecal coliform:  not tested
                 Chlorides      :  45.11 mg/1.
       Suspected  source(s):  highway run-off (salt), septic system leachate
                            from the Industrial Park, natural

    East  Branch,  at  Route  24 (AV-01)
       1/15/76  -  Total coliform:  120/100 ml.
                 Fecal coliform:  not tested
                 Manganese      :  0.202 mg/1.
                 Turbidity      :  1.4 NTU
       Suspected  source(s):  highway run-off (salt), septic system leachate
                            from the Industrial Park, natural

    At  Pond  Street,  10 meters  upstream (AV-02)
                                                                                                 At Route 28 (TB-00)
                                                                                                    7/22/75 -
                                                                                                    7/24/75 -
                                                                         Total  coliform  :
                                                                         Fecal  coliform  :
                                                                         Nitrate-nitrogen:
                                                                         Chlorides       :
                                                                         Total  coliform  :
                                                                         Fecal  coliform  :
                                                                         Total  phosphorus:
                                                                         Nitrate-nitrogen:
                                                                         Chlorides
                                2600/100 ml.
                                1800/100 ml.
                                1.7 mg/1.
                                82 mg/1.
                                100,000/100 ml.
                                not tested
                                0.12 mg/1.
                                1.9 mg/1.
                                102 mg/1.
          1/15/76 -
                 Total  coliform:
                 Fecal  coliform:
                 Chlorides      :
                 Manganese      :
                 Turbidity
86/100 ml.
not tested
67.89 mg/1.
0.158 mg/1.
2.5 MTU
          Suspected source(s):  highway run-off (salt)

       Brockton Reservoir (AV-2)
          4/29/76- Chlorides:  70.28 mg/1.
                    Turbidity:  1.0 NTU
                    Cadmium   :  0.018 mg/1.
          Suspected source(s):  highway run-off including salt
   Suspected source(s):   highway run-off (salt), septic system leachate

At Ladge Drive (AV-4)
   4/29/76 - Dissolved oxygen:   4.5 mg/1.
             Total  coliform  :   1900/100 ml.
             Fecal  coliform  :   not tested
             Nitrate-nitrogen:   2.45 mg/1.
             Chlorides       :   71.93 mg/1.
   Suspected source(s):   septic system leachate, highway run-off (salt)

Tributary to Trout  Brook from Hoi brook (AV-5)
   4/29/76 - Nitrate-nitrogen:3.45 mg/1.
             Chlorides       :   109.62 mg/1.
   Suspected source(s):   septic system leachate from Holbrook

At Avon-Brockton line, 10 meters upstream (AV-04)
   1/15/76 - BODsi3.4 mg/1.
             Nitrate-nitrogen:   1.9 mg/1.
             Chlorides       :   51.86 mg/1.
   Suspected source(s):   septic system leachate
                                                                                    III.  WELLS
                                                                                                 Harrison Boulevard
II.   TROUT BROOK
        Tributary  to Trout Brook at West Spring Street (AV-03)
           1/15/76 - Total coliform:50,000/100 ml.
                    Fecal coliform   :  not tested
                    Nitrate-nitrogen:  2.82 mg/1.
           Suspected source(s):  septic system leachate
Year
1965
1968
1970
1972
1974
Suspected source(s):
Chlorides
50
2
48
58
54
highway run-off
Sodium
27
29
27
(salt)
        At  School Street  (AV-3)
           4/29/76  - Total coliform
                    Fecal coliform
                    Nitrate-nitrogen
                    Chlorides
                                                                                                 Route 28
                                    6000/100 ml.
                                    not  tested
                                    2.95 mg/1.
                                    72.37 mg/1.
                                                                       Year
           Suspected  source(s):  sept c system leachate
                                                                       1960
                                                                       1965
                                                                       1970
                                                                       1975
                                                                Suspected source(s):
                                                                                       Chlorides
                                               Sodium
                              39
                              80                 36
                              58                 41
                          highway run-off, septic system leachate

-------
Route 28

      Year
Chlorides
                 Sodium
                               Turbidi ty
      197093210
      1972           44              25              1
      1974           49              23              5
  Suspected source(s):   highway run-off,  septic  system  leachate
Drive-in Theatre

           Year
         Chlorides
Sodium
           1965               39
           1970               70                 28
           1975               56                 41
  Suspected source(s):   highway run-off,  septic  system leachate
Connel 1y Street
Year
1970
1975
Chlorides
40
42
Sodium
16
22
  Suspected source(s):   highway run-off,  septic  system leachate

-------
                        SAMPLE SITES, 1977
                         PROBLEMS FOUND 	
                         NO PROBLEMS FOUND
                     Bridgewater
1
A-12

-------
                                   BRIDGEWATER
                                                                                             III.  Matfield River
 I.   SOUTH BROOK/CARVER  POND

       Tributary to  Carver  Pond  at Bedford Street  (Bri-02)
          1/9/76 - Total  coliform:1400/100 ml.
                  Fecal  coliform   :  not tested
                  Nitrate-nitrogen:  1.345mg/l.
          Suspected  source(s):   septic system leachate, agricultural run-off

       At Water Street,  10  meters downstream (Bri-03)
          1/9/76 - Total  coliform:2100/100 ml.
                  Fecal  coliform:  not  tested
          Suspected  source(s):   septic system leachate, septage lagoon leachate

       At Hayward Street, 10 meters upstream (Bri-04)
          12/21/75 - Total  coliform:  6000/100 ml.
                     Fecal  coliform:  not tested
          Suspected  source(s):   septic system leachate, septage lagoon leachate,
                                discharge or run-off from dairy processing operations.
                                                                                           Pond Street Bridge (MS-08)
                                                                                              7/22/75 - Dissolved oxygen
                                                                                                        BOD5
                                                                                                        Total coliform
                                                                                                        Fecal coliform
                                                                                                        Total phosphorus
                                                                                                        Chloride
                                                                                                        BODS
                                                                                              3/18/76 - Total coliform
                                                                                                        Fecal coliform
                                                                                                        Total phosphorus
                                                                                                        Chloride
                                                                                              4/3/75 -  Total coliform
                                                                                                        Fecal coliform
                                                                                              Suspected source(s):
                                                                               0.3 mg/1.
                                                                               13.0 mg/1.
                                                                               2500/100 ml.
                                                                               100/100  ml.
                                                                               4.0 mg/1.
                                                                               49.0 mg/1.
                                                                               4.2 mg/1.
                                                                               4300/100 ml.
                                                                               230/100  ml.
                                                                               0.52 mg/1.
                                                                               81  mg/1.
                                                                               10,000/100 ml.
                                                                               not tested
                                                                        agricultural  run-off,  continued
                                                                        Sewage  Treatment Plant
                                                         impact of Brockton
II.   TOWN RIVER
       At  Route  18  Bridge  (TW-05)
          7/22/75 - Dissolved oxygen
                    Total  coliform
                    Fecal  coliform
                    Chloride
          7/24/75 - Total  coliform
                    Fecal  coliform
                    Chloride
         Suspected source(s):   unknown
                             3.1  mg/1.
                             1500/100 ml.
                             400/100 ml.
                             32 mg/1.
                             50,000/100 ml.
                             not  tested
                             30 mg/1.
3/18/76 - Total  coliform:  930/100 ml.
          Fecal  coliform:  230/100 ml.
High Street (MS-09)
   7/22/75 - Dissolved oxygen
             BOD5
             Total  coliform
             Fecal  coliform
             Total  phophorus
             Chloride
   3/18/76 - Total  coliform
             Fecal  coliform
             Total  phosphorus
             Chloride
   4/2/75  - Total  coliform
             Fecal  coliform
   Suspected source(s):
       0.1 mg/1.
       6.9 mg/1.
       1100/100 ml.
       300/100 ml.
       1.4 mg/1.
       47 mg/1.
       9300/100 ml.
       230/100 ml.
       0.5 mg/1.
       84 mg/1.
       13,000/100 ml.
       not tested
continued impact.of upstream sources (Brockton
Sewage Treatment Plant, East Bridgewater landfill,
agricultural  run-off).
       Buoy  below  Bridgewater Sewage Treatment Plant (TH-06)
          7/22/75  -  Dissolved oxygen:  3.0 mg/1.
                    BODj             :  3.3 mg/1.
                    Cob form tests not done
                    Total phosphorus:  0.44 mg/1.
                    Chloride         :  35 mg/1.
          Suspected  source(s):  impact of sewage treatment plant, upstream
                               sources may contribute to low dissolved oxygen
                               levels
                                                                                    IV.  TAUNTON RIVER
       At  Hayward  Street  (TW-07)
          7/22/75  -  Dissolved oxygen
                    BOD5
                    Total coliform
                    Fecal coliform
                    Total phosphorus
                    Chloride
                             2.4  mg/1.
                             5.2  mg/1.
                             6200/400 ml.
                             100/100 ml.
                             0.38 mg/1.
                             34.0 mg/1.
Suspected source(s):   continued impact of  upstream  sources  including
                      the sewage-treatment plant
                                               Plymouth Street  (TR-01)
                                                  7/22/75  -  Dissolved oxygen
                                                            BOD5
                                                            Total coliform
                                                            Fecal coliform
                                                            Total phosphorus
                                                            Chloride
                                                  4/3/75   -  Total coliform
                                                            Fecal coliform
                                                  Suspected  source(s):
                                3.0 mg/1.
                                6.3 mg/1.
                                200/100 ml.
                                100/100 ml.
                                1.0 mg/1.
                                39.0 mg/1.
                                10,000/100  ml.
                                not tested
                         continued impact of Brockton and Bridgewater
                         Sewage Treatment Plants

-------
Tributary to Taunton River at High Street (Bri-4) - drains into Blood Pond
   4/22/76 - Total coliform•18,000/100 ml.
                                6700/100 ml.
                                260/100 ml.
                                4.0 mg/1.
                                0.076 mg/1.
          Fecal coliform
          Streptococcus
          Nitrate-nitrogen:
          Total phosphorus:
   Suspected source(s):  agricultural run-off

Buoy Upstream of Child's Bridge (TR-02)
   7/22/75 - Dissolved oxygen:  4.8 mg/1.
             BODs            :  6.0 mg/1.
             No coliform tests made
             Total phosphorus:  0.4 mg/1.
             Chloride
   7/24/75 -
          BOD
          Total
                coliform  :
          Fecal coliform  :
          Total phosphorus:
          Chloride        :
Suspected source(s):
       41  mg/1.
       6.2 mg/1.
       29,000/100 ml.
       not tested
       1.0 mg/1.
    :   42  mg/1.
leachate from lagoons  at Paper Mill  Village,
agricultural  run-off,  septic system leachate
Child's Bridge (TR-03)
   7/22/75 - Dissolved oxygen
             Total coliform
             Fecal coliform
             BOD5
             Total phosphorus
             Chloride
   7/24/75 - Total coliform
             Fecal coliform
             Total phosphorus
             Chloride
   4/3/75    Total coliform
             Fecal coliform
   Suspected source(s):
At Auburn Street (TR-04)
                             2.3 mg/1.
                             100/100 ml.
                             50/100 ml.
                             6.3 mg/1.
                             0.7 mg/1.
                             40 mg/1.
                             1600/100 ml.
                             not tested
                             0.7 mg/1.
                             41  mg/1.
                             5000/100 ml.
                             not tested
                      agricultural  run-off,  septic  system leachate,
                      continued  impact  of upstream  sources
   7/22/75 -
   4/3/75 -
          Dissolved oxygen
          BODS
          Total  coliform
          Fecal  coliform
          Total  phosphorus
          Chloride
          Total  coliform
          Fecal  coliform
       2.2 mg/1.
       3.3 mg/1.
       400/100 ml.
       100/100 ml.
       0.4 mg/1.
       32 mg/1.
       3200/100 ml.
       not tested
                                                                     Hoodward Bridge (TR-06)
                                                                        7/22/75 - Dissolved oxygen
                                                                                  Total phosphorus
         7/24/75 - BOD5
                   Total
         6/24/75 - Total
                   Fecal
                                                                                              Suspected source(s):
                                                                                        phosphorus
                                                                                        coliform
                                                                                        coliform
       2.8 mg/1.
       0.38 mg/1.
       4.8 mg/1.
       0.38 mg/1.
       52,000 mg/1.
       600 mg/1.
agricultural run-off, continued impact of
upstream sources
                                                                                           Nemasket River at Vaughn Street Bridge in Middleboro (NK-01)
         6/26/75 - Dissolved oxygen
                   Total  coliform
                   Fecal  coliform
         Suspected source(s):   unknown
                                                                                                                           4.2 mg/1.
                                                                                                                           62,000/100 ml.
                                                                                                                           30,000/100 ml.
Titicut Street (TR-07)
6/24/75 - Total coliform
Fecal coliform
6/10/75 - Dissolved oxygen
BOD5
Total phosphorus
Chloride
Suspected source(s): agric
upstr
40,000/100 ml.
2000/100 ml .
1.8 mg/1.
5.1 mg/1.
0.44 mg/1 .
26 mg/1.
ultural run-off,
•earn sources
                                                                                                                                          continued impact of
                                                                     Saw Mill  Brook at Routes 18 4 28 (SW-01)
         6/24/75 - Total  coliform
                   Fecal  coliform
                   Total  phosphorus
                   Chloride
         6/26/75 - Total  coliform
                   Fecal  coliform
         7/22/75 - Dissolved oxygen
                   BOD5
                   No coliform tested
         Suspected source(s):   M.C.

      Pratt's Bridge (TR-08)
         6/24/75 - Total  coliform
                   Fecal  coliform
         7/22/75 - Dissolved oxygen
                   Chloride
                                                                                                     35,000/100 ml.
                                                                                                     7000/100 ml.
                                                                                                     1.5 mg/1.
                                                                                                     30 mg/1.
                                                                                                     400,000/100 ml.
                                                                                                     40,000/100 ml.
                                                                                                     1.4 mg/1.
                                                                                                     7.8 mg/1.

                                                                                                     Sewage Treatment Plant
       19,000/100 ml.
       3000/100 ml.
       2.1  mg/1.
       2.9 mg/1.
   Suspected source(s):   agricultural  run-off, continued impact of upstream sources.

Buoy upstream of Woodward Bridge  (TR-05)
   7/22/75 - Dissolved oxygen:  2.7  mg/1.
             Coliform testing  not done
             Total  phosphorus:  0.4  mg/1
             Chloride        :  33 ng/1.
   Suspected source(s):   agricultural  run-off
         Suspected source(s):  continued impact of upstream sources


V.  LAKE N1PPENICKET

      Southwestern (western) Tributary at Pleasant Street near Raynham Border (Bri-6
                                                                                           EEA-N-3)
                                                                                              5/6/76 - Total  coliform
                                                                                                       Fecal  coliform
                                                                                              8/26/76- Total  coliform
                                                                                                       Fecal  coliform
                                                                                                       Total  phosphorus
                                                                                              Suspected source(s):
                                                                                                    765/100 ml.
                                                                                                    350/100 ml.
                                                                                                    2000/100 ml.
                                                                                                    1600/100 ml.
                                                                                                    0.156 mg/1.
                                                                                              agricultural run-off, septic system leachate

-------
           Southern  (center)  Tributary  at  Pleasant  Street  (EEA-N-2)
              8/26/76  -  Dissolved  oxygen:   4.6 nig/1.
                        Total  phosphorus:   0.169  mg/1.
              Suspected  source(s):   agricultural  run-off,  septic  system  leachate

           In  Lake Opposite  Lakeside Drive (EEA-N-4)
              8/26/76  -  Total  coliform:2500/100 ml.
                        Fecal  coliform:  1350/100 ml.
              Suspected  source(s):   septic system leachate
    VI.   WELLS
           Carver  Pond  Well  i?2
              4/29/76 - Sodium:   20
              Suspected source(s):
mg/1.
highway sal ting
           High  Street  Well
                         Year
                                    Nitrate-nitrogen
                       Turbidity
                         T9705.8 mg/1 .             0
                         1972             7.7 mg/1              0
                         1974             9.1 mg/1 .             0
              This well was  closed  in  1975 when  nitrate  levels exceeded  10 mg/1.
              Suspected source(s):   unknown
tn

-------
                            DRY 'MTHER SAMPLING SITES.1977
                               PROBLEMS FOUND
0      1
                               NO PROBLEMS FOUND Q
                                 Brockton
                    A-16

-------
                                    BROCKTON
 I.   LOVETT'S BROOK -  enters  Ellis  Brett  Pond
       At Oak Street (Bro-1)
          4/29/76 -  Chloride:
                    Cadmium :
          Suspected  source(s):
103.03 mg/1.
0.02 mg/1.
 highway run-off
       At Routes  27 & 24  (Bro-2)
          4/29/76 - Chloride:   130.72  mg/1.
                    Cadmium :   0.012 mg/1.
          Suspected source(s):   highway  run-off

       At westgate Hall  (LB-01)
          3/18/76 - Total  coliforn:  2400/100 ml.
                    Fecal  coliforn:  73/100  ml.
                    Chloride      :  220 mg/1.
          Suspected source(s):   urban  run-off

       Pipe from  Parking  Lot at Westgate Mall  (LB-02)
          3/18/76 - Total  phosphorus:  0.06  mg/1.
                    Chloride        :  64  mg/1.
          Suspected source(s):   urban  run-off

       At P.M.  Field Parkway (Bro-3, Bro-03)
          4/29/76 -  Chloride
          1/15/76 -  BOD5
                    Total  coliform
                    Fecal  coliform
                    Nitrate-nitrogen
                    Chloride
        124.35 mg/1.
        3.2 mg/1.
        1000/100 ml.
        not tested
        1.075 mg/1.
        111.59 mg/1.
          Suspected source(s):   urban  run-off

       West Inlet (Lovett's  Brook)  to  Ellis  Brett  Pond  (DWPC)
          6/11/75 - Total  phosphorus:0.05  mg/1.
                    Chloride        :   140 mg/1.
          Suspected source(s):   urban  run-off

       Thirty Acre Pond (DWPC)
          6/11/75 - Total  phosphorus:   0.05  mg/1.
                    Chloride        :   123 mg/1.
          Suspected source(s):   urban  run-off
II.   SALISBURY PLAIN BROOK

       At Prospect Street (HS-01)
          7/22/75 -  Dissolved oxygen
                    Total col i form
                    Fecal coliform
                    Chloride
                    Total coliform
                    Fecal coliform
                    Chloride
        5.1 mg/1.
        20,000/100 ml.
        600/100 ml.
        86 mg/1.
        91/100 ml.
        < 36/100 ml.
        85 ng/1.
          Suspected source(s):   urban  run-off
                                                                 At Belmont Street (MS-02)
                                                                    3/18/75 - Chloride      :   85 mg/1.
                                                                    7/22/75 - Total  col i form:   25,000/1100 ml.
                                                                              Fecal  coliform:   1500/100 ml.
                                                                              Chloride      :   68 mg/1.
                                                                    Suspected seurce(s):  urban run-off
At Allen Street (MS-03)
   3/18/75 - Total  coliform
             Fecal  coll form
             Chloride
   7/22/75   Total  coliform
             Fecal  coliform
             Total  phosphorus
             Chloride
   Suspected source(s):  urban
 2400/100 ml.
 430/100 ml.
 88 mg/1.
 20,000/100 ml.
 9700/100 ml.
 0.13 mg/1.
 71 mg/1.
run-off
                                                         III.  TROUT BROOK
At Howard Street (TB-01)
   3/18/75 - Nitrate-nitrogen
             Chloride
             Total  coliform
             Fecal  coliform
             Chloride
   6/12/75   Total  coll form
             Fecal  coliform
   Suspected source(s):  urban run-off
 1.4 mg/1.
 110 mg/1.
 2000/100 ml.
 50/1000 ml.
 48 mg/1
 not tested (during rainstorm)
 7500/100 ml.
At Ames Street (TB-02)
   6/12/75 - BOD5
             Total  coliform
             Fecal  coliform
             Chloride
   7/22/75 - Dissolved oxygen
             Total  coliform
             Fecal  coliform
             Nitrate-nitrogen
             Chloride
                                                                    Suspected source(s):  urban run-off
 5.1  mg/1. (during rainstorm)
 not  tested
 45,000/100 ml.
 35 mg/1.
 3.3  mg/1.
 4500/100 ml.
 100/100 ml.
 1.2 mg/1.
 38 mg/1.
At Summer Street (TB-03)
   3/18/75 - Total  coliform
             Fecal  coliform
             Nitrate-ni trogen
             Chloride
   7/22/75   Dissolved oxygen
             Total  coliform
             Fecal  coliform
             Nitrate-nitrogen
             Chloride
   Suspected source(s):  urban
 1500/100 ml.
 430/100 ml.
 1.6 mg/1.
 110 mg/1.
 0.7 mg/1.
 17,000/100 ml.
 4500/100 ml.
 1.3 mg/1.
 41 mg/1.
run-off

-------
 IV.  SALISBURY PLAIN RIVER

       At Pine Avenue (MS-04)
          3/18/75 - Total  coliform
                    Fecal  col iform
                    Nitrate-nitrogen
          7/22/75 - Dissolved  oxygen
                    BOD5
                    Total  coliform
                    Fecal  coliform
                    Chloride
          Suspected source(s):   urban
 9300/100 ml.
 230/100 ml.
 1.1 mg/1.
 3.1 mg/1.
 3.0 mg/1.
 8500/100 ml.
 2800/100 ml.
 58 mg/1.
run-off
       Tributary to French's Brook at Brookside Avenue (Bro-02)
          1/15/76 - Total  coll form
                    Fecal  coliform
                    Nitrate-nitrogen
                    Chloride
 2800/100 ml.
 not tested
 2.26 mg/1.
 37.112 mg/1.
          Suspected source(s):   urban run-off
       At Meadow Lane (above Brockton
           3/18/75 - BOD5
                     Total  coliform
                     Fecal  coliform
                     Nitrate-ni trogen
                     Chloride
           7/22/75 - Dissolved  oxygen
                     BOD5
                     Total  col i form
                     Fecal  coliform
                     Nitrate-nitrogen
                     Chloride
           6/12/75 - Dissolved  oxygen
                     BODs
                     Total  coliform
                     Fecal  coliform
                     Chloride
          Suspected source(s):   urban
Sewage Treatment Plant) (MS-05)
  12 mg/1.
  24,000/100 ml.
  2400/100 ml.
  1.2 rag/1.
  110 mg/1.
  3.9 mg/1.
  3.0 mg/1.
  12,000/100 ml.
  300/100 ml.
  1.0 mg/1.
  54 mg/1.
  3.0 mg/1. (during rainstorm)
  9.0 mg/1.
  not tested
  40,000/100 ml.
  44 mg/1.
run-off
        At Pearl  Street (CW-01)
           6/10/75 - Total coliform:  5900/100 ml.
                     Fecal coliform:  not tested
           7/22/75 - Total coliform:  400/100 ml.
                     Fecal coliform:  100/100 ml.
           Suspected source(s):  back ground
VII.   WEST HEADOU BROOK

        West Branch at Uest Chestnut Street (Bro-01)
           1/15/76 - Chloride:26.851 mg/1.
           Suspected source(s):  highway run-off

        At Torrey Street (Bro-5)
           4/29/76 - Dissolved oxygen:  4.1 mg/1.
           Suspected source(s):  urban run-off

        Main Branch at West Chestnut Street (Bro-04)
           1/15/76 - BODs             :373 mg/1.
                     Nitrate-nitrogen:  1.95 mg/1.
           Suspected source(s):  urban run-off
 V.   BEAVER BROOK
       At Crescent Street (BE-02)
          7/22/75 - Dissolved oxygen
                    Total coliform
                    Fecal coliform
 2.8 mg/1.
 17,000/100 ml.
 600/100 ml.
          Suspected source(s):   urban run-off
VI.   COWEESET BROOK
       At Route 24 (CW-02)
          7/22/75 - Total  coliform
                    Fecal  coli form
                    Nitrate-nitrogen
                    Chloride
 2100/100 ml.
 100/100 ml.
 1.5 mg/1.
 74 mg/1.
          Suspected source(s):   highway run-off

-------
                            <£T '-JEATHER SAIHIIIG SITES.1977
                              PROBLEMS FOUND   0
                              NO PROBLEMS FOUND Q
0       1
2
                                 Brockton
                    A-20

-------
                                           BROCKTON
                                    (Wet Weather,  In-Stream)
       I.   SALISBURY PLAIN BROOK
 i
ro
             Just South of Prospect  Street  {EEA-3,  MS-01)
               "9/17/76 - BOD5
                          Total  phosphorus:
                          Total  coli form  :
                10/20/76- BOD5             :
                          Total  phosphorus:
                          Total  col i form  :
                10/21/76- BOD5             :
                          Total  phosphorus:
                          Total  coliform  :
                Suspected source(s):  unknown
                                1.2 mg/1.
                                3.0 mg/1.
                                40,000/100 ml.
                                6.8 mg/1.
                                0.14 mg/1.
                                400/100 ml.
                                3.5 mg/1.
                                0.016 mg/1.
                                20,000/100 ml.
Just North of Belmont Street (EEA-4, MS-02)
   9/17/76 - BODc               5 mg/1.
             Total phosphorus   0.077 mg/1.
             Total conform     100,000/100  ml.
   10/20/76- BOD5               27 mg/1.
             Total phosphorus   0.54 mg/1.
             Total coliform     < 100/100 ml.
   10/21/76- BOD5               0.5 mg/1.
             Total phosphorus   0.3 mg/1.
             Total coliform     8500/100  ml.
   Suspected source(s):   unknown

Just before Confluence  with Trout Brook at Sanford  Court  (EEA-5)
                9/17/76  - BODc
                         Total
                         Total
                10/20/76- BOD5
                         Total
                         Total
                10/21/76- BOD5
                   phosphorus:
                   coliform  :

                   phosphorus:
                   coliform  :
                         Total phosphorus:
 II mg/1.
0.1 mg/1.
150,000/100 ml.
3.5 mg/1.
0.112 mg/1.
410,000/100 ml.
0.0 mg/1.
0.023 mg/1.
9/17/76 - BOD5
Total phosphorus
Total col i form
10/20/76- BOD5
Total phosphorus
Total col i form
10/21/76- BOD5
Total phosphorus
Total coliform
3.6 mg/1.
0.54 mg/1.
70,000/100 ml.
1.8 mg/1.
0.018 mg/1.
< 100/100 ml.
1 .8 mg/1 .
0.026 mg/1.
7000/100 ml.
                                                             Suspected source(s): unknown

                                                          At Court Street (EEA-8)
                                                             9/17/76 - BOD5             :  2.6 mi,/l.
                                                                       Total phosphorus:  0.026 mg/1.
                                                                       Total coliform   :  120,000/100 ml.
                                                             10/20/76- BOD5             :  2.7 mg/1.
                                                                       Total phosphorus:  0.06 mg/1.
                                                                       Total coliform   :  140,000/100 ml.
                                                             10/21/76- BOD5             :  3.8 mg/1.
                                                                       Total phosphorus:  0.072 mg/1.
                                                                       Total coliform   :  10,500/100 ml.
                                                             Suspected source(s):  unknown

                                                          Just before confluence with Salisbury Brook (EEA-9, TB-03)
9/17/76 - BOD5 :
Total phosphorus:
Total coliform :
10/20/76- BOD5 :
Total phosphorus:
Total coliform :
10/21/76- BOD5 :
Total phosphorus:
Total coliform :
8.2 mg/1.
0.17 mg/1.
250,000/100 ml.
2.17 mg/1.
0.6 mg/1 .
900/100 ml.
2.4 mg/1.
0.7 mg/1.
11,000/100 ml.
                         Total coliform   :  16,000/100 ml.
                Suspected source(s):  unknown
      11.   TROUT BROOK
             At  the  Intersection of East Main Street in Avon (EEA-6)
                9/17/76 -
               10/20/76-
             BOD5
             Total
             Total
             BOD5
             Total  phosphorus
                   coliform
                               phosphorus:
                               coliform   :
                         Total
               10/21/76- BOD5
                         Total phosphorus
                         Total coliform
               Suspected source(s):  unknown
3.8 mg/1.
0.099 mg/1.
250,000/100 ml.
4.8 mg/1.
0.048 mg/1.
5600/100 ml.
4.5 mg/1.
0.072 mg/1.
6400/100 ml.
           Suspected source(s):   unknown
III.   SALISBURY PLAIN  RIVER

        At Thornell  Street  (EEA-10)
           9/17/76 - BODs             :   12.5 mg/1.
                    Total  phosphorus:   0.194 mg/1.
                    Total  coliform   :   120,000/100  ml.
           10/20/76- BOD5             :   4.5  mg/1.
                    Total  phosphorus:   0.088 mg/1.
                    Total  Coliform   :   2400/100 ml.
           10/21/76- BOD5             :   2.4  mg/1.
                    Total  phosphorus:   0.11  mg/1.
                    Total  Coliform   :   9700/100 ml.
           Suspected source(s):  unknown

-------
no
INJ
              At Plain Street (EEA-11)
                 9/17/76 - BOD5            :   8.2 mg/1.
                           Total phosphorus-   0.222 mg/1.
                           Total coliform  •   120,000/100 ml.
                 10/20/76- B005  '          :   11 mg/1.
                           Total phosphorus:   0.56 mg/1.
                           Total coliform  -   140,000/100 ml .
                 10/21/76- BOD5            :   4 mg/1.
                           Total phosphorus:   0.084 mg/1.
                           Total coliform  :   12,000/100 ml.
                 Suspected source(s):  unknown

              On French's Brook just south of Glen Avenue (EEA-1)
                 9/17/76 - BOD5
                           Total  phosphorus:
                           Total  coliform  :
                 10/20/76- BOD5            :
                           Total  phosphorus:
                           Total  coliform  :
                 10/21/76- BOD5            :
                           Total  phosphorus:
                           Total  coliform
                             17.5 mg/1.
                             0.245 mg/1.
                             250,000/100 ml.
                             >40 mg/1.
                             1.02 mg/1.
                             400/100 ml.
                             2 mg/1.
                             0.152 mg/1.
                             100,000/100 ml.
                 Suspected source(s):   unknown

              On French's Brook. Srookside Avenue and Main Street (EEA-2)
9/17/76 - BOD5
          Total  phosphorus:
          Total  coliform
10/20/76- BOD5            :
          Total  phosphorus:
          Total  coliform  :
10/21/76- BOD5            :
          Total  phosphorus:
          Total  coliform  :
Suspected source(s):   unknown
22.5 mg/1.
0.188 mg/1.
250,000/100 ml.
4.3 mg/1.
0.046 mg/1.
 < 100/100 ml.
2.4 mg/1.
0.08 mo/1.
14,000/100 ml.
              Just North of Matfield Street in West Bridgewater (EEA-12,  MS-06)
                 9/17/76 - BOD5
                           Total  phosphorus:
                           Total  coliform  :
                 10/20/76- BODb            :
                           Total  phosphorus:
                           Total  coliform  :
                 10/21/76- BOD5            :
                           Total  phosphorus:
                           Total  coliform  :
                 Suspected source(s):  unknown
                               .4 mg/l.
                             1.174 mg/1.
                             6000/100 ml.
                             15 mg/1.
                             4.48 mg/1 .
                             600/100 ml.
                             > 37 mg/1.
                             2.61 mg/1.
                             6,000,000/100 ml.

-------
        S/VRE SITES, 1977
         PROBLEMS TOUND
         NO PROBLEMS FOUND _ Q
            East Bridgewater
1
A-24

-------
                                   EAST BRIDGEMATER
                                                                                                       Spring St.  (cont'd)
    I.  BEAVER BROOK

          At Belmont Street (BE-03)
ro
en
             7/22/75 -
             6/12/75 -
             3/KJ/76 -
             Dissolved oxygen
             Total coll form
             Fecal coliform
             Nitrate-ni trogen
             Chloride
             BOD5
             Total coliform
             Fecal coliform
             Nitrate-ni trogen
             Chloride
             Suspected source(s):   septic
4.1 mg/1.
2000/100 ml.
not tested
1.5 mg/1.
31 mg/1.
3.9 mg/1. (during rainstorm)
not tested
12,000/100 ml.
1.4 mg/1.
43 mg/1.
system leachate
            Total coliform
            Fecal coliform
            Total phosphorus
            Chloride
   3/18/76 -Total phosphorus
            Chloride
                            8100/100 ml.
                            1200/100 ml.
                            0.9 mg/1 .
                            61  mg/1.
                            0.45 mg/1.
                            82  mg/1.
Suspected source(s):   continued impact  of Brockton Sewage Treatment Plant,
                      septic system leachate,  urban run-off
Tributary at West Street,  Route 106 (EB-4)
   4/20/76 - 8005:  3.1  mg/1.
   Suspected source(s):   unknown
                                                                                             Tributary at Pond Street, East of Spring Street (EB-08)
                                                                                                 12/21/75 - Total coliform     3900/100 ml.
    11 .  MEADOW CROOK
At Harvard Street upstream in larger left Tributary (EB-03)
   12/21/75 - Total coliform  :   2000/100 ml.
              Fecal coliform  :   not tested
              Nitrate-nitrogen:   1.63 mg/1.
   Suspected source(s):  upstream sources of septic system leachate,  agricultural
                         run-off (dairy)

Tributary at Pine Street (EB-04)
   12/21/75 - Dissolved oxygen:   3.4 mg/1.
   Suspected source(s):  natural

Forge Pond directly east of middle of bridge (EB-09)
   1/11/76 - Total coliform:  1200/100 ml.
             Fecal coliform:  not tested
   Suspected source(s):  soil, septic system leachate

At North Central Street (EB-3)
   4/20/76 - Nitrate-nitrogen:  1.Z2 mg/1.
             Chloride        :  48.35 mg/1.
   Suspected source(s):  septic  system leachate,  highway run-off

At Union Street, 10 meters upstream from  bridge (EB-05)
   12/21/75 - Total coliform  :   2400/100 ml.
              Fecal coliform  :   not tested
              Nitrate-nitrogen:   1.25 mg/1.
   Suspected source(s):  septic  system leachate
                                                                                                            Fecal coliform
                                                                                                            Hitrate-nitrogen
                                                                                                Suspected source(s):  landfi
                                                                                                IV.  BLACK BROOK/SATUCKET RIVER
                                                                                              not  tested
                                                                                              1.06 mg/1.
                                                                                             11  leachate
  III.   SALISBURY  PLAIN/HATFIELD  RIVER

          Spring Street  (MS-07)
             4/2/75   - Total  coliform
                      Fecal  coliform
             7/22/75  - Dissolved  oxygen
                                1600/100 ml.
                                not tested
                                0.8 mg/1.
                                6.9 mg/1.
                                                             Tributary  at Washington Street  (EB-6)
                                                                4/22/76 - Total coliform:  1200/100 ml.
                                                                          Fecal coliform:  140/100 ml.
                                                                Suspected source(s): unknown

                                                             At Crescent Street (EB-06)
                                                                12/16/76 - Total coliform:   7800/100 ml.
                                                                           Fecal coliform:   not tested
                                                                Suspected source(s):  agricultural run-off, septic system leachate

                                                             Robbins Pond (DWPC, EEA-R-2, EEE-R-3)
                                                                7/24/75  - Total phosphorus:  0.04 mg/1.
                                                                Suspected source(s):  unknown
                                                             Tributary  to Robbins Pond  at south end (EEA-R-1)
                                                                 8/26/76 - Dissolved oxygen:   4.9 mg/1.
                                                                           Total phosphorus:   0.044 mg/1.
                                                                 Suspected source(s):  unknown

                                                             Outlet from Robbins Pond (Satucket River), (EEA-R-4)
                                                                8/26/76  - Total coliform:  2500/100 ml.
                                                                          Fecal coliform:  1680/100 ml.
                                                                Suspected source(s): unknown

                                                             At Plymouth and Uhitman Streets (Route 106 bridge), (SA-04)
                                                                4/2/75  - no problems found
                                                                7/22/75- Dissolved oxygen    1.5 mg/1.
                                                                         Total coliform      7800/100 ml.
                                                                         Fecal coliform      3700/100 ml.
                                                                         Chloride            36 mg/1.
                                                                         BOD5               6.0 mg/1.
                                                                Suspected source(s): unknown
                                                                                               V.  WELLS
                                                                                                     Crescent Street Well £2
                                                                                                         2/3/76 - Sodium:  35 mg/1.
                                                                                                         Suspected source(s):   unknown

-------
SAHPLE SITESJ977
 PROBLEMS FOUND
 NO PROBLEMS FOUND	Q
                                              •aston
         1
                           A-26

-------
        I.  QUESET BROOK

             Outlet of Lam
                 7/22/75
                                           EASTON
                      later Pond  (QT-01)
                                       2000/100 ml.
                                       100/100 ml.
                                       0.6 mg/1.
                                      septic system leachate
                                                                                                    Washington  Street  (1973)
                                                                                                               Year
                                                                                                                                    Chloride
                                                                                                                                                      Sod 1 urn
                                                                                                               1974
                                                                                                               1975
                                                                                                           Suspected  source(s):
angwi	
- Total coliform
  Fecal collform
                                                                                                              13               15
                                                                                                              40               38
                                                                                                              salt pile, highway run-off
                          Total phosphorus
                Suspected source(s):  soil
             Old  Turnpike Street (QT-02)
                7/22/75  - Dissolved oxygen   4.9 mg/1.
                          Total col iform     2400/100 ml.
                          Fecal col iform     1100/100 ml.
                          Chloride           25 mg/1.
                7/24/75   Total coliform     4500/100 ml.
                          Fecal coliform     not tested
                          Chloride           74 mg/1.
                Suspected source(s):  septic system  leachate
       II.   BLACK  BROOK
              No  problems  found
PO
—i
III.   BEAVER BROOK/POQUANTIOJT  BROOK/MULBERRY BROOK

        Beaver  Brook  at  Excalibur  Lane  (E-02)
           12/18/75 -  Total  coliform:   1000/100 ml.
                      Fecal  coliform:   not  tested
           Suspected  source(s):  soil,  septic system  leachate

        Inlet to New  Pond  (EEA-N-1)
           8/26/76 -  Total  coliform:  3000/100 ml.
                     Fecal  coliform:  320/100 ml.
           Suspected  source(s):  agricultural run-off (dairy)


 IV.   CAMOE RIVER

        Unnamed Brook at Highland  Street
           5/6/76 - unknown chemical  (pesticide,  herbicide or  insecticide  possible)
           Suspected  source(s):  unknown
        V.   WELLS
              Washington  Street (1958)
                           Year  	
                           1972
                           1974
                           1975
                                     Chloride
                                        48
                                        21
                                        32
                                                         Sodium
                 Suspected source(s):   salt  pile,  highway  runoff
                                        41
                                        14
                                        25

-------
                                  NR12
SAHPLE SITES, 1977
 PROBLEMS FOUND
 NO PROBLEMS FOUND	Q
                                          Hanson
                             A-28

-------
                                    HANSON
 I.   INDIAN HEAD BROOK
        Indian Head Brook at Inlet to Wampatuck Pond (EEA-W-1}
          8/27/76 - Dissolved oxygen:  0.4 mg/1.
          Suspected source(s):  swamp, County Hospital lagoons

        Central  Inlet to Wampatuck Pond (EEA-W-2)
          8/27/76 - Dissolved oxygen:  1.2 mg/1.
          Suspected source(s):  swamp, County Hospital lagoons

        West  Inlet to Pond from County Hospital Sewage Beds  (EEA-W-3)
          8/27/76 - Dissolved oxygen:  1.4 mg/1.
          Suspected source(s):  County Hospital lagoons

        Wampatuck Pond  (in pond opposite camp on northeast shore) (EEA-VI-4)
          8/27/76 - Secchi disk:  1.1 feet
          Suspected source(s): unknown

        At Pratt Place  (H-3)
          4/22/76 - Chloride:  59.51 mg/1.
          Suspected source(s):  DPW  salt pile off Haquan Place, highway run-off
                                                                                             At  State  Street  (NR-12)
                                                                                                6/3/75 -  Dissolved oxygen:  3.6 mg/1.
                                                                                                         Total  coliform   :  230/100 ml.
                                                                                                         Fecal  coliform   :  230/100 ml.
                                                                                                         Total  phosphorus:  0.35 mg/1.
                                                                                                         Chloride         :  44 ng/1.
                                                                                                Suspected source(s): unknown
                                                                                    III.   WHITE  OAK  BROOK/HONPONSETT  POND

                                                                                             Tributary  to  Great  Cedar Swamp below  County Hospital  at Main Street
                                                                                             (H-04)
                                                                                                12/7/75 -  Pesticides:   unidentified  peak
                                                                                                Suspected  source(s):  unknown

                                                                                             White Oak  Brook  at  Pleasant Street  (H-5)
                                                                                                5/4/76  - Malathion:2  mg/1.
                                                                                                Suspected  source(s):  unknown  (Malathion is not  used in  the  cranberry
                                                                                                                     bogs or  for  mosquito control  in May).

                                                                                             White Oak  Tributary (EEA-M-7)
                                                                                                              otv
        At Washington  Street  (IN-01)
          6/3/75  -  Total  col i form
                    Fecal  coliform
                    Chloride
          1/20/76-  Nitrate-nitrogen
                               8000/100 ml.  (during  rainstorm)
                               not tested
                               47 mg/1.
                               1.16 mg/1.
  i
  ro
  10
   Suspected source(s):   septic system leachate,  gravel  pits

Off Sleigh Road (H-02)
   1/20/76 - Nitrate-nitrogen:   1.1  mg/1.
   Suspected source(s):   septic system leachate
II.   INDIAN  HEAD RIVER

        Tributary to  Factory  Pond  (H-01 , H-l)
           1/20/76 -  BOD5    :   4.7 mg/1.
          4/25/76 -  Cadmium:   0.022 mg/1.
          Suspected  source(s):  disposal of material at Rockland landfill

        Factory  Pond  Outlet  (NR-11)
          6/3/75 - Dissolved oxygen:   1.1 mg/1.
                   Total  phosphorus:   0.5 mg/1.
                   Chloride         :   43 mg/1.
           7/29/75- Total  coliform   :   800/100 ml.
                   Fecal  coliform   :   360/100 ml.
                   Total  phosphorus:   0.3 mg/1.
                   Chloride         :   47 mg/1.
          Suspected  source(s):  continued impact of Rockland Sewage Treatment-Plant
   8/31/76 - Dissolved oxygen:   4.8 mg/1.
             Total  phosphorus:   0.04 mg/1.
   Suspected source(s):  septic system leachate

Unnamed Tributary to Pond (EEA-M-6)
   8/31/76 - Total  phosphorus:   0.092 mg/1.
   Suspected source(s):  septic system leachate

Monponsett Pond (H-09)
   12/7/75 - 0.05 ppm of p.p1  - DDE
   Suspected source(s):  unknown (p.p'-DDE  is a residual  breakdown product
                         of DDT)
                                                                                             IV.  SHUMATUSCACANT RIVER/POOR MEADOW BROOK
                                                                                             At Route 27 Bridge  (SA-03)
                                                                                                6/12/75 - Total  col iform
                                                                                                          Fecal  col iform
                                                                                                          Total  phosphorus
                                                                                                          Chloride
                                                                                                          Dissolved  oxygen
                                                                                                7/22/75 - Total  coliform
                                                                                                          Fecal  coliform
                                                                                                          Chloride
                                not tested (during rainstorm)
                                10,000/100 ml.
                                0.16 mg/1.
                                43 mg/1 .
                                3.3 mg/1.
                                400/100 ml .
                                100/100 ml.
                                49 mg/1.
                                                                                                Suspected source(s):   septic  system leachate  from Whitman.

                                                                                             Tributary to Poor Meadow Brook,  west  of Cranberry Co.  (H-03)
                                                                                                12/16/75- Dissolved oxygen:4.8 mg/1.
                                                                                                          BOD5
                                                                                                          Total  coliform  :
                                                                                                          Fecal  coliform  :
                                                                                                          Nitrate-nitrogen:
                                                                                             Suspected source(s):   unknown
                                6.75 mg/1.
                                1000/100 ml.
                                not tested
                                1 .16 mg/1.

-------
t- „
             SATLE SITES,1977
               PROBLEMS FOUND
              NO PROBLEMS FOUND	Q
             Pembroke
    A-30

-------
                                      PEMBROKE
    I.  HERRING BROOK
                                                                                                II.   ROBINSON CREEK
 i
CO
Tributary to Oldham Pond, NW shore (EEA-0-1)
   8/27/76 - Total coliform:  1600/100 ml.
             Fecal coliform:  12/100 ml.
   Suspected source(s):  soil

In Oldham Pond opposite NE shore (EEA-0-2)
   8/27/76 - Total coliform:2100/100 ml.
             Fecal coliform:  2/100 ml.
   Suspected source(s):  soil

In Oldham Pond opposite E shore (EEA-0-3)
   8/27/76 - Total coliform:  1000/100 ml.
             Fecal coliform:  2/100 ml.
   Suspected source(s):  soil

In Oldham Pond opposite SU shore (EEA-0-4)
   8/27/76 - Total coliform:  1800/100 ml.
             Fecal coliform:  1/100 ml.
   Suspected source(s):  soil

Tributary to Furnace Pond, NE corner (EEA-0-7)
   8/27/76 - Dissolved oxygen:1.9 mg/1.
   Suspected source(s):  swamp

Tributary to Furnace Pond at Hattakeeset  Street  (P-4)
   5/4/76 - Chloride :  40.94 mg/1.	
            Halathion:  5 mg/1.
   Suspected source(s):  *unknown,  salt storage  pile,  road salting

Herring Brook at Mountain Ave.  (P-3)
   5/4/76 - Halathion:2 mg/1.
   Suspected source(s):   *unknown

Herring Brook at Route 14 Bridge (HK-01)
   5/3/75 - Total  coliform:   2130/100  ml.
            Fecal  coliform:   230/100 ml.
   7/29/75- Total  coliform:   800/100 ml.
            Fecal  coliform:   360/100 ml.
   Suspected source(s):   septic  system leachate
                                                                                                       East of Schooset and Water Street (P-l)
                                                                                                          5/6/76 - Total coliform: 2100/100 ml.
                                                                                                                   Fecal coliform: 93/100 ml.
                                                                                                          Suspected source(s):  soil, septic system leachate


                                                                                               III.  NORTH RIVER

                                                                                                       Curtis Crossing (Elm Street) (NR-13)
                                                                                                          6/3/75 - Dissolved oxygen:  4.5 mg/1.
                                                                                                                   Total phosphorus:  0.3 mg/1.
                                                                                                                   Chloride        :  44 mg/1.
                                                                                                          Suspected source(s):  continued impact of upstream sources (Rockland
                                                                                                                                Sewage Treatment Plant)

                                                                                                       Washington Street (NR-14)
                                                                                                          7/29/75 - Dissolved oxygen:   3.5 mg/1.
                                                                                                                    Total  phosphorus:   0.17 mg/1.
                                                                                                                    Chloride        :   200 mg/1.
                                                                                                          Suspected source(s):  run-off from Hanover Mall


                                                                                               IV.  WATER SUPPLY  LAKES
Silver Lake - (P-02) - Brockton/Whitman/Hanson water supply
   12/4/75 - Chloride :   25.932 mg/1.
             Turbidity:   2.2 NTU
           Raw (untreated water)
   1/21/76 - Sodium:  10 mg/1.
   5/7/76  - Sodium:  10 mg/1.
   8/24/76 - Sodium:  13 mg/1.
   Suspected source(s):   unknown
                                                                                                                                                Finished  (treated water)
                                                                                                                                                      20  mg/1.
                                                                                                                                                      14  mg/1.
                                                                                                                                                      20  mg/1.
                                                                                                       Great  Sandy Bottom  Pond  (P-04)  - Abington-Rockland  supply
                                                                                                          !9y7/7C   onn_      .   •»  i	*i
Pudding Brook at Washington Street (P-7, PB-01)
5/3/75 - BODs
Total phosphorus
Chloride
7/29/75- Dissolved oxygen
5/4/76 - Total coliform
Fecal coliform
Malathion
Suspected source(s) : *unl
3.0 mg/1.
0.1 mg/1.
26 rug/1.
4.9 ma/1.
1500/100 ml.
16/100 ml.
1 mg/1.
cnown, soil
*At these sites, a chemical compound was found in the samples. The compound was compared
                                                                                                          12/7/75  - BOD5
                                                                                                                   Chloride  :
                                                                                                                   Turbidi ty:
                                                                                                             1974  - Sodium    :
                                                                                                             1975  - Sodium    :
                                                                                                          4/20/76  - Sodium    :
                                                                                                          Suspected source(s):
                         3.3 mg/1.
                         32.467  mg/1.
                         1  NTU
                        23  mg/1.
                         20 mg/1.
                         26 mg/1.
                         salt storage  pile,  highway  salting
                                                                                                V.  WATER SUPPLY WELLS
                                                                                                              Great Sandy Bottom Pond - Abington-Rockland Supply
                                                                                                              i ai>n \ ~ e«j j..«	28 mo/I
  with 11  known chemicals,  and of  these  11,  the compound most closely resembled malathion,
  in concentrations  of 1  to 5 mg/1.  The 208 staff  is not aware of any use of this
  chemical  at this  time of  year  nor  in those concentrations; specifically malathion was
  not used  at that  time for pest control on cranberry bogs or for mosquito control.
                                                                                               1970 (avgj - Sodium
                                                                                               1972
                                                                                               1974
                                                                                               1975
                                                                                               4/20/76
                                                                                               Suspected source(s):
                         68 mg/1
                         60 mg/1.
                         85 mg/1.
                         50 mg/1.
                        salt storage, highway salting

-------
       Well off  Hobomock Street (Pembroke supply)
          1970   -  Sodium
          1972   -
          1974   -
          1975   -
          6/9/76-
6.5 mg/1 .
12 mg/1.
19 mg/1.
13 mg/1.
20 mg/1.
          Suspected  source(s):  highway salting

       Vlell off  Center Street  (Pembroke supply)
          1972    -  Sodium
          1974
          1975
          6/9/76  -
 14 mg/1.
 32 mg/1.
 19 mg/1.
 20 mg/1.
          Suspected  source(s):  highway salting

       Well  off  School Street  (Pembroke supply)
          1974    -  Sodium
          1975    -
          3/1/76  -
          6/9/76  -
 20 mg/1.
 23 mg/1.
 26 mg/1.
 35 mg/1.
          Suspected  source(s):  highway salting
I
CO
ro

-------
              SAMPLE SITES,1977
               PROBLEMS FOUND
               NO PROBLEMS FOUND
   0     1      2
West  Bridgewater
 A-34

-------
                                      WEST BRIDGEWATER
                                                                                                    11.  WEST MEADOW BROOK
CJ
CJ1
         I.   COWEESET BROOK/HOCKOHOCK RIVER/TOWN RIVER

                Coweeset Brook at Walnut Street  (CW-03, WB-1)
                                               4.6 mg/1.
                                               1200/100 ml.
                                               400/100 ml.
                                               1.0 mg/1.
                                               39 mg/1.
                                               1500/100 ml.
                                               not tested
7/22/75 - Dissolved oxygen
          Total  coliform
          Fecal  coliform
          Nitrate-ni trogen
          Chloride
4/20/76 - Total  coliform
          Fecal  coliform
Suspected source(s):  agricultural  run-off, continued impact of upstream
                      sources (septic system leachate)
                                                                                                           No problems found.
                                                   III.  SALISBURY PLAIN RIVER

                                                            At Hatfield Street (MS-06)
                                                               7/22/75 - Dissolved oxygen:  0.4 mg/1.
                                                                         BOD5             :  18.0 mg/1.
                                                                         Total coliforn   :  7000/100 ml.
                                                                         Fecal coliform   :  1000/100 ml.
                                                                         Total phosphorus:  3.6 mg/1.
                                                                         Chloride         :  64 mg/1.
                                                                                                              Suspected source(s):  Brockton Sewage Treatment Plant
               Hockomock River at Maple Street (TW-01)
                   7/22/75  -
          Dissolved oxygen:
          Total  coliform  :
          Fecal  coliform  :
          Total  phosphorus:
          Chloride
0.4 mg/1.
400/100 ml.
300/100 ml.
0.56 mg/1.
32 mg/1.
IV.   WELLS
                  Suspected source(s):  agricultural run-off, highway run-off

              Town  River at Scotland Street  (TW-02)
                   7/22/75 -
          Dissolved oxygen:
          Total  coliform  :
          Fecal  coliform  :
          Total  phosphorus:
          Chloride
3.1 mg/1.
700/100 ml.
400/100 ml.
0.76 mg/1.
30 mg/1.
        Norman  Avenue
           1976 -  Sodium:   22 mg/1.
           Suspected  source(s):   highway salting

        Hanley  Street
           1974 -  Sodium:   23.25  mg/1.
           1975 -   "   :   35 mg/1.
           1976 -   "   :   23 mg/1.
           Suspected  source(s):   highway salting
                  Suspected source(s):  agricultural run-off, highway run-off

              Town River at River and Forest Streets (WB-5)
                  4/22/76 - Total coliform:  1400/100 ml.
                            Fecal coliform:  150/100 ml.
                  Suspected source(s):  septic system leachate, agricultural run-off
              Town River at South Street  (TW-03)
                   7/22/75  -
                  7/24/75 -
          Dissolved oxygen:
          Total  phosphorus:
          Chloride        :
          Total  coliforn  :
          Fecal  coliform
1.9 mg/1.
0.12 mg/1.
30 mg/1.
2300/100 ml.
not tested
                  Suspected source(s):  agricultural run-off, septic system leachate
              Town River at Main Street (TW-04)
                  7/22/75 - Dissolved oxygen   4.3 mg/1.
                            Total coliform     900/100 ml.
                            Fecal coliform     400/100 ml.
                            Chloride           30 mg/1.
                  Suspected source(s):  agricultural run-off, septic system leachate

-------
             SAT1PLE SITES, 1977
              PROBLEMS FOUND
              NO PROBLEMS FOUND
            Whitman
A-36

-------
                                             WHITMAN
         I.  MEADOW BROOK
                                                          Tributary  to Shumatuscacant River at South and Franklin Streets  (WH-06)
                                                              1/9/76  - Total coliform:  1400/100 ml.
                                                                      Fecal coliform:  not tested
                                                              Suspected source(s):  septic system leachate
                West Branch at Pine Street (UH-01)
                   1/9/76 - Total coliform:  4800/100 ml.
                            Fecal coliform:  not tested
                   Suspected source(s):  septic system leachate

                East Branch at Temple Street (UH-02)
                   1/9/76 - Total coliform  :   3300/100 ml.
                            Fecal coliform  :   not tested
                            Nitrate-nitrogen:   2mg/l.
                   Suspected source(s):  septic system leachate
                At Auburn Street (WH-03)
                   1/9/76 - Total coliform
                            Fecal col i form
                            Nitrate-nitrogen
12,000/100 ml.
not tested
1.8 mg/1.
I
( i
••J
                   Suspected source(s):  septic system leachate

                Tributary to Meadow Brook at Auburn Street (WH-04)
                   1/9/76 - Total coliform:  4200/100 ml.
                            Fecal coliform:  not tested
                   Suspected source(s):  septic system leachate
        II.  SHUMATUSCACANT RIVER

                At Essex Street (UH-05, WH-1,  SA-02)

                   6/12/75 - Dissolved oxygen    2.0 mg/1.  (during rainstorm)
                             Total coliform     not tested
                             Fecal coliform     350/100 ml.
                             Chloride           49 mg/1.
                   7/22/75 - Dissolved oxygen    0.3 mg/1.
                             BOD 5              11.0 mg/1.
                             Total coliform     20,000/100 ml.
                             Fecal coliform     1500/100 ml.
                             Total phosphorus    0.4 mg/1.
                             Chloride           62 mg/1.
                   1/9/76  - Nitrate-nitrogen    1.21 mg/1.
                             Chloride           39.75 mg/1.
                   3/18/76 - BOD5               3.9 mg/1.
                             Chloride           68 mg/1.
                   5/4/76  - Chloride           47.86 mg/1.
                   Suspected source(s):  a septage lagoon  had  been immediately upstream of this
                                         site  at the Whitman  landfill  which may have caused
                                         the 1975 readings.   Current problems are suspected
                                         to be from highway  and/or urban run-off.

                Hobart Pond (WH-2)
                   5/6/76 - Chloride:  50.94 mg/1.
                   Suspected source(s):  highway run-off,  landfill leachate

-------