DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ON THE UPGRADING OF THE
BOSTON METROPOLITAN AREA
SEWERAGE SYSTEM
VOLUME - TWO
 SB
\
8
 X»«X

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY • REGION I
JOHN F. KENNEDY FEDERAL BUILDING • GOVERNMENT CENTER
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS • 02203

-------
VOLUME 2
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ON THE UPGRADING OF THE
BOSTON METROPOLITAN AREA
SEWERAGE SYSTEM
PREPARED FOR
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION I
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
BY
GREELEY AND HANSEN
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT COUNCIL, INC.
APPROVED BY:
h.’. 14-’ - --—
\, thiiam R. Adams, Jr. Date
Regional Administrator

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
VOLUME Il
APPENDIX 2.1 CLIMATOLOGY A-i
2.1-1 Monthly Temperature Record A-3
2.1-2 Monthly Precipitation Record A-4
APPENDIX 2.4 SOILS A-5
2.4-1 General Soil Areas A-7
2.4-2 Interpretative Data for Soil Areas A-li
APPENDIX 2.5 WATER RESOURCES A-13
2.5-1 Water Quality Standards A-15
2.5-2 Correspondence A-29
APPENDIX 2.6 AQUATIC AND MARINE BIOTA A-3l
2.6-1 Diatomaceous Phytoplankton A-33
2.6-2 Macroaigae A-35
2.6-3 Benthic Organisms-Freshwater Systems A-37
2.6—4 Phytoplankton—Freshwater Systems A-38
2.6-5 Zooplankton—Freshwater Systems A-39
2.6-6 Finfish-Freshwater Systems A-40
2.6-7 Benthic Organisms—Inner Bay A-4 1
2.6—8 Finfish-Boston Harbor A-43
2.6-9 Softshell Clam Beds A-44
APPENDIX 2.7 VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE A-45
2.7-1 Plant Species List A-47
2.7—2 Wildlife Species List A—52
2.7-3 Wildlife Species List—Birds A—54
2.7-4 Ecological Principles Influencing
Terrestrial Biota in MDC Area A-68
2.7-5 Coverage Type Within Forested Areas
(1971) A—70
2.7-6 Freshwater Wetlands Classification A—72
2.7-7 Compilation of Inland and Coastal
Wetlands A-77
2.7-8 Endangered Species A—79
1

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
VOLUME II
APPENDIX 2.8 AIR QUALITY
2.8-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards A-83
2.8-2 Ambient Air Quality Data A-85
2.8-3 Violations of Air Quality Standards A-90
2.8-4 Emissions Inventory for AQCR 119 A-91
APPENDIX 2.9 NOISE A-95
2.9-1 1977 Boston Noise Survey A—97
APPENDIX 2.10 DEMOGRAPHY AND LAND USE A—99
2.10-1 Demographic Analysis A-101
2.10-2 Economic Analysis A-hO
2.10—3 Land Use Analysis A—121
2.10-4 TransportatiOn Systems A-136
APPENDIX 2.11 POPULATION PROJECTIONS A-145
2.11—1 Population Projections A-l47
APPENDIX 2.13 RECREATIONAL/SCENIC AREAS A-157
2.13-1 Major Holdings of Open Space A-159
APPENDIX 2.14 SITES OF SPECIAL SIGNIFICANCE A-163
2.14-1 National Register of Sites A-165
2.14—2 Massachusetts Landscape and Natural
Areas Survey Sites A-172
APPENDIX 3.1.3 FLOW AND WASTE REDUCTION MEASURES A-179
3.1.3-1 Water Conservation Belated Savings A-181
APPENDIX 3.2.3 PRELIMINARY SCREENINGINLAND
SATELLITE PLANTS A-183
3.2.3—1 Charles River Dissolved Oxygen
Modeling A—185
3.2.3-2 Neponset River Water Quality Analysis A-309

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
VOLUME II
APPENDIX 3.4.1 FINAL SCREENING-NON-SATELLITE
SYSTEMS A-321
3.4.1-1 Field Evaluation of Additional
Interceptor Routes A-323
APPENDIX 3.5.1 COMPARISON OF SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES-
WATER QUANTITY A-363
3.5.1-1 Statement Attached to MDC Charles
River Site Selection Report A-365
3.5.1-2 U.S.G.S. Charles River Report A-368
APPENDIX 3.5.4 COMPARISON OF SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES- A-407
AIR QUALITY
3.5.4—1 Air Dispersion Studies A—409
APPENDIX 4.1.4 RECOMMENDED PLAN-WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANTS A-527
4.1.4-1 Bases of Design A-529
APPENDIX 5.4 AIR QUALITY
5.4—1 Emission Factors A-541
iii

-------
APPENDIX 2.1
CLIMATOLOGY
A-i

-------
Appendix 2.1—1
Monthly Temperature Record
Boston, Mass.
Elevation 15 feet msl
104 Years of Record
Through 1975
Framingham, Mass.
Elevation 170 feet inal
87 Years of Record
Through 1971
U.)
Month
Mean
9
—1.7
28.9
°C
17.2
Maximum
OF
63
0 C
—20.0
Minimum
F
—4
0 C
—32
Mean Maximum Minimum
°F - ol -
22.2 72 —31.1 —24
January
February
—1.6
29.1
14.4
58
—19.4
—3
—2.9
26.8 18.9 66 —29.4
—21
March
2.7
36.9
21.1
70
—14.4
6
2.3
36.2 29.4 85 —19.4
—3
April
8.3
46.9
29.4
85
5.6
22
8.5
47.3 33.9 93 —12.2
10
May
14.3
57.7
33.9
93
2.8
37
14.6
58.3 35.6 96 —3.9
25
June
19.4
67.0
361
97
7.8
46
19.6
67.2 37.8 100 1.7
35
July
22.6
72.6
36.7
98
12.2
54
22.4
72.3 38.9 102 5.6
42
August
21.5
70.7
38.9
102
8.3
47
21.1
69.9 40.0 104 1.1
34
September
17.8
64.0
35.0
95
3.3
38
17.2
62.9 35.0 95 —2.8
27
October
12.3
54.2
30.0
86
—1.1
30
11.3
52.4 32.8 91 —8.9
16
November
6.4
43.5
25,0
77
—8.3
17
5.0
41.0 28.3 83 14.4
December
0.3
32,6
21.1
70
—19.4
—3
—1.2
29.9 21.7 71 —26.7
‘-16
Annual
10.2
50.3
38.9
l02
—20.0
—4
9.6
49.2 40.0 104 —31.1
—24
Source: Monthly normals of temperature, precipitation, and heating and cooling
degree days 1941—70 New England U.S. Dept. of Commerce

-------
Appendix 2.1—2
Monthly Precipitation Record
For the Soaton Area
Boston, Mass.
Elevation 15 feet mal
157 Years of Record
Through 1975
Framingham, Mass.
Elevation 170 feet mal
96 Years of Record
Throuah 1971
Month
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Annual
Cm
In.
Cm
In.
Cm
In.
Cm
In.
Cm
In.
Cm
Minimum
In.
9.1
3.58
24.2
9.54
2.3
0.89
8.6
3.40
18.0
.7.08
2.9
1.15
9.6
0.75
9.8
3.84
27.9
11.00
3.8
1.48
0.26
9.1
3.57
19.9
7.82
3.1
1.24
0.04
8.3
3.25
34.0
13.38
1.3
.53
8.2
0.85
8.0
3.16
21.9
8.63
1.2
.48
0.72
8.0
3.15
20.6
8.12
1.3
0.52
8.3
8.8
0.38
9.1
3.57
43.4
17.09
2.1
0.83
0.73
8.3
3.25
21.1
8.31
0.9
0.35
0.54
8.2
3.22
22.0
8.68
2.4
0.96
9.0
8.4
0.18
9.9
3.89
20.7
8.18
4.4
1.72
0.10
9.3
3.67
24.7
9.74
2.6
1.03
9.9
0.89
0.92
105.5
41.55
172.0
3.77
4.16
3.65
3.24
3.28
3.47
3.62
3.53
3.29
4.04
24.6
22.4
24.4
22.3
17.8
23.7
30.0
40.0
27.1
26.1
20.2
27.6
9.67
8.82
9.61
8.78
7.01
9.33
11.80
15.69
10.65
10.26
7.94)
10.87
1.9
0.7
0.1
2.2
1.8
1.0
1.9
1.4
0.5
0.3
2.3
2.3
Source: Monthly Normals of Temperature, Precipitation and Heating and Cooling Degree Days 1941—70
New England U.S. Department of Commerce

-------
APPENDIX 2.4
Soils
A-S

-------
No. on
Map
1 Droughty to well drained sandy and gravelly soils on terraces
on slopes less than 15 percent.
la Droughty coarse sandy soils on slopes less than 15 percent.
2 Droughty to well drained sandy and gravelly soils on terraces
on slopes greater than 15 percent.
2a Droughty coarse sandy soils on slopes greater than 15 percent.
3 Well drained arid moderately well drained, stony soils with
hardpans on upland slopes less than 15 percent.
4 Well drained and moderately well drained, stony soils with
hardpans on upland slopes greater than 15 percent.
5 Well drained and moderately well drained, stony soils without
hardpans on upland slopes less than 15 percent.
5a Droughty stony soils without hardpans on upland slopes less
than 15 percent.
6 Well drained stony soils without hardpans on upland slopes
greater than 15 percent.
6a Droughty stony soils without hardparis on upland slopes greater
than 15 percent.
7 poorly drained and very poorly drained mineral soils on level
or nearly level slopes.
8 Very poorly drained organic soils.
9 Well drained and moderately well drained, stony soils with
hardpans and shallow to bedrock soils on upland slopes less
than 15 percent.
10 Well drained and moderately well drained, stony soils with
hardpans and shallow to bedrock soils on upland slopes greater
than 15 percent.
ii Well drained and moderately well drained, stony soils without
hardpans and shallow to bedrock soils on upland slopes less
than 15 percent.
A- 7

-------
Appendix 2.4—1 (cont.)
No. on
Map Description
12 Well drained stony soils without hardpans and shallow to
bedrock soils on upland slopes greater than 15 percent.
13 Tidal marsh.
14 Dune sand and coastal beach.
15 Urban land.
16 Shallow to bedrock soils and very poorly drained organic
soils.
17 Well drained and moderately well drained silty soils under-
lain by sands and gravel on nearly level slopes.
18 Well drained and moderately well drained stony soils with
hardpans and poorly and very poorly drained soils.
19 Droughty to moderately well drained sandy and gravelly soils
and poorly and very poorly drained soils.
l9a Droughty coarse sandy soils and very poorly drained soils.
20 Droughty to moderately well drained sandy and gravelly soils
and shallow to bedrock soils.
21 Shallow to bedrock soils and poorly and very poorly drained
mineral soils.
22 Well drained and moderately well drained stony soils without
hardpans and poorly and very poorly drained soils.
23 Shallow to bedrock soils and well drained and moderately well
drained silty clayey soils.
24 Moderately well drained and well drained silty and clayey
soils on slopes less than 8 percent.
A -8

-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGiTALLY

-------
Appendix 2.4—2 — Interpretative Data for Soils Areas
Depth to Septic Tank Home Sites Woodland Seasonal High
Slope Bedrock Disposal wlCellars Productivity Water
1 0—8 4 Slight Slight Fair Deep
2 15—25+ 4 Severe Mod.—Severe Fair Deep
3 3—15 4 Severe Moderate Good Mod.—Deep
4 15—35+ 4 Severe Mod.—Severe Good Mod.—Deep
5 3—15 4 Slight to Slight—Mod. Good Mod.—Deep
Severe
6 15—35+ 4 Severe Mod.—Severe Good Deep
7 0—3 4 Severe Severe Poor Shallow
8 0—3 4 Severe Severe Poor Shallow
9 3—15 3 to 4 Severe Mod.—Severe Fair—Good Mod.—Deep
10 15—35 4 Severe Mod.—Severe Good Mod.—Deep
11 3—15 4 Slight— Slight—Mod. Good Nod.—Deep
Severe
12 15—35+ 4 Severe Mod.-Severe Good Deep
13 0—1 4 Severe Severe Poor Shallow
14 0—25 4 Slight— Severe Poor Deep
Severe
15 —— ——
16 8—25+ 3 Severe Severe Fair—Poor Shallow—Deep
17 0—3 4 Slight Slight Good Mod.—Deep
18 0—15 4 Severe Severe Poor Shallow—Deep
19 0—15 Slight— Slight—Severe Slight—Severe Shallow—Deep
Severe
20 3—25+ 3 to 4 Slight— Slight—Severe Poor—Good Mod.—Deep
Severe
21 0—25 3 to 4 Severe Severe Fair—Poor Shallow—Deep
22 0—15 4 Slight— Slight—Severe Poor—Good Shallow—Deep
Severe
23 3—15 3 to 4 Severe Mod.—Severe Poor—Good Mod.—Deep
24 0—8 4 Severe Moderate Good Moderate

-------
APPENDIX 2.5
Water Resources
A- 13

-------
Appendix 2.5—1
RULES AND REGULATIONS
FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
MINIMUM WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
AND FOR TEE PROTECTION OF THF
QUALITY AND VALUE OF WATER RESOURCES
REGULATION I - Definitions
The terms used in the following regulations are defined as follows:
1. Appropriate Treatment — means that degree of treatment required for
the waters of the Commonwealth to meet their assigned classifications
or any terms, conditions, or effluent limitations established as part
of any permit to discharge issued under the provisions of the Massachu-
setts Clean Water Act, or any effluent standard or prohibition estab-
lished by the Division under authority of Section 27 (6) of the Massa-
chusetts Clean Waters Act.
2. Division — means the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Water
Pollution Control.
3. Person — means any agency or political subdivision of the Commonwealth,
public or private corporation or authority, individual, partnership or
association, or other entity, including any officer of a public or
private agency or organization, upon whom a duty may be imposed by or
pursuant to any provision or Sections 26—53 inclusive, of Chapter 21 of
the General Laws.
4. Sewage — means the water—carried waste products or discharges from
human beings, sink waters, wash water, laundry waste and similar so—
called domestic waste.
5. The “Waters of the Commonwealth” and “Waters” — means all waters within
the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth, including, without limitation,
rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, springs, impoundments, estuaries, coas-
tal waters, and ground waters.
6. Fresh Waters - means waters not subject to the rise and tall of the
tide.
7. Salt Waters — means all waters subject to the rise and fall of the tide.
8. Cold Water Stream — means a stream capable of sustaining a population
of cold water fish, primarily Salmonids.
9. Seasonal Cold Water Stream - means a stream which is only capable of
sustaining cold water fish during the period of September 15 through
June 30.
A- 15

-------
10. Waste Treatment Facility — processes, plants, or works, installed
for the purpose of treating, neutralizing, stabilizing or disposing
of wastewater.
11. Pollutant — means any element or property of sewage, agricultural,
industrial, or commercial waste, run—off, leachate, heated efflu-
ent, or other matter in whatever form and whether originating at a
point or non—point source, which is or may be discharged drained or
otherwise introduced into the waters of the Commonwealth.
12. Discharge - means the flow or release of any pollutant into the
waters of the Commonwealth.
13. Wastewater - means sewage, liquid or water carried waste from in-
dustrial, commercial, municipal, private or other sources.
14. Zone of Passage — means a continuous water route of the volume, area
and quality necessary to allow passage of free-swimming and drifting
organisms with no significant effect produced on the population.
REGULATION II - Water Quality Standards
The Water Quality Standards adopted by the Massachusetts Division of
Water Pollution Control on March 3, 1967 and filed with the Secretary of
State on March 6, 1967 are hereby repealed, except that existing “River
Basin Classifications” based on the 1967 Standards will remain in full
force and effect until reclassified in accordance with the following
standards.
To achieve the objectives of the Massachusetts Clean Waters Act arid
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 and to assure
the best use of the waters of the Commonwealth the following standards
are adopted and shall be applicable to all waters of the Commonwealth or
to different segments of the same waters:
A— 16

-------
FRESH WATER STAND7 RDS
Class A — These waters are designated for use as sources of public water
supply in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 111 of the General
Laws.
Water Quality Criteria
Item Criteria
1. Dissolved oxygen Not less than 75% of saturation during at
least 16 hours of any 24 hour period and
not less than 5 mg/i at any time. For cold
water streams the dissolved oxygen concen-
tration shall not be less than 6 mg/i. For
seasonal cold water streams the dissolved
oxygen concentration shall not be less
than 6 mg/i during the season.
2. Sludge deposits—solid None allowable.
refuse—floating solids—
oil—grease—scum
3. Color and turbidity None other than of natural origin.
4. Total Coliform bacteria Not to exceed an average value of 50
per 100 ml. during any monthly sampling period.
5. Taste and odor None other than of natural origin
6. pH As naturally occurs
7. Allowable temperature None other than of natural origin
increase
8. Chemical constituents None in concentrations or combinations
which would be harmful or offensive to
humans, or harmful to animal or aquatic
life.
9. Radioactivity None other than that occurring from
natural phenomena.
A— 17

-------
Class B — These waters are suitable for bathing and recreational purposes,
water contact activities, acceptable for public water supply with treat-
inent and disinfection, are an excellent fish and wildlife habitat, have
excellent aesthetic values and are suitable for certain agricultural and
industrial uses.
Item Criteria
1. Dissolved oxygen Not less than 75% of saturation during at
least 16 hours of any 24 hour period and
not less than 5 mg/i at any time. For
cold water streams the dissolved oxygen
concentration shall not be less than 6
mg/i. For seasonal cold water streams
the dissolved oxygen concentration shall
not be less than 6 mg/i during the season.
2. Sludge deposits-solid None other than of natural origin or those
refuse— 1oating solids— amounts which may result from the discharge
oil—grease—scum from waste treatment facilities providing
appropriate treatment. For oil and grease
of petroleum origin, the maximum allowable
concentration is 15 mg/l.
3. Color and turbidity None in such concentrations that would
impair any uses specifically assigned to
this class.
4. Coliform bacteria per 100 Not to exceed an average value of 1000
ml nor more than 1000 in 20% of the samples.
5. Taste and odor None in such concentrations that would
impair any uses specifically assigned to
this class and none that would cause
taste and odor in edible fish.
6. pH 6.5 - 8.0
7. Allowable temperature None except where the increase will not
increase exceed the recommended limit on the most
sensitive receiving water use and in no
case exceed 83°F in warm water fisheries,
and 68°F in cold water fisheries, or in
any case raise the normal temperature of
the receiving water more than 4 0 F.
A- 18

-------
Item
8. Chemical constituents
9. Radioactivity
Criteria
None in concentrations or combinations
which would be harmful or offensive to
human, or harmful to animal or aquatic
life or any water use specifically as-
signed to this class.
None in concentrations or combinations
in excess of the limits specified by the
United States Public Health Service
Drinking Water Standards.
Class El — The use and criteria for Class El shall be the same as for
Class B with the exception of the dissolved oxygen requirement which
shall be as follows for this class;
Item Criteria
1. Dissolved oxygen
Not less than 5 mg/i during at least 16
hours of any 24 hours period, nor less
than 3 mg/i at any time. For seasonal
cold water fisheries at least 6 mg/i
must be maintained during the season.
Class C — These waters are suitable for recreational boating and secondary
water contact recreation, as a suitable habitat for wildlife and fish
indigenous to the region, for certain agricultural and industrial uses,
have good aesthetic values, and under certain conditions are acceptable
for public water supply with treatment and disinfection.
Item Criteria
1. Dissolved Oxgen Not less than 5 mg/i during at least 16
hours of any 24 hours period, nor less
than 3 mg/i at any time. For seasonal
cold water fisheries at least 6 mg/l
must be maintained during the season.
A-19

-------
Item Criteria
2. Sludge deposits—solid None other than of natural origin or those
refuse—floating solids— an unts which may result from the discharge
oil—grease—scum from waste treatment facilities providing
appropriate treatment. For oil and grease
of petroleum origin the maximum allowable
concentration is 15 mg/i.
3. Color and turbidity None allowable in such concentrations
that would impair any uses specifically
assigned to this class.
4. Coliform bacteria None in such concentrations that would
impair any usages specifically assigned
to this class, see Note
5. Taste and odor None in such concentrations that would
impair any uses specifically assigned to
this class, and none that would cause
taste and odor to edible fish.
6. pH 6.0 — 8.5
7. Allowable temperature None except where the increase will not
increase exceed the recommended limits on the
most sensitive receiving water use and
in no case exceed 83°F in warm water
fisheries, and 68°F in cold water fish-
eries, or in any case raise the normal
temperature of the receiving water more
than 4° ?.
8. Chemical constituents None in concentrations or combinations
which would be harmful or offensive to
human life, or harmful to animal or
aquatic life or any other water use
specifically assigned to this class.
9. Radioactivity None in such concentrations or combina-
tions in excess of the limits specified
by the United States Public Health
Service Drinking Water Standards.
Note: No bacteria limit has been placed on Class “C” waters because of
the urban run—off and combined sewer problems which have not yet been
solved. In waters of this class not subject to urban runoff or combined
sewer discharges the bacterial quality of the water should be less than
A-20

-------
an average of 5,000 coliform bacteria/lOU ml during any monthly sampling
period. It is the objective of the Division to eliminate all point and
non—point sources of pollution and to impose bacterial limits on all
waters.
Class Cl — The use and criteria for Class Cl shall be the same as for
Class C with the exception of the dissolved oxygen (arid temperature) re-
quirements which shall be as follows for this Class:
Item Criteria
1. Dissolved Oxygen Not less than 2 mg/l at any time.
A- 21

-------
SALT WATER ST? NDARDS
Class SA — These are waters of the highest quality and are suitable for
any high water quality use including bathing and other water contact acti-
vities. These waters are suitable for approved shellfish areas and the
taking of shellfish without depuration, have the highest aesthetic value
and are an excellent fish and wildlife habitat.
Water Quality Criteria
Item Criteria
1. Dissolved oxygen Not less than 6.5 mg/l at any time.
2. Sludge deposits—solid None other than of natural origin or those
refuse—floating solids— amounts which may result from the discharge
oil-grease—scum from waste treatment facilities providing
appropriate treatment. For oil and grease
of petroleum origin the maximum allowable
concentration is 15 mg/i.
3. Color and turbidity None in such concentrations that will im-
pair any uses specifically assigned to this
class.
4. Total coliform bacteria Not to exceed a median value of 70 and not
per 100 ml more than 10% of the samples shall ordi-
narily exceed 230 during any monthly
sampling period.
5. Taste and odor None allowable
6. pH 6.8 - 8.5
7. Allowable temperature None except where the increase will not
increase exceed the recommended limits on the most
sensitive water use.
8. Chemical constituents None in concentrations or combinations
which would be harmful to human, animal
or aquatic life or which would make the
waters unsafe or unsuitable for fish or
shellfish or their propagation, impair
the palatability of same, or impair the
waters for any other uses.
A—22

-------
Item Criteria
9. Radioactivity None in concentrations or combinations
in excess of the limits specified by the
United States Public Health Drinking
Water Standards.
Class SB — These waters are suitable for bathing and recreational pur-
poses including water contact sports and industrial cooling, have good
aesthetic value, are an excellent fish habitat and are suitable for cer-
tain shell fisheries with depuration (Restricted Shellfish Area).
Water Quality Criteria
Item Criteria
1. Dissolved oxygen Not less than 5.0 mg/i at any tine.
2. Sludge deposits—solid None other than of natural origin or those
refuse—floating solids— amounts which may result from the discharge
oil—grease—scum from waste treatment facilities providing
adequate treatment. For oil and grease of
petroleum origin the maximum allowable con-
centration is 15 mg/i.
3. Color and turbidity None in such concentrations that would
impair any uses specifically assigned to
this class.
4. Total coliform bacteria Not to exceed an average value of 700 and
per 100 ml not more than 1000 in more than 20% of the
samples.
5. Taste and odor None in such concentrations that would im-
pair any uses specifically assigned to
this class and none that would cause
taste and odor in edible fish or shellfish.
6. pH 6.8 — 8.5
7. Allowable temperature None except where the increase will not
increase exceed the recommended limits on the most
sensitive water use.
A-23

-------
Item Criteria
8. Chemical constituents None in concentrations or combinations
which would be harmful to human, animal
or aquatic life or which would make the
waters unsafe or unsuitable for fish or
shellfish or their propagation, impair
the palatability of same, or impair the
water for any other use.
9. Radioactivity None in such concentrations or combina-
tions in excess of the limits specified
by the United States Public Health Drink-
ing Water Standards.
Class SC — These waters are suitable for aesthetic enjoyments, for rec-
reational boating, as a habitat for wildlife and cosmon food and game
fishes indigenous to the region, and are suitable for certain industrial
use.
Water Quality Criteria
Item Criteria
1. Dissolved oxygen Not less than 5 mg/i during at least 16
hours of any 24 hour period nor less than
3 mg/i at any time.
2. Sludge deposits—solid None other than of natural origin or those
refuse—floating solids— ameunts which may result from the dis-
oil—grease—scum charge from waste treatment facilities
providing appropriate treatment. For
oil and grease of petroleum origin the
maximum allowable concentration is 15
mg/i.
3. Color and turbidity None in such concentrations that would
impair any uses specifically assigned to
this class.
4. Total coliform bacteria None in such concentrations that would
impair any uses specifically assigned to
this class. See note.
A-24

-------
Item Criteria
5. Taste and odor None in such concentrations that would
impair any uses specifically assigned to
this class and none that would cause
taste and odor in edible fish or shell-
fish.
6. pH 6.5 — 8.5
7. Allowable temperature None except where the increase will not
increase exceed the recommended limits on the
most sensitive water use.
8. Chemical constituents None in concentrations or combinations
which would be harmful to human, animal
or aquatic life or which would make the
waters unsafe or unsuitable for fish or
shellfish or their propagation, impair
the palatability of same, or impair the
water for any other use.
9. Radioactivity None in such concentrations or combina-
tions in excess of the limits specified
by the United States Public Health
Service Drinking Water Standards.
Note - No bacteria limit has been placed on Class “SC” waters because of
the urban runoff and combined sewer problems which have not yet been
solved. In waters of this class not subject to urban runoff or combined
sewer discharges the bacterial quality of the water should be less than
an average of 5,000 coliform bacteria/lOO ml during any monthly sampling
period. It is the objective of the Division to eliminate all point and
non—point sources of pollution arid to impose bacterial limits on all
waters.
A- 25

-------
REGULATION III - General Provisions
1. It is recognized that certain waters of the Commonwealth
possess an existing quality which is better than the stan-
dards assigned thereto.
A. Except as otherwise provided herein, no new discharge of
wastewater will be permitted into any stream, river or
tributary upstream of the most upstream discharge of waste—
water from a municipal waste treatment facility or municipal
sewer discharging wastes requiring appropriate treatment as
determined by the Division. Any person having an existing
wastewater discharge shall be required to cease said dis-
charge and connect to a municipal sewer unless it is shown
by said person that such connection is not available or
feasible. Existing discharges not connected to a municipal
sewer will be provided with the highest and best practical
means of waste treatment to maintain high water quality.
New discharges from a municipal waste treatment facility
into such waters will be permitted provided that such
discharge is in accordance with a plan developed under the
provisions of Section 27(10) of Chapter 21 of the General
Laws (Massachusetts Clean Waters Act) which has been the
subject of a Public Hearing and approved by the Division.
The discharge of industrial liquid coolent wastes in con-
junction with the public and private supply of heat or
electrical power may be allowed provided that a permit has
been issued by the Division and that such discharge is in
conformance with the terms and conditions of the permit
and in conformance with the Water Quality Standards of the
receiving waters.
B. Except as otherwise provided herein no new discharge of
wastewater will be permitted in Class SA or SB waters. Any
person having an existing discharge of wastewater into Class
SA or SB waters will be required to cease said discharge and
to connect to a municipal sewer unless it is shown by said
person that such connection is not available or feasible.
Existing discharges not connected to a municipal sewer will
be provided with the highest and best practical means of
waste treatment to maintain high water quality. New dis—
charges from waste treatment facility into such waters will
be permitted provided that such discharge is in accordance
with a plan developed under the provisions of Section 27(10)
of Chapter 21 of the General Laws (Massachusetts Clean Waters
Act) which has been the subject of a Public Hearing and
approved by the Division. The discharge of industrial liquid
coolent wastes in conjunction with the public and private
supply of heat or electrical power may be allowed provided
that a permit has been issued by the Division and that such
discharge is in conformance with the terms and conditions of
the permit and in conformance with the Water Quality Standards
of the receiving waters.
A—26

-------
2. The latest edition of the Federal publication “Water
Quality Criteria” will be considered in the interpretation
and application of bioassay results.
3. The latest edition of Standard Methods for Examination of
Water and Wastewater, American Public Health Association,
will be followed in the collection, preservation, and
analysis of samples. Where a method is not given in the
standard methods, the latest procedures of the American
Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) will be followed.
4. The average minimum consecutive 7—day flow to be expected
once in 10 years shall be used in the interpretation of
the standards.
5. In the discharge of waste treatment plant effluents into
receiving waters, consideration shall be given both in
time and distance to allow for mixing of effluent and
stream. Such distances required for complete mixing shall
not effect the water use classifications adopted by the
Division. However, a zone of passage must be provided
wherever mixing zones are allowed.
6. There shall be no new discharges of nutrients into lakes
or ponds. In addition, there shall be no new discharge
of nutrients to tributaries of lakes or ponds that would
encourage eutrophication or growth of weeds or algae in
these lakes or ponds.
7. Any existing discharge containing nutrients in concentrations
which encourage eutrophication or growth of weeds or algae
shall be treated to remove such nutrients to the maximum
extent technically feasible.
8. These Water Quality Standards do not apply to conditions
brought about by natural causes.
9. All waters shall be substantially free of products that
will (1) unduly affect the composition of bottom fauna,
(2) unduly affect the physical or chemical measure of the
bottom, (3) interface with the spawning of fish or their
eggs.
10. No person.. shall discharge any pollutants into any waters
of the Conunonwealth which shall cause a violation of the
standards.
11. A person shall submit to the Division for approval all
plans for the construction of or addition to any waste
treatment facility and no such facility may be constructed,
modified or enlarged without such approval.
12. Cold water and seasonal cold water streams shall be those
listed by the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Game.
A-27

-------
13. Whoever violates any provision of these regulations shall
(a) be fined not less than two thousand five hundred dollars
nor more than twenty five thousand dollars for each day of
such violation or its continuance, or by imprisonment for
not more than one year, or by both; or (b) shall be subject
to a civil penalty not to exceed ten thousand dollars per
day of such violation, which may be assessed in an action
brought on behalf of the Commonwealth in any court of
competent jurisdiction, pursuant to Section 42 to Chapter
21 of the Massachusetts General Laws.
14. The Division and its duly authorized employees shall have
the right to enter at all reasonable times into or on, any
property, public or private, for the purpose of inspecting
and investigating conditions relating to pollution or
possible pollution of any waters of the Commonwealth,
pursuant to Section 40 of Chapter 21 of the Massachusetts
General Laws.
15. If any regulation, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase
or word of these regulations shall be declared invalid
for any reason whatsoever, that decision shall not effect
any other portion of these regulations, which shall
remain in full force and effect and to this end the
provisions of these regulations are hereby declared
severable.
A-28

-------
Appendix 2.5—2
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION I
J.P. KENNEDY FEDERAL 8U LDING, BOSTON. MASSACHU5E S 02203
September 13, 1976
$r. Thomas C. McMahon, Director
Division of Water Pollution Control.
Leverett Saltonstall Building
100 Cambridge Street
3oato ass ciiusetts 02202
Dear - ! i on:
We have reviewed the Eastern Massachusetts Metropolitan Area Study and the
reports and attachments referenced in your letter of July 23 in accordance
with Federal Regulations 40 CFR 131 and believe it substantially meets
the intent of those regulations. I am therefore approving the plan as the water
quality u anagement plan for Boston Harbor.
As you are aware, a final determination on specific elements of the wastewater
facilIties construction program will be made during the develop=ent of an
environmental ia act statement which will be initiated by us within the next
few days.
During the development of the E2 1A Study, numerous public lneetin2s were held.
The impact statement process will afford an oo ortunity for addItional
public partlaipation. We are therefore not requiring an addit unal public
hearing for the plan.
Within the next few months the Ccon ea1th will be revising water quality
standards. Durin2 this period the need for up rad1ng existing classifications
should be revlewea. Proper justifIcations must be given for Class C segments
1not be upgraded.
AdmInistrator
yours,
cc: Alan Cooperman, Mass. DWPC
John }Larringtcn, 1APC—
A- 29

-------
APPENDIX 2.6
Aquatic and Marine Biota
A- 31

-------
Appendix 2.6—1
Diatoinaceous Phytoplankton
Chactoceros conca vicorne
Chaetoceros coronatun
Chactoceros decipiens
Nitzchia seriata
Coscinodic z centralis
Rhizosolenia sp.
Me Z-osira moni liformis
Gyrosign a sp.
Navicula op.
Nitzchia closterium
Fragilaria sp.
Bidduiphia aurita
Thalassiosira nordenskiQldii
Thalassiosira rotul a
Thalassionema nitzschoides
Asterione 1 la japonica
She Z.etonema costatum
Bidduiphia alterrtans
Bidduiphia aurita
SOURCE: National Commission on Water Quality, 1975
A- 33

-------
ZOOPLANKTON
Dinoflagellates
Ceratiwi p.
Peridiniwn sp.
Dinophysis sp.
Gonyau lax ep.
Copepod s
Ciliate s
Tintinnopsis sp.
SOURCE: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1969
A-34

-------
APPENDIX 2.6-2
Macroalgae in the Inner Massachusetts Bay Area
Common Name Scientific Name
Yellow—brown algae Family: Xanthophyceae
Vaucheria ep.
Green algae Family: Chiorophycea
Chaetomorpha linurn
Green confetti Enterotnorpha erecta
Enteromorpha intestinalis
Green string lettuce Enteromorpha linza
Silk confetti Enterornorpha pro Zifera
Monos trorna oxyspermum
Rhizoc lonium tortuosurn
Viothrix flaca
Sea lettuce Ulva lactuca
Urospora sp.
Brown algae Family: Phaeophyceae
Holed kelp Agaiwn cribrosum
Rock weed Ascophyliwn mackaii
Rock weed Ascophyllum nodoswn
Devils shoelace Chora filuni
Chordai’ia flage llifor nis
Ecotocarpus con fervoides
Rock weed Fucus edentatus
Rock weed Fucus evcznescens
Flat wrack Fucus spiraZis
Bladder wrack Fucus vesiculo.sus
Kelp La,ninaria agardhii
Finger kelp Lajninca’ia digitata
Kelp Laminaria saccaharina
Laininaria stenophyZia
Petalonia fascia
Punctaria latifolia
Ralfsia fungiforrnis
Scy tosiphon lornentaria
Red algae Family: Rhodophyceae
Cerconiwn sp.
Chondria baileyana
Irish moss Chondrus crispus
CystocZoniwn purpurewn
Red jabot layer Dasya pedicellata
Dwiiontia incrassata
Halosaccion sp.
Hi ldenbrandia prototypus
Lithotha’nnium 7 enormandi
Lornentaria dave liosa
A- 35

-------
Common Name Scientific Name
Petroce us rniddendorfii
Phycodr7js rubens
Polysiphonia rubens
Mermaids hair Polysiphonia lanosa
Polysiphonia novae-angliae
Por’phyra umbilicaiis
Red kale Rhodyrnenia plcvnata
SOURCE: Massachusetts Division of Marfne FisherIes, 1964; 1966; 1971; 1973
Massachusetts Department of Natural Resources
A—36

-------
Appendix 2.6—3
Inventory of Benthic Organisms
Within
Fresh Water Systems in the MDC Study Area
Organism
Insects
Mayflies
Caddisf lies
Waterpenny beetles
Riffle beetles
Aquatic caterpillars
Crawling water beetles
Dryopid beetles
Blackf lies
Midges
Dance—flies
Scuds
Sow bugs
Crustacean
Crayfish
Gas tropod s
Limpet s
Snails
Bivalve
Clams
Platyhelminthes
Planaria sp.
Annel ids
Leeches
Bloodworms
Tub if Ic idae
Sludgeworms
NOTE: All sampling done in the year 1967 and obtained
from National Commission on Water Quality, 1975
A- 37

-------
Appendix 2.6-4
Inventory of Phytoplankton
in the
Upper Mystic Lake and Other Freshwater Systems
Organism
Diatoms
Asterio elZa ep.
‘yc? cteZZa sp.
Fraaiiai ’- a op’.
fyr edrcz si’.
rzaria s .
MeZc’sira Br.
Blue Green
A’-abcena sp.
Foi cyatis ap.
Cr een
C’hloreiia ps.
1osterizc’ sp.
?ed astrur sp.
Fen z sp.
Scer.edesr,us sp.
Staurastrum r’
i one sp.
Uict ri .x ep.
Coelastrzeii sp.
M crospora sp.
Yellow Green
Ch i8OCOC CUB B .
MiZor,on s 8 ’.
S RCES: Charles River Study performed in 1973; data obtained
from National Commission on Water Quality, 1975.
Upper Mystic Lake Study performed in 1974; data obtained
from Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control,
1975.
Mystic River Study performed June, 1973; data obtained
from Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control,
1973.
A-38

-------
Appendix 2.6—5
Inventory of Zooplankton
Within
Freshwater Systems in the MDC Study Area
Organism
Amoeboid
Sarcodina
Protozoan
Phacus sp.
Tracheloriorias sp.
Cocfrnelia sp.
Crustacean
Bosmina sp.
Cer’zodaphnia sp.
Daphnia sp.
c yciops sp.
Diatornus sp.
Rotifer
Keratella sp.
SOURCE: Upper Mystic Lake — Study performed 1974; data obtained
from Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control,
1975.
Mystic River — Study performed June 1973; data obtained
from Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control,
1973.
Charles River — Study performed 1973; data obtained
from National Commission on Water Quality, 1975
A- 39

-------
Appendix 2.6—6
Inventory of Finfish
Within
Freshwater Systems in the MDC Study Area
Organism
Common Name Scientific Name
Eastern brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis
Brown trout Saimo trutta
Chain pickerel Esox niger
Redf in pickerel Esox americcznus
Largemouth bass Micropterus salmoides
White perch Morons ainericanus
Yellow perch Perca flavescens
Johnny darter Etheostoma nigruin
Bluegill Lepoinis rnachrochirus
Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus
Red breast sunfish Lepomis auritue
Banded sunfish Enneacan thus obesus
Black crappie Pomoxis nigromacuZatus
Brown bullhead Ictalurus nebulosus
Yellow bullhead Iota lurus natalie
White catfish Ictalur’us catus
Bridled shiner Notropis bifrenatus
Spottail shiner Notropis hudsonius
Golden shiner Notropis ep.
Carp Cyprinus car’pio
Goldfish Carassius sp.
Fall fish Seinotii.us corpora lie
White sucker Catostornus con nersoni
Creek chubsucker Eriniyzon oblongus
American eel Anguilla rostrata
Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus
Banded killifish Fundulus maja lie
Muimuichog Fundulus heteroclitus
Striped bass Morons saxitalis
A-40

-------
Appendix 2.6—7
Inventory of Benthic Organisms
Which May be Found
in the Inner Massachusetts Bay
Organism
Poriferin
Sponges
Nemat oa
Nematode worms
Nemertini
Cerebcztulus lacteus (Ribbon worm)
Sipuculid
Phascoiosornas gouldii (Peanut worm)
Crustacean
Hornarus conericcinus (Lobster)
BaZanus tintinriabulwn (Barnacles)
Gojninarus ap. (Scud)
Uca sp. (Fiddler crab)
Pagurus sp. (Hermit crab)
Ovauipes ocellatus (Lady crab)
Cancer inoratus (Rock crab)
Carcinides maenas (Green crab)
Pinnotheres sp. (Pea crab)
Bivalve
Macoma ba1 thica (Macoma)
Mytilus edul-is (Blue mussel)
Mercenaria mercenaria (Quahog)
Geukerwia demissa (Ribbed Mussel)
Geni’na genv a (Gem shell)
Mya arenaria (Soft—shelled clam)
Enis directus (Razor clam)
Tellina sp. (Tellen shell)
Aequipecten irradicins (Bay scallop)
Gastropods
Urosalpinx cinerea (Oster drill)
Polychaeta
Nereis virens (Clam worm)
Glycera dibrcmehiata (Blood worm)
A- 41

-------
Amphineuran
Chitous
Arachnid
Lirnulus poiyphemus (Horseshoe crab)
Stelleroidean
Asterias fobesi (Starfish)
aphioder’ z breviepinurn (Brittlestars)
A- 42

-------
Appendix 2.6-8
Inventory of Finfish Within Boston Harbor
(Dorchester, Quincy, and Hirtgham Bays)
Atlantic silversides Menidia menidia
Winter flounder Pseudop leuronectes ar ericanus
Mununichog Fzmdulus heteroclitus
Striped killifish Fundulus majalis
Rainbow smelt Osmerus mordax
Atlantic tomcod Microgadus torricod
Alewife Porno logus pseudoharengus
Fourspine stickleback Ape ites quadracus
Threespine stickleback Casterosteus aculeatus
Skates Raja spp.
American eel Anguilla rostrata
Atlantic cod Gadus rnor1 zua
Cunner Tautogo labrus adspersus
Atlantic herring Clupea harengus
Striped bass Morone saxatilis
Longhorn sculpin Myoxocephalus octodecernspinosus
Spiny dogfish Squalus acanthiczs
Red hake Urophycis chuss
Blueback herring Alosa aestivalis
Ocean pout Macrozoarces czrnericanus
Northern pipefish Syngnathus fuscus
Windowpane ScopthaZmus aquosus
Ninespine stickleback Pungitius pungitius
Bluefish Pornatornus saltatrix
White perch Morons cvnericana
Atlantic menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus
Silver hake Merluccius bilinearis
Lumpfish Cyclopterus lumpus
American sandlance Ammodytes anericanus
Yellowtail flounder Lirninada ferruginea
Grubby Mjxocephalus aeneus
Seasnail Liparis atlanticus
Sea raven Hernitripterus americanus
Cusk Brosme brosme
Striped anchovy Anchoa hepsetus
Summer flounder Paralichthys dentatus
Smooth flounder Liopsetta putnami
Redf in pickerel Esox americanus
Shorthorn sculpin Myxocephalus scorpius
Atlantic mackerel Scomber scornbrus
Pollack POllach2 U3 Virens
Rock gunnel Pholis gunelius
SOURCE: Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries, 1966; 1971; 1973
A-43

-------
Appendix 2.6-9
Status of Softshell Clam Beds
in Boston Harbor
Total Acres Open
Acres of Acres Desginated Crossly to Restricted
Productive or Moderately Contaminated Digging
Area Habitat and Closed to Harvesting by Permit
Dorchester Bay 974.6 974.6 Some Harvest Per-
mitted in Pleasure
Bay
Quincy Bay 56.8 56.8 0
Hingham Bay 1457.9 1369 88.9 (6.1%)
SOURCE: Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries
A- 44

-------
APPENDIX 2.7
VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE
A-45

-------
Plant Species List ppendix 2.7—1
TREES
Balsam fir Abies balscvnea
Striped maple Acer pensyivanicwn
Red maple A. rubrun
Sugar maple A. saccharu r
Mountain maple A. spicatum
Tree—of—heaven Ailanthus altissirna
Alder Alnus spp.
Shadblow Arnelanchier laevis
Sweet birch Betula lenta
Yellow birch B. lutea
Paper birch B. papyrifera
Gray birch B. popuiifolia
Ironwood Carpinus caroliniana
Bitternut hickory Carya cordiformis
Pignut hickory C. glabra
Shagbark hickory C. ovata
Mockernut hickory C. tomentosa
American chestnut Castanea dentata
Hackberry Celtis occidentalis
Atlantic white cedar Chaiiaecyparis thyoides
Flowering dogwood Cornus florida
Hawthorne Crataegus app.
Beech Faaus grandifolia
White ash Fraxinus americana
Black ash F. nigra
Green ash F. pennsyivanica
Maidenhair tree Cingko biloba
Honeylocust Gleditsia tricanthos
American holly lies opaca
Butternut Jugians cinerea
Eastern red cedar Juniperus virginians
East em larch Laris laricina
Apple Malus app.
Mulberry Morus rubra
Sour gum Nyssa syivatica
Hophornbeam Ostrya virginiana
Norway spruce Picea abies
White spruce P. glauca
Black spruce P. rnariafla
Red pine Pinus resinosa
Pitch pine P. rigida
White pine P. strobus
Scotch pine P. syivestris
London plane tree Pianatanus acerifoiicz
American sycamore P. occidentalis
Eastern cottonwood Populus deltoides
Big—tooth aspen P. grandidentata
Quaking aspen P. tremuloides
Pin cherry Prunus pensylvanica
Black cherry P. serotina
Chokecherry P. virginiaina
White oak Quercus alba
A- 47

-------
Swamp white oak Quercus bicolor
Red oak Q. bO!’ ljS
Scarlet oak Q. coccinea
Scrub oak Q. illicifolia
Pin oak Q. palustris
Chestnut oak Q. prinus
Black oak Q. velutina
Pussy willow Sali.r discolor
Sandbar willow S. interior
Black willow S. nigra
Sassafras Sassafras albidw7l
Eastern hemlock Tsuga canadensis
American elm Ul nus cvi ericana
Slippery elm U. rubiia
SHRUBS
Alders Alnus app.
Groundsel tree Baccharis haliinifoiia
Buttonbush Cephai.anthus occidentalis
Leatherleaf Chari aedaphne cal cuZa a
Sweetpepper bush Clet ra alnifolia
Red—osier dogwood Cornus stolonifera
Dogwoods Corruts spp.
Water willow Decodor. verticilZaris
Dangleberry Gay lussacia frondosa
Huckleberry G.baccata
Witch hazel Rcz’iv,nelis virginiana
Marsh elder Iva frutescens
Common juniper Juniperus c nunis
Sheep laurel Xalrnia angustifolia
Mountain laurel X. latifolia
Spicebush Lindera henzoin
Japanese honeysuckle Lonicera jananica
Sweet gale Myrica gale
Bayberry N. pennsylvcznica
Beach plum Prunus maritirna
Buckthorn Rhan7nua frangula
Winged sumac R us oopallinum
Poison ivy R. radicar.s
Poison sumac R. toxiccdendron
Staghorn sumac R. typhina
Rugosa rose Rosa rugosa
Wild rose RoBa spp.
Blackberries—Raspberries ub app.
Elderberry Sa nbucus canadensis
Highbush blueberry corymboawn
Cranberry V. macrocarpon
Lowbush blueberry v. vacillans
Mapleleaf viburnum Viburnum acerifo 7 .iwn
Arrow-wood V. dentatwn
Nannyberry V. lentago
Highbush cranberry V. opulus
Blackhaw V. prunifoliwn
A-4 B

-------
HERBS
Yarrow Achillea millefolium
Garlic mustard Alliaria officinalis
Wild garlic A ilium canadense
Pigweed Ainaranthus spp.
Common ragweed Ambrosia artemisiifo i-ia
Great ragweed A. trifida
Wood anemone Anemone quinquefolia
Wild sarsaparilla Aralia nudicaulis
Common burdock Arctiwn minus
Wormwood Arternesia stelleriana
Milkweed Asciepias syriaca
Butterfly weed A. tuberosa
Salt marsh aster Aster tenuifolius
Orache Atriplex patula
Beggar’s ticks Bidens spp.
Field mustard Brassica rapa
Sea rocket Cakile edentui -a
Shepard’s purse Capsella bursa-pastoris
Knapweed Centaurea spp.
Goosefoot Chenopodium album
Ox-eye daisy Chrysanthemum leucanthemurn
Chicory Cichoriwn intybus
Water hemlock Cicuta maculata
Canada thistle Cirsium arvense
Queen Anne’s Lace 1 zucus carota
Sticktights Desmodium spp.
Sundew Drosera rotwidifo i-ia
Horseweed Erigeron canadensis
Boneset Eupatorium perfol .iatwn
Joe-Pye-Weed B. purpureum
Cypress spurge Euphorbia cyparissias
C-entians Gentiana spp.
Wild geranium Geranium maculatum
Sunf lower Helianthus annuus
Common St. Johnswort Hypericwn perforatum
Touch-me—not Inipatiens biflora
Morning glory Ipomsa purpurea
Prickly lettuce Lactuca scariola
Beach pea Lathyrus japonicus
Duckweed LeTnna minor
Sea lavender Limonium Carolinianum
Butter and eggs Linaria vulgaris
Water horehound Lucopus spp.
Whorled loosestrife Lysimachia quadrifo li-a
Purple loosestrife Lyth V7l salicaria
Buckbean Menyanthes trifoliata
Forget—me—not Myosostis scorpoides
Bushy pondweed Najas mari na
Evening primrose Oenothera biennis
Scotch thistle Onopordzun acanthiwn
Plantain Plantago spp.
Worled milkwort Polygala verticillata
A- 49

-------
Tearthumb Polygonwn has tat urn
Knotweeds Polygonwn app.
Pondweeds Potczno eton app.
Cinquefoil Potentilla simplex
Mountain mint Pycnwzthemuin app.
Common buttercup Ranuncu 7-us acris
Buttercups Ranunculus app.
Black—eyed Susan Rudbecl
-------
FERNS AND FERN ALLIES
Marginal woodfern Dryopteris marginalis
Ground pine Lycopodium obscurwl7
Sensitive Fern Onoclea sensiblis
Osmunda ferns Osnnindrz spp.
Polypody Polypodiwn virginianum
Hairy—cap moss PoZ.ytrichwn sy.
Bracken ferns Pteridium aquilinun
Sphagnum moss Sphagnum sp.
A-51

-------
Wildlife Species List Appendix 2.7.2
REPTILES
Turtles
Snapping turtle Chelydra serpentina
Stinkpot Sternothasrus odoratus
Spotted turtle CZ-env ys guttata
Eastern painted turtle Chrysenr js pictcz
Blandings turtle nydoidea bi -andingi
Wood turtle CL envmjs inscul-pta
Eastern box turtle Terrapene carolina
Snakes
Northern water snake Natrix sipedon
Eastern garter snake Tharnnophis sirtalis
Eastern ribbon snake T. so ritus
Northern ringneck snake Diadophis punctatus
Northern black racer Coluber constrictor
Eastern milk snake Lampropeltis doliata
Northern red—bellied snake Storeria occipitornaculata
Northern brown snake S. dekayi
Eastern hognose snake Heterodon plati.jrhinos
Eastern smooth green snake Opheodrys vernalis
A _ MPRIBLANS
Salamanders and Newts
Blue—spotted salamander Amb jstor?a laterale
Spotted salamander A. maculatwn
Red—backed salamander Plethodc’n cinereus
Red—spotted newt Notophthaln-tus viridescens
Northern dusky salamander Desmognathus fuscus
Northern two-lined salamander Eurzjcea his lineata
Toads and Frogs
American toad Bufo americanus
Northern spring peeper Hyla crucifer
Eastern gray treefrog H. versicolor
Bullfrog Rana catesbeiana
Green frog R. clamitans
Northern leopard frog R. pip ien.s
Pickerel frog R. palustris
Wood frog H. s ,’lvatica
Eastern spadefoot toad Scaphiopus hoibrooki
Fowler’s toad Bufo woodhousei
MAMMALS
Masked shrew Sorex cinereus
Shorttail shrew Blarina brevicauda
A-52

-------
4AMMALS (cont.)
Hairytail mole Parasca lops breweri
Eastern mole Scalopus aqua ticus
Little brown myotis Myotis lucifugus
Eastern cottontail SylvilaglAs floridanus
Woodchuck Marmota rnona r
Eastern chipmunk Tcvnias striatus
Eastern gray squirrel Sciurus carolinensis
Red squirrel Tajniasciurus hudsonicus
White—footed mouse Peromys s leucopus
Meadow vole Microtus pennsylvanicus
Muskrat Ondantra zibethica
Norway rat Rat tue norvegicus
House mouse 1 s rnusculus
Meadow jumping mouse Zapus hudsonius
Red fox Vulpes fulva
Gray fox Urocyon cinereoargenteus
Raccoon Procyon lotor
Short—tail weasel Müstela erminea
Mink M. vison
Striped skunk Mephitis mephitis
River otter Lutra canadensis
Whitetail deer Oa’ocoi Zeus virginianus
Opossum Dideiphis virginiana
A- 53

-------
Appendix 2.7—3
WILDLIFE SPECIES LIST
The following vildlife species may be sighted within the MDC study
area. The probability of sighting an animal is dependent on the popula-
tion size, the season, the habitat in which one looks and the animals
habits (for example, nocturnal animals are infrequently seen).
BIRDS
Season and abundance symbols are as follows:
S — March-May a - abundant
S — June—August c - common
F — Sept.-Nov. u - uncommon
W — Dec.—Feb. 0 — occasional
r — rare
Loons
Conmion loon c u c
Gavia imm r
Arctic loon r r
C. arctica
Red—throated loon c o
C. stellata
Grebes
Red—necked grebe u o u
Podiceps grisegena
Horned grebe c u c
P. auritus
Pied—billed grebe c c c
Podil ymbus podicep8
Pelicans
Gannet u r u u
Morua baaSczflu8
Cormorants
Great cormorant r
Phalacrocorax penici lLntus
Double—crested cormorant c c c r
P. auritus
A-54

-------
Herons and their allies
Great blue heron c o c r
Ardea herodias
Green heron c c u
Butorides virescens
Little blue heron c u u
Florida caeru lea
Common egret 0 U C
Casnierodius albus
Snowy egret o c C
Leucophoyx thula
Louisiana heron o o a
Hydranassa tricolor
Black—crowned night heron c c c
Nyc ticorax nycticorae
Yellow—crowned night heron o o o
N cticorax voilacea
Least bittern o u o
Ixobrychus exilis
American bittern U U U
Botaurus lentiginosus
Glossy ibis 0 0
Plegadis falcine lius
Swans
Whistling swan r
CygnUs co lunbianus
Geese
Canada goose a c a c
Branta canadensis
Brant u u 0
B. bernicla
Snow goose u u r
Chen hyperborea
Blue goose o o r
C. caerulescens
Surface Feeding Ducks
Mallard c c c u
Anas platyrhynchos
Blackduck a c a c
A. rubripes
Gadwall u u u r
A. strepera
Pintail u u U u
A. acuta
Counnon teal r r
A. crecca
Green—winged teal c U c U
A. carolinensis
A-55

-------
Surface Feeding Ducks (cont.)
Blue—winged teal u c u r
Anas discors
European widgeon r r
Mareca penelope
American widgeon u c u
M. americana
Shoveler u u
Spatula clypeata
Wood duck o o o
Aix sponsa
Diving Ducks
Redhead r r r
Aythya americana
Ring—necked duck o o
A. collaris
Canvasback o o
A. valisinerja
Greater scaup c c C
A. mania
Lesser scaup o o
A. affinis
Common goldeneye u u c
Bucephala clangula
Buff lehead u u c
B. albeola
Harlequin duck r r
Histrionjcus his tn oni cue
Common eider u u c
Somateria mo 1 lissima
White—winged scoter c a c
Melanitta degiandi
Surf scoter u c u
M. perspicillata
Common scoter u C 0
Oidemia nigra
Ruddy duck u u u o
Oxyura jcmiaicensis
Mergansers
Hooded merganser u o u 0
Lophody tee cucul 7-atus
Common merganser r r r
Mergus men ganser
Red—breasted merganser c o c c
M. serrator
Hawks and Eagles
Goshawk o o o
Accipiter gentillis
Sharp—shinned hawk o o
A. etriatus
A-56

-------
Hawks and Eagles (cont.)
Cooper’s hawk o o o
Accipiter 000perii
Red—tailed hawk o o o
B teo jamaice ais
Red—shouldered hawk r r
B. lineatus
Broad-winged hawk r
B. pZ-atypterus
Rough-legged hawk u u
B. 7 -agopus
Bald eagle r r r
Haliaeetus icucocephalus
Marshhawk c u c u
Circus cyaneus
Ospreys
Osprey o 0 0
Pandion haZiaetus
Falcons
Peregrine falcon r o
Pa 7 -cc peregrinus
Pigeon hawk o 0
F. coiumbarjus
Sparrow hawk c o e
F. sparverius
Introduced Chicken—like birds
Ring—necked pheasant c c c u
Phasianus co ichi cue
Rails and their allies
King rail 0 0 0
Rallus eZegans
Clapper rail o o o
R. longirostris
Virginia rail c u u
R. lirnicola
Sora o u u
Porsana carolina
Yellow rail r r
Cot urni cops noveboracensis
Common gallinule u C u
Gallinula ch7-orpous
American coot c c c o
Fulica americana
Plovers
Semipalmated plover c u c
Charadrius sernipalmatus
A-57

-------
Plovers (cont.)
Piping Plover u u r
Charczdrius melodus
Kilideer c c c
C. vociferus
Upland plover r r u
Bartrania longicauda
American golden plover o u
Pluvialis doniinica
Black—bellied plover C C a
Squataro la squat aro la
Woodcock and Snipes
American woodcock r r r
Philohela minor
Common snipe o o a
CapelT-a gallinago
Sandpipers
Whimbrel o u u
Numenius phaeopus
Spot ted sandpiper u u u
Actitis macularia
Solitary sandpiper a o o
Tringa soiitari a
Ruddy turnstone a u u
Arenaria interpres
Willet o o 0
CatoptrophOrus sønipalmatus
Greater yellowlegs c c a
Totanus lnel(mO leucus
Lesser yellowlegs u u c
T. f2avipes
Knot a u u
Calidris canutus
Purple sandpiper U
Erolia maritima
Pectoral sandpiper U 0 U
E. mel .anotos
White—rumped sandpiper u
E. fuscicollis
Baird’s sandpiper o o
E. bairdii
Least sandpiper u c u
E. minutilla
Dunlin c c a o
E. alpina
Short—billed dowitcher u c u
Limnodromus griseus
Long—billed dowitcher u
L. scolopaceus
A-S 8

-------
Sandpipers (cont.)
Stilt sandpiper u u
Micro pa loJna hin’ antopus
Semipalinated sandpiper a c a
Ercunetes pus tllus
Western sandpiper o 0
P. mauri
Buff—breasted sandpiper U
Tryngites subruficol us
Markied godwit r r
Liinosa fedoa
Hudsonian godwit o o
1. haernastica
Ruff r r r
Phi lomachus pugnax
Sanderling c c c
Crocethia elba
Phalaropes
Red phalarope r
Phal-cropus fulicarius
Wilson’s phalarope r r
Steganopus tricolor
Northern phalarope r r
Lobipes lobatus
Jaeg
Pomarine jaeger r r
Stercorarius pomarinus
Parasite jaeger 0 0
S. parasiticus
Gulls
Glaucous gull 0
Larus hyperboreus
Iceland gull U
1. glaucaides
Great—black—backed gull C C C C
i. marinus
Herring gull a a a a
2;. argentatus
Ring-billed gull u U U U
1. delawarensis
Laughing gull r r
1. atricilla
Bonaparte’s gull u u u u
1. philadelphia
Black—legged kittiwake 0 0
Rissa tridactyla
Terns
Forster’s tern r
Sterna forsteri
A- 59

-------
Terns (cant.)
Common tern c C c
Sterna hirundo
Arctic tern r o r
S. paradisaea
Roseate tern u u u
S. dougaZ- lii
Least tern u u u
S. aibifrons
Caspian tern r r r
Hydroprogne caspia
Black tern a o
Chlidonias niger
Skimmers and Auks
Black skimmer r r
ThJnc 2opa nigra
Razorbill a a o
AZ-ca torda
Thick-billed murre
Uria lomvia
Dovekie o a o
Pi-autus alle
Doves
Mourning dove c c C
Zenaidura imacroura
Cuckoos
yellow—billed cuckoo o r o
Coccyzus cvnericanus
Black—billed cuckoo u u U
C. erythropthaZmus
Owls
Great horned owl r r r r
Bubo virginianus
SnowyoWl o o u
Nyctea scandi.aca
Long—eared owl r r r r
Aaw otus
Short—eared owl o o o
A. flcwtneus
Saw—whet owl r
Aegolius acadicaa
Goat—Suckers
Whip—poor—will r r
Caprimulgus vociferus
Common nighthawk
Chordeiles minor
A-60

-------
Swifts
Chimney swift u u u
Chaetura pelagica
Huminin birds
Ruby—throated hummingbird u o o
Archi 7-ochus co lubris
Kingf ishers
Belted kingfisher u u u
Megaceryle alcyon
Woodpeckers
Yellow—shafted flicker c u c
Colaptes auratus
Red-headed woodpecker r r
Me Zanerpes erythrocephalus
Yellow—bellied sapsucker u c
Sphyrapicus varius
Hairy woodpecker r r r
Dendrocopus vi7 losus
Downy woodpecker u u o
D. pubescens
Kingbirds
Eastern kingbird u u c
Tyrannus tyrannus
Western kingbird r r
T. vertica lie
Flycatchers
Great crested flycatcher r o
Myiarchus cri nitus
Eastern phoebe u u
Sayornia phoebe
Yellow—bellied flycatcher 0 0
Empidonax flaviventris
Traill’s flycatcher 0 r
E. trailli
Least flycatcher u U U
E. minimus
Eastern wood pewee U U
Con topus virens
Olive—sided flycatcher o r 0
Nutta 1 lornis borealis
Larks
Horned lark U U U U
Eremophila alpestris
A- 61

-------
Swallows
Tree swallow C c a
Iridoprocne bico br
Bank swallow u u c
Riparia ripczria
Rough—winged swallow 0 0
Ste igidopterys rufico ibis
Barn swallow c c c
Hirundo rustica
Cliff swallow o o
Petroche lidon pyrrhonota
Purple martin C C C
Pro gne subia
Jays and Crows
Bluejay u U U 0
Cyanocitta cristata
Coi non crow c c c u
Corvus brachyrhyntho s
Chickadees
Black—capped chickadee u c c u
Parus atricapi 1 bus
Boreal chickadee r r
P. hudsonicus
Nutbatches
White-breasted nuthatch u u
Sitta carolinensis
Red—breasted nuthatch u u o
S. canadensis
Creepers
Brown creeper o u
Certhia faliaris
Wrens
House wren o o o
Troglodytes aedon
Winter wren u o
T. troglodytes
Long—billed marsh wren u c u
Te Zmatody tes pa lustris
Mockingbirds and Thrashers
Mockingbird 0 o o
Mimus polygbottos
Catbird c c c
Dumete 1 la caro linensis
Brown thrasher c c c
Toxos torna rufum
A-62

-------
Thrushes, Robins and Bluebirds
Robin c u c o
Turdus migratorius
Wood thrush r u
Hylocichia r7ustel’l-na
Hermit thrush u u
H. quttata
Swainson’s thrush u u
H. ustuZ -ata
Gray—cheeked thrush u u
H. rr inima
Veery u u
H. fuscensceris
Eastern bluebird r r
Sialicz sial -is
Gnatcatchers and Kinglets
Blue—gray gnatcatcher o o o
Poliopti-7-a caeru?-ea
Golden—crowned kinglet u c
Re 9 ulus satrapa
Ruby—crowned kinglet c u
R. calendula
Pip its
Water pipit u u
Anthus spino7-etta
Waxwin
Cedar waxwing u u u
Bombycilla cedrorum
Shr ikes
Northern shrike o o
L anius excubitor
Loggerhead shrike o
1. ludovicianus
Starling
Starling c c a c
Sturnus vulgaris
Vireos
White-eyed vireo r o
Vireo griseus
Yellow—throated vireo r r r
V. flavifrons
Solitary vireo U U
V. sol-itarius
Red—eyed vireo u S
V. olivaceus
Philadelphia vireo 0 0
V. philadelphicus
A- 63

-------
Vireos (cont.)
Warbling vireo r o
Vireo gilvus
Warblers
Black and white warbler u c
Miniotilta varia
Golden—winged warbler r r
Verinivora chrysoptera
Blue—winged warbler r r
V. pinus
Tennessee warbler o o
V. peregrina
Orange—crowned warbler r r
V. celata
Nashville warbler u u
V. ruficapilla
Parula warbler u u
Paru la americana
Yellow warbler c c c
Dendroica petechia
Magnolia warbler u
D. magnolia
Cape May warbler o u
D. tigrina
Black—throated blue warbler u u
D. caerulescens
Myrtle warbler a u a u
D. car onata
Black—throated green warbler u u
D. virens
Blackburnian warbler u u
D. fusca
Chestnut—sided warbler u o
D. pensylvanica
Bay—breasted warbler U u
D. castanea
Blackpoll warbler u c
D. striata
Prairie warbler u u
D. discolor
Palm warbler u c
D. paimczrwn
Ovenbird u u
Seiurus aurocapi 1 lus
Northern waterthrush u u
S. novebaracensis
Connecticut warbler r
Upornis agilis
Mourning warbler o r
0. philadelphia
A-64

-------
Warblers (cont.)
Yellow—throat C C C
Geothylp’i-s tr chas
yellow—breasted chat o o
Icteria virens
Hooded warbler r r
Wilsonia citrina
Wilson’s warbler u u
W. pusilZ-a
Canada warbler U U
W. canadensis
American redstart C u c
Steophaga ruticilla
Weaver Finches
House sparrow U u
Passer domes ticus
Blackbirds and Orioles
Bobolink u o u
Dolichonyx oryzivorus
Eastern meadowlark
Sturnella magna
Redwinged blackbird a c a
Age laius phoeniceus
Orchard oriole r r
Icterue spurius
Baltimore oriole U U
I. galbula
Rusty blackbird o a
Euphagus caro linus
Common grackle u U C
Quiscalus quiscu7-a
Brown—headed cowbird u o C
Molothrus ater
Tanagers
Scarlet tanager ii u
Piranga olivacea
Summer tanager r r
P. rubra
Cardinals
Cardinal o o o
Ric vnondena cardina lie
Grosbeaks, BUntings and Finches
Rose—breasted grosbeak u r
Pheucticus ludovicianus
Indigo bunting o o
Passerina cyanea
A- 65

-------
Crosbeaks, Buntings and Finches (cant.)
Purple finch u u u
Carpo iacus purpureus
Pine grosbeak 0 0
Pinico Za enucleator
Redpolls
Common redpoll 0
Acan this flan iiea
Pine siskin o o o
Spinus pinus
American goldfinch U U U
Spinus tristis
Crossbills
Red crossbill
Loxia curvirostra
White—winged crossbill o
L. leucoptera
Dickcissel
Spiza americana
Towhees
Rufous—sided towhee c c c
Pipilo er ythrophthalmus
Sparrows and Juncos
Ipswich sparrow o o o
Passercu lus princeps
Savannah sparrow c u c o
P. sandi 4 ichensis
Sharp—tailed sparrow c c c
Anr?osphiza caudacut z
Seaside sparrow u u u r
A. maritirirz
Vesper sparrow u o u
Pooecetes grainineus
Lark sparrow
Chondes tea grafrrnacus
Slate—colored junco c c u
Junco hyernalis
Tree sparrow u u u
Spizeila arborea
Chipping sparrow ii u c
S. passerina
Field sparrow o o
S. pusilla
White—crowned sparrow ii u
Zonotrichia ieucaphrys
White—throated sparrow a a o
A. albicoilis
A-66

-------
Sparrows and Juncos (cont.)
Fox sparrow C C 0
Passerelia iliaca
Lincoln’s sparrow 0 0
Me lospiza linco mu
Swamp sparrow u u u
M. georgiana
Song sparrow c c c u
M. me lodia
Longspurs and Snow Buntings
Lapland longspur u u 0
Caloarius lapponicus
Snow bunting c c u
Plectrophenax niva lie
SOURCE: Ecoisciences, Inc. Proposed Sludge Management Plan,
Metropolitan District Commission, Boston, Massachusetts —
Volume II, 1976
A- 67

-------
APPENDIX 2.7-4
General Ecological Principles
Influencing the Terrestrial Biota
in the MDC Study Area
The ecology of any area is influenced by various para—
meters. These parameters, as discussed by Daubemnere, 1974
include: soil, water, temperature, light, atmosphere and
biota and fire. These factors can work independently,
antagonistically or synergistically. Each particular community
of plants across the landscape is affected by local combina-
tions of the above seven parameters.
For example, on any given day and time the southwest
facing slope of a hill will differ with respect to most, if
not all the above parameters, when compared to the northeast
slope. This is because the southwest slope receives more
direct sunlight than the northeast slope. The additional
sunlight increases the air and soil temperatures, reduces
the atmospheric and soil moisture and, because of the above
changes, usually supports a slightly different flora and
fauna than the northeast slope.
When each parameter is viewed singly, its subtle effects
are more evident. For example, the least obvious parameter
may be the biotic forces. The plants in an area influence
the growth of other plants around them by shading them,
competing for nutrients and water, or even exuding poisons
that prevent the growth of other plants. Animals often
selectively graze certain plants, thus favoring the growth
of ungrazed plants. In addition, animals are often the
means of disseminating seeds.
The soil of a region can influence the plants that grow
in it. For example, certain plants will only grow in cal—
careous soils. Conversely, some plants can alter their soil.
Conifers growing in an oak—maple forest will acidify the
soil to such an extent, that they can increase leaching
locally and begin the formation of a podzolic soil.
Burrowing organisms help aerate the soil and earthworms
actually mulch the litter hastening decomposition and fertili-
zation of the soil.
Water is indispensible to all biota and their communities.
The amount of water, however, affects the nature of each
community. For example, salt marsh communities are often
different due to the amount of inundation. Spartina
alterniflora grows better in the lower salt marsh zone while
Spartina patens grow better in the upper zone.
Temperature, light and atmosphere all have profound
effects on community dynamics. There are two ways to look
A-68

-------
at their effects. On a large scale, temperature and light
change constantly throughout the season. The atmosphere,
when polluted, can affect plant growth adversely. These
large scale effects and their influences on the ecology
are more obvious than their small scale effects called by
some, microclimatological effects. For example, temperature,
light and atmosphere can function together along the forest
floor. Here, it is usually cooler, shadier and less windy
than 2 m (6 feet) above the forest floor. These low light
levels result in much less photosynthesis. However, carbon
dioxide (C 0 2 ) , from the respiration of soil microbes,
accumulates along the forest floor because of less wind.
This additional CO 2 compensates for the reduction in light
thereby increasing the photosynthetic efficiency of the
plants along the forest floor. This is especially important
for the maturation of seedlings and young saplings.
Fire influences plant communities in many ways. Plant
growth along the forest floor may be stimulated by the addi-
tional light which results when fire kills the canopy trees.
In less severe fires, some plants, by virtue cf their thicker
bark or fire resistant roots, can survive and sprout new
growth.
There are many more examples of the effects of these
seven factors, but the end result of them all is to direct
the maturation of the community. The alteration and change
of biotic communities through time is called succession.
Succession culminates (in most ecosystems) with a self
perpetuating, or climax community. This is the stage of a
plant community’s maturation that can maintain itself through
time. When there are many sugar maples in a forest and they
are reproducing successfully in their own understory, this
can be classified as a climax community.
The early stages of succession are typified by plants
that need lots of sunlight. In an old field, the herbaceous
vegetation may yield to woody trees and shrubs which, in
time, will form a dense canopy. Thus, the woody growth
having out-competed the herbs of the old field is said to
have succeeded the old field. Most of the forest growth
in the study area is in an intermediate stage of succession.
That is, the major plant species composing the communities
in the study are not climax species. Thus, they may poten-
tially be succeeded by such species.
A-69

-------
Appendix 2.7—5
Coverage Type Within Forested
Areas (1971)
Municipality
Forest Cover Type
(Acres)
J
-l
O
:
0)0
UOE-4
0
U) .c
140)
OtO
< z3
0)
‘0
0
0
r-l
r-I ’ 0
t0 1 4
EtO
V )
0)
‘0
0
140
0)
00’0
1414
tOtO
- )
U)
14
0)
.— 4-4
I
tOi
EO
000
U)
14
140)
0) 4 -
03 -4
14tO
tOO
i - )0
‘ W I
0)LJ

.- O
Zc1
ö
, — I 0)
,-4 ‘W ’ 0
t0140
EtOO
0000
‘WI
Q) J
4 4-4
.-40
t1)

0) I U)
03’0 ‘0
14140
tOCOO
- x
U)

0
i-
4J
t O
I

tO
.-4

U)
W
14
0

.-4
tO 0)
4-’
00
1-40
Essex County
Lynnf leld
6776 230
1532 7 171 196
883 0 3019
Middlesex County
3484
110
81
0
0
0
0
0
191
Arlington
Ashland
8240
366
2515
18
33
249
2236
0
5387
Bedford
8940
258
1298
18
258
373
1710
0
3910
Belmont
2920
74
162
25
14
32
183
0
490
Burlington
7528
197
1182
74
134
222
825
4
2638
Cambridge
4692
87
19
0
0
0
0
0
106
Everett
2344
4
0
4
0
0
0
0
8
Framingham
16848
544
2262
15
190
310
2722
95
6138
Hopkinton
17940
479
6197
79
789
325
4872
0
12741
Lexington
10972
325
1971
0
15
212
630
0
3153
Lincoln
9544
267
1738
8
49
666
2233
0
4961
MaIden
3252
218
136
0
0
86
0
0
440
Medford
5648
102
1065
62
48
30
178
0
1485
Meirose
3036
362
315
0
0
94
18
0
789
Natick
9992
456
1793
7
80
256
1384
0
3966
Newton
11252
121
981
11
18
113
217
0
1461
Reading
6388
328
1502
64
101
230
765
43
3033
Sherborn
10172
789
2574
47
213
533
2723
0
6879
Somerville
2636
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
7
Stoneham
4332
127
877
118
48
107
390
0
1667
Wakefield
5112
212
946
11
4
69
201
0
1443
Waltham
8812
116
1075
18
25
72
1101
4
2411
Watertown
2708
40
52
0
0
0
0
0
92
Weston
10948
264
1816
51
235
527
2725
54
5672
Wilmington
11076
196
1514
122
516
644
2184
0
5176
Winchester
4060
271
572
14
30
127
219
0
1233
Woburn
8275
867
1054
15
0
291
159
0
2386
A- 70

-------
Appendix 2.7—5 (cont.)
Coverage Type Within Forested
Areas (1971)
Municipality
Forest Cover Type
(Acres)
4-4
4-
0ç )
U
0 )0
0E —4
CC
,c

U C C
Lx )
U)
C)
0
0
‘—4
,—i o
CC
6CC
C/)]C
U)
‘C)
0
0
C)
‘C)

CCcC
, — ) CC
U)
-i
C)
.—4 4-4
r-I •H
CCC)
E0
U (J
U)
I-i
C)
0) 4-4
0 , 1
C)
COO
- )C )
C)I
(1)4_4
X4- 4
0
ID
.
,—4 I U)
—4 ‘C) ‘C)
CC). 0
ECCO
U )
C)I
C) 4 - 4
44-
0
V )
C
0 ) I U)
‘C) ‘C)
)- O
CCC O

U)
CC
0
-
4 - 1
CC
4-
CC
C C
v —I
P-
U)
C)
I-i
0

v—I I-i
CC 0)
4J .
00
E-iL)
Suffolk County
Boston*
Revere
Chelsea
Winthrop
31244
4054
1604
1256
423
50
NO
NO
146
79
INC
INC
233 0 2262
15 0 181
*Note: Charleston and East Boston included within this category.
Source: MacConnel
MacConnel,
Mac Connel,
and Cobb, 1974
Pywell and Young, 1974
Cunningham and Blachard, 1974
Norfolk County
Bralntree
9100
519
2129
14
7
329
454
15
3467
Brookline
4359
4
343
9
18
0
202
0
567
Canton
12460
1106
3012
58
369
239
1338
4
6126
Dedham
6958
516
1955
8
15
71
177
19
2761
Dover
9970
603
3721
0
66
325
1697
5
6416
Holbrook
4769
307
2942
0
12
33
474
0
2868
Milton
8495
373
2031
19
127
201
1094
0
3845
Needham
8194
470
1456
0
133
195
544
66
2864
Norwood
6610
609
1166
59
15
11
241
0
2101
Quincy
10752
613
2239
11
15
150
558
0
3586
Randolph
6569
558
1753
0
11
33
119
0
2474
Sharon
15432
1926
5207
184
549
253
2114
29
10262
Stoughton
10492
547
3752
28
68
79
1182
18
5674
Walpole
13330
1036
3629
125
343
428
1993
12
7566
Wellesley
6580
157
737
4
11
133
466
0
1508
Westwood
7118
442
2163
12
146
218
724
0
3705
Weymouth
11528
245
2820
11
72
153
918
0
4219
1449
37
4
0
7
0
LIST
LIST
A- 71

-------
APPENDIX 2.7-6
Freshwater Wetlands Classification and Description
A classification and evaluation system which identifies
freshwater wetland features and determines the presence and
abundance of a great variety of wildlife species was devel-
oped by Galet (1973) for Massachusetts. Five life forms
and 18 sub—forms of vegetation are recognized. The five
forms represent obvious divisions of wetland vegetation:
trees, shrubs, emergents, surface plants and submergents.
Because plants belonging to the same life form often differ
in wildlife value, each life form is divided into sub-forms
which reflect by their differences, each sub-form’s ability
to support different forms of wildlife. Below is a descrip-
tion of each life form which allueions to their respective
sub—forms. Height classes given are average.
Life Forms
Trees are described as woody plants greater than 6 in
(20 ft.) tall. Included within this group are live deciduous
trees, live evergreen trees and dead trees.
Life forms identified as trees at maturity are considered
shrubs when less than 6 m (20 ft.) tall. The category shrubs ,
also includes woody plants that throughout their life are
less than 6 in tall. Sub-forms included within this group
are distinguished principally by branching characteristics
and size. The sub-forms are tall slender shrubs, bushy
shrubs, low compact shrubs, low sparse shrubs, aquatic
shrubs and dead shrubs.
Ernergents are rooted herbaceous or semi-woody plants
that have the majority of their vegetative portion above the
water surface. This includes herbaceous plants growing on
moist, but exposed soil. Six sub—forms exist and are
identified as sub-shrubs, robust eznergents, tall meadow
ernergents, short meadow e inergents, narrow-leaved marsh
emergents and broad—leaved marsh exnergents. The sub-forms
are differentiated by herbaceous or woody nature and by size.
Plants with vegetative parts principally on the water
surface are labelled surface vegetation . The rooted nature
of floating-leaved vegetation distinguishes it from the other
sub-form, floating vegetation.
Finally, submergents are plants that lie beneath the
water surface. An exception is the flowering parts of some
subxnergeflt species which rise above the waterline.
A-72

-------
Wetland Classes and Subclasses
Wetland classes include: open fresh water, deep fresh
marsh, shallow fresh marsh, fresh meadow, seasonally flooded
basins and flats, shrub swamp, wooded swamp and bog. A
wetland subclass is one of two or more types of wetlands of
the same class that differ significantly in their wildlife
value, chiefly because of differences in dominant sub-forms
of vegetation. The subclasses listed within the following
class descriptions, are those most common in Massachusetts.
Open Water - This class applies to water 91 cm (3 ft.)
to 305 cm (10 ft.) deep, associated with any of the other
wetland classes, but usually with deep or shallow marshes.
Submergent and surface vegetation are dominant.
Deep Marsh - This class applies to wetlands with an
average water depth between 15.2 cm (6 in.) and 91 cm (3 ft.)
during the growing season. Emergent marsh vegetation is
usually dominant, with surface and submergent plants present
in open areas.
Shallow Marsh — This class applies to wetlands dominated
usually by robust or marsh emergents, with an average water
depth less than 15.2 cm (6 in.) in summer and abnormally dry
periods. Floating—leaved plants and submergents are often
present in open areas.
Seasonally Flooded Flats - This class applies to extensive
river flood plains where flooding to a depth of 30 or more
centimeters (12 in.) occurs annually during late fall, winter
and spring. During the summer, the soil is saturated, with
a few inches of surface water occurring locally. Dominant
vegetation usually is emergent, but shrubs and scattered trees
may be present.
Meadow - This class applies to wetlands dominated by
meadow emergents with up to 15.2 cm (6 in.) of surface water
during the late fall, winter and early spring. During the
growing season the soil is saturated and the surface exposed,
except in shallow depressions and drainage ditches. Meadows
occur most commonly on agricultural land where periodic
grazing or mowing keeps shrubs from becoming established.
The structural differences in meadow vegetation often result
from grazing; therefore, meadows have been divided into
grazed and ungrazed subclasses.
Shrub Swamp - This class applies to wetlands dominated by
shrubs where the soil surface is seasonally or permanently
flooded with as much as 30 cm (12 in.) of water. Carex
stricta is the characteristic ground cover beneath shrubs.
Meadow or marsh emergents occupy open areas.
A- 73

-------
Wooded Swamp - This class applies to wetlands dominated
by trees. The soil surface is seasonally flooded with up to
30 cm (1 ft.) of water. Several levels of vegetation are
usually present, including trees, shrubs and herbaceous plants.
In mature wooded swamps, microtopography is very pronounced.
Trees and many shrubs grow on well developed windthrow mounds
while marsh emergents and ferns occupy the ephemeral pools.
— This class applies to wetlands where the accumu-
lation of Sphagnum moss, as peat, determines the nature of
the plant community. Young bogs, commonly have floating
peat mats which creep outward from shore over the surface
of open water. Northern New England bogs resemble those of
the Boreal Forest region. Picea mariana and Larix laricina
are characteristic tree species. In southern New England bogs,
especially those in the coastal zone, Chamaecyparis thyoides
is dominant. Chamaedaphne calyculata, Kalmia angustifolia,
Sarracenia purpurea and Eriophorum sp. are characteristic
plants found in bogs throughout the northeast. A bog often
can be divided into at least five zones: open water, bog
mat ( Sphagnum and sedges), low shrubs, high shrubs and trees.
In Massachusetts, bogs dominated by low shrubs or by trees are
most common.
Vegetative Interspersion Typ - Since most wildlife
species require more than one structural type of vegetation,
their population density depends partly on the presence and
length of certain kinds of edge. Edge refers to the line of
contact between two different sub-forms of vegetation.
Whereas wildlife numbers are closely related to the total
length of edge, wildlife diversity is a function of the
number of kinds of edge. Small sub—form stands have more
edge per unit of area than larger stands. For wetland
evaluation, a minimum size of one acre is recommended for
recognition of a sub—form stand. Since long, narrow strips
of vegetation, like those that flank streams, are extremely
significant to wildlife, these should be considered during
evaluation, even though the total area of such a strip might
be far less than one acre.
Evaluation
Once a wetland has been classified, evaluation is
straightforward. During evaluation a wetland may be ranked
for each of the following criteria:
Wetland clasa richness . This criterion describes the
number of wetland classes present in a wetland, where
5 acres is the minimum area recognizable as a separate
class. As class richness increases, so does the
likelihood for greater wildlife species richness.
Wetland class richness is the broadest and single most
important criterion for evaluation.
A-74

-------
Dominant wetland class . Some wetland classes have
greater value than others for wildlife diversity and
production and certain classes provide the only
suitable habitat for some species highly valued by
man (e.g., waterfowl). The dominant life form of
vegetation, water depth and permanence of surface
water are the major characteristics considered in
ranking classes. The dominant class is the one
that clearly occupies the greater area.
Size categories . Wetlands are ranked from largest
to smallest, according to the general principle than
as size increases, so does wildlife value. Greater
size usually results in greater insulation from human
disturbance, greater habitat diversity and greater
wetland longevity. In addition, wetlands larger than
40.4 ha (100 acres) are of great value to flocks of
migrating waterfowl.
Subclass richness . This variable goes one step further
than wetland class richness in assessing habitat
diversity. Just as particular life forms characterize
classes, particular sub—forms characterize sub—classes.
A wetland’s broad wildlife value increases as the number
of subclasses increases. As noted above, a wetland
segment must be at least .4 ha (1 acre) in size to be
recognized as a separate subclass.
Site type . Bottomland wetlands are generally more
valuable than upland wetlands because of greater soil
fertility, more sustained surface water levels and greater
life expectancy. Similarly, wetlands associated with
open water bodies are usually more valuable than isolated
ones.
Surrounding habitat types . Freshwater wetlands bordered
by forest, agricultural or open land, or salt marsh are
more valuable to wildlife than those adjacent to land
more intensively developed by man. Furthermore, diversity
in the surrounding habitat increases the possibility of
wildlife diversity within the wetland. The percentage
of the surrounding habitat occupied by the less intensively
developed types, and the number of different types present
determine the rank given for this criterion.
Cover type . This variable can be assessed in wetlands
consisting of one or many wetland classes, although its
value is most evident in evaluating deep and shallow
marshes. A cover—water ratio of approximately 50:50 is
optimal for waterfowl and marsh birds in general. Highest
ranks are thus given to wetlands with nearly equal propor-
tions of cover and water. Areas with nearly total cover
A- 75

-------
or total open water receive low ranks. In addition,
cover interspersed with water is deemed more valuable
than a band of cover surrounding open water.
Vegetative interspersion , A wetland receives a rank
for this criterion a cording to which interspersion
type it approximates. High ranks are associated with
an abundance of edge between sub-form stands, small
size of such stands and a large number of different
kinds of edge.
Wetland juxtaposition . A wetland’s value is generally
higher if it is located near other wetlands, especially
if the adjacent wetlands contain classes or subclasses
different from those of the wetland being evaluated.
Moreover, the value increases if these wetlands are
interconnected by streams. In such cases, wildlife
(especially waterfowl) can move safely between wetlands
to best meet their habitat requirements.
Water chemistry . Water chemistry influences the
presence, abundance and distribution of aquatic plants
invertebrates. Decision—makers have no time to adequately
sample and describe wildlife food plants and animals,
but water chemistry determinations can serve as indices
of potential productivity. Total alkalinity provides
one “useful” index, and pH may be used when alkalinity
data are not obtainable.
Discussion
This system of wetland classification and evaluation allows
one to objectively group wetlands according to their wildlife
values. Use of the system assumes that maximum wildlife
production and diversity are the goals.
Certain wetlands possess characteristics that render them
unique or of outstanding value. For example, a wetland might
support the only breeding population of an endangered species.
Such a wetland merits preservation, even though it might not
be considered highly valuable according to this system. Clearly
some subjective decisions must be made.
A-76

-------
Appendix 2.7-7
Compilation of Inland and Coastal Wetlands
By Town
(acres)
Municipal Inland Coastal
Area wetlands Wetlands
Arlington 3484 25.78
Ashland 8240 67.57
Bedford 8940 637.42
Belmont 2920 45.84
Boston 31244 246.83 340.56
Braintree 9100 237.51 14.56
Brookline 4359
Burlington 7528 125.72
Cambridge 4692
Canton 12460 632.97
Chelsea 1604
Dedhain 6958 479.41
Dover 9970 173.48
Everett 2344 3.98 14.77
Framingham 16848 210.60
Hingham 14458 253.77 155.16
Holbrook 4769 36.72
Hopkinton 17940
Lexington 10972 784.50
Lincoln 9544 263.41
Lynnfie ld 6776 444.51
Malden 3252
Medford 5648 18.64
Meirose 3036 6.98
Milton 8495 58.62 164.80
Natick 9992 183.85
Needham 8194 348.25
Newton 11252 123.77
Nor od 6610 309.35
Quincy 10752 65.59 480.61
Randolph 6569 155.69
Reading 6388 150.76
Revere 4954 30.81 505.93
Sharon 15432 214.50
Sherborn 10172 363.02
Somerville 2636
Southborough 9869 297.29
Stoneham 4332 54.58
Stoughton 10492 222.43
Wakefield 5112 169.72
Walpole 13330 241.27
Waltham 8812 238.81
A- 77

-------
Appendix 2.7—i (cont.)
Municipal Inland Coastal
Area Wetlands Wetlands
Watertown 2708 3.79
Wellesley 6580 92.78
Weston 10948 310.92
Westwood 7118 90.40
Weymouth 11528 13L42 16E.0O
Wilmington 11076 396.52
Winchester 4060 36.95
Winthrop 1256 3.89 34.92
Woburn 8275 301.21
SOURCE: MacConnel and Cobb, 1974
MacCorinel, Pywell and Young, 1974
MacConnel, Cunningham, and Machard, 1974
A- 78

-------
Appendix 2.7—8
Endangered Species, Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Endangered Birds
Eastern bluebird Silaia sailis
Southern bald eagle* Haliasetus leucocephaZ us
American peregrine falcon* Falco peregrinu.s
Marsh hawk Circus cycmeus
Black crowned night heron Nycticorax nycticorax
Purple martin Progne subis
Osprey Pandion haliaetus
Ipswlch sparrow Passerculus princeps
Turkey Meleagris gallopavo
Endangered Mammals
Indiana bat* Myotis sodaUs
Eastern cougar* Felis concolor
Northeastern coyote Canis Z-atrans
Fisher Martes penruinti
Southern bog lemming Synaptomys cooperi
River otter Lutra ccznadensis
Grey longtail shrew Sorex dispar
Beach meadow vole Microtus breweri
Yellownose vole Microtus chrotorrhinus
Northeastern woodrat Neotoma floridcma
Endangered Fish
Black bullhead Ictalurus melas
Burbot Lota lota
Channel catfish Ictalurus punotatus
White catfish Ictalurus catus
Lake chub Hybopsis plwnbea
White crappie Pornoxis annularis
Northern redbelly dace Chrosomus eos
Swamp darter Ehteostorna fusiforine
American brook lamprey Lanpetra lcsnottei
Fathead minnow Pirnephales prornelas
Northern pike Esox lucius
Atlantic salmon Salnio salar
Sockeye salmon Qnocorhynchua nerkcz
Emerald shiner Notropis atherinoides
* On U.S. Department of Interior’s List of Endangered Fauna , 1974
A- 79

-------
Appendix 2.7—8 — Endangered Species (cont.)
Endangered Plants
Arethusa Are thusa buU,osa
Bee-balm Monarda didi ’rixz
Horned bladderwort litricularia cornuta
Calopogon Calopogon puichellus
Three—toothed cinquefoil Potentilla tridentata
Golden club Orontium aquaticwn
Broom crowberry Corema conradii
Green dragon Arisaema dracontium
Walking fern Canrptoeorus rhizophyilus
Stiff gentian Centiana quinquefolia
Ginseng Pana c quinquefolia
Cotton grass E riophorwn spp.
Harebell Ca .nrpanula rc’tundifolia
Trumpet honeysuckle Lonicera sempervirens
Ram’s head lady’s—slipper Cypripediwn arietinwn
Showy lady’ s-slipper Cypripediuzn reginae
Yellow lady’s—slipper Cypripediwn calceolus
Bog laurel Kalniia polifolia
Great lobelia Lobelia siphilitica
American lotus Nelwnbo lutea
Marsh—pink Sabatia ate llcrris
Plymouth gentian marsh-pink Sabatia kennedycrna
Blunt—leaf orchis Sabenaria obtusata
Green woodland orchis Habenaria clavellata
Large—leaved orchis Habener-ia macrophy 1 Za
Leafy white orchis Habena.ria diiatata
Showy orchis Orchis spectabilia
White fringed orchis Habenaria blephariglottis
Yellow fringed orchis Haberiaria ciliaria
Bell-shaped pink Sabatia ccwrpanuZata
Nodding pogonia T’riphora trainthophora
Rose pogonia Pogonia ophioglossoides
Small whorled pogonia** Isotria medeoloides
Whorled pogonia Isotria verticillata
Hill’s pondweed Potamogeton hillii
Puttyroot Aplectrwn hyemaie
Great rhododendrom Rhododendron ,mzxi.’nwn
Rhodora Rhododendron ccrnadense
Rose-pink Sabatia anguiaris
Labrador tea Ledurn groeniandicwn
Lilly—leaved twayblade Lipccr.is lilifolia
Bog Rush** Juncus pervetus
**Federal Register , “Threatened or Endangered Fauna or Flora”, July 1, 1975
A-80

-------
Appendix 2.7—8 — Endangered Species (cont.)
Endangered Fish (continued)
Mimic shiner Notropis volucellus
Brook stickleback Eucalia inconstans
Fourspine stickleback Ape Z-tes quadracue
Ninespine stickleback Pungitius p2mgitius
Threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus
Atlantic sturgeon Acipenser cxcyrhynchus
Shortnose sturgeon* Acipenser brevirostris
Longnose sucker Gatos tomus catostomus
Longear sunfish Lepomis megalotis
Redbreast sunfish Lepornis auritus
Lake trout Salve linus namaycush
Trout—perch Percopsis omiscomaycus
Walleye Stizostedion vitrewn
Endangered Amphibians
Blue—spotted salamander Ambystoma laterale
Four—toed salamander Hefl1idactyliuJn scutatwn
Jeff erson salamander Ambystoma jeffersonicznurn
Spring salamander Gyrinophilus porphyriticus
Endangered Reptiles
Copperhead Aghistrodon contortrix
Timber rattlesnake Crotalus horridus
Five—lined skink Ewneces faciatus
Black rat snake Elaphe obsoleta
Eastern worm snake Carphophis cmioenus
Blandings turtle Emydoidea btandingi
Bog turtle Clemmys muhienbergi
Plymouth turtle Pseudemys rubriventris bangsi
Red bellied turtle Pseudeniys rubriventris
Hawksbill turtle* Eretmochelys imbricata
Leatherback turtle* Dern?oChelyS coriacea
Loggerhead turtle Ca.retta caretta
Ridley turtle* Lepidochelys kenrpi
Green turtle Chelonia mydas
A81

-------
APPENDIX 2.8
Air Quality
A- 83

-------
TABLE A2.8—1
MASSACHUSETTS AND FF t)ERAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
— Average Concentration
Averaging Type of Primary Standard Secondary Standard
Contaminant Time Average ug/m 3 ppm ug/xn
Sulfur Dioxide (SO 2 ) Year Arithmetic Mean 80 0.03 —— ——
Day Maximum (a) 365 0.14 —- —-
3—Hour Maximum (a) None None 1,300 0.5
Total Suspended Particulates Year Geometric Mean 75 —- 60 (b)
(TSP) Day Maximum (a) 260 -- 150
Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8 Hours Maximum (a) 10 (mg/rn 3 ) 9 10 (mg/rn 3 ) 9
1 Hour Maximum (a) 40(mg/rn 3 ) 35 40 (mg/rn 3 ) 35
Photochemical Oxidants (03) 1 Hour Maximum (a) 160 0.08 160 0.08
Hydrocarbons (Non—Methane) 3 Hours Maximum (a,b) 160 0.24 160 0.24
Between 6&9 a.rn.
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO 2 ) Year Arithmetic Mean 100 0.05 100 0.05
a) Federal standards other than annual average may be exceeded once per year.
b) A guide to be used in assessing implementation plans to achieve the 24-hour standard.

-------
Appendix 2.8—2
Date 1976 (January—December) BOSTON AQCR AMBIENT AIR QUALITY DATA
CITY
PARTICULATES
CO_________
S02 CONT.
S02 BUBBLER
N02
03
HIGH 24 HR
ANNUAL CM
HIGH HR
HIGH 8 H
-
HIGH 24 HR
ANNUAL AV
HIGH 24 HR
ANNUAL AV
ANNUAL AV
HIGH HR
Air Quality
Standards
P260 ug/m 3
S150
75 ug/m 3
60
40 ugfm 3
10 mg/rn 5
365 ug/m 3
80 ugfm 3
365 ugfm 3
80 ug/m 3
100 ug/m 3
160 ug/tn 3
Ashland
(Chestnut St) —_ 427
Boston
(JFK Bldg) 149 —— 76 22 56
Boston
(Kenmore Sg) 264 94 26.4 19.1 181 48 81 26 86
Boston
(S Bay) 112 66
Boston
(Visconti) 28.7 18.6 ——
Brookline
(High Sch) 113 35 107 15
Cambridge
(Msgr.
O’Brien Hwy) 101 19.5 13.1 121 131
Fraxuingham
(Rte. 126) 137 38 89 14 35 ——
Framingham
(Worcester Rd 333
Medford
(Main Sc) 158 142 288 27 ——

-------
4ppendix 2.8—2 (cont.)
Date 1976 (January—December) BOSTON AQCR AMBIENT AIR QUALITY DATA
CITY
PARTICULATES
CO_________ I S02 CONT.
S02 BUBBLER
N02
03
HIGH 24 HR
ANNUAl GM
HIGH HR
HIGH 8 HI
HIGH 24 HR
ANNUAL AV
HIGH 24 HR
ANNUAL AV
ANNUAL AV
HIGH HR
Air Quality P260 ug/m 3
Standards Sl50
75 ug/m 3
60
4Oug/tn
10 mg/&
365 ug/m 3
80 ug/m 3
365 ug/m
80 ug/tn 3
100 ug/n1 3
160 uglm 6
Medford
(Fellsway and
Rte. 16) 283 77 24 18.4 128 33 151 28 321
Needham
(Chestnut St) 166 37 —— 45 13
Norwood
(Nahattan St) 142 46 ——\ 55 19
Quincy
(Rte 3A) 179 58 20 16.9 100 30 86 27 357
Quincy
(Hancock St) 58 71 —— 52
Revere
(Garfield St) 147 47 123 29 ——
Waltham
(Beaver St) 100 79 466
Waltham
(Moody and
Main) 174 67 25 16.2 107 29 97 25 62
Woburn
(Montvale Aye) 129 29 ——
SOURCE: EPA, 1976

-------
4ppendix 2.8—3
Violations of Air Quality Standards
in the Boston AQCR for 1973—1976
No. of Violations -_____
_____ Pollution Standard Location 1973 1974 1975 1976
Total Suspended Annual Geom. Mean Boston—Kenmore — i i
Particulates Primary Medford (Fellsway &
75 ug/m 3 Route 16) — — 1
Annual Geom. Mean Boston—Kenmore 1 1 1
Secondary
Medford — 1
60 ug/1n 3 Cambridge—Science
Park 1 — 0
Waltham—Main St. 1 0 0
24—hour Primary Boston—Keninore 2 0 0
260 ug/m 3 Medford 1 — 0 0
24—Hour Secondary Boston—Kentnore 19 1 5 9
150 ug/in 3
Framingham 1 0 0 0
Medford 11 1 0 2
Quincy 5 0 0 0
Waltham (Main St.) 5 2 2 0
Cambridge (Science
Park) 1 0 0
Revere 0 1 0
(a) Validity of data under examination by EPA

-------
Appendix 2.8—3 (cont.)
Violations of Air Quality Standards
in the Boston AQCR for 1973—1976
No. of Violations — _____
Pollution Standard Location 1973 1974 1975 1976
CO 1—hour Primary and East Boston 1
Secondary 40 mg/rn 3
8—Hour Primary and Boston—Kenrnore 114 59 87
Secondary 10 mg/rn 3
Boston (Visconti St.) 39 20 29
Cambridge (Science
Park) 3
Medford 28 6 8
Quincy 0 0
Waltham (Main St.) 13 12 5
NO 2 Annual Avg. Primary Boston—Kenmore 1 1 (a) 0
and Secondary
100 ug/m 3 Worchester 1 0
SO 2 24—Hour Primary No sites found
365 ug/m 3 in violation
Annual Avg. No sites found
80 ug/rn 3 in violation
3—Hour Secondary No sites found
1300 ug/rn 3 in violation

-------
Apper dix 2.8—3 (cont.)
Violations of Air Quality Standards
in the Boston AQCR for 1973—1976
No. of Violations
Pollution Standard Location 1973 1974 1975 1976
Photochetnical Oxidant 1—hour Primary and A8hland - - - 203
SecondarZ Boston—Kenjnore 24 8
160 ugfm
Cambridge (Science
Park) 60 90
Danvers 67 133
Framingham 191 77
Medfie ld 114 29
Medford 162 171 71
0
Qulncy 221 119 273
Waltham (Beaver St.) 77 89 139
Waltham (Main St.) 57
SOURCE: EPA, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976. Annual Report on Air Quality in New England.

-------
Appendix 2.8—4 — Emissions Inventory for AQCR 119—Metropolitan Boston (Mass.)*
Emission
Categories
GRAND TOTAL
-AREA
—POINT
FUEL COMBUSTION-AREA
-POINT
External Combustion—area
— point
Residential Fuel—area
Anthracite Coal
Bituminous Coal
Distillate Oil
Residual Oil
Natural Gas
Wood
Electric Generation—
point
Anthracite Coal
Bituminous Coal
Lignite
Residual Oil
Distillate Oil
Natural Gas
Process Gas
Coke
Solid Waste/Coal
Other
Industrial Fuel—area
— point
Anthracite Coal—area
— point
Bituminous Coal—area
— point
Lignite—point
Residual Oil—area
— point
Distillate Oil—area
— point
Natural Gas — area
— point
Process Gas — area
— point
Coke — point
Wood — area
— point
Liquid Petroleum Gas
— point
Bagassee — point
Other — point
Pollutant,
Tons per
year
Particu—
Sulfur
Nitrogen
}lydro—
Carbon
lates
Oxides
Oxides
Carbons
Monoxide
39,586
140,993
201,743
271,950
1,012,513
29,385
65,392
141,529
228,886
1,000,990
10,201
75,601
60,214
43,064
11,522
16,628 60,345 47,418 3,303 5,869
6,473 73,609 59,581 1,344 1,993
16,628 60,345 47,418 3,303 5,869
6,473 73,609 59,581 1,344 1,993
3,631 9,662 5,914 1,244 2,946
74 192 22 19 669
30 85 4 30 135
3,252 9,369 3,903 976 1,626
0 0 0 0 0
247 15 1,973 197 493
28 2 11 22 22
3,644 43,922 51,996 973 1,485
0 0 0 0 0
O 0 0 0 0
O 0 0 0 0
3,628 43,910 50,940 970 1,455
1 11 26 1 1
15 1 1,030 2 29
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
O 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
4,286 15,203 13,145 621 911
1,885 23,740 5,222 254 347
O 0 0 0 0
O 0 0 0 0
483 235 62 4 8
O 0 0 0 0
O 0 0 0 0
2,154 11,915 5,619 281 375
1,872 23,71.7 5,020 251 335
1,588 3,049 6,350 318 423
7 23 27 1 2
62 4 1,114 19 105
6 0 175 2 10
O 0 0 0 0
O 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
O 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
O 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
A- 91

-------
Appendix 2.8—4 (cant. ) — Emissions Inventory for AQCR 119 Metropolitan Boston (Mass.)*
Pollutant, Tons per_year
Emission Particu— Sulfur Nitrogen Hydra— Carbon
Categories lates Oxides Oxides Carbons Monoxide
Commercial—
Institutional Fuel
— area 8,712 35,480 28,359 1,438 2,012
— point 943 5,947 2,363 117 161
Anthracite Coal—area 0 0 0 0 0
—point 0 0 0 0 0
Bituminous Coal—area 0 0 0 0 0
— point 140 68 18 1 2
Lignite — point 0 0 0 0 0
Residual Oil—area 5,244 29,007 13,679 684 912
— point 767 5,735 2,119 106 141
Distillate Oil—area 3,367 6,467 13,468 673 898
— point 32 143 126 6 8
Natural Gas—area 101 6 1,211 81 202
—point 4 0 99 4 9
Wood—area 0 0 0 0 0
—point 0 0 0 0 0
Liquid Petroleum
Gas—point 0 0 0 0 0
Miscellaneous—point 0 0 0 0 0
Internal Combustion—
—point 0 0 0 0 0
Electric Generation 0 0 0 0 0
Distillate Oil 0 0 0 0 0
Natural Gas 0 0 0 0 0
Diesel Fuel 0 0 0 0 0
Industrial Fuel 0 0 0 0 0
Distillate Oil 0 0 0 0 0
Natural Gas 0 0 0 0 0
Gasoline 0 0 0 0 0
Diesel Fuel 0 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0 0
Commercial—
Institutional 0 0 0 0 0
Diesel Fuel 0 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0 0
Engine—Testing 0 0 0 0 0
Aircraft 0 0 0 0 0
Other 0 0 0 0 0
Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0
INDUSTRIAL PROCESS—POINT 196 1,294 7 41,097 34
Chemical Manufacturing 1 1,294 0 2,914 0
Food/Agriculture 2 0 0 o o
Primary Metal 0 0 0 0 0
Secondary Metals 9 0 0 0 33
Mineral Products 183 0 0 0 0
Petroleum Industry 0 0 0 0 0
Wood Products 0 0 0 9 0
Evaporation 2 0 7 9 0
A-92

-------
2.8—4 (cont. ) — Emissions Inventory for AQCR 119 Metropolitan Boston (Mass.)*
Pollutant, Tons per year
ission Particu— Sulfur Nitrogen Hydro— Carbon
Categories lates Oxides Oxides Carbons Monoxide
Metal Fabrication 0 0 0 0 0
Leather Products 0 0 0 13 0
Textile Manufacturing 0 0 0 2,820 0
Isprocess Fuel 0 0 0 0 0
Other/Not Classified 0 0 0 67 0
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL—AREA 1,806 178 230 3,972 11,695
— Point 3,531 697 625 445 9,495
Government — Point 3,505 690 614 420 9,455
Municipal Incineration 3,469 675 540 405 9,455
OpenBurning 0 0 0 0 0
Other 36 15 74 15 0
Residential — Area 1,300 20 41 3,656 10,967
On Site Incineration 1,300 20 41 3,656 10,967
OpenBurning 0 0 0 0 0
Counercial—Inst itut ional
— Area 396 124 149 248 570
— Point 24 6 10 23 37
On-Site Incineration
— Area 396 124 149 248 570
— Point 23 6 10 23 37
Open Burning—Area 0 0 0 0 0
—Point 0 0 0 0 0
Apartment — Point 0 0 0 0 0
Other—Point 0 0 0 0 0
Industrial — Area 110 34 41 69 158
—Point 3 1 1 1 4
On Site Incineration
— Area 110 34 41 69 158
—Point 3 1 1 1 4
Open Burning — Area 0 0 0 0 0
—Point 0 0 0 0 0
Auto Body Incineration
—Point 0 0 0 0 0
Other—Point 0 0 0 0 0
Miscellaneous 0 0 0 0 0
ANSPORTATION — AREA 10,951 4,869 93,881 168,685 983,427
Land Vehicles 10,585 4,050 91,696 152,647 972,220
Gasoline 9,594 2,580 79,388 150,609 964,807
Light Vehicles 8,835 2,291 71,630 127,144 824,610
Reavy Vehicles 746 283 7,612 23,055 135,540
Off Highway 13 7 146 411 4,657
Diesel Fuel 991 1,470 12,308 2,038 7,413
Reavy Vehicles 663 929 8,006 1,184 6,016
Off Highway 149 134 1,653 181 466
Rail 179 408 2,649 673 931
Air Craft 262 169 1,438 2,300 5,870
Military 86 16 41 199 214
Civil 82 16 74 362 2,070
A-93

-------
Appendix 2.8—4 (cont. ) — Emissions Inventory for AQCR 119—Metropolitan Boston (Mass.)*
Pollutant, Tons per_year
Emission Particu— Sulfur Nitrogen Hydro— Carbon
Categories lates Oxides Oxides Carbons Monoxide
Commercial 95 137 1,324 1,738 3,587
Vessels 104 650 747 1,778 5,337
Bituminous Coal 0 0 0 0 0
Diesel Fuel 66 83 618 162 216
Residual Oil 38 556 81 6 3
Gasoline 0 11 47 1,610 5,118
Gas Handling Evaporation
Loss 0 0 0 11,960 0
MISCELLANEOUS-AREA 0 0 0 52,926 0
Forest Fires 0 0 0 0 0
Structural Fires 0 0 0 0 0
Slash Burning 0 0 0 0 0
Frost Control 0 0 0 0 0
Solvent Evaporation
Loss 0 0 0 52,926 0
*Data represents emissions in year 1973.
Source: EPA National Emissions Report, Dated 1976
A— 94

-------
APPENDIX 2.9
NOISE
A- 95

-------
Table 2,9—1
1977 Boston Noise Survey
(in decibels)
L 10 Noise Levels L 50 Noise Levels
Rush Hour ght Rush Hour Night
BACK BAY
Beacon Street 73 69 62 57
799 Boylston Street 74 71 68 64
360 Eoylston Street 75 77 69 63
Dartmouth Street 79 70 73 62
Newbury Street 69 66 64 58
cRARLESTOWN
Rutherford Avenue 82 72 78 62
Lynde & TJnion Streets 71 59 67 56
16 Healy Street 82 63 73 55
115 Elm Street 68 55 60 51
SOUTH D
Dedhain 72 60 67 52
Newbury & Charlesgate E. 82 75 77 68
96 West Newton Street 73 69 66 56
114 Botoph Street 71 67 65 60
II Peterborough Street 61 56 57 50
EAST BOSTON
123 Summer Street 67 58 59 52
)carginal Street 71 53 58 49
Maverick Street 61 52 56 47
Shelby Street 70 64 66 54
298 Paris Street 69 56 58 51
DOWNTOWN BOSTON
Pickney Street 65 58 55 41
Elio Street 78 72 69 65
Boston Common 58 54 55
Federal Street 71 62 64 49
29 Beach Street 72 72 65 57
BRIGRTON—ALLSTON
17 Shanley Street 56 51 50 46
60 Oak Square 60 60 55 53
45 Mapleton Street 50 50 46 48
23 Champney Street 59 43 53 40
5 Denby Road 64 43 57 50
50 Aldje Street 56 46 52 45
21 Hojinan Street A 50 50 47
SOURCE: City of Boston Conservation Commission, 1977 Boston Noise Survey k-

-------
APPENDIX 2.10
Demography and Land Use
A- 99

-------
Appendix 2.10-1 Demographic Analysis
A review of past demographic trends within the Boston
metropolitan region and an evaluation of several major alter-
native sets of population projections for the communities
composing the MDC region was undertaken. The potential for
secondary impacts associated with population growth stimulated
by improvements and extensions of the waste treatment facili-
ties of the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) will subse-
quently be determined.
Currently 43 communities including the City of Boston are
served by the waste treatment facilities of the MDC on Deer
and Nut Islands. An additional eight communities are now
programmed to join the service region, adding a combined popu—
lation (in 1975) equivalent to three percent of that of the
initial service region. In 1975, approximately 90% of the
persons living within the service area were sewered by the MDC
system. It is anticipated that approximately 95% of the area’s
population will be served in the year 2000.
To undertake this analysis it is first necessary to estab-
lish the current status of the region and the secular trends
which will govern its evolution in the years ahead. One
critical aspect of this analysis involves the size, character
and distribution of the area’s current and future population.
An understanding of these demographic dimensions is essential
if current and future service demands are to be determined.
Population is but one of many interrelated dimensions
of a region. The aggregate size and composition of a regional
population is influenced by the location and character of
employment opportunities, housing supplies and supporting
services and facilities. These, in turn, are influenced by
environmental capacities, given particular technologies
(transportation, construction, energy production, resource
extraction and waste management) and preferences (work, resi-
dence, family size, consumer goods and services , and amenities).
Regions, furthermore, are in various ways interactive and
frequently this interaction is competitive. A region’s pros-
pects, therefore, are not internally dictated. Rather, it is
the play of economic, demographic and political forces among
regions in their national setting which will in the end
determine the direction and character of the regional future.
The location, witbin the region, in which future increments
of population gain and loss will occur is likewise determined
by a multiplicity of factors including but not limited to those
introduced above. Households seeking places of residence within
a region exercise their residential preferences in light of
current residential opportunities and available household
resources. In a narrow sense, residential choices reflect
conditions within the market for housing. But in a somewhat
A— 101

-------
broader sense these choices reflect the interaction of many
kinds of markets associated with land, labor and capital.
The question of aggregate population change within a
large region such as the MDC can generally be treated
separately from the question of population patterns within
the region.
a. Current Population Characteristics
The review that follows will emphasize the 51 MDC com-
munities while providing certain aggregate statistics for
the additional remaining communities included in the EMMA
Study. Where appropriate, comparisons will be drawn between
national, state, EMMA reg:ion, MDC region and Boston Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) populations.
Table A 2.10-1 indicates the population of each MDC
community in the years 1950, 1960, 1970, and 1975, based upon
national and state censuses as indicated. From 1950 to 1960,
the 51 MDC communities experienced a population increase of
4.1%, and in the subsequent decade, 1960-70, an increase of
2.7%. The period 1970—75 saw the MDC region gain just 0.3%.
The secular trend is one of diminishing, but positive rates
of population growth for the MDC area. 1 mong MDC communities,
population change has been highly variable during single
census years. Over time, individual communities have had
highly erratic rates. The City of Boston, though, has been
characterized by a temporal pattern of steadily diminishing
rates of negative growth. For the MDC region, minus the
central city of Boston, there has occurred a temporal pattern
of declining positive rates of growth. The absolute numbers
behind these percentages are revealing:
1950—60 1960—70 1970—80
City of Boston
a. Absolute Change —122,247 —38,126 —2,071
b. Percent Change -13.0% -8.1% -0.3%
MSD Minus Boston City
a. Absolute Change +209,802 +97,773 4-9,343
b. Percent Change +15.9% +6.4% +0.6%
MSD (Total )
a. Absolute Change +87,555 -1-59,647 +7,272
b. Percent Change +4.1% +2.7% +0.3%
Both central city and suburbs are at least momentarily con-
verging to zero rates of population growth. For the last
twenty—five years, central city population losses have been
only slightly more than off-set by suburban increases. The
result is relative regional population stability.
A— 102

-------
T&bls A2.1O—l
Population Trends: MDC, State and Nation, 1950-75
Population 1 Percent Chanoe Population 2 Percent Change
C Communities 1950 1960 1970 1950-60 1960-70 1975 t 1970—75
Arlington (M)**(Mystic)**** 44,353 49,953 53,524 12.6 7.1 50,300
Ashland (N) (Boston Harbor, Upper Charles,
Suasco) 3,500 7,779 8,882 122.3 14.2 8,900 0.2
Bedford CM) (Suasco) 5,234 10,969 13,513 109.6 23.2 12,300 —9.0
Belmont CM) (Lower Charles) 27,381 28,715 28,285 4.9 —1.5 27,500 —2.8
Boston CS) (Lower Charles, Neponeet) 801,444 697,197 641,071 —13.0 —8.1 639,000 —0.3
Brairntr e (N) (Weymouth) 23,161 31,069 35,050 34.1 12.8 36,800 5.0
Brookline (N) (Lower Charles) 57,589 54,044 58,886 —6.2 9.0 59,000 0.2
Burlington CM) (Mystic, Ipswich) 3,250 12,852 21,980 295.4 71.0 24,400 11.0
Cambridge CM) ZLower Charles, Mystic) 120,740 107,716 100,361 -10.8 -6.8 102,000 1.6
Canton (N) (Weymouth, Neponset) 7,465 12,771 17,100 71.1 33.9 18,000 5.3
Chelsea Cs) (Boston Harbor, Mystic) 38,912 33,749 30,625 -13,3 -9.3 25,100 —18.0
Dedham (N) (Lower Charles, Neponset) 18,487 23,869 26,938 29.1 12.9 26,900 —0.1
Dover 5 (N) (Upper Charles, Neponset) 1,722 2,846 4,529 65.3 59.1 4,900 8.2
Everett CM) (Boston Harbor, Mystic, N. Coastal) 45,982 43,544 42,485 -5.3 —2.4 39,800 —6.3
Frainingham CM) CSuascoH 28,086 44,526 64,048 58.5 43.8 72,400 13.0
Hinghaa (P) (Weymouth) 10,665 15,378 18,845 44.2 22.5 19,500 3.5
Holbàook (N) (Weymouth) 4,004 10,104 11,775 152.3 16.5 11,800 0.2
Hopkinton*(M)***(Town Only) (Suasco, Upper
Charles) 3.486 4,932 5,981 41.5 21.3 6,400 7.0
0 Lexington (N) (Lower Charles, Mystic) 17,335 27,691 31,886 59.7 15.1 32,500 1.9
( ) 0incoln (M) (Lewer Charles, Suasco) 2,427 5,613 7,567 131.3 34.8 6,500 —14.1
Lynnfield*(N) IN. Coastal, Ipswich) 13,927 8,398 10,826 113.9 28.9 12,000 10.8
Maiden CM) (Mystic, N. Coastal) 59,804 57,676 56,127 —3.6 -2.7 55,800 —0.6
Medford CM) (Mystic) 66,113 64,971 64,797 —1.7 -0.9 60,800 —5.6
Melrose CM) (Mystic, N. Coastal) 26,988 29,619 33,180 9.7 12.0 32,200 —3.0
Milton (N) (Weymouth, Neponset) 22,395 26,375 27,190 17.8 3.1 27,200 0.0
Natick CM) (Lower Charles, Suasco) 19,838 28,831 31,057 45.3 7.7 31,100 0.1
Needham (N) LLower Charles) 16,313 25,793 29,748 58.1 15.3 30,000 0.8
Newton (14) (Lower Charles) 81,994 92,384 91,066 12.7 -1.4 89,000 —2,3
Norwood (N) (Neponset) 16,636 24,898 30,815 49.7 23.8 31,200 1.2
Quincy (N) (Boston Harbor, Weymouth, Neponset) 83,835 87,409 87,966 4.3 0.6 91,500 4.0
Randolf (N) (Weymouth, Neponset) 9,982 18,900 27,035 89.3 43.0 29,200 8.0
Reading CM) (Mystic, N. Coastal, Ipsv4ch) 14,006 19,259 22,539 37.5 17.0 23,700 5.2
Revere (5) (Mystic, N. Coastal) 36,763 40,080 43,159 9.0 7.7 41,300 4.3
Sharon 5 (N) (Neponset) 4,847 10,070 12,367 107.8 22.8 13,600 10.0
Sherborn 5 (M) (Upper Charles, Suasco) 1,245 1,806 3,309 45.1 83.2 4,200 26.9
Sotnerwille (M) (Lower Charles, Mystic) 102,351 94,697 88,779 —7.5 -6.2 82,000 —7.6
Southborough*(W)***(Suasco) 2,760 3,996 5,798 44.7 45.1 6,400 10.4
Stonehaxn CM) (Mystic) 13,229 17,821 20,725 34.7 16.3 22,000 6.2
Stoughton (N)***(Neponset) 11,146 16,328 23,459 46.5 43.7 25,700 9.6
Wakefield CM) (Mystic, N. Coastal) 19,633 24,295 25,402 23.7 4.6 26,000 2.4
Walpole (N) (Upper Charles, Neponset) 9,109 14,068 18,149 54.4 29.0 18,500 1.9

-------
T*ble A2.101 (cont.)
ion Tr& d j: OL(’, St
and Nation. 1950—75
— P j lion 1
1950 1960 1970
Percent Char,’n
50-60 1960-70
MDC Communities
Population 2
1975
Percent Change
1970—75
Waltham (N) (Lower Charles)
Watertown (N) (Lower Charles, Ky tic )
Wellealey (N) (Lower Charles)
Wseton(M) (LowerCharles, Suasco)
westwood (N) (Lu ’, er Charles, Neponset)
weymouth (N) (Weymouth)
Wilmington (M) (Mystic)
Winchester (N) (Mystic)
Winthrop (S) (Boston Harbor, Mystic)
Woburn (N) (Mystic)
47,1117
37.329
20,549
5,026
5,1137
32,690
7,039
15,509
19,496
20,492
Units
55,4H
39,092
26,071
11,261
10,354
48,177
12,475
19,376
20,303
31,214
below are
61,582 17.4
39,307 4.7
28,051 26.9
10,870 64.4
12,750 17.4
54,610 47.4
17,102 77.2
22,269 24.9
20,335 4.1
37,406 52.3
in thousands
31.1
0.5
7.6
31.6
23.1
13.4
37.1
14.9
0.2
19.8
55,800
35,000
26,800
11,500
14,000
57,000
17,500
22,700
20,500
35,200
-9.4
—11.0
4.5
5.8
9.8
4.4
2.3
1.9
0.8
5.9
MDC (TOTP.L1
2,118
2,206
2,266
2.7
2,273
0.3
BC)ST()N (SMSA)
NUS ’FON (cITY)
BOSTON (SMSA MINUS CITY)
MJISSACHUSETTS (STATE)
UNITED STATES
2,414
801
1,612
4,691
151,236
6.1
-8.1
11,3
10.5
12.5
639
5,828
212,748
—0.3
2.4
4.7
S0URCE 1) U.S. Bureau of the Cen uB,
Part 1, U.S. Swie ary -
Cen8us of Population: 1970, Vol. 1, “Characteristics of the Population,”
Section 1, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1973, rable 32.
2,589
679
1,898
5,148
180,684
2,753
641
2,112
5,689
203,212
4.1
7.5
-13.0
17.7
9.8
19.5
2) Massachusetts State Census, 1975.
5 New Additions to MDC Service Region (Wastewater Management).
*aCounty. ESSEX (E), MIDDLESEX (M), NOR}’OU( (N), PLYMOUTh (P), SUFFOLK (5), WOPCESTER (W)
***Not in Boston SMSA (1970)
***Wame of Basin or Basins containing the community.

-------
Examination of the components of population change within
the City and Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA --
which includes the 51 MDC communities) of Boston further
reveals the dynamics of regional evolution. From 1960 to 1970,
the SMSA gained over six percent which was due to a gross
birth rate which exceeded that of deaths by a factor of
approximately two. At the same time, net migration amounted
to a loss of less than one percent of the population.
Hence, the primary dynamic of population change within the
Boston SMSA is, at least momentarily, one of natural increase
augmented by relatively low net migration levels. The basic
regional trend continues in the 1970’s; one of migratory
population growth shifting to the south and west due to a
shift of greater employment opportunities to those regions.
Within the structure of the regional economies of the
nation, the Boston sub-region has an internal dimension which
is typical though not identical with that of other older
metropolitan regions: central city (Boston) declines
paralleled by suburban increase. The City of Boston, long a
center of regional economic and cultural pursuits, is today
burdened by a deteriorating infrastructure, rising service
costs, and a job base whose capacity to adjust to the national
trend is uncertain. Its fixed boundaries and limited develop-
ment space mean that new growth must inevitably occur through
more intensive space utilization. This suggests higher
residential densities, multi-story facilities and the elabora-
tion and extension of public services to meet new demands.
Such a process of intensification is itself a potential cause
of slowing rates of population and employment increase. This
is because of two factors. First, intensification may become
marginally more costly as development ceilings are approached.
Second, intensification renders the city a less attractive
living and working environment for many who would inhabit the
area.
Outside the central city, but within the MDC region,
current population trends are suggestive of a different evo-
lutionary process. Inner suburban communities today face
some of the same developmental constraints which earlier
confronted the central city. Their boundaries have expanded
through annexation to the maximum extent possible, and internal
spaces have been assigned their full quota of homes, businesses
and facilities. Over time, as the metropolitan development
wave spreads outward from its central origin, a succession of
communities experience a similar syndrome —— solidification
of boundaries, internal intensification and the inevitable
aging of building stocks and community facilities. This
process is coupled with one of population. Geographic spread
draws to its outer perimeter new homes and new businesses
recently arrived within the metropolitan region or else
recently departed from more degraded, central locations.
A— 105

-------
Their newness is their strength. Younger households rearing
children, and newer businesses or branch facilities bring
to the vital expansion edge needed resources and often a
vigorous desire to maintain their communities through the
exclusion of unwanted increments and types of activity.
The process of spread, then, is reflected in the patterns
of income, age and race.
The City of Boston lost approximately 15% of its popula-
tion during 1960-70, through out-migration, primarily of
white households, while the non-central city portions of the
SMSA gained almost an equivalent number of people (nearly
100,000), most of whom were white. The period 1970—75 has
seen a perpetuation of the same basic component change.
Birth rates have everywhere exceeded death rates, but the
size of the natural increase component varies among communi-
ties according to internal population age distribution. P mong
intensively developed communities, those occupying more central
locations within the metropolitan region tend to have lower
rates of natural increase (births minus deaths) than those
which are less central. At the same time, it is the central
and peripheral communities which have the highest rates of
net migration. In central locations, however, these rates
are most negative (loss), while on the expanding metropolitan
edge they are most positive (gain).
Net migration and natural increase rates assemble into
geographic patterns within the metropolitan region to yield
the highest rates of total population increase on the outer
developmental edge of the region, and the highest rates of
decrease in the more central region. Trends by community
since 1950 are shown in Table A 2.10-i which also represemts coin-
parable population trends for the MDC, SMSA, State and national
regions. A cursory survey of MDC community trends from 1950
to 1975 indicates the following:
1) During 1950-60, more communities experienced population
growth rates in excess of 30% than in 1960-70, or for the
extrapolated period of 1970-80.
2. Negative growth communities exhibited surprising persist-
ence once the trend had begun.
3. The communities with the lowest ratios of undeveloped to
developed land tended during 1950-75 to have the greatest
population stability as measured by percentage population
change.
Trends in total population by MDC community conceal sig-
nificant demographic variation associated with race, age and
income. These three population features are highly inter-
related and together serve to explain a significant degree of
overall geographic variation among communities at single
A— 106

-------
MDC Communities
Population Percent Non-Whitu
in 197O 1960 197O ”
P.q• Ditrtb , ,tjon-1960 3
Percent Percent Patcent
Under 19 to 64 65 yra.
18 Yrs. Yrs. & Over
Aqe DtStribetion — 3.97O
Percent Percent Percent
Under 19 to 64 65 Yrs.
18 Yrs. Yra. C Over
Arlington
53,524
0.3
1.0
31.0
57.2
11.7
29.2
56.8
14.0
Ashland
8,882
0.8
0.7
42.4
51.3
6.3
40.4
53.4
6.2
Bedford
13,513
1.7
2.1
34.8
57.3
7.9
39.2
54.3
6.5
Belmont
28,285
0.3
1.1
28.3
58.6
13.1
27.2
56.4
16.5
Boston
641,071
9.8
18.2
28.7
59.0
12.3
28.4
58.9
12.8
Braintree
35,050
0.2
0.4
38.2
53.3
8.5
37.1
53.4
9.5
Brookline
58,886
1.0
3.2
21.8
61.7
16.5
18.1
61.8
20.1.
Burlington
21,980
0.6
1.2
44.7
52.1
3.2
46.8
50.0
3.1
Cambridge
100,361
6.3
8.9
25.0
63.3
11.7
20.1
68.3
11.7
Canton
17,100
0.1
0.6
38.9
53.9
7.2
39.9
52.8
7.4
Chelsea
30,625
1.2
2.5
30.5
57.5
12.0
29.1
57.3
13.7
Dedhan
26,938
0.1
0.3
36.6
54.3
9.1
36.2
54.2
9.7
Dover
4,529
0.4
0.6
32.5
60.4
7.1
37.2
54.5
8.3
Everett
42,485
1.6
1.5
31.5
57.9
10.6
30.0
57.5
12.6
Fr mingham
64,048
0.6
1.7
37.1
54.1
8.8
35.1
56.4
8.5
Hiogham
18,845
0.6
0.7
37.6
53.4
9.0
39.7
52.0
8.3
Holbrook
11,775
1.8
2.4
41.0
52.9
6.1
41.0
52.6
6.4
Hopkinton
5,981
0.1
0.9
42.7
49.7
7.6
39.0
53.3
7.7
Lexington
31,886
0.5
1.7
37.5
53.8
8.7
38.4
53.8
7.8
Lincoln
7,567
2.6
4.3
42.5
52.5
5.0
42.1
53.4
4.5
Lynnfield
10,326
0.1
0.2
37.0
56.3
6.7
37.9
55.6
6.5
Maiden
56,127
1.4
1.7
31.4
56.3
12.2
30.2
56.1
13.7
,
‘
Medford
Meirose
64,397
33,180
1.8
0.3
3.0
0.7
31.2
33.4
57.6
53.9
11.3
12.8
29.9
33.7
57.1
53.5
13.0
12.8
. ..a
Milton
27,190
0.1
0.3
30.5
56.9
12.5
29.0
55.9
15.1
0
“a
Natich
Needham
31,057
29,748
0.5
0.3
1.4
0.6
39.9
37.7
52.4
53.8
7.7
8.4
37.5
36.8
54.4
53.8
8.1
9.4
Newton
91,066
0.9
2.0
32.1
57.2
10.7
29.0
58.8
12.2
Norwood
30,815
0.3
0.4
37.5
53.3
9.2
35.3
55.1
9.6
Quincy
87,966
0.2
0.5
32.6
56.1
11.4
30.5
55.8
13.6
Rando lf
27,035
1.1
2.1
42.8
51.3
5.9
38.3
54.7
7.0
Reading
22,539
0.2
0.4
38.0
52.9
9.2
37.5
53.7
8.8
Revere
43,159
0.4
0.2
32.4
57.6
10.0
29.6
58.9
11,4
Sharon
12,367
0.4
2.4
43.1
49.3
7.6
38.8
54.4
6,8
Sherborri
3,309
0.6
LI
36,8
54.7
8.5
42.6
51.4
5.9
Somerville
88,779
0.5
1.6
31.7
57.5
10.8
30.1
57.7
12.2
Southborough
5,798
0.1
0.4
36.5
54.5
9.0
40.7
52.4
6.9
Stoneham
20,725
0.4
0.7
37.5
53.9
8.6
33.7
56.7
9.6
Stoughton
23,459
0.7
1.9
39.6
52.8
7.6
39.4
53.5
7.2
Wakefield
25,402
0.1
0,3
35.5
54.2
10.3
32.9
55.7
11.3
Walpole
18,149
0.9
0.9
37.3
55.7
7.0
39.3
53.8
6.9
Waltham
61,582
0.4
1.1
31.4
56,8
9.8
29.4
60.4
10.2
Watertown
39,307
0.2
1.1
31.7
57.7
10.7
28.5
58.7
12.8
Wellesley
28,051
0.4
1.3
32.7
57.8
9.5
32.1
57.1
10.8
Weston
10,970
0.5
1.3
35.4
57.1
7.5
35.4
57.1
7.5
Westwood
12,750
0.3
0.4
36,4
56.7
6.9
37.7
54.9
7.4
Weymouth
54,610
0.3
0.5
40.8
51.8
7.4
37.5
54.1
8.4
Wilmington
17,102
0.3
0.4
42.3
51.8
5.9
43.0
51.5
5.4
Winchester
22,269
0.6
0,9
35.5
54.1
10.4
35.5
54.6
9.9
Winthrop
20,335
0.3
0.4
32,6
56.0
11.4
30.7
56.1
13.2
Woburri
37,406
0.7
0.9
39.6
52.5
7.9
37.6
54.4
8.0
Bo sto n(SMSA)
2,753,700
3.4
5.5
32.5
56.6
10.9
31.9
56.9
11,3
Boston (City)
641,071
9.8
18.2
28.7
59.0
12.3
28.4
58.9
12.8
Mass. (State)
5,689,170
2.4
3,7
33.2
55.7
11.1
33.0
55.8
11,2
United States
203,211,926
12.5
35.8
55.0
9.2
34.3
55.9
9.9

-------
Patterns of Race and Age by MDC Community — Continued
Source:
1. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population, 1970 ; Vol. 1
“Characteristics of the Population”, Part 1, U.S. Summary -
Section 1, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
1973, Table 32.
2. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population, 1970 ; Vol. 1,
“Characteristics of the Population”, Part 23, Massachusetts.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1973, Table 16.
3. U.S. Bureau of the Census. U.S. Census of Population: 1960 , Vol. 1,
“Characteristics of the Population”, Part 23, Massachusetts, U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D,C., 1963. Tables 13 and 26.
4. U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population, 1970 ; Vol. 1
“Characteristics of the Population”, Part 23, Massachusetts.
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 1973, Table 16.
A—lOS

-------
moments in a region’s history, and temporal variation in the
make-up of individual communities. The most important facet
of racial distribution within the metropolitan region is the
large concentration of non—white, primarily black, populations
within central communities. In particular, the City of Boston
was nearly 10% non—white (68,325 persons) in 1960, while
neighboring Cambridge was 6.3% non—white (6,786) in the same
year. Just ten years later in 1970, the Boston non—white
population almost doubled to 18.2% (116,674) while Cambridge’s
rose to 8.9% (8,932). In each, there was an absolute decline
in the white population during 1960-70, through out-migration.
As Table A 2.10—2 shows, the remaining 49 MDC communities have
very small non—white populations in absolute and percentage
terms. At the same time, the percentage contribution of non-
white population to total suburban populations has doubled or
tripled in many instances. Still, in 1970, only Brookline,
Lincoln and Medford had in excess of three percent non-white
population.
The increasing dispersion of minority populations within
metropolitan regions such as Boston can be expected to continue
with higher concentrations in the inner suburbs. It is unlikely,
however, that the fractions of total regional minority population
contained within single suburban communities will increase
appreciably in the foreseeable future. It is expected that while
most communities will witness absolute increases in minority
population, few if any will experience major racial transitions.
The convergence of factors currently directing the flow of
racial minorities into suburbs would not seem to favor disper-
sion as opposed to concentration in a few destinations.
Table A 2.10-2 indicates non—white population percentages
by MSD community, and percentages of total population by
community in each of three age groups (0-18, 19-64, and 65+)
for 1960 and 1970. Examination of Table A 2.10-2 indicates three
types of coimnunities. First are those whose age distribution
is highly skewed in favor of the youngest age group; a diverse
lot, composed of those communities undergoing rapid development
on the urban periphery. The second are those communities
having greater balance among age group sub—populations. These
communities exhibit certain correlate characteristics including
a moderately long period of time during which a capacity
population has been maintained, diverse dwelling types, and
internal public and commercial service systems supportive of
the various needs of all age groups. Not unexpectedly, this
category of community resides within the older suburban ring.
Third is the community whose population is moderately
skewed in the direction of the 65-plus age group. Brookline
is typical of this category, having 16.5% of its population
over 65 in 1960 and 20.1%, in 1970. Typically, this third
category possesses an inner—suburban location, older single—
family homes and limited residential opportunities for
younger households, regardless of income.
A= 109

-------
Between 1960 and 1970, the age distribution within the
majority of communities remained fairly stable. There was
some tendency, however, for numerical decline in the youngest
age category, and increase in the oldest. This tendency would
certainly be expected within a region having low birth and
mirgration rates. Many of these communities, however, had
relatively high birth rates and appreciable migration. Main-
tenance of the existing age distribution can occur only through
the equalization of displacements (aging, migrating or dying
out of an age group) and replacements (aging, migrating or
being born into an age group). Within the previous decline in
national birth rates and the prospect that minority rates may
fall still lower than they are currently, it would appear
possible that declining rates of regional net migration may
lead to greater numerical population stability and consequently
an older regional population. Within this setting, however,
there will remain significant differences among community age
structures.
A third dimension of population complementing age and
race, is that of income. Table A 2.10-3 presents household
income distributions for all MDC communities during 1960 and
1970. Four income ranges are defined by percentile rank
rather than absolute income (“low” income, 0-15 percentile;
“lower middle”, 15—55; “upper middle”, 55—80; “high”, 80—100)
Consequently, slightly more than one-half (55%) of all house-
holds within an “average” community would have incomes in the
“low” plus “lower middle” range, according to 1970 regional
percentile figures used to define income classes (which cover
earned income only). Taking these 51 communities as a whole,
a differenc percentile distribution emerges wherein 12.6% of
all households reside in the “low” class, 28.4% in the “lower
middle”, 20.8% in the “upper middle” and 38.2% in the “high”
class, during 1960. Comparable figures for 1970 appear on the
bottom line of the table indicating an appreciable shift
downward in the income distribution, but not necessarily in
relation to real income or buying power. Generally speaking
there exists considerable income variation among MSD communities
within suburban and “exurban” communities ranking high on the
average income scale and inner suburbs somewhat lower.
Appendix 2.10—2 Economic Analysis
A region’s economy assembles available human, capital and
natural resources into a regional product of goods and services.
This product, in turn, is distributed to intermediate (industrial)
and final (residential) consumers residing within or beyond the
region’s geographic boundaries. Production which serves the
local demand for goods and services is generally called “non—
basic”, whereas production for export is called “basic”. The
export sector, which includes either whole industries or, more
frequently, fractions of total activity within single industrial
sectors, generates profits for internal investment. The non-
basic industries serve a similar function, however their ability
A— 110

-------
Table A2.lO-3 - Household Income Distribution in MDC Communities — 1960 _ 1970*
1960 Income 1970 Income
Lower Upper Lower Upper
MDC Communities Low Middle Middle High Low Middle Middle High
Arlington 1159 5186 4536 3873 1875 6746 5271 3810
Ashland 152 963 660 297 243 962 833 412
Bedford 120 733 736 675 256 966 1029 1014
Belmont 921 2557 1916 3282 893 3031 2437 2926
Boston 46547 99725 47240 31192 51252 90037 38125 24460
Braintree 678 2963 2767 2041 770 3379 3076 2309
Bvookline 3998 4871 3446 6630 2432 6504 5104 8426
Burlington 122 1149 1176 703 359 1732 1987 1149
Cambridge 5184 14382 8214 6473 7864 15732 7387 5862
Canton 310 1280 1087 725 303 1534 1400 1311
Chelsea 1929 4860 2256 1069 2391 4661 1919 1000
Dedhaxn 768 2452 1961 1427 833 2963 1396 663
Dover 61 132 138 463 30 192 274 779
Everett 1926 6482 3206 1652 2291 6644 3069 1544
Framingharn 1027 4101 4047 3111 1996 6355 5863 4875
Hingham 403 1314 1055 1433 440 1531 1522 1678
Holbrook 227 1130 929 414 267 1555 871 468
Hopkinton 97 598 363 280 162 765 464 309
Lexington 431 1616 1994 2933 491 1822 2749 3949
Lincoln 105 405 278 639 83 544 437 848
Lynnfield 153 441 688 1043 227 834 859 1255
Maiden 2854 8145 4424 2244 3175 8977 4337 2533
Medford 2100 7867 4917 3543 2613 8812 5235 3445
Meirose 946 3011 2542 2214 1005 3745 2807 2944
Milton 516 2013 1924 2989 599 2258 2244 2922
Natick 589 2749 2372 2095 729 3082 2722 2255
Needham 456 1675 2025 3124 546 1978 2717 3467
Newton 2532 6540 5846 10768 2087 6583 7033 10523
Norwood 593 2493 2226 1504 903 3346 2924 2045
c)uincy 3282 10940 7384 4862 4146 12252 7510 4829
Randoif 344 2079 1625 746 658 2812 2355 1401
Reading 346 1693 1771 1453 414 2212 2053 1728
Revere 1711 5822 2772 1541 2414 6229 3308 1844
Sharon 123 741 800 929 229 959 1065 1158

-------
Table A2.lO-3 (cont.)- Household Income Distribution in MDC Communities - 1960 _ 1970*
1960 Income 1970 Income
Lower Upper Lower - Upper
MDC Communities Low Middle Middle High Low Middle Middle High
Sherborn 50 141 118 182 49 174 254 391
Somerville 5248 13087 6571 3417 5704 14286 1818 3076
Southborough 99 469 387 188 126 516 515 396
Stoneham 416 1088 1607 993 575 2543 1963 1363
Stoughton 380 2046 1271 628 654 2759 2048 985
Wakefield 708 2677 2124 1508 692 2923. 2271 1700
Walpole 314 1440 1161 728 366 1760 1473 1129
Waltham 2132 5865 4010 2726 2570 8503 5954 3486
Watertown 1173 4490 3351 2356 1759 5249 3664 2157
p Wellesley 782 1245 1188 3695 476 1390 1959 3925
Weston 198 209 289 1342 132 413 525 1696
F Westwood 132 726 946 1083 220 745 1046 1516
Weymouth 1138 5291 4080 2402 1715 6512 4498 2704
Wilmington 287 1339 1014 481 375 1932 1377 693
Winchester 425 1303 1202 2438 378 1613 1856 2657
Winthrop 944 2403 1357 1227 845 2534 1848 1214
Woburn 811 3696 2506 1288 107]. 4505 3024 2016
MDC (Total) 97947 221421 162503 297552 112583 280089 168475 140945
Percent Distribution
(MDC) By Year 12.6 28.4 20.8 38.2 16.0 39.9 24.0 20,1
Source: Metcalf and Eddy, Inc. Wastewater Engineering and Management Plan for the Boston Harbor—Eastern
Massachusetts Metropolitan Area , EMMA Study, Technical Data, Vol. 1, “Planning Criteria”, Oct 1975.
Appendix L.
*These income ranges correspond to the nominal categories used: “low’ income (0—15 percentile, $0-5,500), “lower middle”
(15-55 percentile, $5,S01—12,000), “upper middle” (55—80 percentile, $12,00l—$19,200), “high” (80—100 percentile, over
$19,200).

-------
to generate new growth is normally less because they circulate
local capital rather than importing capital gained through the
sale of exports to “foreign t ’ markets.
among the metropolitan regions of the Northeast, many
are experiencing decelerating growth rates and occasional
employment and profit declines. The central cities of these
regions, which once led the regional economics now lag
behind them. In each metropolitan area, the overall perf or-
mance of the urban economy is determined by two major dimen-
sions of internal “balance”: balance between central city
losses, and suburban gains of people and jobs; and balance
between service and non—service sectors of the metropolitan
economy.
The Boston Metropolitan region today competes with other
economic regions within and beyond the New England-Middle
Atlantic complex. In recent years, the New England economy
has led the regional downturn in economic performance. Today,
however, the Middle Atlantic states of New York, New Jersey
and Pennsylvania are in relative decline while those of New
England appear, at least momentarily, to have stabilized.
The Northeast, though, will remain in a disadvantaged position
relative to the South and West, in the short run. This reflects
not only the numerical increase of the scale of economic acti-
vity outside the Northeast during the last two-hundred years,
but also the convergence of “negative forces” at a time that
the national economy is experiencing a structural shift from
manufacturing to services. These “negative forces” include
the deteriorated infrastructural base of older central cities,
increased energy and other production input prices, changing
environmental preferences of households and entrepreneurs,
the concentration of the poor within a political fragment
(the central city of the metropolitan region), and the decline
in urban amenities.
In summary, the economy of the Boston metropolitan region
is evolving in response to forces within and outside of its
own boundaries. mong these forces are: 1) the shift of the
national economy from the production of goods to services,
2) the competitive growth of the South and West, 3) the
increasing geographic concentration of certain service indus-
tries, 4) the increasing dispersion of manufacturing, 5) the
overall decline in urban amenities absolutely and/or as
perceived, 6) the apparent change in regional environmental
preferences. In the following discussion, economic trends
within the Boston region are presented in detail, and examined
from the perspective of these introductory observations.
a. Measures of Economic Activity within the Boston Region
There are several ways by which to gauge the level and
structure of economic activity within the Boston metropolitan
region. Among those are measures of inputs to production,
A—1l3

-------
outputs (goods and services), and profits. This analysis will
focus upon one particular input to production labor as measured
not according to man-days or productivity but employment. The
unit of measurement is the employee. The alternative to this
would be to count dollars, as profits, revenues or costs. Of
course, the employees unit will have a different meaning in
relation to different categories of activity due to producti-
vity, wage and other variations. Nevertheless, counting
employees is relatively easy, and employment counts can also
provide a link between the production and the residential
sectors of the urban system. Numbers of employees reflect
numbers of persons, and therefore, levels of non-basic demand
for the goods and services produced in the private component
of the urban economy. Additionally, employment translated
into households and consequently population, provides a measure
of the demand for public sector goods and services within the
urban area. Finally, knowledge of employment and hence cornmut-
ing patterns allows interferences regarding the spatial linkages
which join home and workplaces within the region.
There are two primary sources of employment data for the
Boston metropolitan region. The first is published by the
Bureau of the Census (U.S.) and is called County Business
Patterns . Issued annually, these employment data relate to
wage and salary employment covered by Social Security. Esti-
mates relate to the mid-March payroll, excluding government,
railroad and some farm and household workers. Because these
data are provided at the county level, they permit the dis-
aggregation of the SMSA (Standard Metropolitan Statistical
Area) employment estimates of the monthly reports of the
Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) for all SMSA’s outside New
England. Within New England, however, SMSA’s are composed
not of whole counties, but of portions thereof.
The second major employment data source is the publica-
tion of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics called ‘Einploy-
xnent and Earnings”. The monthly reports of the BLS provide
estimates of State and metropolitan area employment, summed
to annual averages in the May report of the subsequent year.
The metropolitan area data relate to SMSA’s for one- and some
two-digit SIC categories including government. These reports
also exclude the self-employed.
b. Employment Trends in the Boston Metropolitan Region
The MDC region, unfortunately, is not coterminous with
either the SMSA or county boundaries. Consequently, the
data which follow relate to a three-county region within
which all but three of the 51 MSD communities are contained.
The three which are excluded are Lynnfield in Essex County,
Southborough in Worcester County, and Hingham in Plymouth
County. The three counties included are Suffolk, Middlesex,
and Norfolk. All of Suffolk, one-third of Middlesex and two-
thirds of Norfolk (by area) are actually within the MSD region.
A— 114

-------
Nevertheless, the MSD contains by far the most densely
developed portions of the metropolitan region. Thus, while
our figures will exceed those of the MSD, they will be fairly
representative of the regional economic structure and its
evolution since 1968. Comparable figures for SMSA employment
in government are also relied upon. The SMSA contains 48 of
the 51 MSD communities plus 30 which are not within the MSD.
Table A 2.10-4 summarizes the evolution of each of the
six counties in which all of the 51 MSD communities are
contained, for the period 1959-73. Suffolk and Middlesex
Counties are the largest of the six, with the latter achieving
numerical superiority by 1973. Suffolk County, which contains
the City of Boston, has experienced a steady decline in manu-
facturing since 1959, and an even more rapid increase in these
same years in the service sector. Mining and agriculture
aside, Suffolk County is now disproportionately oriented
toward the service-type industries including “transportation
and public utilities”, “trade”, “finance, insurance and real
estate” and the other “services”, which amount to 78% of
all employment within the County. Surprisingly, Middlesex
County has by far the largest concentration of manufacturing
activity of any of the six counties, with 40% of its employ-
ment devoted to manufacturing and construction. In turn,
mining and agriculture are exceedingly small components of
the regional base.
Aggregate metropolitan employment trends for the period
1959-75, are presented in Table A 2.10-5. Also indicated are
the percentage contributions of each employment sector to
total employment in 1975, and change rates in six and five
year intervals since 1959. Since 1959, only mining, construc-
tion, manufacturing, and transportation and utilities have
not experienced steady positive growth in every recorded
interval of years. Manufacturing has lapsed into a significant
down-trend since 1970, which more than any other single factor
accounts for the slowing rate of positive growth for the region
as a whole. Transportation and utilities likewise experienced
a significant loss during 1970—75 (-9%). This loss followed
a 19% gain in the sector during 1965-70 which may have repre-
sented a momentary over—extension of the activity. Since
1959, the major gains have been reported in trade (wholesale,
and retail), services and government. But in each of these
industries, there occurred an appreciable slowing of growth
during the 1970-75 period. This was perhaps to be expected
in light of prior growth rates, several periods of moderate
national recession and the apparent decline in the Northeast’s
competitive advantage relative to other regions of the nation.
By 1975, the regional economy, as shown in Table A 2.10-5,
devoted about 25% of its employment to manufacturing and con-
struction. Retail trade (16%), services (21.6%) and government
(15.3%) were the largest industrial sectors aside from manu-
facturing. What this means in relation to the future of the
A— 115

-------
Table A2.10—4
Regional out y 6m 1le,ymcnt. Trends 1959—1973
(Thouudnds ot W i .t . ’ , nd Salary Workers)
‘Iotal
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Transportation
and Utilities
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Finance, Insurance
and Real Estate
Services
Agriculture
13. Middlesex County
1959 1965 1970
1973
317.6
364.8
453.0
465.2
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.5
12.6
17.1
19.8
22.6
156.3
152.6
175.2
166.1
14.9
17.9
20,8
23.0
16.9
21.5
28.6
29.2
53.5
65.2
84,7
91,3
9.6
12.0
15.3
17.1
52,4
76.5
106.3
113.1
0.6
1.0
1.0
1.0
E, Suffolk County
1959
1965
1970
1973
C.
Norfolk
County
1959
1965
1970
1973
100.8
0.1
5.4
47.8
122.9
0.2
6,9
50.1
155.1
0.2
8.5
54.3
159.7
0.3
9.6
44.4
4.0
4.3
21.4
4.3
4.3
7.3
31.0
5.5
5,9
11.0
41.1
6.8
7.6
12.4
45.7
7.4
12.8
0.3
17.0
0.3
26.4
0.5
31.2
0.5
F.
Worcester County
1959
1965
1970
1973
Total
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Transportation
and Utilities
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Finance, Insurance
and Real Estate
Services
Agriculture
45.3 51.3 63.0 68.1
0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0
1.8 2.4 3.4 3,7
21.5 19.7 19.4 17.8
3.0 3.7 4.1 4.8
1.9 2.5 2.7 2.9
9.9 13.5 19.1 22.4
1.8 2.2 2.9 3.1
5.0 7.0 11.0 12.6
0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2
40.3 47.7 43.0
39.0 40.4 36.6
68.8 70.8 66.7
58.1 70.6 68.3
99.8 131.0 137.6
1.0 0.8 0.7
7.9 7.8 9.7 9.8
7.0 8.0 9.1 9.6
25.3 30.1. 34,4 39.7
7.2 8.5 9.7
17.7 23.5 31.7
0.1 0.3 0.3
Source. U.S. 8ureau of the Census, County Business Patterns , 1959—73, Massachusetts Reports, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C., 1960-74. These figures exclude the self-employed and government and railroad employees. Agricultural
employment is underestimated, consequently. These data are for the mid—March payroll.
19 9
A.
Essex Cow1tj
1965 1970
-
1973
156.7
0,1
4.3
90.3
166.3
0.1
5.2
85.7
190.0
0.1
5.9
93.1
189.5
0.1.
7.3
81.9
5.1
4.9
29.2
5.0
6.1
6.9
33.0
5.9
6.7
7.3
40.0
7.0
8.2
7.8
42,2
7.5
16.5
1,1
22.0
1.2
28.8
0.8
33.0
1.0
1959
0.
Plymouth
1965
Cuu . _
1970
1973
411.2
0.1
16.9
86.6
467.0
0.2
20.4
84.2
450.9
0.2
21.2
75.9
403.3
0.5
13.8
93.6
45.5
43.9
69.5
53.5
81.1
1.3
169.9
0,1
4.7
99.6
184.7
0.1.
6.7
99,5
200.6
0,1
6.9
98,2
207.4
0,1.
7.4
93 • 7
10,6
35.7
0.4

-------
Table A2.105
Aggregate Metropolitan *Employment Trends
1959 — 1975
(Thousands of Wage and Salary Workers)
Percent of
Total Percent Change
1959 1965 1970 1975 1975 1959—65 1965—70 1970—75
Total 1 955.6 1059.8 1249.6 1255.7 100.0 +10.9 +17.9 +4.9
Mining 0.9 0.8 0.9 1.0 0.1 —11.1 +12.5 +10.0
Construction 31.8 40.9 48.7 47.5 3.8 +28.6 +19.1 —2.5
Manufacturing 297.7 289.3 313.7 292.7 23.3 —2.8 +8.4 -.6.7
Transportation
and Utilities 64.4 62.5 74.4 67.7 5.4 —3.0 +19.0 —9.0
Wholesale Trade 65.1 67.8 80.0 81.8 6.5 +4.1 +18.0 +2.2
Retail Trade 144.4 165.0 196.6 200.9 16.0 +14.3 +19.2 +2.2
Finance 1 Insur—
ance, Real Estate 67.4 75.6 92.7 98.1 7.8 +12.2 +22.6 +5.8
-J Services 146.3 193.3 263.7 271.6 21.6 +32.1 +36.4 +3.0
Agriculture 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 0.2 +4.3 0.0 0.0
Government 2
(SMSA)*** 135.4 162.3 176.6 192.1 15.3 +19.9 +8.8 +8.8
*These data combine the three counties within which the MDC municipalities are concentrated: Middlesex, Norfolk and
Suffolk.
**Agriculture is updated to 197.5 by extrapolation.
***Government employment is not available for counties. The SMSA, furthermore, was redefined during the period. It is
not coterminous with the four-county region.
Source: 1. All but government employment is based on County Business Patterns , 1959-73, updated to 1975 using BLS
growth rates.
2. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Employment and Earnings”, 1959—75, U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.C., 1960-76.

-------
regional economy can be only generally surmised. It is likely
the manufacturing employment will continue to decline along
with the contribution this sector makes to the regional
economic base. Services, trade and government may be expected
to continue to experience limited employment gains, but these
will probably be tempered by the status of Boston relative to
Massachusetts and, more importantly, the Nation.
State and National employment trends for time intervals
comparable to those in Table A 2.10-5 are presented in Table A
2.10-6. During 1959—75, Massachusetts as a whole experienced
steady gains in all sectors but manufacturing, construction
and transportation and public utilities. Declines in those
sectors roughly paralleled those for the Boston region, those
manufacturing lost at an appreciably more rapid rate during
1970-75 at the State level (-11.5%) than at the metropolitan
level (6.7%). Gains in the service and service—related
sectors did significantly better during 1970-75 in the State
than in the metropolitan region. Nationally, as shown in
this same table, manufacturing and construction losses during
1970-75 nearly matched those for the Boston region. At the
same time, service and service—related national employment
categories grew at a much faster pace than those of the
metropolitan region. The latter disparity between national
and metropolitan rates indicates at least a momentary
inability of the Boston region to gain its national share
of these vital growth industries. Since much of the period’s
growth in these sectors occurred through increases in employ-
ment in existing facilities outside the Northeast rather than
through new facility construction.
c. Sub—Regional Employment Forecasts for the Boston Region
More detailed employment counts and forecasts have been
performed for the Boston region. The first of these were
undertaken by Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., in the EMMA Study,
1975. The projections utilize the EMPIRIC Model which is
elsewhere described in this report. The Model produced pro-
jections of population, land use and employment to the year
2050. Three major employment categories are addressed:
manufacturing (“dry”, “wet” and “very wet”), non-manufacturing,
and commercial employment. High and low projections are
provided for each of the EMMA communities. The MSD communities
are therefore totally covered by these projections.
A second source of sub—regional projections is the
Central Transportation Planning Staff (CTPS) whose forecasts
are dated August, 1976. These projections cover all of the
MDC communities and many others within the region. Forecasts
are provided for each of eleven employment sectors in five-
year intervals to the year 2000. These projections differ
appreciably from those of the EMMA Study.
A— 118

-------
Table A2.1O-6
State and National Reploynent Trends: 1959—75
(Thousands of Wage and Salary Workers)
Percent Change
1959 1965 1970 1975 1959-65 1965—70 1970-75
A. Massachusetts
Total 1713.9 1902.2 2237.4 2787.8 +11.0 +17.6 +2.3
Mining 1.5 1.4 1.4 2.0 —6.7 0.0 +42.9
Construction 55.8 69.2 83.5 66.0 +24.0 +20.7 —21.0
Manufacturing 685.4 666.6 699.4 619.1 —2.7 +4.9 —11.5
Transportation
and Utilities 95.5 95.9 113.2 108.3 +0.4 +18.0 —4.3
Wholesale Trade 95.6 103.8 119.2 120.5 +8.6 +14.8 +1.1
Retail Trade 264.6 305.6 370.3 399.7 +15.5 +21.2 +7.9
Finance, Insurance
and Real Estate 96.2 108.8 132.2 140.6 +13.1 +21.5 +6.4
Services 224.5 296.6 404.6 458.4 +32.1 +36.4 +13.3
Agriculture 5.5 6.0 6.3 7.1) +9.1 +5.0 +11.1
Government 189.3 248.3 307.3 366.2 +31.2 23.8 +19.2
B. United States 2
Dl Total 57,569 64,454 74,544 80,289 +12.0 +15.7 +7.7
Mining 732 632 623 745 —13.7 —1.4 +19.6
Construction 2,960 3,186 3,536 3,457 +7.6 +11.0 —2.2
.O Manufacturing 16,675 18,026 19,349 18,347 +8.1 +7.3 —5.2
Transportation
and Utilities 4,011 4,036 4,504 4,498 +0.6 +11.6 —0.1
Wholesale Trade 2,946 3,312 3,816 4,177 +12.4 +15.2 +9.5
Retail Trade 8,182 9,404 11,225 12,771 +14.9 +19.4 +13.8
Finance, Insurance
and Real Estate 2,594 3,023 3,687 4,223 +16,5 +22.0 +14.5
Services 7,130 9,087 11,621 13,995 +27.4 +27.9 +20,4
Agriculture 4,256 3,674 3,622 3,303 —1.4 —8.8
Government 8,083 10,074 12,561 14,773 +24,6 +24,7 +17.6
Source: 1) The state figures for all non—government employment are derived from County Business Patterns , updated to 1975 using BLS growth
rates. Government employment is based on BLS, ‘Employment and Earnings’, annual averages.
2) Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Employment and Earnings.

-------
Both sets of projections will be examined in more
detail in a later component of this report. At that time
explicit comparisons of these sub—regional forecasts will
be undertaken.
A—120

-------
Appendix 2.10-3 Land Use Analysis
a. Land Use Inventory
The overall pattern of land usage within the Boston
metropolitan region is a familiar one. Lands within the
central portions of the region are most intensely utilized
in relation to each of the major categories of urban acti-
vity. In these areas also, the diversity of land usage per
unit space is also greater than it is in peripheral regions,
and vacant land is in shortest supply. In the core areas,
functional change occurs through the redevelopment of already
used lands, and the succession of activities undertaken within
existing structures. Toward the edge of the metropolitan
region, development, is generally less intensive. On the
metropolitan periphery employment and residential densities
are far less than those of the central portions of the region,
reflecting the circular geometry of urban dispersion about
its central core. With increaseing distance from the urban
center, land becomes less and less expensive. No peripheral
site offers the level of accessibility which the central city
provides. Both businesses and households can purchase more
land (space) per unit investment on the periphery than in the
central areas of the region. In summary the general pattern
of the region depends upon the rate at which peripheral
lands become accessible and the correspondence between this
rate of increase in useable peripheral space and the growth
curve of space demand within the region as a whole.
Table A 2.10-7 presents in tabular form the land use
geography of the Boston region. The table indicates residen-
tial, non—residential and vacant acreages for each of the 51
MDC communities. These commun ities, furthermore, are grouped
into geographic sub—areas identical to those utilized in the
analysis of transportation corridors in the EMMA Study.
These data were produced by the MAPC using the estimates of
the.1971 county-based remote sensing project and therefore
refer to actual rather than zoned development patterns. Each
of these three major land use categories is further divided
into three or four sub-classes. Residential land is parti-
tioned into four density groups. Non—residential uses include
commercial, industrial and agricultural. These are the major
employment-oriented lands. Net population density can be
determined by dividing each community’s population by its
total residential acreage combining all four residential
sub—classes. In a similar manner, net commercial, industrial
and agricultural densities can be established by dividing
their respective employment levels by the acreages devoted
to each. These estimated densities will generally approximate
the short-run future densities at which these activities will
occupy community space. Using this procedure it will be
possible to update the community land use inventory to the
current time. Further development capacities in each
community can also be determined using density trends
A—l2l

-------
Table A2.l0-7
Land Use Wlthth 3ho M1X (51 (‘ ‘nvnunity) Service Reqion
( Ares — 1971)
- Non-Residential Land _______
Agriculture
(Crop
! R 3 R-4 Commercial Industrial Pasture )
A. Core Area
Reui ,ienttal Land
Vacant Land
95
722
45
173
95
7
4
1 • 141
11
225
7
715
69
11
8
1,046
304
169
88
38
467
126
309
1,501
Open Space
Inland
(Traneitional)
Fc,reat
Wetland
Boston
11,953
131
364
49
3,416
1,247
144
1,353
2,262
247
Brookline
1,0L2
968
318
308
354
——
51
40
567
——
Cambridge
1,353
437
——
——
739
388
11
117
108
46
Chelsea
585
4
——
——
210
275
——
183
‘
Everett
973
26
--
—-
133
506
—-
62
8
4
Somerville
1,577
7
-—
——
208
284
——
22
7
Total (Core Area)
17,503
1,573
682
377
5,060
2,700
206
1,777
2,950
297
B. Southeastern Area
>
I
1-’

Braintree
Hinqhan
Holbrook
Milton
puincy
Randoif
1,594
94
75
1,019
3,386
305
1,214
2,417
1,000
1,266
219
2,185
431
134
63
27
500
145
59
471
89
196
-—
66
428
170
204
262
565
357
3,467
8,501
2,868
3,845
3,586
2,474
238
254
37
59
66
156
Weymouth
2,763
1,589
121
98
310
4,219
132
Total (Southeastern Area)
9,263
9,890
1,421
979
2,296
28,960
942
C. Southwestern Area
Canton
69
1,646
267
671
544
6,126
634
Dedham
1,308
714
208
45
133
2,761
480
Norwood
Sharon
846
25
1.418
1,636
343
40
117
506
375
712
2,101
10,262
310
216
Stoughton
Walpole
79
124
2,636
1,544
183
230
404
708
328
909
5,674
7,566
223
242
Westwood
290
835
196
226
358
3,705
91
Total (Southwestern Area)
2,741
10,429
1,567
2,677
3,359
38,195
2,196
0. Western Area
Ashland
72
977
176
22
112
104
426
162
5,387
68
Dover
——
——
934
948
——
——
576
624
6,416
174
Framinqham
840
3,868
446
164
756
347
1,008
679
6,138
212
Hopkinton (Unavailable)
—-
--
——
-—
—-
——
“
Natick
306
2,055
350
158
379
245
556
451
3,966
184
Needhdm
599
2,293
301
268
91
287
173
199
2,864
349
Newton
2,554
4,070
220
14
361
262
64
117
1,461
124
Sherborn
—-
--
493
367
113
133
1,134
587
6,820
364
Southborough
54
094
119
79
151
22
1,052
339
5,489
298
Waltham
1,497
1,071
43
46
505
884
274
263
2,411
239
507
164
150
563
115
942
718
3,159
157
119
11
40
90
3,2
249
728
98
264
278
25
176
56
34
931

-------
Table A2.l0—7 (cont.)
Land Use Within the ML 5 (51 Commur.ity) Service Region
(Acres — 1971)
Residential Land Non-Residential Land — Vacant Land
Agriculture
(Crop Open Space Inland
P—i R—2 R—3 R—4 Commercial Industrial & Pasture) ( Transitional) Forest Wetland
ID. Western Area (Cont’d )
Watertown 47 1,330 47 —— 173 344 39 28 92 4
Wellesley 140 2,784 481 129 140 91 61 83 1.508 93
Weston —— 61 1,235 1,647 18 4 487 278 5,672 311
Total (Western Area) 5 6,109 19,403 4,845 3,842 2,704 2,608 5,850 3,810 48,224 2,420
t. Northwestern Area
Arlington 1,722 731 7 -- 198 40 8 44 191 26
Bedford 18 653 1,169 96 22 453 461 354 3,910 638
‘ Belmont 736 795 154 25 50 49 39 88 490 46
Lexington 234 2,548 1,525 50 147 267 477 460 3,153 785
Lincoln 113 4 757 1,148 19 8 968 475 4,961 264
( . ,.) Total (Northwestern Area) 2,823 4,731 3,612 1,319 436 817 1,953 1,421 12,705 1,759
F. Northern Area
Burlington 52 2,498 272 —— 273 410 175 531 2,638 126
Ma Iden 1,741 70 —— —— 295 144 — — 85 440 ——
Redford 2,167 135 — —— 260 157 245 1,485 19
Meirose 1,343 373 7 — 120 33 —— 28 789 7
Reading 39 1,955 249 29 94 90 62 148 3,033 151
Stoneham 291 1,051 —— 4 122 59 74 143 1,667 55
Wakefield 462 1,711 16 34 132 174 45 148 1,443 170
Wilmington —— 1,822 1,046 185 167 501 78 697 5,176 397
Winchester 283 1,464 257 —— 56 78 34 90 1,233 37
Woburn 321 2,555 85 —— 188 420 358 763 2,386 302
Total (Northern Area) 6,699 13,634 1,932 252 1,707 2,066 826 2,878 20,290 1,264
G. Northeastern Area
Lynr fie1d 185 1,142 645 37 71 15 104 364 3,019 445
Revere 1,632 121 4 —— 208 133 15 272 181 31
Winthrop 631 —-- —- —— 71 4 —- 46 — — 4
Total (Northeastern Area) 2,448 1,263 649 37 350 152 119 682 3,200 480
Metropolitan District Commission
(51 Communities—All Areas)
REGIONAL TOTAL 47,586 60,923 16,020 7,601 12,689 11,331 12,610 16,223 154,524 9,358
5 Total exclude - Hopkinton

-------
Table A2.lO—7 (cont.)
Land Use Within the MDC
(51 Conmiunity) Service
Region (Acres — 1971 )
Source: The figures are extracted from an MAPC tabulation
which, in turn, was derived from William P. MacConnell
et al., Remote Sensing 20 Years of Change (Middlesex,
Essex, Suffolk, and Norfolk Counties) (Amherst, MA:
Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station, University
of Massachusetts, 1974). Bulletins 98, 622, and 624.
A—i 24

-------
extrapolated to future intervals of time within which furthur
development is expected to occur. Of course, each community
can regulate through zoning the amount of total land to be
devoted to each land use category. The maximum land devoted
to future development, however, is naturally constrained by
the total supply of vacant land. Table A 2.10-7 divides
vacant land into three sub-classes. Of these, “transitional
open space” would be prime development land, whereas forest
land would perhaps be the next candidate, and “inland wetland”
would be least desirable. The categories presented in this
table are not exhaustive, however, they do account for the
bulk of all land in each area which is accounted.
The relative proportions of land uses within single
communities appear to vary considerably. This is not sur—
prising. Less central or accessible areas will tend to have
fewer acres devoted to commercial and some other industrial
classes. In turn, these more remote areas will tend to
contain larger residential and open space components. Excep-
tions are those peripheral areas whose accessibility is
heightened due to proximity to the major radial and circum-
ferential transportation corridors which web the area.
The fractional growth rates of the land use categories
within individual communities also appear to vary systemati-
cally. Generally, areas whose accessiblity is increasing
due to transportation development and the development of
proximate lands relative to which access is sought by new
users of land. will grow more rapidly than those areas which
are not so tavored. Of course, heightened accessibility can
only stimulate new development within a community when that
community has the necessary available space. Space or land,
however, is not a homogeneous commodity. Its characteristics
vary considerably in relation t o surface and sub-surface
conditions. Highly sloped, wet and unstable lands will
generally be most costly to develop, whereas level, dry,
stable lands will be least expensive to prepare for develop-
ment. Individual land use categories, furthermore, will have
unique site requirements which are relatively similar. It is
the situational (relative location) requirements which most
distinguish the locational choices of diverse users subject
to availability and cost. Central locations are fewest in
number and their scarcity increases the cost of sites within
them. Less central locations are more numerous and therefore
less expensive to occupy per unit of space consumed.
The total supply of transitional open space and forest
lands is quite large within all sub-areas of the Boston region,
and within most of the communities within the area, as shown in
Table A 2.10-7. Additional space for future development also
exists on agricultural crop and pasture lands. The existence
of these open or less intensely developed lands is nota
guarantee of their availability to developers. Communities
A— 125

-------
seeking to contain or slow development can exercise many
alternative strategies including zoning to deny developers
legal access to these lands. The withholding of government
supported site improvements including transportation and
community facilities, utilities and other services can
effectively preserve these lands while maintaining the
agricultural, extractive and recreational functions they
currently provide. Nevertheless, a community blessed with
an abundance of open space will normally be under consider-
able pressure to permit some development if the area is
accessible to places of work, commerce and residence.
Against these pressures no— and low-growth policies will
be difficult to enforce.
Consequently, the development potential of each com-
munity is dependent upon the site and situational character-
istics of its open land and willingness of the community to
allow these lands to become developed. Recently an effort
was undertaken to document and monitor land use conversions
within the Boston metropolitan region in the Dartmouth
College Project in Remote Sensing. The availability of
high altitude imagery, corroborated by public records and
augmented by the regional monitoring of local land use plans
will be essential if the Boston metropolitan region as a
whole is to plan effectively in the years ahead.
b. Land Use Patterns in the MDC Area
This analysis will summarize land use planning in the
subregions of the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC)
area. Also, there will be a discussion of significant county
or state involvement at variance with the municipal plans
that may exist. The primary source for this was the Regional
Report on Growth Policy published by the Metropolitan Area
Planning Council.
The MDC area is divided into six subregions and consists
of the following communities:
Inner 128 Subregion
Core Communities Inner Suburbs Outer Suburbs
Boston Winthrop Woburn
Chelsea Revere Burlington
Everett Malden Lexington
Somerville Melrose Waltham
Cambridge Steneham Dedham
Brookline Medford
Winchester
Ar 1 ing ton
Belmont
Watertown
Newton
Milton
Quincy
A— 126

-------
Northwest Subregion North Shore Subregion
Bedford Lynnfield
Lincoln Reading
Wakefield
Wilmington
South Shore Subregion
Braintree
Hingham
Holbrook
Randolph
Weymou th
Southwest Subregion Western Subregion
Canton Ashland
Dover Framingham
Needham Hopkinton
Norwood Natick
Sharon Sherborn
Stoughton Southborough
Walpole Wellesley
Westwood Weston
The land use plans and policies of each subregion will be
overviewed separately.
Inner 128 Subregion
There are 24 communities included in the Inner 128
Subregion. It is traversed by seven radial routes from the
Central City of Boston. A substantial portion of the sub—
region is served by some form of public transportation. This
subregion includes most of the largest communities in the MDC
area as well as the most densely populated. It also includes
the poorest communities. Conversely, it includes some of the
smaller communities and some of relatively low density. It
also includes a number of middle income and affluent communi-
ties. Additionally, the Inner 128 subregion includes the
majority of jobs in the metropolitan Boston region.
In general a greater emphasis on mass transit is desired.
To this end, the communities desire that there be improvements
in public transit and services, updated rail service, better
transit connections between suburbs, as well as connections
with the core area, and better coordination of bus and train
schedules. Additional transportation improvements include:
improvement of traffic patterns, minimization of through
traffic on local streets, improvement in parking, and increased
funds for road improvements and highway beautification.
A— 127

-------
The core communities have as a major goal a decreased
dependence on the property tax as a source of revenue, as
well as an expansion of the tax base and more jobs for their
residents. Additional goals include: revitalization of
CBD, more light industry, development of underutilized land,
and increase of diversified employment.
The inner suburbs are planning for the improvement and
revitalization of their commercial centers, and providing
incentives for light industry/commercial/office.
In general, the outer and lower density suburbs desire
more emphasis on residential use rather than industrial/com-
mercial and would like to improve their shopping areas and
increase their attractiveness.
The core communities are considering ways in which
deterioration and blight can be dealt with effectively.
And, they are concerned with the stabilization of neighbor-
hoods, upgrading neighborhoods and improving their housing
stock.
The goal of the inner suburbs is to remain as high
quality residential communities, with an emphasis on main-
taining existing stock. Additionally, they plan to increase
rehab activities, urban renewal, and aesthetics.
The major policies in the outer suburbs surrounds a
desire to control growth and placing a greater emphasis on
the qualitative aspects of housing.
Many of the communities outlined similar goals with
respect to natural resources. The need for the preservation
of open space, and recreational areas were often cited.
The primary goal of the communities is to preserve their
character and limit or control the changes that are likely
to occur to the advantage of the present residents. The com-
munities are opposed to state mandated and unfunded programs
and many would like less state spending, as well as state
tax reform and changes.
Northwest Subregion
The Northwest Subregion contains 2 towns with a total
1975 population of 17,165. Major highways in these communi-
ties include Interstate 95 and Route 2, but development in
this area has been greatly influenced by Route 128 on the
south and by Route 1-95 on the north. Regularly scheduled
commuter rail service to Boston is available at the station
in Lincoln.
The major transportation goals of these towns include:
A—l28

-------
the initiation and support of local public transportation,
principally a bus system to serve local residents; a more
aggressive approach on the part of town governments with
respect to state/local programs, including the implementation
of existing studies and plans; the improvement of interior
circulation systems to ease the burden of traffic on certain
local streets; and, the avoidance of new major roads through
communities.
There are four primary proposed local actions in the
northwest subregion. One is to broaden and diversify the
local economic base. There will be efforts to seek out
industry to satisfy local employment needs. Additionally,
there are plans to broaden and diversify the tax base with
limited industrial development. And finally, there are plans
to stabilize the tax rate.
Among the major objectives of these two towns with
regard to housing is to provide housing for low and moderate
income families and elderly people through zoning modifica—
tions, tax abatements and incentives. In conjunction with
this, efforts will be made to find funding for the construc—
tion of low and moderate income housing.
The two major goals with respect to the natural environ-
ment of the Northwest Subregion are: 1) continue acquisition
of conservation and recreational land for “land bank”,
protection of critical resources, community identity, moder-
ation of growth, and recreation; and 2) more stringent con-
trols to protect vital resources, such as wetland and flood
plains.
Generally, the proposed policies concerning government
issues involve improved local/state relationships and improv-
ing the overall quality of local government.
North Shore Subregion
Similar to most communities in r4etropolitan Boston, the
communities of the North Shore Subregion were originally
agricultural settlements, and can be generally classified as
suburban. Housing patterns in the North Shore are consistent
with other suburban areas: predominantly single family-
detached structures. The area has its own centers of activity,
but is oriented towards Boston for many services and employment
opportunities. Residents tend to be commuters, and proportion-
ately few residents work in the town in which they reside.
In the future these communities propose more of a mix
in transportation opportunities than presently exists. In
specific terms, this means more public transportation via bus
and fixed rail. In terms of the automobile, all communities
propose to improve their road network.
A— 129

-------
The desired future relative to the economy varies
depending on the type of community. The suburban/rural
communities would welcome controlled commercial development,
while the cities hope for significantly more non-residential
development. The North Shore Subregion communities are
planning for increased employment opportunities, but to serve
local needs only.
The suburban communities stressed the value of more
single family homes in their plans, and the protection of
existing property values. Growth in housing is a part of
all communities’ proposals, but it is growth under controlled
conditions that would result in a low to moderate growth in
residential development.
The communities are prepared to spend local public
funds for future open space acquisitions and plan for the
orderly expansion of open space systems. Open space is
seen as necessary for protecting community character as
well as providing residents with recreation opportunities.
Governmental policy in the North Shore Subregion includes:
more local control; state aid to cities and towns for a variety
of public service and public facility-related issues; and
examination of county government to determine if it should be
reformed or abolished.
South Shore Subregion
The South Shore Subregion consists of five communities
located in the southeastern portion of the MDC area. The
subregion is a rapidly growing, relatively affluent group
of communities which, over the past 25 years, has witnessed
intensive suburban development. The proximity of the coin-
munities to Route 3 and Route 24 has contributed to making
the region a desirable residential setting, affording home
ownership and easy access to regional employment and cultural
centers. The total population of the region is 154,175 and
the area density is roughly 1000 persons per square mile.
The development of an alternative to the highway system
is a key to the desired future. Increasing traffic congesting
provides the basis for the need for some form of public trans-
portation. Also, a major transportation goal involves the
reduction of internal traffic congestion problems while
maintaining roadside scenic qualities. The communities believe
that the transportation factor should be made a positive growth
force, instead of continuing to exacerbate existing traffic
problems.
In the future, the South Shore communities are planning
for more emphasis on achieving a good balance or mix in the
communities’ economic bases, so that good tax bases can be
maintained. They also have the objective of a well planned
A—130

-------
growth resulting in light industrial development and a
stabilized property tax.
The major goals and objectives for housing in the South
Shore Subregion include: an increased choice of housing types
and social diversity; a variety of housing choices for persons
of all ages, races and creeds; and stabilization of the cost
of living.
The maintenance of a high level of environmental quality
is a goal expressed in the majority of the growth policy
statements of the communities of this area. Specifically,
the communities’ policies and plans for the future are: pre-
servation of open space for aesthetic and recreational purposes
and to ensure room for future growth; well planned growth result-
ing in the preservation of natural resources and maintenance of
towns’ rural and historic character; protection of existing and
future water supplies; and development of a policy for providing
cleanup of existing septic tank pollution.
Policies with respect to government issues in the South
Shore Subregion include: establishment of a cost conscious
and effective governmental operation with emphasis on local
control of decisions for internal and regional projects;
strengthening of local autonomy and continuation of town
meeting form of government; investigation of regional solu-
tions to problems shared by communities; and provisions for
financial assistance to implement state mandated programs.
Southwest Subregion
The Southwest Subregion contains eight towns, and a 1970
population of over 148,600. Communities in the Southwest
hope to maintain the status quo and make marginal improvements
in their conditions. These communities are still relatively
undeveloped for the Boston area. The subregion was originally
settled as clusters of small manufacturing centers surrounded
by farms. Since the development of the current highway system
(Routes 128 and 24, 1—94) it has for the most part, received
much more residential development than industrial development.
Consequently, it is one of the fastest growing sections in
the Boston metropolitan area.
The towns of Canton, Dover, Needham and Westwood express
a concern for improvement in public transportation. Commuter
rail appears to be the most popular form of public transpor—
tation in this area. Dover envisions that “helicopters will
take the place of car pools and a convenient port for these
to land will be provided.” The town of Westwood, on the other
hand, would like to see a slowdown in Norwood Airport expan-
sion.
A—13l

-------
Generally the towns in the Southwest would like to
attract more industrial and commercial development in order
to broaden their tax base. In addition, there are plans to
find relief for local property taxes, with the expansion of
industrial bases just enough to offset residential growth
and the rising costs of services.
The policies of most of the towns in the Southwest
Subregion desire very limited residential growth of select
types. The towns of Canton and Dover explicity state a desire
to expand housing opportunities for lower income households.
Common to all growth policy statements are the towns’ desires
to be able to effectively plan and pre-determine the amount,
location, and type of future residential development in their
boundaries.
A major goal of all towns is to expand the amount of
open space and increase natural recreational opportunities.
The towns of Canton, Dover, Sharon, and Stoughton are especially
concerned with improving the quality of natural water bodies.
Throughout their local growth policy statements, the
towns express concern about the effectiveness of their
zoning powers. The smaller, less-developed towns would like
to be able to legislate the rate of growth or at least
utilize more restrictive growth mechanisms. Other towns
want to apply more imaginative zoning regulations in order
to produce a better managed development pattern.
Western Subregion
The western subregion consists of eight towns lying due
west of Boston bewteen the two major circumferential highways,
Route 128 and Route 495. The Massachusetts Turnpike runs
east-west through the center of the subregion. Fraxninghaxn,
the largest town in the state, is a subregional urban and
economic center. The growth of the subregion has been
shaped to a great extent by its regional highways. The inner
towns have gone through a growth cycle, and their rate of
growth is now slow. The rest of the subregion is still
experiencing populations growth, particularly near Route 495.
The primary goals with respect to transportation in the
Western Subregion are for less through traffic and traffic
congestion on town roads, and improved public transportation.
Additionally, the policy of some communities involve limiting
further highway development, improving town roads, and retain-
ing freight railroad service.
Most of the towns would like little or no change in the
local pattern of business and industry. Some inner towns
A—132

-------
want no more industrial development, while some outer towns
want more industrial development. Framingham and Natick
would like to see further development and revitalization of
their downtown business districts. Also, most towns want
relief from the property tax burden.
A very slow rate of residential growth is a primary
objective of most of the communities in the Western Subregion.
Some want only single family homes built on large lots.
Several want to provide for cluster zoning, apartment construc-
tion and other means of promoting a diverse population mix.
The preservation and enhancement of natural resources is
a primary object of the communities of this subrecion.
Specifically, the preservation of natural land through purchase
if possible, by the town or the state. The towns also want
to see their water resources and wetlands cleaned up and
preserved.
The towns of the subregion wish to maintain their local
autonomy and their town meeting form of government. Some
would like more state aid, both financial and technical.
And, they would like more cooperation on a voluntary basis
on regional issues s’Jch as schools, solid waste disposal,
and traffic congestion and control.
c. Local and Other Area Policy Conflicts
A major intergovernmental conflict with respect to
transportation plans is that state funding in not unlimited.
The outlying, more affluent and less densely populated areas
cannot and should not expect priority treatment. In the
inner 128 Subregion, conflicts arise in regard to the
possible expansion of Logan Airport and transportation problems
related to a regional facility for resource recovery. Bedford
and Lincoln in the Northwest Subregion are opposed to commer-
cial flights at Hanscom Field; and Lincoln is opposed to
present state plans to improve Route 2. The policies in the
North Shore Subregion region conflict with those of the state
for highway construction.
Probably the most conflicts between communities and
other areas arise over economic plans and policies. In the
absence of a successful tax reform effort by state government,
continued competition among local governments for scarce new
industrial development will continue. Outlying areas will
capture the major portion of this and accompanying residential
growth, despite stated desires and efforts to limit such
development on the part of state and regional entities. In
the North Shore Subregion, the communities are impacted by
shopping centers in nearby areas, but are not benefitting
A—133

-------
from taxes generated by these developments. Additionally,
their real estate market is inflated by the growth rate of
surrounding communities. Additionally, Sharon in the South-
west Subregion attempted to discourage shopping center
development in order to maintain an active central business
area, but this goal was weakened by the development of
major shopping areas right outside its boundaries. Needham
also experienced similar frustrations in their efforts to
maintain their central business area. The town of Stoughton,
However, represents the opposite type of situation. Their
zoning and land use regulations were designed to permit a
mix of development to occur. Yet, because of the more restric-
tive controls in the surrounding areas, Stoughton received a
substantial amount of development, probably in excess of
what it would receive if its liberal regulations were not so
unique.
Virtually every city and town wants to preserve its
existing community character. And most would like slow to
moderate growth, planned for and controlled. However, this
slow to moderate rate of growth desired by virtually all
colmnunities may not be sufficient to meet the region’s need
for new housing, if the result of the desire for slower
growth is increasingly restrictive housing regulations or
application of regulations. The strengthened zoning and
open space preservation desired by many communities may also
conflict in some ways with the provision of new housing.
Another conflict arises with respect to densities, housing
types and prices. A goal of the region calls for a range of
these elements, but not all communities are in agreement
with this policy. And many communities are not receptive to
all age, income and minority groups. Specifically, the towns
in the North Shore Subregion do not want to absorb the popula-
tion of the region.
The views of urban and suburban areas are not really very
different concerning natural resources. The problems may be
viewed somewhat differently but there is a large area of common
ground within which to prepare more detailed implementation
strategies. However, there are some intergovernmental conflicts
in this area. For example, the communities in the North Shore
Subregion have no power to prevent upstream communities from
polluting rivers and streams or air pollution from one commun-
ity affecting surrounding communities. And the state’s environ-
mental laws are not comprehensive enough for these towns.
Most of the communities in the MDC value the tradition of
home rule in the Boston area believing that government on the
local level is the most responsive and accountable to the
people. However, certain functions and services are more
appropriately undertaken on a higher level due to economies
of scale and spillover effects. The state mandated programs
A— 134

-------
which are inadequately funded are a fiscal anathema for
localities. Communities also desire control over local
budgets. State programs, school budget autonomy and collec-
tive bargaining preclude significant stabilization or reduc-
tion of local budgets. For example, communities on the South
Shore are willing to abide by and support state and Federal
programs when they perceive an overriding social objective,
such as environmental protection, but they are against state
programs which largely involve local concerns (such as edu—
cation) and place a burden on the local fiscal structure
without any state financial assistance.
This report has briefly sumn arized land use planning and
policies in the MDC area. Because of the necessary brevity
of the analysis, many specific issues were not detailed.
However, major issues have been presented in five areas:
transportation, the economy, housing, natural environment,
and the government. Additionally, major conflicts between
local plans and policies and other government goals have
been presented.
A— 135

-------
Appendix 2.10-4 Transportation Systems
The following section describes and evaluates the exist-
ing transportation systems in the Eastern Massachusetts
Metropolitan Area (EMMA), and more specifically in the Metro-
politan District Commission (MDC) area. In addition, future
transportation plans will be described and evaluated to
determine any impact they might have on the development of
the area. Included are the major highway networks, the
commuter raillines, the major rapid transit lines, as well
as the major airports and seaports.
a. The Present System
The present and proposed transportation systems in the
Eastern Massachusetts Metropolitan Area display a radial
pattern from the dense Boston Core to the more suburban
outer communities. This system provides access both within
and beyond the MDC and EMMA areas into the larger region.
The major emphasis for future expansion and improvements is
to extend the rapid transit system beyond the core area. In
addition, the major airports and seaports provide access
nationally and internationally for people and goods.
The existing major highway system includes three inter-
state routes, as well as major arterials in the EMMA area.
Route 1-95 (Topsfield to Sharon) and Route 1-93 (North Reading
to Boston) run north-south and link up with the Route 128
circumferential. The Massachusetts Turnpike (Ashland to
Boston) runs west—east and also feeds onto Route 128.
There are five major arterials from outside EMMA which
provide access to and from the MDC area. From the north-west,
Route 1 enters the EMMA area in Hamilton and proceeds along
the coastline to Boston. Route 1 is an extension of 1-95
from Route 128, going through Boston, Brookline and Dedharn
where it again feeds onto Route 128. Route 3 enters the area
in Burlington, crosses Route 128, and proceeds in a northwest-
southwest direction within the MDC area. From Boston south
to Route 128 it is called the Southeast Expressway. Route 2
enters the EMMA area at Concord from the west, feeds Onto
Route 128 in Lexington, and heads in a southeasterly direction
to Boston. Route 24 enters the EMMA area in Holbrook from
the south feeding onto Route 128 in Milton.
As with the highway system, the commuter rail system
provides several alternative routes throughout the study
area and, in many instances, it parallels the highway
system. Essentially there are two major lines of the
commuter rail system originating from the Boston Core,
which branch out into the larger region. The northern
line originates at North Station in Boston and consists of
A.-l36

-------
four major branches. The coastal branch runs from Boston
to Everett through Chelsea and then just west of Route 1 to
Beverly. Here, one line continues to parallel the coast
beyond Manchester, while the other continues northward
through Topsfield. The Reading branch, originating in
Boston, parallels Route 1-93 to the east. The third major
branch leaving North Station parallels Route 1-93 to the
west and passes through Wilmington. This latter branch also
has a branch from Winchester to Woburn. The final branch
which originates at North Station diverges at Alewife with
the northwestern line continuing to Bedford, and the western
line moving through Concord.
There are two major branches to the commuter rail
system which originate from South Station in Boston. The
western branch parallels the Massachusetts Turnpike to Ash-
land and beyond EMMA boundaries. The second branch is more
southernly directed toward Forest Hills. Here one line goes
west to Needham Heights, while the other continues to Read-
yule, Norwood and beyond, and south through Canton and
Sharon.
At present, most of the rapid transit lines are within
the dense Boston Core. Generally, they provide access to
downtown areas. In the MDC area, there are four major rapid
transit lines which are distinguished by color names. The
Blue line, which is the shortest, runs between Bowdoin in
Boston past the Boston-Logan International Airport to
Wonderland in Revere. The present Orange line runs between
Maiden in the north through Boston to Forest Hills. The Red
line, runs between Harvard to North Station and Columbia
where it branches into two subsections, one going to Mattapan;
the other following the eastern coast to Quincy Center in
Quincy. The Green line has four branches, all originating
at Lechmere. At Prudential one branch travels southward to
Forest Hills, while the other three continue on to Kenmore,
where they diverge. The endpoints of these are Boston College
in Newton, Cleveland Circle, and Riverside.
There are presently four publicly owned airports which
are part of the state airport system in the Eastern Massa-
chusetts Metropolitan Area, they are: Boston—Logan, Boston-
Norwood, Boston—Bedford, and Boston-Beverly. In December
1973, the Massachusetts Aeronautics Commission and the
Bureau of Transportation Planning and Development prepared
the ‘ 1 Massachusetts Airport System Plan” which summarized
the need for improvements in the state airport system.
This plan suggests that the Boston-Logan airport will observe
increasing delays in the future, resulting in more expenses
and harships, and that other airports may be required to
accommodate some of the demand. The plan recommends that
A— 137

-------
additional planning take place so that growth and expansion
are orderly. At the present Lime a detailed master plan for
Logan Airport is underway. Also, a study to consider
revisions to the Master Plan for Boston—Bedford airport is in
progress.
There are four major seaports in the MDC area, as well
as a commuter boat line (ferry service). The major seaports
are located in Boston, Beverly, Gloucester, and Salem. The
Massachusetts Bay Lines (ferry service) runs between Boston
arid Hull. The most substantial item of commerce in most
ports are gasoline and petroleum distillate products.
Gloucester is the exception, with the largest item being fish
and fish products.
The various ports have shown different growth rates in
the last 20 years. Salem experienced declines in tonnage,
while the others, such as Boston, showed increases. Also,
during the last 20 years, the items of cargo amounting to at
least 10 percent of total freight activity have changed sub-
stantially. Foodstuffs have tended to decline, while gaso-
line and petroleum distillate products have increased.
Table A 2.10—8 shows the total tonnage at each port for 1951,
1961 and 1971.
Pending legislative action contains consideration for
improvements of waterborne passenger service. Long and short
haul commuter services between Boston and the north and
south shore areas are being considered. In addition, hydro-
foil service in Boston Harbor is being proposed as an
alternative to a third harbor crossing tunnel.
b. The Proposed System
In November, 1972 a gubernatorial decision was made to
prohibit the construction of major expressways within the
circumference of Route 128. Also, there was a withdrawal
of previously committed Route 1-95 North and South from the
interstate highway system, as well as an abandonment of plans
to extend Route 2 into the core. Hence, the major transpor-
tation expansion in the EMMA is to be focused on mass trans-
portation as opposed to highway construction.
Although no expansion of the commuter rail system is
proposed, it is the present plan to improve all commuter
rail facilities in the Boston area. The improvements gener-
ally include the revitalization of the track bed and tracks,
the purchase of new rolling stock, and in some cases, electri-
fication of facilities.
The withdrawal of interstate projects, under the inter-
state transfer provisions of the 1973 Federal Aid Highway Act,
has made substantial resources available for public
A— 138

-------
Table A2.1O-8
Waterborne Coimnerce
Total Tonnage by Port
Port 1951 1961 1971
Gloucester 177,263 152,415 260,206
Beverly 105,395 162,328 250,385
Salem 276,232 1,674,960 1,047,989
Boston 21,220,158 19,302,676 27,341,069
Source: Transportation Planning Status Report.
A— 139

-------
transportation improvements in the Boston region. Much of
this money is slated to go toward improving the rapid transit
system. By the year 1990, rapid transit proposals call
for the Blue line to be extended from Revere to Point of Pines.
Three extensions are proposed for the year 1990 for the Orange
line. One is from Forest Hills in the south to Route 128 in
Needham with an additional branch to Route 128 in Westwood/
Canton. The third extension of the Orange line is from
Malden/Melrose in the north to Reading and 1-93. The
Red line may be extended in the south from Quincy Center to
Braintree, and at the other end of the line from Harvard
Square to Alewife.
In addition to the 1990 proposals, proposals for the
year 2020 exist which would further extend this system. The
Red line is to be extended to Route 128 in Waltham, with an
additional branch to Route 128 in Lexington. In the south,
the Red line is to be extended from Braintree to Weyrnouth.
The Green line is to go to Winchester from Lechxnere. In
conjunction with these improvements an intown Rapid Transit
circumferential network is proposed for the year 2020.
The present and proposed transportation systems in the
Eastern Massachusetts etropolitan Area display a radial
pattern with major highways and commuter raillines radiating
from the dense Boston Core to the more suburban outer communi-
ties. These provide access beyond the MDC and EMMA into the
larger region. The major emphasis for future expansion and
improvements is being placed on the rapid transit system, to
extend it beyond the core area. In addition, the major air-
ports and seaports provide access nationally and internation-
ally for people and goods.
c. Evaluation and Impact of the Transportation System
As discussed earlier, transportation systems play a
role, along with various other systems, in shaping an area.
This section will evaluate generally the existing and pro-
posed transportation systems in the Eastern Massachusetts
Metropolitan Area and their impact on future development.
Because other factors are involved in the spatial activity
of an area, some of the land use activity forecasts of the
MDC EMPIRIC model are incorporated in the analysis.
The EMPIRIC land use model utilizes as its inputs several
present and projected or poropsed future variables. The
transportation system is represented by interzonal travel
times by automobile and by transit, while the other municipal
services, both present and future, are represented by the
type of water supply and sewage disposal systems in each zone.
The EMPIRIC model distributes the projected quantities of each
regional land use variables into each and every zone. Thus,
A—140

-------
the results of this model have taken into consideration the
present and proposed transportation systems which were des-
cribed previously. The analysis which follows is based on
these results.
The Metropolitan District Commission Wastewater Study
has partitioned the area into seven sectors: Core Area,
Northeastern, Northern, Northwestern, Western, Southwestern,
and Southeastern. In order to evaluate the transportation
system, each sector will be considered separately.
The Core Area, which consists primarily of Boston, is the
site of major transportation activity. It is linked to the
larger region, as well as New York City via major highways
and commuter rail facilities. Rapid transit provides access
to some of the inner suburbs.
The results of the EMPIRIC model indicate that many
activities within the Core Area will decline in the future,
including population and employment. The important excep-
tion, however, in terms of transportation, centers on low
income households. Historically, this group has probably
depended heavily on public transit for job access. With
the loss of jobs in the core, a major question is the utility
of the existing and proposed rapid transit system to provide
access to employment in other areas.
In 1970 only about 3 percent of the total acreage of the
core area comprised vacant—available land. With the pro-
jected loss of people and jobs, this is expected to increase.
And, with outlying areas providing desirable locations for
firms, it does not appear that the vacant core acreage will
be used for industrial, commercial, or residential purposes.
The northeastern sector of the study area is accessible
to other areas via the major highway arterials such as Route
la and Route 128, as well as commuter rail, and the Blue line
out of Boston.
In general, land use activity is expected to increase in
this area, although its growth may not be as rapid as in some
other sectors. Over 40 percent of its total acreage was
vacant and available in 1970. By 2020 this is expected to
decrease to 14 percent. Present accessibility and the pro-
posed highway and Blue line expansion in this sector will pro-
mote an influx of both residential and non-residential faci-
lities. However, since the level of manufacturing employment
is not anticipated to change, the non-residential activities
will probably comprise white collar—service activities.
The major arterials, such as Route 1-93 and Route 128,
and the commuter rail lines, presently and will continue to
service the Northern Sector.
A—14 1

-------
Both its population and employment are expected to con-
tinue to increase. However, as in the Northeastern Sector the
level of manufacturing activity will essentially remain con-
stant.
Over one—third of its total land was vacant and avail-
able in 1970. With growing commercial and residential acre-
age this may decrease by over one-half by the year 2050.
The transportation system in the Northwestern Sector is
similar to that in the Northern Sector. Its accessibility
to the larger region is provided by major arterials such as
Route 2 and Route 128, as well as the commuter rail network.
With over 50 percent of its acreage vacant-available in
1970, and a transportation system providing accessibility
throughout the area, its population and employment levels
are forecasted to triple by the year 2050. Unlike the
Northern and Northeastern Sectors, however, manufacturing
activity in the Northwestern Sector is expected to grow about
50 percent.
The Massachusetts Turnpike and a major line of the
commuter rail system line the Western Sector to the rest of
the study area and the western part of the, state.
The expected population and employment growths of this
sector are among the highest in the region, along with the
Northwestern Sector. However, its level of manufacturing
employment is not expected to grow. Commercial activities,
on the other hand, are expected to almost triple in terms of
employment, and double in terms of land useage. And, because
of the forecasted growth in residential and commercial acti-
vity, its vacant—available acreage may decrease from 50 percent
of the total acreage in 1970 to about 20 percent in 2050.
Serving the Southwestern Sector of the EMMA area are
Routes 1, 1-95, and 128, and two branches of the commuter
rail line system. These primarily provide access for the
southeastern portion of this sector.
This is another sector forecast to grow rapidly in terms
of population and total employment to the year 2050. Popu-
lation is expected to almost triple from its 1970 level,
while total employment is projected to quadruple. Although
manufacturing employment is expected to increase, the growth
of commercial employment will far exceed the rate of growth
of manufacturing.
In 1970, over half of the Southwestern Sector’s acreage
comprised vacant-available land. By 2050 over 30 percent of
this is expected to be used for additional residential and
commercial purposes. And, it is estimated that an additional
10 percent will be taken up by street-highway acreage.
A—i 42

-------
The Southeastern Sector is perhaps the least accessible
area in the EMMA, although it is serviced by Routes 128, 24,
and 3, and existing and proposed portions of the Red line of
the rapid transit system.
Both the population and total employment of the South—
eastern sector are projected to almost double by 2050. Manu-
facturing employment is expected to decline, while industrial
non—manufacturing and commercial employment are expected to
increase.
Over one—third of the land in this sector was vacant—
available in 1970, but by 2050, it is estimated that residen-
tial, commercial, industrial/non—manufacturing, and streets—
highways will contribute to the reduction of available vacant
land to about 15 percent of the total acreage.
Table A 2.10-9 is a summary of the analysis of this
report based on the EMPIRIC forecasting model estimates. It
depicts the transportation systems in each sector and related
land use activities. It is evident that the Northwestern and
Southwestern Sectors are predicted to be the fastest growing
sectors in the study area, while the Core Area is expected
to experience the lowest growth totals.
A—143

-------
Table A2.lO—9
Summary of Transportation Analysis
Trans— Population
portation Growth Employment Growth 1970-2050
Sector Systems 1970—2050 Total Manufacturing Con nerciai
Core All —10% —12% —60% —10%
Northeastern All 40 80 —36 130
Northern Corn. Ri. 25 80 —46 115
Hwy -
Northwestern Co in. Ri. 125 295 15 480
Hwy.
Western All 87 100 —34 170
Southwestern Corn. Ri. 215 290 —4 450
Hwy.
Southeastern All 56 104 —35 140
Vacant Land Streets/Highway Acres
% of Total % of Total
1970 2050 1970 2050
Core 3 10 18 17
Northeastern 40 14 6 9
Northern 38 17 9 12
Northwestern 58 20 9 12
Western 51 18 6 10
Southwestern 58 23 6 9
Southeastern 39 16 7 9
Source: MDC Wastewater Study Area EMPIRIC Estimates of Land Use Activity.
A— 144

-------
APPENDIX 2.11
Population Projections
A— 145

-------
Population Projections for the MDC Communities
Several attempts have been made to project the popula-
tion of the Boston metropolitan region and its communities
over both short and long time horizons. Each method asso-
ciated with these attempts is reviewed below. Subsequently,
the projections of each will be discussed and compared and
a concluding section will summarize this review and suggest
which methods and projections are most reliable.
In overview, there exist three ways by which populations
can be projected:
1) Examine past population trends within a region, or a
still larger region of which it is a part. Carry
the trend into the future using one of several tech-
niques of extrapolation. Then, if the projection is
for a larger region, determine what fraction of the
total growth (decline) is to be allocated to the re-
gion of interest. Generally this fraction is dependent
upon an historical time series relating the study re-
gion to the larger region in which it resides.
2) Project some regional feature other than population,
then determine how it relates numerically to popula-
tion, apply to multiplier and extract the projected
population increment. Usually the initial projection
from which that for population can be derived is
employment. The multiplier, in turn, would relate
population to workers in light of the prior trend.
The use of employment is perhaps most viable when
the region is large and/or isolated in order that all
or most employees reside within it. The projection
of population using this approach is thus no better
than the employment projection, itself. Employment
can be projected using any of a number of techniques
including economic base, shift-share, input-output
and econometric methods. Of course, as in the case
of the first approach, the initial employment and
therefore population projection may be for a larger
region, and an appropriate method of “stepping-down”
or disaggregation must be utilized.
3) The third approach is any strategy by which population
and employment are simultaneously determined through
an interactive model which conditions each variable
upon the other.
Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC) Projections
The MAPC which serves the majority of communities (101)
within the EMMA Study Region, has undertaken a series of
projections. Most recently, the MAPC presented tentative
A—147

-------
community population projections to 1995 in its growth policy
report. The final draft projections to 1995 and certain inter-
vening years were subsequently made available. These final
projections are sechduled for eventual release in an EMMA
report to be prepared by the Central Transportation Planning
Staff of the NAPC.
The base year for the MAPC projections is 1975. Popu-
lations for that year were prepared by combining approximate
Massachusetts State Census figures for each community in 1975,
with building permit data for the prior 3-4 year period.
Following this, subjective extrapolations were performed for
each community in light of the previous secular trend, avail-
able land for development and growth limitation policies of
the individual communities. These trend lines to the year
2000 were then aggregated at intervals of time into circular
subregions centered upon the core of the metropolitan region
in order that they be compared with independent aggregate
projections of population derived from employment projections
of the EMMA Study report (Vol. 1, Planning Criteria, October,
1975). The translation of employment to population projec-
tions was accomplished using exogenous multipliers relating
workers to households and, in turn, to aggreagate population.
When the summation of community projections for intermediate
subregions differed from the regional projection derived
from the EMMA Study, community projections were then propor-
tionally adjusted to ensure consistency.
Of the three approaches to population projection pre-
viously described, the MAPC approach utilizes the first
(extrapolation) to produce the basic trend, and the second
(correlation with employment projections) to ensure regional
consistency. Simply stated, the relative amounts of popula-
tion gain or loss to be incurred by communities within the
region is established through extrapolation. Presumably
these rates were influenced directly by the community projec-
tions of the EMMA Study. Once community growth rates and
amounts were initially determined, they were made consistent
with the population levels implied in the EMMA Study employ-
ment projections.
The approach is persuasive. It joins the rigor of the
EMPIRIC employment forecasts with a current, subjective
evaluation of growth capacities and constraints. The result
is an aggregate projection for the MSD region (51 communities)
which is only slightly less than that produced by the EMPIRIC
model in the EMMA Study.
Southeastern New England Study (SENE) Projections
The SENE Study was conducted under the provisions of
the Federal Water Resources Planning Act of 1965, and was
generally coordinated with the objectives of the New England
A—148

-------
River Basins Commission. The study area in Massachusetts
includes the Blackstone, Charles, Mystic, Ipswich and Parker
River Basins plus all adjacent areas to the east of these.
The 51 communities within the MDC waste treatment network
primarily reside within this region which includes Middlesex,
Norfolk, Plymouth and Suffolk Counties: Lynnfield (Essex
County), and Southborough (Worcester County).
As early as 1973, the firm of Havens and Emerson pre-
pared rough population projections for use in planning the
waste treatment facilities of the MDC. These foresaw an
increase in total population within the treatment region
(services plus non—serviced population) of Deer and Nut
Islands if 16.7% during 1970—90, implying a compound annual
growth rate of .78% per year. Subsequently, SENE elected to
utilize the U.S. Water Resources Council’s state and sub-
state population projections developed jointly by the U.S.
Departments of Commerce and Agriculture. These projections
are known as the Office of Business and Economic Research
Statistics (OBERS) projections. Their combined projection
for Middlesex, Norfolk, Plymouth and Suffolk counties anti-
cipated a percentage gain during 1970-90 of 11.3% at an
effective compound annual growth rate of .54% per year. The
percentage increase projected by Havens and Emerson there-
fore exceeded that of OBERS by 5.4%, an amount which is
almost insignificant in relation to the cumulative effect
of measurement error in twenty-year projections. The firm,
Ecoiscience subsequently reviewed these two projection sets
concluding that MDC’s consultant, Havens and Emerson, had
provided “reasonable, although conservative” projections.
The procedure by which the SMSA OBERS projections were
made can be resolved into five steps:
1) Project population, employment, GNP, personal income
and earnings for the entire nation.
2) Disaggregate national totals of output, employment
and earnings by industrial (standard industrial
classification SIC) sector.
3) Allocate the projected national totals of income and
employment to the 173 economic areas into which the
Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) has divided the
country.
4) Derive population totals from projected area employ-
ment.
5) Divide the projected economic area figures to obtain
the SMSA projections.
Water Resources Council, 1974
A—149

-------
This approach has the advantage of a national perspective and
inter-regional consistency of projections. Its limitation is
a lack of sensitivity to local carrying capacities and internal
economic interactions.
The £MMA Study Projections
These projections, upon which those of the MAPC partially
rely, were prepared by the firm of Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., and
published in October, 1975. The approach is familiar. First
the aggregate regional population is projected. Second, the
aggregate is allocated to the various communities within the
EMMA Study region. The 51 MDC waste treatment service
communities are included within the study region so direct
comparisons can he made among the EMMA projections and those
of the MAPC and other groups.
The EMMA Study undertook to project population to the
years 1990, 2020, and 2050. Projections beyond 1990 are Un-
doubtedly risky and prone to error, yet they provide a best
estimate in light of current conditions. The methodology is
summarized below:
Aggregate Regional Population Projection (Two Alternatives )
Alternative I: Regional Share Method
Alternative II: Cohort-Component Method
The Regional Share Method assumes there will continue
a constant relationship between State (and National) popula-
tion, and the study area population over the projection period
which is determined by the time—series trend since 1900.
This assumption is inappropriate in regions undergoing the
likely first stages of a significant economic re-orientation
which will probably reduce growth rates in a manner unantici-
pated by prior trends.
The Cohort—Component Method, in turn, has the virtue of
component disaggregation, and sensitivity to local trends. It
assumes constant rates of birth, survival and net migration
rates will remain fixed over the projection period. Simply
stated, the model divides the population into age-sex cohorts.
Births augment the youngest category in five-year intervals
as fractions of the population in each successively older
cohort “age” into the next older age group (cohort). Net
migration rates presumably add or subtract increments of
population to each cohort in each five—year period. When
summed over all age—sex cohorts, the model yields total pop-
ulation. The weakness of this model is the uncertainty of
its component rates, particularly those of birth and net
migration. While high and low rates of birth an migration
were utilized, a single, “most probable” projection is finally
produced. For the region, using the cohort—component method,
A—150

-------
total population was projected to be 3,645,846 in 1990. This
was 131,226 fewer than that of the regional share method.
Subsequently, using subjective judgment determined that the
preferred projection would reside somewhere between the “high”
and “most probable” projections for the region using the
Cohort-Component method.
Disaggregate (Community) Population Projections
Once the aggregate regional population projections were
determined for the study area using the approach previously
described, it was then necessary to divide that total new
growth in population among the various communities within
the EMMA region. The approach for this stage of projection
was to apply the EMPIRIC Model, a spatial allocation model
whose general form has been repeatedly applied in various
subregions of the nation. Further, it had earlier been
utilized in the Boston Metropolitan region in 1963.
The EMPIRIC Model is composed of nine simultaneous regres-
sion equations which “allocate” four income categories of
households from which population can be derived, and five
categories of employment classified by water usage levels and
industrial orientation.
Additional factors (variables) enter the model in the
form of policy and non-policy variables. The former are
those which the policy makers can influence at each interval
of the projection period. These factors include accessibi-
lity (transportation), land availability and presence of pub-
lic sewer facilities. The non-policy variables include land
use composition, developable land and regional spatial orien-
tation vis-a-vis all other communities within EMMA.
Data associated with each of these variables were pre-
pared for 1960 and 1970, and the Model was then “calibrated”
or parametrically adjusted to that ten-year period. Once
calibrated, the Model would “fit” the prior experience of the
region. In turn, this calibrated Model is applied to future
intervals of time yielding projection estimates at the end
of each for population and employment, as previously des-
cribed. These projections provide snap—shot impressions of
the total configuration of activity within each community.
They do not locate any activities within subregions of
single communities.
The EMPIRIC Model has the virtue of internal consistency.
Its projections are perhaps most reliable as indications of
the relative growth rates among communities. The actual total
populations assigned to each community are, of course, no more
reliable than the aggregate population projections for the
EMMA region determined for EMPIRIC by the Cohort-Component
A— 151

-------
Method. The limitation of the model is its reliance on the
prior, historical (1960-70) trend on which it is calibrated.
Technically, the model assumes fixed linear relationships
among key dependent, policy and non-policy variables. This
assumption is heroic and often unwarranted. The alternatives
however, are difficult, in practice to implement. Finally,
the use of simultaneous regression equations allows for mutual
interaction among variables within single projection invervals.
Comparison of the EMMA, SENE and MAPC Population Projections
Of the major population projection series which have
been reviewed, only those of the EMMA Study and SENE are dis-
aggregated by individual communities. The SENE Projections
cover a slightly different aggregate metropolitan region and
can only be compared in relation to aggregate gross rates of
change.
In the figures shown below, aggregate growth rates de-
rived from each separate projection effort are summarized.
Absolute population figures are provided.
Population Percent
( In Thousands ) Change
1970 1990 1970—90 Area
Source of Regional
Projection:
A. EMMA Study 2,266.1 2,444.4 +7.9 MDC Area*
B. MARC 2,266.1 2,408.0 +6.3 MDC Area*
C. SENE 2,191.8 2,439.6 +11.3 Four County
Region**
*This refers to the 51 communities served by the MDC waste
treatment program.
**This four-county region includes Middlesex, Norfolk, Plyn outh
and Suffolk.
The EMMA Study projects an increase of 7.9% during 1970-90,
for the fifty-one MDC service communities. This is slightly
greater than that projected by the MARC (6.3%). This is ex-
pected in light of the reliance of MARC projections, in part,
on those for the region produced by the EMMA Study. The
SENE projections foresee an 11.3% increase in these same years.
We believe the SENE projection is probably high, in light of
the above comparison and the OBERS projection assumptions.
Of the three projection sets reviewed in previous dis-
cussion, it is concluded that the EMMA and MAPC projections
are most reliable. It is at least possible that both have
over-estimated total population gain for the region. As pre-
viously discussed, it is unlikely that the Boston Metropolitan
A— 152

-------
region can continue to gain its past share of future national
growth due to the basic structural shift now being experienced
in the nation, at large.
Both MAPC and EMMA projections provide useful indices
of future aggregate and community population gain and loss.
We believe, however, that the MAPC projections are probably
somewhat more sensitive to current local conditions, hence,
they are probably preferable.
We can compare MAPC and EMMA projections by community
through an examination of Table A 2.11-1, which represents
alternate MDC area population and the State at selected inter-
vals. Examination indicates the EMMA and MAPC figures are
generally comparable, however, in several instances sizeable
disparities arise. Independent evaluation utilizing additional
data regarding community capacities suggests the MAPC figures
are probably more reliable.
A—153

-------
Table A2.11 —x
Alternate MDC Area Population Prolections for 1980,
Projections Projections
2 to 1980 Projections to 1990 to 2020
Population Percent Change j T EMI& E1 *1A
MDC Communities 1975 1970-75 ( pj MJ PC 2 ( E J’Intc ) BTPR 4 ( EMPtR.IC) STP IE
Arlington 50,300 —6.0 48,800 52,196 49,500 54,180 56,000 53,039 70,376
Ashland 8,900 0.2 9,500 11,281 11,500 14,390 22,172 12,690
Bedford 12,300 —9.0 12,500 17,636 14,500 18,464 21,000 17,779 24,045
Belmont 27,500 —2.8 27,600 28,691 28,800 29,041 33,000 27,216 26,773
Boston 639,000 -0.3 635,000 597.780 638,000 579,000 541,000 599,000 941,000
Braintree 36,800 5.0 38,750 38,678 42,500 42,868 48,000 52,213 45,067
Brookline 59,000 0.2 61,800 60,963 62,300 64,036 64,000 63,400 70,019
Burlington 24,400 11.0 25,900 26,496 28,000 31,287 39,000 32,344 47,911
Cambridge 102,000 1.6 104,000 100,625 105,300 105,306 88,000 103,754 121,008
Canton 18,000 5.3 19,000 23,207 23,000 29,086 33,000 42,893 29,641
Chelsea 25,100 —18.0 23,500 25.601 23,800 22,909 25,000 18,764 32,201
Dedhasi 26,900 —0.1 27,600 24,030 27,900 26,913 32,000 29,860 34,892
U Dover 4,900 8.2 6.300 6,499 8,300 8,559 9,000 14,915 6,578
Everett 39,800 —6.3 38,700 40,521 38,300 37,403 41,500 31,686 44,669
Framinqhant 72,400 13.0 79,000 71,618 81,500 77,493 72,000 91,817 112,205
Hingham 19,500 3,5 21,500 22,029 24,000 24,840 31,218 26,870
Holbrook 11,800 0.2 12,600 12,631 15,500 13,701 17,500 15,622 17,583
Hopkinton 6,400 7.0 6,200 7,539 7,200 10,387 24,401 10,055
Lexington 32,500 1.9 34,300 35,494 35,600 38,883 50,000 51,839 45,887
Lincoln 6,500 -14.1 6,400 9,602 7,700 11,448 11,500 18,572 14,839
Lynnfiald 12,000 10.8 12,900 12,947 14,400 14,668 16,000 20,301 15,148
Maiden 55,800 —0.6 54,300 55,266 56,000 52,901 49,000 48,103 63,628
Medford 60,800 -5.6 60.000 68,048 61,300 67.696 67,000 65,266 74,806
Maltose 32,200 —3.0 34,800 36,764 35,300 37,303 33,800 39,0 8 46,502
Milton 27,200 0.0 27,900 30,967 28,200 33,944 36,500 42,750 26,467
Natick 31,100 0.1 31,000 35,316 34,300 39,593 37,000 46,279 40,799
Needhem 30,000 0.8 30,300 34,401 32,100 38,901 38,000 53,244 38,814
Newton 89,000 —2.3 89.000 96,980 90,500 100,259 95,000 111,100 102,739
NorwOod 31,200 1.2 32,800 33,056 37,200 35,978 38,000 39,100 42,575
Quincy 91,500 4.0 94,200 91,340 95,500 96,246 92,000 111,380 95,662
Bandoif 29,200 8.0 31,000 29,596 35,000 32,130 41,500 31,290 41,244
Reading 23,700 5.2 26,000 25,840 29,500 29,463 35,000 34,319 31,030
Revere 41,300 —4.3 41,400 44,720 42,600 45,862 46,700 44,477 47,388
Sharon 13,600 10.0 16,000 14,975 18,300 18,003 23,000 27,210 17,461
Sherborn 4,200 26.9 4,500 5,337 5,000 7,669 9,000 14,021 6,762
Somerville 82,000 —7.6 88,800 75,488 81,500 70,177 77,000 68,590 105,260
Southborough 6,400 10.4 5,800 7,350 7,800 9,442 17,377 11,006
Stonehan , 22,000 6.2 23,200 21,867 24,500 21,751 26,300 19,985 26,563
Stoughton 25,700 9.6 28,000 28,601 31,800 32,077 37,500 41,994 42,228
Wakefield 26,000 2.4 28,500 2’3,1B8 31,000 32,539 31,500 39,887 30,598
Walepole 18,500 1.9 28,800 23,456 20,500 29,377 30,000 44,666 30,747

-------
Table A2.ll—l (conc.)
Alternate MOC Area Population Projections for 1980,
1990, and 2020
Project ions Projections
2 to 1980 Projections to 1990 to 2020
Population Percent Change EMMA 3 EMMA 3 EMMA
MDC Communities 1975 1970-75 MAPC 2 ( EMPIRIC ) ‘t pc 2 ( EMPIRIC ) BTPR ( EMPIRIC) STATE
Waltha m 55,800 —9.4 6,500 75,888 59,500 81,622 66,000 84,884 78,493
Watertown 35,000 —11.0 35,200 36,263 36,500 33,000 40,000 30,607 42,939
Wellesley 26,800 —4.5 27,900 31,203 27,500 31,539 35,000 32, 90 35,902
Weston 11,500 5.8 12,500 13,322 14,000 17,020 28,000 27,412 17,507
Westwood 14,000 9.8 14,800 16,286 16,500 20,055 21,000 27,591 17,098
Weymouth 57,000 4.4 59,700 57,179 62,000 60,708 62,000 61,103 73,665
Wilmington 17,500 2.3 18,700 22,030 21.400 27,381 30,000 36,967 31,422
Winchester 22,700 1.9 23,800 25,024 24,400 24,155 25,000 23,737 30,952
Winthrop 20,500 0.8 20,800 17,082 21,500 15,905 22,500 12,136 24,318
Woburn 35,200 5.9 35,400 42,901 39,200 46,800 50,500 51,631 l,346
FL MDC (TOTAL) 2,273,400 0.3 2,324,250 2,351,780 2,408,000 2,444,358 2,691,629 3,085,373
U i
BOSTON (SMSA)
BOSTON (CITY) 639,000 —0.3
BOSTON (SMSA MINUS CITY)
MASSACHUSETTS (STATE) 5,828,000 2.4
UNITED STATES 212,748,000 4.7
SOURCE: 2) Water Quality Project Office, Metropolitan Area Planning Council, Final Draft of Community populations and projections to 1995,
personal correspondence, December 21, 1976.
3) Metcalf and Eddy, Inc., Wastewater Engineering and Management Plan for the Boston Harbor—-Eastern Massachusetts Metropolitan Area ,
EMMA Study, Technical Data Vol. I, ‘Planning Criteria,” October, 1975. Tables 5-1, 5-2, Appendices L,M. All figures are
“most probable’ projections.
4) Alan M. Voorhees and Associates, Inc., Boston Transportation Planning Review , 1971-73.

-------
APPENDIX 2.13
Recreational/Scenic Areas
A— 157

-------
Appendix 2.13—1
Major Holdings of Open Space Either Partially or Wholiy Within MSD
State Parks — Department of
Environmental Management
Name Municipality Acreage
Ashland Ashland 470
Borderland Sharon/Eastern 1,301
Bradley W. Palmer Hamilton/Ipswich/Topsfield 721
Cochituate Framingham/Natick/Wayland 1,126
Cushing Memorial Scituate 7
Standish Monument Duxbury 29
Plum Island Ipswich 76
Walden Pond Concord/Lincoln 117
Wampatuck Cohasset/Hingham/Norwell/Scituate 2,748
Hopkinton Ashland/Hopkinton 960
Whitehall Hopkinton 877
Walden Concord/Lincoln 350
Farnum Smith Carlisle 818
Medfie ld—Char les Medfield
River
Metropolitan District
Commission
Breakheart Reservation Saugus/Wakefield 570
Blue Hills Reservation Braintree/Canton/Milton/
Quincy/Rando lph 5,489
Middlesex Fells Malden/Medford/Me lrose!
Reservation Stoneham/ Winchester 2,060
Neponset River Boston/Canton/Dedham/MiltOn/
Reservat ion Westwood
Stony Brook Boston
Reservation
Havey Beach Boston
Nantasket Beach Hull 94
Constitution Beach Boston 47
Revere Beach Revere 99
U.S. Department of Interior
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
Great Meadows BedfordjBillerica/Carlisle/ 2,518
National Wildlife Concord/Lincoln/Sudbury/WaYland
Refuge
Plum Island and Parker Ipswich/Newbury/RoWleY 1,424
River
A—159

-------
Appendix 2.13—1 (cont.)
National Park Service
Name Municipality Acreage
Minuteman National Concord/Lexington/Lincoln 508
Historic Park
Salem Maritime Salem
Saugus Iron Works Seugus
Trustees of Reservation
Reservation Location Acreage
Whitney and Thayer Cohasset/Hinghan 799
Woods
Old Manse Concord 8
Pegan Hill Dover/Natick 32
Mt. Ann Park Gloucester 87
Appleton Farms Grass Hamilton 251
Rides
World’s End Hingham 251
Richard T. Crane, Ipswich 1,352
Jr. Memorial Ipswich
Cornelius and Mine S. Ipswich/Essex 700
Crane Wildlife Refuge
Aggassiz Rock Manchester 106
Crowninshield Island Marblehead Harbor 5
Rocky Woods Medfield 438
Bridge Island Meadows Millis 80
Governor Hutchinson’s Milton 10
Field
Pierce House Milton 6
Charles River Peninsula Needham 29
Albert F. Norris Norwell 100
Reservation
Halibut Point Rockport 12
Misery Islands Salem 83
Rocky Narrows Sherborn 77
Pine and Hemlock Knoll Wenham 14
Massachusetts Audubon Society
Highland Farm Belmont 45
Eastern Point Gloucester 26
Ipswich River Hamilton 2,300
Waseeka Hol liston/Hopkinton 140
Drumlin Farm Lincoln 220
Marblehead Neck Marblehead 15
Broadmoor Natick 175
Straitmouth Island Rockport 33
Moose Hill Sharon 227
Little Pond Sherborn 262
A— 160

-------
Appendix 2.13—1 (cont.)
Source: Massachusetts Outdoor Recreation Plan, 1971. Massachusetts
Department of Natural Resources.
A- 161

-------
APPENDIX 2.14
Sites of Special Sig aificance
A—i 63

-------
Appendix 2.14—1
National Register Sites MDC Study Area
ARLIN( ON
Arlington Town Center District (7/18/74)
Fowle-Reed-Wyman House (4/14/75)
Old Schwamb Mill (10/7/71)
Russell, Jason, House (10/9/74)
BEDFORD
Lane, Job, House (5/8/73)
Two Brothers Rocks (Pending nomination 2/10/76)
Bacon-Gleasori--Blodgett Homestead (Pending nomination 11/16/76)
BELMONT
*Red Top (William Dean Howells House) (11/11/71)
BOSTON
Ames Building (4/26/74)
Arlington Street Church (5/4/73)
Armory of the First Corps of Cadets (5/22/73)
*Arnold Arboretum (10/15/66)
Back Bay Historic District (8/14/73)
*Beacon Hill Historic District (10/15/66)
Blackstone Block Historic District 5/26/73)
oston Athenaeum (10/15/66)
Boston Common and Public Garden (7/12/72)
oston Light (10/15/66)
Boston African Meetinghouse (10/7/71)
Boston National Historical Park (10/26/74)
oston Naval Shipyard (11/15/66)
Boston Public Library (5/6/73)
*Bunker Hill Monument (10/15/66)
Copp’s Hill Burial Ground (4/18/74)
Crowninshield House (2/23/72)
Customhouse District (5/11/73)
Cyclorama Building (4/13/73)
Dorchester Heights National Historic Site (10/15/66)
Eliot Burying Ground (6/25/74)
*Ether Dome, Massachusetts General Hospital (10/15/66)
*Faneuil Hall (10/15/66)
First Baptist Church (2/23/72)
Fulton—Commercial Streets District (3/21/73)
*Hardthg, Chester, House (10/15/66)
*Headquarters House (10/15/66)
A— 165

-------
Appendix 2.14—1 (cont.)
* Howe, Samuel Gridley and Julia Ward, House (9/13/74)
* King’s Chapel and Burying Ground (5/2/7
* Long Wharf and Custom—House Block (11/13/66)
* Massachusetts General Hospital (12/30/70)
Massachusetts Historical Society Building (10/15/66)
* Massachusetts Statehouse (10/15/66)
* Old City Hall (12/30/70)
Old Corner Bookstore (4/11/73)
* Old North Church, (Christ Church Episcopal) (10/15/66)
Old South Church in Boston (12/30/70)
* Old South Meetinghouse (10/15/66)
* Old Statehouse (10/15/66)
* Old West Church (12/30/70)
* Otis, (First) Harrison Gray, House (12/30/70)
Otis (Second) Harrison Gray, House (7/27/73)
Park Street District (5/1/74)
* Parkman, Francis, House (10/15/66)
* Pierce—Hichborn House (11/24/68)
* Ouincy Market (11/13/66)
* Revere, Paul, House (10/15/66)
* Sears, David, House (12/30/70)
South End District (5/8/7 3)
South Station Headhouse (2/13/75)
* St. Paul’s Church (12/30/70)
St. Stephen’s Church (4/14/75)
Suffolk County Courthouse (5/8/74)
* Sumner, Charles, House (11/7/73)
Symphony and Horticultural Halls (5/30/75)
* Tremont Street Subway (10/15/66)
* Trinity Church (7/1/74)
Trinity Rectory (2/23/72)
* U.S.S. Constitution (Old Ironsides) (10/15/66)
Winthrop Building (4/18/74)
Youth’s Companion Building (Sawyer Building) (5/2/74)
* Fort Warren (8/29/70)
Fort Independence (Fort William) (10/15/70)
* Nell, William C., House, (5/ll/76
Boston Harbor (Pending nomination 2/10/76)
Fort Independence (Pending nomination 2/10/76)
Olmstead Park System (12/8/71)
BOSTON SUBDIVISIONS
Phipps Street Burying Ground (5/15/74)
Town Hill District (5/11/73)
Blake, James, House (10/15/66)
Clapp Houses (5/2/74)
Dorchester North Burying Ground (4/18/74)
Pierce House (4126/74)
* Trotlen, William Monroe, House (5/11/76)
Loring-Greenough House (4/26/72)
A— 166

-------
Appendix 2.14—1 (cont.)
* Brook Farm (10/15/66)
Slade Spice Mill (6/30/72)
* Garrison, William Lloyd, House (10/15/66)
Hale, Edward Everett, House (5/8/73)
John Eliot Square District (4/23/73)
Kittredge, Alban, House (5/8/73)
Roxbury High Fort (Highland Park) (4/23/73)
* Shirley—Eustis House (10/15/66)
BRAINTREE
Thayer, Gen. Sylvanus, House (12/3/74)
BROOKLINE
John Fitzgerald Kennedy National Historic Site (5/26/67)
* Olmsted, Frederick House (10/15/66)
Olmated Park System (12/8/71)
* Minot, George R.., House (1/7/76)
St. Mark’s Methodist Church (12/17/76)
BU LINGT0N
Wyman, Francis, House (3/13/75)
United Church of Christ (Congregational) (Pending Nomination 2/10/76)
CAMBRIDGE
Austin Hall (4/19/72)
* Birkhoff, George D. House (5/15/75)
Brattle, William, House (5/8/73)
* Bridgeman, Percy, House (5/15/75)
* Cambridge Common Historic District (4/13/73)
* Christ Church (10/15/66)
Copper-Frost-Austin House (9/22/72)
* Elmwood (James Russell Lowell House) (10/15/66)
First Baptist Church (4/14/7 5)
Fort Washington (4/3/73)
* Fuller, Margaret, House (7/2/71)
* Gray, Asa, House (10/15/66)
* Hastings, Oliver, House (12/30/70)
* Longfellow National Historic Site (10/15/66)
* Massachusetts Hall, Harvard University (10/15/66)
* Memorial Hall, Harvard University (12/30/70)
Mount Auburn Cemetery (4/21/75)
Old Harvard Yard (2/6/73)
Pratt, Dexter, House (5/8/73)
* Sever Hall, Harvard University (12/30/70)
* University Hall, Harvard University (12/30/70)
* Daly, Reginald A., House (1/7/76)
* Davis, William Morris, House (1/7/76)
A—167

-------
Appendix 2.14—1 (cont.)
*Richards, Theodore W., House (1/7/76)
Sands, Hiram, House (4/30/76)
*Ba1d in, Maria, House (5/11/76)
CHELSEA
Bellingham—Cary House (9/6/74)
Naval Hospital Boston Historic District (8/14/73)
DEDHAM
*Fajrbanks House (10/15/66)
*Norfolk County Courthouse (11/28/72)
FRAMINGHAM
Framingham Railroad Station (1/17/75)
HINGHAM
*Ljncoln, Gen. Benjamin, House (11/28/72)
*Old Ship Meetinghouse (10/15/66)
LEXINGTON
*Buc an Tavern (10/15/66)
House (7/17/71)
Hancock School (8/22/75)
*Lexington Green (10/15/66)
Follen Community Church (4/30/76)
Lexington Green Historic District (4/30/76)
Sanderson House and Nunroe Tavern (4/26/76)
Stone Building (4/30/76)
Simonds Tavern (10/14/76)
Chandler, Gen. Samuel, House (Pending nomination 11/16/76)
LINCOLN
Grange, The (4/18/74)
Hoar Tavern (7/23/73)
LYNI1FIELD
Meetinghouse Common District (11/21/76)
MALDEN
Old City Hall (10/8/76)
A—168

-------
Appendix 2.14—1 (cont.)
MEDFORD
Angier, John B., House (4/23/75)
Bigelow Block (2/24/75)
Brooks, Charles, House (6/18/75)
Brooks, Jonathan, House (6/26/75)
Brooks, Shepherd, Estate (4/21/75)
Curtis, Paul, House (5/6/75)
Fletcher, Jonathan, House (6/23/75)
Grace Episcopal Church (11/3/72)
Hall, Isaac, House (4/16/75)
Hillside Avenue Historic District (4/21/75)
Lawrence Light Guard Armory (3/10/75)
Old Ship Street Historic District (4/14/75)
Park Street Railroad Station (4/21/75)
*Royall, Isaac, House (10/15/66)
*Thfts, Peter, House (11/24/68)
Unitarian Universalist Church and Parsonage (4/21/75)
Wade, John, House (6/18/75)
Wade, Jonathan, House (4/21/75)
Albree—Hall—Lawrence House (4/30/76)
Fernald, George P., House (4/30/76)
MELROSE
Lynde, Joseph, House (Pending nomination 9/7/76)
MILTON
*Forbes, Capt. Robert B., House (11/13/66)
Holbrook, Dr. Amos, House (4/18/74)
Hutchinson, Coy. Thomas, Ha-Ha (2/13/75)
Paul’s Bridge (12/11/72)
Suffolk Resolves House (Daniel Vose Residence) (7/23/73)
NATICK
Parsonage, The Horatio Alger House (11/11/71)
NEWTON
Jackson Homestead (6/4/73)
*Fessenden, Reginald A., House (1/7/76)
Durant, Capt. Edward, House (5/13/76)
Woodland, Newton Highlands, and Newton Centre Railroad Stations,
Baggage and Express Building (6/3/76)
Bigelow, Dr. Henry Jacob, House (1/1/76)
NORWOOD
Day, Fred Holland, House (Pending nomination 11/16/76)
A—169

-------
Appendix 2.14—]. (cont.)
QUINCY
Adams Academy (9/6/74)
* Adams, John, Birthplace (10/15/66)
* Adams, John Quincy, Birthplace (10/15/66)
Adams National Historic Site (10/15/66)
Moswetuset Hummock (7/1/70)
Quincy Granite Railway (10/15/73)
Quincy Granite Railway Incline (6/19/73)
Quincy Homestead (7/1/70)
Thomas Crane Public Library (10/18/72)
* United First Parish Church (Unitarian) of Ouincy (12/30/70)
Quincy, Josiah, House (5/28/76)
Winthrop, John Jr., Iron Furnace (Pendinq nomination 4/20/76)
RANDOLPH
Beicher, Jonathan, House (4/30/76)
READING
Parker Tavern (8/19/75)
REVERE
Slade Spice Mill (6/30/72)
SHARON
Cobb’s Tavern (8/7/74)
Sharon Historic District (8/22/75)
SOIIERVILLE
Powder House Park (4/21/75)
Bow Street Historic District (3/26/76)
STcIIGHTON
Stoughton Railroad Station (1/21/74)
WALPOLE
Lewis Deacon Willard House (10/29/75)
WALTHAM
* re Place (12/30/70)
*Ly , Theodore, House (The Vale) (12/30/70)
Paine, Robert Treat Jr., House (10/7/75)
WATERT(MN
Commanding Officer’s Quarters, Watertown Arsenal (1/30/76)
A—]. 70

-------
Appendix 2.14—1 (cont.)
WELLESLEY
Eaton-Moulton Mill (5/13/76)
Wellesley Town Hall (4/30/76)
WESTON
Golden Ball Tavern (9/28/72)
Barrington House (6/22/76)
Woodward, Rev. Samuel House (10/8/76)
Train, Samuel, House (12/12/76)
WILMINGTON
Harriden Tavern (4/3/75)
WOBURN
Baldwin, Loaxnmi, Mansion (10/7/71)
*Coumt Rumford Birthplace (5/15/75)
1790 House (10/9/74)
Woburn Public Library (11/13/76)
MISCELLA NEOUS
MIDDLESEX COUNTY
Middlesex Canal--Between Lowell and Woburn (4/7/71)
1767 MilestonesBOStofl to Springfield Along Old Post Rd. (4/7/71)
NORFOLK COUNTY
1767 Milestones (4/7/71)
SUFFOLK COUNTY
Paul’s Bridqe —— Milton to Boston (2/11/72)
1767 Milestones (4/7/71)
WORCHESTER COUNTY
1767 Milestones (4/7/71)
*Denotes sites also on list of National Historic Landmarks.
A— 171

-------
Appendix 2.14—2 — Massachusetts Landscape and Natural Areas Survey Sites
No. of Name of
Con nunity Sites Site(s) Description
Ashland 1 Five Hills Area Large upland area
Belmont 4 Beaver Brook Reservation Ponds, stream and
wooded area in urban
surrounding
Highland Farm Habitat Natural open space on
School Area Belmont Hill
Mclean Hospital Grounds Open space and fault—
and faultline line in urban areas
Rock Meadow Wetland and Wetland and open space
Country Club in urban area
Boston 23 Arnold Arboretum Significant Arboretum in
urban area
Boston Common and Public Historic urban public
Gardens open space
Bunker Hill National historic place
on drumlin
Brook Farm Early commune and
farming settlement
Calf Island Island in Boston
Harbor
Castle Island Area and Peninsula with beaches,
Fort Independence old fort and park
Deer Island Harbor Island including
salt marshes
Exposed Bed Rock Rock outcropping,
glacial star
Gallops Island Island of Boston Harbor
Georges Island and Fort Island formed by
Warren drumlin and sites of
important Civil War
fort
A—172

-------
4ppendix 2.14—2 (cont. ) — Massachusetts Landscape and Natural Areas Survey Sites
No. of Name of
Conununity Sites Site(s) Description
The Graves Cluster of small islands
in outer Boston Harbor
in Lighthouse
Great Brewster Island Island in Boston
Harbor
Little Brewster Island Island in Boston Harbor
and site of Boston
Lighthouse
Little Calf and Green Two islands in Boston
Islands Harbor
Long Island Island formed by drumlin
with wooded slopes and
salt marshes
Lovell Island Island in Boston Harbor
Middle Brewster Island Island in Boston Harbor
Outer Brewster Island Island with many small
caves, inlets and
cliffs
Pulpit Rock Large rock out cropping
in urban wooded area
Rainsford Island Island with old grave-
yard and small boat
anchorage
Thompson Island Island with salt pond
with fine groves of
trees and working area
Ringer Park Urban park with woods
and rock outcrops
Spectacle Island Island formed by two
connected drumlins
Burlington 1 Wilmington-BurlingtOn Fresh water marsh at
Marshes ipswick River head-
quarters
Cambridge 1 Alewife Brook, Little Natural wetland area
Pond in urban setting
A—173

-------
Appendix 2.14—2 (cont. ) — Massachusetts Landscape and Natural Areas Survey Sites
No. of Name of
Comunity Sites Site(s) Description
Canton 1 Ponkapog Pond Bog Bog in area of public
reservation
Framiogham 2 Garden in the Woods Wildflower Sanctuary
in natural woods
Nobscott Hill Wooded hill with view
Hingham 6 Baker Hill Larger undisturbed
drumlin in urban area
Bumpkin Island Island in Hingham Bay
formed by drumlin
Hinghain Geologic xea Geological rock fea-
tures of various rock
types
Hingham Harbor Islands Four snail ‘spudding-
stone” islands
Mt. Blue Spring Natural spring
historically used as
a drinking water
source
Worlds End Landscaped point in
Hingham Bay
Hopkinton 1 Hopkinton Mineral Springs Natural spring with
remains of resort
structure
Lexington 3 Granny Pond Small spring fed pond
on hill top
Lexington Green Historic park and
monument
Great Meadow Fresh water marsh
with stream
Lincoln 4 DeCordova and Dana Museum Museum on hill top
and Park overlooking large
reservoir
Drumlin Farm Education center
wildlife sanctuary
Hobbs Brook Swamp Area A marsh with his-
torical settlement
A— 174

-------
Appendix 2.14—2 (cont. ) — Massachusetts Landscape and Natural Areas Survey Sites
Lynnfield
Milton
Natick
Needhaxa
Newton
Quincy
Lincoln Grist Mill
1 Lynofield Marsh
1 Grovehor Hutchinsons
Field
5 Broadman Little Pond
Wildlife Sanctuary
Cochituate Lake Area
Peqan Hill
Dug Pond
Sunkaway Wetland and
Pleasant Hill
3 Charles River Peninsula
Devils Den and Castle Run
Ciko Bridge
3 Glenn Avenue
Mill Falls Area
Webster Caves
10 Blue Hill Range
Mood Island
Mill ruins on a stream
Large inland swamp
with migrant water
fowl
Rural estate with
historic significance
Wildlife sanctuary
with ponds, marshes
Lake complex in
urban area
Hill overlooking the
Charles River
Small kettle pond
with wooded shore-
line
Freshwater bog and
town forest
Open fields on Charles
River with wildlife
Town forest with
unique rock formations
Post glacial gnrge
Rockshelter with high
cliff
Water falls with
history of mill, dams
and building
Natural caves near
Hammond Pond
Large reservation with
variety of recreation
facilities
Island connected to
main land
No.
of
Name
of
Community Sites
Site(s) Description
A17 5

-------
Appendix 2.14—2 (cont. ) — Hassachusetts Landscape and Natural Areas Survey Sites
No. of Name of
con aunity Sites Site(s) Description
Squantuxn Head Rock Out- Interesting rock features
croppings on Ocean Shore
Squantum Marsh Salt marsh near Boston
Squaw Rock Unique formation of
ancient glacial rock
Blacks Creek Estuary Creek tidal basin and
natural woodland
Bunker Hill Quarry Area Historic granite
quarry and granite RR
Furnace Brook Waterway Historical iron works
on stream
Houghs Neck Marshes Tidal saltmarsh in
urban area
Moswetusset Hummock Indian site on peninsula
Reading (North) 1 Furbush Pond and Adjoining Glacial kettle pond and
Area marsh
Sharon 4 Chance River Scenic river, plant
associations, marshes
Morse Estate Landform features,
ponds and streams,
forest
Rattlesnake Hill Area Rolling hills, varied
forest cover, small
swamps
Sherborn 2 Peter’s Hill Wooded hill with view
over undeveloped land
Rocky Narrow Rocky gorge on Charles
River
Stonehain 1 Middlesex Fells Natural area surrO ”
by urban development
A—176

-------
Appendix 2.14—2 (cont. ) — Massachusetts Landscape and Natural Areas Survey Sites
No. of Name of
Conununity Sites Site(s) Description
Walpole 1 Neponset River Watershed River headwaters and
arid Floodplain fresh water marshes
Watertown 2 Mount Auburn Cemetery Nationally historic
cemetery
Wellesley 7 Lake Waban Area Large area of ponds
Lower Charles River in River frontage with
Wellesley falls, woods and
gorge
Town Forest—Water Division Town forest with river
Land frontage, brook esker
Wellesley Town Hall and A town park with pond,
Park brook, arid exotic
plant collection
Gulliksen Mill and Historic Exceptionally fine
Iron Footbridge stone mill on Charles
River
Hemlock Gorge Rockshelter Rockshelter, gorge of
early mill
The Hunnewell Arboretum 120 year old arboretum
Weston 2 Hemlock Pond Pond with rare fresh
water jelly fish
Hubbard Trail Wildflower and nature
study area
Westwood 3 Buckmaster Pond Pond
Hale Reservation Large wetland and
woodland near Boston
Westwood Town Pond Early town pond
Weymouth 8 Grape Island Island in Hingham Bay
formed by two drumlins
and a small salt
marsh
Slate Island Island of interesting
slate ledges
A— 177

-------
Appendix 2.14—2 (cont. ) — Massachusetts Landscape and Natural Areas Survey Sites
No. of Name of
Con tunity Sites Site(s) Description
Weymouth Back River Unspoiled salt marsh
and river setting in
suburban area
Wilmington I Middlesex Canal Surviving section of
open-water of Middlesex
Canal
Woburn 2 Horn Pond arid vicinity Hilly, landscaped
with lake and marshes
Middlesex Canal and Part of the Middlesex
Baldwin Mansion Canal with Woburn loop
and site
A—178

-------
APPENDIX 3.1.3.
FLOW AND WASTE REDUCTION
MEASURES
A—179

-------
ESTIMATED PER CAPITA DAILY CONSUMPTION OF WATER FOR VARIOUS PURPOSES
Estimated
1975 Average Water
Percentage Average 1975 Water Consumption Per Person
Water Use of Total Consumption Per Person Employing Conservation Techniques*
Description Water Useage liters/day (gals/day) ( liters/day) (gals/day )
Drinking/water
used in kitchen 3.3 11,0 (2.9) 11.0 (2.9)
Dishwashing 6.2 20.0 (5.3) 20.0 (5.3)
Toilet 39.0 124.9 (33.0) 77.6 (20.5)
Bathing/Sho ”er 33.0 106.0 (28.0) 79.5 (21.0)
Laundering 14.0 45.4 (12.0) 28.4 (7.5)
Car Washing 4.0 12.9 (3.4) 12.9 (3.4)
Miscellaneous . 5 1.5 ( .4) 1.5 ( .4 )
100.0 321.7 (85.0) 230.9 (61.0)
Estimated Water Reduction Per Person Per Day 90.8 liters (24.0 gallons)**
*Water Conservation Techniques Considered:
1) Water saving toilet — 38% reduction in water use
2) Shower flow regulator - 50% reduction in water use
3) Reduced water use washing machine - 37% reduction in water use
**Water reduction possible with the implementation of all conservation measures.
As not all measures can be applied to every household, it is expected that
the average decrease in water use will be somewhat less.

-------
Savings_Per Year for a Fanüly of Fcur
Estimated cost of water = $.50/750 gallons
Estimated cost of sewer use — $.13,’lOOO gallons
Estimated cost of fuel (gas) = $.50/lOO cu.ft.
Assuming 50 percent of the water used for bathing/shower and
laundering is hot water, the daily savings in hot water is
approximately 23 liters (6gallcns) per person. Approxii ately
.r36 cu.m. (1.2€ Cu. ft.) of gas is required to heat 3.8 liters
(one gallcn) of water. The savings in the cost of fuel for a
family of four would be:
6 x 4 x 365 x 1.26 x $.50/i00 $55.00 per year
The savair.gs in water costs would be:
24 x 4 x 365 x $.50/750 = $23.00 per year
The savings in sewer use costs would be:
24 x 4 x 365 x $.13/1000 5.00 per year
Total estimated savings fcr a family of four $83.00 per year
These figures present water related savings possible with the
implementation of these conservation measures. As not all
of these measures can be applied in every hcusehold, it
is expected that an average decrease in wnter use and related
costs throughout the area % il1 be somewhat less than indicated
above.
A— 182

-------
APPENDIX 3.2.3
PRELIMINARY SCREENING
INLAND SATELLITE WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANTS
A—183

-------
APPENDIX 3.2 3-1
DlSSOLVEj OX ç MODELING
CHARLES RIVER
MASSACHIJSEITS
November 30, 1977
Allen J. Ikalainen
Systems Analysis Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
Region 1, Boston, MA
A— 185

-------
AC DWLEDGE NT
The very large task of assembling data and performing prelim arv
calculations to enable the mathematical simulation of the Charles
River as described herein was done by Mr. John Erdmann, formerly of
the Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control. Mr. Alar.
Cooperman, also of the Division, very cooperatively provided the results
of Mr. Erdmann’s work to EPA, Region I to facilitate this work.
A—186

-------
TABLE OF CD TENTS
Sectic’r Title Page
Contents ii
List of Tables iv
List of Figures V
List of Abbreviations vi
Preface viii
Introduction 1
Conclusions and Recoendations 3
escriptior. of the Charles River 5
Physical Characteristics of the Charles 5
River
Charles River Hydrology 5
Charles River ‘ater Quality 8
Mathematical Model Calibration for Usage 15
The “STREAN” Model 15
Model Calibration 17
The Charles River Model Calibration 17
Procedure
Parameters for Charles River Physical 18
Characteristics
Deoxygenation Rate Constants 31
Photosynthetic Oxygen Production and 31
Respiration
Model Calibration Results 32
III Development of the Low Plow Model 41
Low Flow Model Input Data 42
A—187

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (C0NT’D)
Section Title Page
IV Alternative River Simulation Conditions 49
V Results of Low Flow Alternatives Simulations 53
Ranking and Scoring Systen for Results 53
Comparison
The Results 53
Discussion of D.O. Profiles in Alternative 56
Simulations
LIST OF REFERENCES 63
Appendix A 65
Appendix B 73
Appendix C 81
Appendix D 89
iii
A- 188

-------
LIST OF TABLES
NTJ ER TITLE PAGE
1 Charles River Representative Characteristics 7
2 Charles River Daily Average Flow Analysis 10
3 Charles River Seven—Day, Ten Year Low Flow 11
0cc urr en c e S
4 Description of Charles River Reaches 19
S Charles River — September, 1973 “STRZAN 23
Model Input Data
6 In—Stream Reaeration Rate Data for September, 30
1973 Simulations
7 Charles River “STREAN” Model Low Flow Input 43
Data
8 Year 2000 — Projected Seven—Day, Ten Year 48
Low Flow
9 Alternative Low Flow Simulation Conditions 50
Matrix
10 Alternative River Conditions Cases 51
11 Time of Flow and In—Stream Reaeratiori Constants 52
for Alternative C Satellite WPCF Discharges
at 2000 Projected Seven—Day, Ten Year Low Flow
12 Alternative Low Flow Simulations Conditions 54
Scores
iv
A— 189

-------
LIST OF FIGURES
NU ER TITLE PAGE
I Steps in River Quality Analysis 2
2 Charles River Elevation Profile 6
3 Charles River Flow Gaging Stations 9
4 Charles River — September 1973 22
Schematic Diagram
5 Simulated vs Measured Strea flow 33
(Sept. 3—7, 1973)
6 Simulated vs Measured Dissolved 34
Oxygen (Sept. 4—6, 1973)
7 Simulated vs Measured Dissolved 35
Oxygen (Sept. 4, 1973
8 Simulated vs Measured CBOD 5 37
(Sept. 4, 6, 1973)
9 Discharge Mass Loadings and River Mass 39
Loadings (Sept. 4, 6, 1973)
10 Simulated vs Measured Ammonia 40
Nitrogen (Sept. 4, 6, 1973)
11 Charles River Year 2000 Schematic Diagram 42
12 D.O. Profiles Demonstrating Upstream 58
Discharge Effects
13 D.O. Profiles Demonstrating Alternative 59
J’WC Satellite Discharge Effects
14 D.O. Profiles Demonstrating Alternative 60
MDC Satellite Loadings Effects
1.5 D.O. Profiles Demonstrating Sediment Oxygen 61
Demand and Nitrification Rate Effects
16 D.O. Profiles Demonstrating Photosynthetic 62
Oxygen Production Effects
REFERENCES 63
APPENDICES 65
V
A—190

-------
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
MDC — Coo onvealth of Massachusetts, Metropolitan
District Co ission
— Cot rnonveaIth of Massachusetts, Division of
Water Pollution Control
— Environmental Protection Agency, Region I
cfs — cubic feet per second
mg/i — milligrams per liter
M CD — million gallons per day
ppm — parts per million
D.C. — dissolved oxygen
CBOD 5 — five day carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand
NR 3 —N — a onia nitrogen
N0 3 —N — nitrate nitrogen
Total P — total phosphorus
r.m. — river mile
m.s.l. — mean sea level
STP — sewage treatment plant
WPCF — water pollution control facility
ft. — feet
sec. — seconds
ml. — miles
7Q 10 — seven—day, ten year low flov
sq. ml. — square miles, area
02 — dissolved oxygen
vi
A— 191

-------
LIST OF AE REVIATIONS (cONT’D)
g —gram
— meter
USGS — U.S. Geological Survey
lbs. — pounds
°C — degrees Centigrade
— degrees Farenheit
day — per day or 1
day
T.O.T. — time of flow or time of travel
K 2 — river reaeration rate constant
Q — streamfiow, cfs
MAX — maximum
MIN - minimum
NBOD — nitrogenous biochemical oxygen demand
vii
A—192

-------
P F EF A C L i
This report describes an analysis of the effects on dissclve oxy eri
of planned municipal wastewater discharges to the Charles Uver between
Milford and atertown, assacnusetts, including the effects of a
discharge fro a t etropclitan District satellite plant at alternative
locations. It will discuss the data, the analytical tools used ( cc els)
and each step in the river si u1aticn process. gffects of tne
discharges kill be compared to the dissolved oxygen water quality
standard ano river conditions in general. The river modelir will oe
put in perspective as a representation of part of the river processes
which make up its natural ability to assirnilate pcll tion and deter ine
its water quality.
The analysis is one part of the wasteload allocation, facilities
plannin. anc environ ental i pact assessnent procedures un er ay in
planning for future wastewater aanage ent ir the eastern .assacn setts
metropolitan area.
viii
A— 193

-------
1NThODUCTION
year 2000 wasteicads generated within the Cnarles iver Easin ar
reoeiviri advanced treat cnt are simulated as dischargir. to the Charles
River at a ulo rate wn ch the annually recorded seven consecutive day
mean low flow will not excee once in every ten years. 1 k esu1tin
dissolved oxygen (0.0.) levels are cozparec to the present water QuSilty
standard for 0.0. The steps in the process of this river çuality
analysis and odeiin using the STñEA (1) oodei are shown in Figure 1.
Sections 1 through 5 of the report will describe the prcce: res
followec in each step of the analysis. Co piete data pertinent to eson
section will be referenced and located in the I,ppendicez.
1 The flow rate which the annually recorded seven consecutive day mean
low flow will r ot exceed once in every ten years will hereinafter be
referred to as the seven—day, ten year low flow.
1
A—] .94

-------
FIGURE 1
STEPS
IN RIVER O ALIY AN .LYSIS
Definitior. of Hydrclogic
and water Quality
Characteristics Septe Ther, 1973 Conditions
.1
[ Mathematica. ode1 Calibration;
“Strean !odel Sinulation 2
of Septer’ ber, 1973 Cor.ditioris
rDeve1opr er.t of “Lo Flo :’
I Simulation 3
I
Charles River
Lov F1o
4
Simulations
under
Alternative
Loadings
and rater Qualit
y Conditio
ns
Analysis of Results 5
of
Alternatives Simulations
2
A— 195

-------
COnCLUSiONS
1. The physical characteristics of the Charles River are such that it
baa a very low assi.nilative capacity for oxygen denanding wastes at tne
sever4—day, ten year low flow.
2. This analysis reveals a very a .jor likelihood that existing
treatment plants in Nilford, hedfieid and iilis ar,n tne Onarles river
Pollution Control District Plant, now un er cor.struction, will prevent
D.C. levels in long stretches of tr.e Cnarlea River frc. attainir. .O
mg/i wnen discnar;ing year 203C wasteicads (5 g/l C 3C ann 1 n;/l
at tne seven—day, ten year low flow. This ccn ition will preva i
witn or witnout an t DC Satellite plant disenarge at any of the lo:aUcns
consioered in tnis analysis.
3. If’ future discharges at i ilford, t edfield and hillis an the Cr’iarle
lUver Pollution Control District car. os reliaoiy treated ann tre river
car 4 oc relianly treated sucr that £i.C. levels in tne river upstrea: of
an hOC satellite plant discharge are at 5.0 ng/l at the seven—day, ten
year low how, tnen an h C satellite plant discharge Containing S. D zg/l
of Cb00 5 would not lover D.C. levels below 5.0 n;/i if it is locatec
upstrean of the So. t atick Dan . however, tnis condition would Ce true
only if no other oxygen denandin; phencoena such as algal die off and
non—point source pollution occur during the low flow periocs.
4 . it is understood that the “STR At ” aodel does not sirnulate all of
the physical and biochenical processes that occur jr the Cr.arlea iver
and wnicn determine part of its water quality and biotic conoition.
however, these processes, sucr. as algal growth and deatn dynanics,
land—surface runoff dynaaics, septic and solid waste leaching——all of
which are known to occur in the Cnarles River, can furtner worsen 0.0.
conditions at critical periocs oeyonc those processes which are
si ulate ny the “SIREAh” nobel. Such critical conditions would
probably oe during periods of high tenperature, low river flow ann
between perloos of short duration, intense rainfall. The occurrence of
base flow (groundwater (low) into the river has not been consideren ann
its effect on water quality is not known.
5. An iDC satellite plant discharge under the anticipated year 2000
wasteloads (5.0 mg/i C 0D 5 and 1.0 o;/l hh 3 -R at all upstrean
discharges) will significantly inprove D.C. levels in the Charles River
only if the discharge is located upstreas of the So. hatick Dan or near
the hedfiela friospital. The inprovement will be 1 to 2 ng/l increase in
D.O. along several niles of river, however, the improved condition will
be significantly oelow the desired level of’ 5.0 mg/i.
3
A— 196

-------
REC0F DATI0NS
1. An MDC satellite plant should not be located on the Charles i iver
unless:
a. it can be shown throu:h furtrier data collection and analysis
that tnose river processes not considered in this analysis will not
increase 0.0. deficits during low flow periods;
b. it can be shown that treataent facilities can be reliably
operated tc provide the pollutant removals as are shown tc ce required
by this analysis to maintain 5.0 mg/i 0.0. in the Cnarles i iver at low
flow;
c. the public is willing to bear the econonic and environnental
impact costs of a satellite plant at the required location and level of
treatment.
2. Treatment applied to waste ater discharges should not reduce levels
of all pollutants celow those occurring in runoff and other ncn— cint
pollution sources of the Cnarles i iver unless it is proven thrcu;r.
detailed analysis that further treatment is cost effective in terrns of
significantly improving in strea water quality.
3. The water pollution control planning process for the Charles ivcr
should include, as a possible control for future wastewater frc
Milforo, Ck ?C and i edfield—L•.illis, the uniting of sewer service area
and wastewater loadings, sucn that wastewater loadings to the Onaries
River are minimized.
4
A—i 97

-------
1. DESCJPT1Oh OF ThE ChA LES R1VEF
Physical Characteristics of the Charles P.iver
The Charles River flows between hopkinton, hassachusetts and the
Watertown Darn in atertown, Massachusetts. The path of flow is
approximately 69 miles with a straignt line distance of 21.5 miles at an
east—northeast heacing. As the river flows fron. an elevation of 32
feet m.s.l. in hopkintoc to . atertown at elevation 6.6 feet m.s.l. it
winds and meanders from a suburban to an uroan environment.
There are 20 darns along the course of the river which account for
about 200 feet of the elevation change (see Figure 2). The dams are a
significant aeter:inant of water quality fcrmirg impoundments wider and
deeper than the free flowing river reaches. Velocity of flow in tnc
impoun sents decreases from that in free flowing reacnes causing
sediment accumulation and reducing reaeration. As the river flows over
the darns the energy lost by impoundment is input to the water an rapid
reaeration an velocity increase occurs. Dams in close proximity
constitute a major feature of the river’s assimilative capacity for
oxygen demanding wastes.
The following Table 1 contains representative velocities, depths and
widths of free flowing and impounded river reaches.
Due to the numerous darns and the river’s meanderings the total tine
of passage between river mile (r.m.) 76.5 and r.m. 9.6 is 7.6 days ( 1 ) at
an average river flow of O1 cfs at the althan USGS gaging station and
about bO days, as simulated in this study, at the seven—day 1 ten year
low flow (7()0). As will be seen later the long time of passage witr .in
impounded river reaches is a major determinant of the Charles River’s
water Quality.
Ten major tributaries enter the river between Medway and Iatertown.
Of these, Mine Erock, Stop River and Sugar Erook are presently receiving
domestic wastewater discharges. The river loses approximately 27 1 of
its flow through a diversion to the Neponset River via Mother broox in
Dedham.
Charles Mver Eydrolocv
The Charles River drainage area upstream of the Watertown Darn is 231
aquare miiest1 ). ? other brook diversion removes drainage from
approximately 60.6 sq. mi.
C )t utnt ers in parantheses indicate references
( 1 )?art A, Charles River Water Quality Survey Data MD ?C, 1973
1 1 atio of daily average discharges for period of record at USGS gages at
I other brook and Charles River Village.
5
A—198

-------
5i5s. 4. mm . . .. 4. •1 .
1 50 1 5 1 1 1 51 1 519 PIHIS
- - + F ’” - .1— 415111 .L
0 1 f t — •e•i, , ,s 4, a,,, ,.
ii , , . ,, 4, iou, 4, ii , , ,. - son,
5
.. . .. , . —
s I ‘! ‘°‘“
—.————i ‘11 19 1 It I I I
•9 II i i it
RIVIR MU S flOVt MOUTH
•0?WII 11095
tOliLni LIIUITLII
lIlt? I I III
L PI I5 lUll
S r,o..a, ii ,, I , I
3
— 1 i5 i’ll $4 5 — . . a — —
— /(j I I II It S —r — .— —
•0 ( ‘I ’ll I I I : — — —
(1111 Ii , , I — —
—
5 1* 10 1 105 15 pillS I..
ill? I I •I 1001’ I I Ill 11110 II Ill
— --- — -- — $1141510 1 51 1 ( 1111 II IL •
/ •nu.. i.e.. ,..I. ,l’ I ll
FIGURE 2
m l , . ., - 4, i i. . . . 4, mis. .. 4s.t .iiii4.s.it.s4.uai .isJ_ •su , ... 4,s ..u*s . ,
‘i’ - IS. , ,. - . ,r, , - _4_s lrua Jr . ..LL s e ’ s.
I II , SIll
isle I ..,
‘$ 5
i l l
0 10
$ 5 .
N.
Ii. —
I.,
..l is.
.4
ho
Pp , 1 L I I
=
I- .
1 .0
II.
a
I-
us
La
-a
La Is.
I,
I.
a.
‘I
Si,. Sift II•
15111 SI 1111 W

en.,..
L VII I I S I S
I I
ft I’IIli! I’• ”°! !t!!r’ —
IIII j5III IS I S ii i —
( L II I I I l•I 5
‘ •. . 0uSIlU
‘ —I (ill SI till
,._ ,,,,I.,. , 5 oil
IIIIIII Pill 3
IlIl lo l lu Ii i
‘ jI l l II 9?? Z
I I S I I I I I I
II 1$ II IS U I SI I I I? Ii
CHARLES RIVER ç PROFUE
I t I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I I I II Ii It I I
Source: Reference 2

-------
TABLE 1
CHARLES RIVER
REPRESENTATIVE CHARACTERISTICS 1”
Flow Depth Width Velocity
Location ( cfs) ( ft.) ( ft.) ( ft./sec.) (ni/day )
Cedar Swanp Pond
Milford 1.4 4.5 33 0.007 (0.1)
flopping Brook to
Mine Brook
Franklir .,Medway 12.7 4.9 12.9 0.2 (3.3)
Populatic Pond
l4edway 24.2 2.3 1051 (0.16)
Mill River to Stop
River, Millis—Medfield 40 4.8 69.4 0.12 (1.9)
?4edfield Hospital to
So. Natick Dan 72 6.4 65.2 0.17 (2.8)
Cochrane Darn to
Chestnut St., Needharn 99 4.4 43.1 0.37 (6.0
Mother Brook Diver-
sion to Long Ditch Out-
let, Dedharn 88 8.1 114 0.096 (1.6)
So. Meadow Brook to
Silk Mill Darn,
Newton 93 8.2 55.3 0.20 (3.2)
Bleachery Darn to
Watertown Darn 120 5.6 37 0.58 (9.5)
1” Characteristics represent average conditions
during September 3-7, 1973, model calibration
period.
A—2 00

-------
The U.S. Geological Si. rvey (USOS) routinely measures strea flow at
three locations on the Charles i iver and at one on t other L rook. Figure
3 is a scheaatic representation of this flow measurement systern. lade
2 presents some flow statistics for the period of record at each US0
gaging station. The most significant aspects of these data are the
comparison between the seven—day, ten year low flow and flows actually
recorded during recent years.
Flow records indicate that the lowest mean seven day low flows which
have occurred each year between 1567 and 197 have always exceeded the
7C 10 . An examination of the lowest mean seven day low flows wr.icn ‘nave
occurred eacn year for the period of record at all Charles iver gages
reveals that 7 0 flow levels have occurred as shown in Table 3. Thus
it is evident that the use of a seven—day, ten year low flow as a base
flow or low limit flow for water quality standards attainment provices
some factor of safety for the river, especially during the last decade.
it is also evicent that the Charles Kiver flows are reasonably cign,
except for extrene occurrences, during i ay through Cctober, the months
of the year when most non—contact water usage occurs. Eowever, flows
during one of tne pea < usage montns, August, are rarkecly lower than the
other months and extremely low flow occurrences do happen for the entire
month.
it would be interesting and valuacle to study quantitatively how the
low flows which occur affect stream usage and stream blots.
Charles iver hater cualitv
astewater discharges and instream water quality of the Charles
River are summarized by the following conclusions of fart C — ater
ual y Analysis. 197 . 1976. of the Charles Flyer and Onarles iver
Basin (hi ’ . .fC) . Those conclusions related specifically to the portion of
the river pertaining to this report are:
1. Between 1967 and 1976 the total dischai e of pollutants from the
seven major waste discharges of the upper watershed changed little,
althoun individual discharges changed significantly. in 1976 their
total wastewater diocharge was acout 5.1 million gallons daily. in the
same year, their approximate total discharge of BOO 5 was 2,600 pounds
daily; of phosphorus, 200 pounds daily; and of nitrogen, 750 pounds
daily. The largest waste discharges are the municipal wastewater
treatment plants of ii1ford and Franklin. Pollutant loadings from these
plants exnibit a large day—to—day variability. The treatment facilities
for the rentham State School and for the Town of edfield effect
nitrification with efficiencies greater than 90 , although they are not
designed to do so. Facilities for I orfolk— alpole NCI and for the Town
of I iiford, also not designed for nitrification, produce moderately
nitrified effluents too.
2. Urban runoff and other non—point pollutant sources, thougn not
adequately measured in the Charles ‘watershed, undoubtedly degrade the
8
A— 201

-------
FIGURE 3
CHARLES RIVER FLOW
GAGING STATIONS
u.s.c,.s.
River I’iles
80
70
60
50
40
Charles River Villa e 01103500
30 Drainage Area=184 sg. mi.
l4other Brook Diversion
at Dedha n
20 Charles River at 0 1 10400C
Wellesley Drainage Area=
211 sq. mi.
10 Charles River at 01104500
Wa1thax Drainage Area=
227 sq. mi.
9
A—202

-------
TABLE 2
CHARLES RIVER
DAILY AVERAGE FLOW Ai;ALYSIS
1967 to 1974
tior .
Charles
River
Vii lag e
7Q’ 0 =11. 6cfs
Water Averace
Year cfs
Averace
to Oct.
Mean Seven—Day
Lo : F1o c s
371 to 10/31
Month l v
Averace c s
Aug’ st
1967
281.67
242.3
46.1
1968
316.70
169.9
23.3
1969
276.5
138.9
26.0
70.0
1970
369.89
133.4
30.3
1971
242.21
118.2
16.9
91.8
1972
373.33
329.15
52.7
145.1
1973
394.31
205.2
36.1
1974
333
149.7
24.5
1967
55.0
53.4
3.9
12.5
17.)
1968
83.4
25.6
1.2
19.6
1969
70.5
22.2
3.2
9.3
1970
120.5
27.3
1.8
4.4
1971
67.26
22.5
.3
12.3
1972
104.4
94.5
1.5
24.0
1973
114.2
46.0
4.6
4.8
1974
100.
32.5
2.6
1967
293.4
250.6
40.1
162.0
61.6
1968
294.6
175.6
29.6
108.5
1969
280.7
147.2
22.1
97.6
1970
369.25
145.7
38.9
40.3
1971
233.0
127.3
21.1
111.6
1972
367.8
327.3
74.4
171.0
1973
1974
375.6
314.
219.0
163.6
75.5
33.8
56.5
Soth er
Brook
Charles
River at
Waltham
7Q10...5 lcfs
Source of Data: Reference 3
10
A— 203

-------
TABLE 3.
CHARLES RIVER
SEVEN-DAY, TEN YEAR LOW FLOW OCCURRENCES
Period Years with Or.e
7Q 10 of or More
Locatic’n cfs Re rd Low F1o Occurrences
Char 1 e s
River 11.6 1938 to 1974 1953, 1956
Village
Charles
River at 7.8 1962 to 1973 1966
Wellesley
Charles
River at 5.1 1933 to 1973 1934, 1936, 1937, 1941
Waithan 1943, 1957
Additional Note: Additional analyses of daily flow records for Charles
River Village (13,149 records) reveals:
Geometric Mean Flow for period of record — 178 cfs
Flows less than 7Q10__1 0.59% (77.5)
% of flows less than 70 lasting more than
three days 23.1% (17.9)
Source of Data: Reference 5
11
A—204

-------
quality of many more miles of stream than do the waste discharges and
tne sewer overflows, but in more moderate degree.
3. The Charles River (upstream of the .atertown Dam) exribited main
stem dissolved oxygen concentrations in June and September 1973, ranginc
from 0.3 to 16.2 mg/i. The D.C. data indicated two major pollut or,
effects. First, localize: D.C. depressions, directly attrioutaole to
point discharges of orgar.ic wastes, occurred in ilford, bellincham,
Franklin—Medway, anc fr.illis— ecfield. Secondly, point an: nor—point
pollutant sources stimulate: excessive algal growth, inducing large
daily variations in ).C. Tnis pollution effect occurs as a series of
cycles spanning the entire main stem except for the headwaters. A newly
developed computer program, D1CU V2, was used in corjuncticr. with the
Division’s simulation model of the Charles River to analy:e these
pollution effects quantitatively. st mates of net ceoxyCeriat cr. rate
ranged up to 20 mgC 2 /l/day and higner. nctcsyntresi coca oiallv
exceeded deoxygenation. The largest estimated net protosyr.tnetic rate
was 1 .5 m;0 2 /l/uay (daily average value).
. The Charles River evinces higr levels of pollutants assooiate
with organic waste matter thrcugncut rcarly its entire lenoer.. OIL
nitrogen, and pnospr.orus levels all are affected in large cenree cy tr.e
point organic waste discrarges of the upper watershed. c•wever,
non—point sources and in—stream ciclogical processes also affect
pollutant levels——very greatly for suOstantially for nitrogen, arc
less substantially for phcspnorus.
. The Charles River is of poor bacterial quality, judging by the
traditional coliform bacteria standard. The bathing stanoar: of i,uC
total coliforms per 103 ml is violated most everywhere from i-,ilford to
watertown. The lane surface of the watershed, harboring nori—fecal
coliforms, is uncoubteely a major source of contamination of the river.
Fiowever, sewer overflows and sewage effluents sometimes inadequately
disinfected are also sources of contamination, so there is a bona fide
public health risk.
6. The Charles River is unusually abundant in algae, and algal
levels are strongly relatec to other measures of water quality, in
particular, algae exert a major influence on D.C., and probably on ROD
eazurements. Throughout much of the main stem, nitrogen appears to cc
the gro h—limiting nutrient for algae. However, this circumstance
results from the relatively large oiscnarge of phosphorus from the ma3cr
point organic waste sources, and it appears feasible to induce
phosphorus limitation by substantially reducing point source phosphorus
discharge.
7. Charles River tributaries are generally also polluted, whether
from point or non—point sources. Stop River is of particular concern
because of two state institutional discharges to it. hater quality
degradation of this triDutary, nowever, is largely due to non—point
eources, cost likely associated with the extensive wetlands through
which it flows.
12
A—205

-------
. Cnarles iuver aain ste and tributary data yield indirect
estloates of non—point pollutant source r agnitudes. The ranges of the
various estizates are as follows: 15 to 100 10/day/square nile for-
first—sta;e ultinate D; 0.5 to 5.2 b/day/square nile for incr ar .ic
nitrogen; and 0.2 to 1.1 10/day/square mile for total phosphorus. These
estimates are very crude.
9. (if the 1215 benthic nacroinverteorates collected in the Cnarles
River nain sten b03 or 73 were of a facultative pollution tolerance.
Station £02 exnicited a trend toward an intolerant berathic con ticn
even thougn tte che-.ical water quality indicatec conditions toc a:verse
to support sucn an asse cla e. ihis conaiti.on nay occur cecause of
physical conc tior.s or unknown orgar.is: tolerances.
10. Due to the inpounded and slow noving nature of zany of the
sanplin; stations tne oenthic cozzunities excited conditions
indicative of eutrcpnied lakes and ponds. mis sug ests trat tne
physical as well as the chezical cnaracteristics at these stations
influonce tac Dentnic coazunity structure.
11. The Charles iiver tributaries exnibited a zcstly facultative
pollution tolerance response. At stations £12 and E13 the cer.tnic
COn ur.ity ccnsistec largely of isopocs and anpnipoos.
There are several particularly significant points nade in. these
Conclusions wn.ich have a Dearing on tnis analysis and its part in tne
ongoing water quality zanagezent process.
Land surface runoff and otner non—point pollutant sources have not
been adequately measured, but their impact on water quality is suspected
to be significant.
Photosynthetic effects, specifically D.C. production and respiration
have been measured and analyzed by simulation. Photosynthesis has not
been measured nor analyzed.
betlands are suspected as causing water quality degradation of Stop
River. The effect of all wetlands within the Charles watershed has not
been determined.
The benthic macroinverteorate community is primarily pollution
tolerant. At many locations this is as much a feature of the pnysical
structure of the river and its surroundings as it is of the pollution
discnarges.
The most significant unknown of the river’s quality, water and
biotic, is the extent to which eacn feature is natural and to whicn eacn
is altered from natural by point source pollution discharges. This is
of paramount concern as this is what we are considering in this
analysis, the effect of point sources on future water quality.
13
A—206

-------
One aspect of Charles Fiver water quality which is not di cu e 1r
the previously referenced report is the chernical characterizatior, of the
river sedioents. Sedirnent sa ples collected in 1973 and 1977 and
analyzed for toxic metals contained Detween 33.1 and 506.5 ppo of toxic
eta1s (tne suo of concentrations of oercury, cac iuz, lead, zinc,
chromiuz and arsenic). These sanpies were collected frorn the ‘ain river
and three tributaries(1, 6 ).
Sedloent saoples were not analyzed for nitrogen and phosphorus
forms. The idea of inducing pncspnorus li itation of al ai gro tn as
expressed in the previous conclusion nunber needs to be further
studied before it is given serious consideration because the Dalance of
phospnorus between tnat in secinents, in point source oischar es, in
runoff and in precipitation an that availatle for algal growth is not
known.
14
A— 207

-------
11. ? AThE J1CAL l C EL CALlli LTl FOi, US 3E
Tne F Efl-” ode1
The “STi- EA : aodel used in this analysis was developed by quirk,
Lawler, and atus y as described in yste—s lic ticr.s for ater
Polticr Control cy cuir , Lawler and atusky £nzineers, June 1971 for
the Cconwealth of Massa hesetts. 7
This is a one—dinensional, steady—state receiving water quality
model whicri operates un er tne following conditions:
the steady—state assu ptior that
concentraticr.s of all suostances at a point
discharge do not vary with ti’e;
• 0 within eac - strea seg ent or odelir,
reach, the cross sectional area o the strear
is constant;
• longitudinal dispersion can be ignored;
• lateral dispersion causes co plete mixing;
• there is an exponential relationship between strea flow and tine
of I 1o where
travel tiae =
Qi = reach strea f1ow
Q EX? constant
Q coeF = constant
(this model feature is a nodification of that in the original
model and was progran ed Dy J. £rdnann( ))
The model describes, for each river segoent, the longitudinal
distribution of dissolved oxygen (DO), caroonacous biocnenical oxygen
demand (C OO) and nitrogenous oiocnenical oxygen denand (i CD). The
dissolved oxygen computation includes baci ;round tributary and
distributed loaQings and conditions. A mass balance of the dissolved
oxygen sources and sinks (consumption processes) is perforaec reach by
reach. DO sources are:
• in stream reaeration, including “rapids”;
• DO production by photosynthesis.
15
A— 208

-------
DO sinks are:
• bacterial respiration in oxidation of CEOD, t EOD and sedinent
• photosynthesis respiration
The algorlth s for C CD and NEOD deoxygenation are based on the
Strecter ano Phelps relationship and tfle stoichiozetric relationsniç for
oxidation of ammonia, respectively.
Atmospheric reaeration over da2s is based upon a relationship
developed by uirk anc Eder 9 ). This assuoes that the rate of oxygen
transfer is proportional to the flow over the dan. The rate of transfer
at various flows is detercined as Oem; linear with flow. The slcpe of
a linear plot of the rate luncticr. ano flow is input into the prograz to
calculate trie rate function at various flo ;s.
Deoxygenation of sediaent is assu cd unifor: per unit area of
deposit. It is input as a cass areal rate — grans/sçuare meter/day and
the demand rate is expressed as:
RE w = fraction of bottom with sediment x rate (g/m 2 lday) x
wettec perimeter x distance (reacn -length).
Photosynthesis is represented by volumetric DC production and
respiration rates. One term represents the over—all rate at which
oxygen is released by photosynthesis, accounnting for the effect of
sunlight, temperature, mass of algae and plants ana nutrients. Tnis
rate is assumed to oe dependent upon river depth and a twelve hour
period of sunlight. J depth and sunlight period adjusted rate, averaged
over 2 4 hours, is used in the DO balance computations. hlgal
respiration is usec in the model as a constant daily rate.
All chemical and biochemical reactions are adjusted to the
temperature specified for each reach before computations begin.
16
A— 209

-------
Model Cali raticn
The practice of strean sinulation witn nathcnatical o :els is that
of taking real—world zeasures of the physical, hydrologic, chenical an:
blolo ical strean systens. These neasures are uses directly or syste
descriptive reaction rate coefficients are developed fron tnen. A nix
of direct aeasures and representative coe ficients are use: within
algorithns wr icn are aostractions of real—world systens anc wnich are
based upon known quantifiaole laws cf science. ysten features wnic
are not understood to tne degree that they can be explained in terns ci
known, quantifiacle laws are represented by enpirical or proDacilistic
relationsnips.
Model calibratior. is a sequence of steps whicfl indicates how clcse
the :cdej abstraction emulates tne real—world oessures. in this
sequence, concurrent discharge and in—strea: water quality cats an: cne
or nore sets of data for deterninin; reaction rates for decx er.aticr-.
reaeration, edincnt oxygen cenanc an: pnotcsynthctic processes arc se
to set up the nooci and sirnulate water quality. Si:ulatc: conditions
are then conpared to aeasured conditions of water quality. Close
agreeoent would incicate tne nodel to be well caliorated.
The next sequence of steps in sirzulation would be to c lle:t
concurrent oata on discharge and strea: water quality under cifferent
conditions of flow and wastewater loading, if possi:ie. The next step,
simulation of this set of water quality conditions, utilizing tne
calioration reaction rates is the verification sequence. if the
sinulation is a good representation of the second neasured set of water
Quality conditions, tnen the model is said to be verifiec. At thir
point it would be ready for use to sirnulate predicted conditions cecause
the model could reproduce conditions representative of the river
processes.
The Charles River hodel Calibration Procedure
In the case of the Charles River modeling described in this report,
recent data was not available to follow the entire roceaure just
described. This is a orief history of the aodel calioration for this
analysis.
DurinC June and September 1973, the t ass. Division of ‘ater
Pollution Control ( .Db rC) conducted water quality surveys of the Charles
giver Detween è ilford and atertown, hA. During Decenoer 1973 an: July
197k, the hu PC collected discharge rate and contents data for three
consecutive 2k—hour periods for each discharger to the Charles hiver
drainage basin. Mr. John r .rd ann, forc erly of the MD PC, set up the
ST .EA ; nodel to siciulate the June and epteaoer survey conaitions. it
was assuzaed that average aisenarge conditions as weasured in Deoenoer
1973 and July 19744 were identical to average conditions during the
17
A—210

-------
strea: water çuality studies in June and Septc ber 1973. This
assuaption was aa:e with conaiceracle judgcoent and experience re;ardinz
the in ividual discnarges.
At this point, the modeling described in this report began.
It was deciced that mcccl calioration would cor.aist of si ulatirg
the Septeaoer 1 73 water quality resulting Ir e:. the averge wastelcace of
the 73 an: 7 sa:pling, holding to tr.e assu: tion tnat tnese wc cc
Identical to tne wastelcacs curing tr.e water çuality survey. Ai c, trc
5eptc oer water quality concit or s are of great interest cecause tne
s 1ations to cc acne at tfle sever—cay, ten year low ficw are trcac c
conC iticra most ii eiy to occur during August and Se;tcacer.
? ara etera for Charles Fiver nya cal Craracter at cs
For purposes of sirnulation witr crc S EAi. nodel, tre r .arlea river
main stec was civiaed into tnirty five reacres tc acco r.t for tre
variation in river flow, cross sectional area, reaerat±or-. arc tare cf
flow. These rea:nes are aescriced in the foliowinc iacle .
aole 5 presents portions of tne input data for the Septercer 1 7
calioratior sioujation. Ire entire input data set is in Appercix A.
Streai flow in each reach was deteroined by drainage area rurcf
characteristics. Flow in eacn reaon is proportional to the drainage
area, inducing tributary drair.age areas, upstreaz of crc beginning
point of eacn reacn an: the uniforly aistrioute: runoff witnin the
reacn. Iricutary and plant flows are input to the river at tne heac of
eacli reacn.
During the water quality survey (Septeroer 3—7, 1973) Charles river
flows average: 105 cfs at tne Charles hiver Village USGS Gage, 1 .2 cfs
at the t otner brook tSG.S Gage at e3haa, 111.2 cfs at the nellesley USGS
Gage arc 1 1 cfs at the althar USGS Gage. In cocparison the seven—day,
ten year low flow at the Cnaries s iver Village Gage is 11.c eta.
The constants and exponents used in the time of flow relationship
within the 5ln AI-. program were developea utilizing tine of travel dye
study data collected by tne t 0 a C in 1573 anc velocity measurecents oy
ERA, ktegion 1 at the gaging stations and several other locations in
1971. lne procecure wnich i r. .rQoann used is outlined in a hU .PC
memorandum (157L ) and is based upon the work of Leopold and haddoci .
18
A— 211

-------
TABLE 4
DESCEdPTION OF CriA LE5 RIVEP REACHES
River Reach
kumber De cr1ption
1 From Dilla Street, r ilford to Cedar Swamp Pond Dam; fron
mile point 76.5 to mile point 75.b.
2 From Cedar Swamp Pond Dam to Milford STP; from mile
point 75.5 to mile point 73.L1.
3 From t;ilford STP to inlet, box Pond; from mile point
73.Z to mile point 71.j.
From inlet, Box Pond to Box Poind Dan; from mile poir.t
71.3 to mile point 70.3.
5 From Box z ond to 1 ortn Eellin ham Dam; from mile point
70.3 to mile pcint 6b.1.
6 From Nortn Eeluic;r.am Dan to Careyvilie Dan; from mile
66.1 to nile point 6’4.6.
7 From Careyville Dam to }ioppin Brook; from mile point
6 .6 to mile point E . .1
8 From Hoppin; Brook to Mine brook; from mile point
to mile point 63.1.
9 From Mine Brook to .est tledway Dam and Chicken Brook;
from mile point 63.1 to mile point 62.9.
10 From west Medway Dam and Chicken Brook to iedway Dan;
from mile point 62.9 to mile point 60.7.
11 From Medway Dam to inlet, Populatic Pond; from mile
point 60.7 to mile point 59.0.
12 From inlet, Populatic Pond to outlet, Populatic Pond;
from mile point 59.0 to mile point 56.9.
13 From outlet, Populatic Pond to Mill River; from mile
point 5b.9 to mile point 57.6.
V i From Mill River to Stop River; from mile point 57.6 to
mile point 51.8.
19
A— 212

-------
River Reach
Number Description
15 From Stop River to Sugar Brook; from mile point 51.8 to
mile point 9.9.
16 From Sugar Brook to Bogastow Brook; from mile point L .9
to mile point ,â.3.
17 From Bogastow Brook to edfiel F ospital; from mile
point 48. 3 to mile point 7.8.
lb From Me field hc pital to fl.E. 2.0; from mile poir.t
A47 . to mile poi .t 2.0.
Fro F L. 2.0 to Eouth .atick Lam; fr: mile pc nt
to mile point 41.1.
20 From South atick La: to abar Brook; from mile point
41.1 to mile point 39. .
21 From ‘ aban Brook to I’..E. 35.6; from mile point 39 . . to
mile point 35.6.
22 From R.M. 35.6 to Cochrane Dan; from mile point 35.6 to
mile point 314.6.
23 From Cochrane Dane to Chestnut Street, Needham; from
mile point 344.6 to mile point 33.0.
214 From Chestnut Street, Needham to Long Ditch inlet; from
mile point 33.0 to mile point 29.6.
25 From Long Ditch inlet to icther Brook Diversion; from
mile point 29.8 to mile point 26.5.
26 From Mother Brook Diversion to Long Ditch outlet; from
mile point 29.8 to mile point 214.2.
27 From Long Ditch outlet to South Meadow Brook; from mile
point 214.2 to mile point 21.2.
2 From South Meadow Brook to Silk Mill Dam; from mile
point 21.2 to mile point 20.2.
29 From Silk Mill Dam to Metropolitan Circular Dam; from
mile point 20.2 to mile point 20.0.
30 From Metropolitan Circular Dam to Newton Lower Falls;
from mile point 20.0 to mile point 17.9.
20
A— 213

-------
River s each
I u ber escription
31 Iron t e tor. Lover Falls to inlet, ! .oo y St. Da
1 poun nent; fros zije point 17.9 to nile point 15.i. .
32 Iron t:oocy St. Dan Inpoun nent to oody St. Da ; fm:
nile point 15.2 to nile point 12.7.
33 Froo t oo y St. Dan to heaver Erook, ,aitnan; fron nut
point 12.7 to nile point 12.3.
3 Fron Beaver Erook, altt an to E eaohery Dan; frcz z le
point 12.3 to mile point 11.6.
35 Iron Blea:nery Dan t atertcwr. Dan; fm: nile poir.t
11.6 to nile point 9.0.
KOTh: heac es 16. and 19 and reaches 21 an: 22 correspond to reaches 1:
and 20 in Tables 5 and 6.
23.
A—2 14

-------
rIc-URE 4
CHARLLS RIVER
SEPTEMBER, 1973
SCHE! ATIC DIA R i
Waste’. ater
River Miles Discharces Tributaries
80
Darns
Mi1for TPCF
70
Hop iri Erook
(Franklin PCF) Mine Erook, C icker. Ercc}:
60 (via Mine Brook)
(1’?alpole MCI, rentbar) Mill River
(State Sckool via
( Stop river ) Stop River
50 Mill Erook—Me fie1d PCF Sucar Brook
(Hulls PCF via Sugar Br.) Eogasto Brook
Medfield State Hospital
40
Waban Brook
30 I
Mother Brook Diversion
So. ?1eado Brook
20 ____
____ Beaver Brook
10
CHARLES
RIVER
BASIN
22
A— 215

-------
TABLE 5
CHARLES RIVER SEPTEMBER, 1973 ‘ TREAWMODEL
INPUT DATA
BIOCHEMICAL REACTION TES, BASE e
CBOD NBOD
Day—i Day—i
S tr e am
(All reaches) .09 — .23 0.6
Surface Runoff .139 0.6
Point Loads
Milford ‘PCF .69 —— with 55.E
hour 1a
tine for
nitrific.-
tion
Medfield k PCF .139
Medfield State Hospital .16
Tributaries .15 — .16
BACKGROUND CONDITIONS
Upstream of r. m. 76.5
BOD 5 = 4.2 mg/i
DO 7.8 mg/i
UNIFOPJ- DISTRIBUTED FLOE
(Surface Runoff)
CBOD 5 = 3.0 mg/i in reaches upstream of r. n• 41.1
4.5 g/1 in reaches downstream of r. . 41.1
WEOD — 0
23
A—2 16

-------
Point Sources
Milford WPCF
$ed ie1d wpcp
Medfield State
Hospital
Franklin WPCF
(into Mine Bk.,)
Walpole MCI
(into Stop River)
Wrenthar . State
School (into Stop
River)
Nillis ‘PCF (Sugar
Brook)
Tributary Loads
Bopping Brook
Mine Brook
Chicken Brook
Mill River
Stop River
Sugar Brook
Bogastow Brook
Waban Brook
So. Meadow Brook
Beaver Brook
POLLUTANT
Effluent Flow
D.O . MCD
1.0 2.7
0 0.34
1.0 0.15
(continued)
TABLE 5
LOADINGS (1973)
CBODç
mg/i lbs/day
30.3 682.
392.5 1099.
23.3 30.1
NBOD
_____ lbs.! d
1051.
169.
41.3
27.3 1562.
mg / 1
10.6
13.0
7.2
1.0
1.5
146.
1834.
1.0
0.25
34.3
71.5
7.1
67.9
1.0
.14
3.3
3.8
1.2
6.5
1.0
.14
31.6
37.
20
106.7
6.2
1.9
1.0
15.6
0.9
65.].
1.0
5.7
4.32
1.80
1.2
2.4
43.3
36.2
11.9
1.28
1926.
89.1
3.1
7.75
1.0
64.6
0.32
94.5
2.8
12.1
3.2
323.
1.05
483.4
4.7
0.5
138.0
580.
2.15
40.8
7.2
6.9
3.2
184.
1.0
263.
6.3
8.32
0
0
0.9
285.
7.9
1.65
5.1
70.3
0.27
16.9
5.9
5.78
3.9
188.3
1.05
231.3
24
A—217

-------
TABLE 5 (contint
RIVER LENGTH Qu DEPTH 2 VELOCITY TIME OF SEDIMENT PERCENT OF T,
REACH MILES CFS FEET Fr 2 FT/SEC FLOW, DAYS DEMAND BOTTOM JITII
gm/m 2 /day SEDIMENT day 1
1 1.0 0.74 4.5 148.9 .007 8.75 1.0 50 .045 26.4
2 2.1 1.4 1.0 37.1 .05 2.6 1.0 50 1.55 25.2
3 2.1 6.4 3.0 47.9 .138 0.9 1.0 100 1.45 25.7
4 1.0 6.75 6.4 156.0 .05 1.4 1.0 100 .34 28.0
5 4.2 7.1 4.9 11.6.8 .07 3.8 1.0 50 .39 25.3
6 1.5 8.75 5.7 88.4 .105 0.9 1.0 50 1.085 25.7
7 .45 9.8 2.0 23.2 .42 .06 1.0 50 2.02 26.0
8 1.05 12.7 4.9 63.2 .20 .32 1.0 50 1.25 26.4
9 .20 19.5 4.1 434.5 .045 .27 1.0 100 .16 26.3
10 2.2 22.3 4.6 114.5 .20 .67 0 0 .67 26.2
11 1.7 23.7 4.8 133.9 .18 .58 0 0 .20 25.8
12 .1 24.2 2.3 2419.3 .01 .61 0 0 .23 26.3
13 1.3 24.4 4.0 134.4 .18 .63 0 0 .2 26.9
14 5.8 37.3 4.8 333. .12 2.97 1.0 50 .17 22.1
15 1.9 60.7 6.4 453.5 .14 .85 0.5 50 .03 24.9
16 1.6 63.8 6.2 407.5 .16 .62 0.5 50 .05 25.2
11 0.5 75.4 6.0 502.1 .15 .29 0.5 50 .15 25.6
18 6.7 75.8 6.4 423.2 .19 2.12 1.0 50 .06 25.8
19 1.7 87.7 3.1 395.9 .22 .47 0 0 .03 25.8
20 4.8 101.7 8.0 630.3 .17 1.74 1.0 25 .06 25.7
21. 1.6 109.9 4.4 194.9 .56 .17 0 0 .4 25.6
22 3.2 110.8 10.0 280.9 .39 .5 0.5 50 .27 25.5
23 3.3 112.2 10.3 405.1 .27 .73 0.5 55 .04 25.6
24 2.3 98.6 8.1 955.9 .10 1.36 0.5 55 .01. 24.9
25 3.0 99.9 9.1 504.8 .2 .92 0.5 55 .03 26.1
26 1.0 103.3 9.5 465.6 .22 .275 0.5 55 .2/4 26.2
27 .2 103.5 3.5 786.1 .13 .09 1.0 55 .66 25.9
28 2.05 103.6 6.6 216.7 .49 .25 0 0 .45 25.6
29 2.55 109.0 6.4 536.7 .21 .75 0 0 .04 25.6
30 2.70 114.3 10.5 1762.5 .07 2.50 1.0 50 .02 25.6
31 0.45 117.5 6.4 151.9 .77 .03 0 0 2.67 25.4
32 0.45 126.5 7.9 270.6 .67 .06 0 0 .45 25.2
33 2.0 126.7 5.6 212.6 .61 .20 0 0 1.45 25.0
1 River flow at upstream end of the re ich
2 Cross sectional area

-------
TABLE 5 (continued)
PHOTOSYNTHESIS
DATA
USED IN SEPTE 2ER
S IM’JLAT ION
RIVER ALCPO* ALGPT* ALGRA*
REACH ppm/day ppzri/day ppm/day
1 14.2 2.48 0.45
2 33.4 9.19 1.06
3 11.3 2.37 0.36
4 26.7 3.78 0.85
5 8.54 1.42 0.27
6 11.62 1.77 0.37
7 12.8 3.06 0.41
8 9.55 1.59 0.30
9 5.53 1.01 0.18
10 5.60 0.97 0.18
11 9.11 1.54 0.29
12 13.19 3.03 0.62
13 17.91 3.32 0.57
14 7.7 1.30 0.25
15 4.08 0.56 0.13
16 5.5 0.79 0.18
17 6..9 1.02 0.22
18 15.93 2.25 0.5
19 23.8 3.44 0.76
20 19.8 1.30 0.63
21 14.36 1.61 0.46
22 11.37 0.6 0.36
23 9.99 0.5 0.32
24 12.32 0.8 0.39
25 17.59 1.02 0.56
26 16.27 0.9 0.52
27 15.64 2.08 0.50
28 20.58 1.62 0.65
29 20.1 1.63 0.64
30 11.34 0.57 0.36
31 8.2 0.67 0.26
32 11.47 0.76 0.37
33 20.45 1.87 0.65
* ALGPO = Photosynthetic oxygen production rate at the water surface
ALGPT = Average photosynthetic oxygen production rate through the water colunn
ALGRA Algal respiration
A- 2 9

-------
The depth of each river se rnent is input to the model directly for
each reacn and is computed by tne relationship:
depth : h 1 (reacn streamflow)(l EXP)/4 (Leopold and Eaddock, 1953)
where
constant
= low flow depth
Low flow depths were developed by the Corps of Engineers in 1972(2)’
Stream reaeration over dams is simulated by the previously di cusse:
Quirk relationship. The rate transfer function for dams was ccm uted
according to the relationsnip:
Fd(c) = ce—cl (T20)
Cs—Ce
where Fd( ) = transfer functior in dam reaeration
Ce D.C. measured below the dam, ag/i
Ci = D.C. measured abDve the dam, mg/i
Cs = D.C. saturation level, ag/i, at 200 C
= coefficient for temperature adjustment
T = temperature as measured, °C
D.C. measurements were made upstream and downstream of all the dams
during the 1973 water quality study. Values of Fd(C) were plotted
versus the flow rate. The slope of a straight line through these points
and the origin is the DA M variable input into the ST EAh program.
One version of the STREAt- model which the MDk?C uses contains an
option for computing reaeration at. dams with a relationship known as the
I4astropietro equation. it is:
1 andr:
1.0—0.037(h) Db
where Da = dissolved oxygen deficit above the dam
Db dissolved oxygen deficit below the dam
b : dam height, feet
and
Deficit = (saturation — actual D.O. measured)
27
A— 220

-------
A co arison was aaae of predicted L .0. below the So. hat c : artd
Coohra ie dams as co cputed by tne r ar i astropietro relatio sr i s.
Under tne conoitions of tne Septeocer 1973 si ulat-ior , or calicratio
simulation, tr e predicted D.O. by the Quirk method below the Sc. Natjck
Dam and Cochra e az, respectively was 7.6. and O.O3ô higher thar the
astropietrO method.
in addttior , the two aetnods were further cot; .3re by applyin 5 both
to the D.C.’s measured above all tne Charles River daas during tne 1973
surveys in June and Septe ber. D.0. ’s dcwnstres - of ths da s as
predicted by ooth ethods were co:pared to the D.C.’s actually ceasured.
Fifty two neasured values were coa ared as measured and as prcdicted by
both . etnods. The uir iethod rave higher results tnan measurec in 2
cases, lower results in 25 cases anc ecual values in 3 cases. The
Mastroietrc ethcd gave r i;her results tnan :casured in 3 cases lc er
results in 2 oases and equal values in 5 cases.
eased upon tniz comparative analysis there a pcars tc cc litte
difference cetweeri tne preoict ve etnoos testes ar.c tne a i cat cn of
either metnoo in tfle Cnarlez River Septesoer 73 si ulstior. is
acceptable.
in ztrea: reaeraticn was co uted utiizin, the Tsivc;lou— ,cai,
ner Dissipatic o el(1UJ) . This method was selected cecause it i
the only predictive method based upon actual measurements of reaerat Cn
and it is applicamle over the range ol flo s er,counterec in the Cnarles
Mver. The relationanip is as follows:
k 2 c x 2 4 hours/day
4,
where
reaeration rate, day —1, base
C escape coefficient, feet
change in water surface elevation, feet
tç = time of flow, hours
C 0.110 è 20°C for CFS
and
C = 0.05k € 20°C for 25 - 3003 CFS
C represents gas transfer with water surface replacement and
turbulence.
The chan&e in water surface elevation within each reach, as input
into this relationship, was determined from low flow water surface
28
A—221

-------
elevation profiles by the Corps of Engineers(2). it was au ed that
the cnar. e in water surface elevation witnir reaches during the
Septenoer survey would be the sane as un er low flow con:itlcns. Tifle
of flow itnir. reaches was computed by the mocel at the average flc
during the period September 3—7, 1973. Values of’ the escape coeffic er t
C for eacn reacn were set to the appropriate value for the flow in the
reach. Table 6 lists the reaeraticn coefficient values ano the data
used to compute them.
The values of sediment oxygen demand, as given in ia le 5, are
assumed values. initially, cocel calibration inulaticns were done wit
a demand of 2.5 gra:sIm Iday in all reacr.es. This resulted in a E.c. .
profile generally lower than that measured. The seci:ent oxygen de an.
as finally reduced to values as sho r. in Table 5 to produce a L.C.
profile which compares more closely to that measured.
Field data indicates that sediments witn organic content of’ O.5 to
15 have been found at locations witnir. the Cnarles iver
( FC—D ?C ’ 6 , 1977). any of tne locations where sediment oxy er.
demand has been assumed as shown in Tacle 5 have neen confirmed as
eontainin l organic material by the sediuent sampling, oor.ducte: cy :•.L C
in 1973 and in 1577.
The demand rates of 0.5 and 1.0 gn/m 2 /day are typical values founo
in unpollutec and in moderately polluted rivers. For example, a bentnal
demand of 0.5 gmsfm’/day was recorced in the Pawtuxet River in Rhode
island in an area unaffected by any pollutant disoharges h1). Demand
rates of’ 0.6 to 2.0 gm/m 2 loay and 1.2 to 1.5 gm/nt/day nave Deen
recorded in the Charles River basin and in Mystic Lake,
respectively 1 2 J. Damands of 3.0 gn/m’/day have oeen recorded in
moderately polluted areas of the f au atuck River, CT and in Otter Creek,
YT 13 .
Although Denthal oxygen demand (biochemical) measurements have not
been made in the Charles River, organic sediments have been observed in.
the river. Thus, the river simulation with sediment oxygen demand is
more representative of actual river conditions than simulation without
aediment oxygen demand.
29
A—2 22

-------
TABLE 6
IN-STRLA M RLAERATION RATE DATA FOR
SEPTEr ER 1973 SI TL1ATIoNs
Reach T.0.T. Ah, Ca, K 2 (1)
(hours) feet ft 1 day 1
1 210.1 0 (C=.124 @ 25°C) .04
2 62.6 30 1.4
3 22.4 10 1.3
4 32.9 3.2 .29
5 90.8 12.1 .39
6 20.9 6.8 .97
7 1.6 1.0 1.8
8 7.6 3.0 1.1
9 6.5 0.3 .14
10 16.0 3.2 .59
11 13.9 17 3.6
12 14.6 1.0 .20
13 10.3 1.0 .28
14 71.4 8.0 Q=37.3 .16
15 20.5 0.5 (C=.060 @ 25°C) .03
16 14.9 0.5 .05
17 4.9 0.5 .14
18 50.9 2.0 .06
19 11.2 0.25 .03
20 41.9 1.45 .05
21 4.1 1.0 .35
22 11.9 2.0 .24
23 17.4 0.5 .04
24 32.7 0.5 .02
25 22.2 0.5 .03
26 6.6 1.0 .21
27 2.2 0.6 .39
28 6.1 1.7 .40
29 17.9 0.5 .04
30 60.2 0.7 .02
31 0.9 1.5 2.6
32 1.4 0.4 .61
33 4.8 4.4 1.32
0 These are K 2 values input into the niodel. Values shown in
Table 5 have been corrected for water temperature of 25°C
a second time by the model as an upward adjustment to K 2 .
30
A—223

-------
eoxYzet c j ate Co tarts
The in strea and surface runoff deoxyger ation constants are asse:
values bsse upon those found in tne literature and typifying strea s
with pollution loads similar to that of the Charles Mver. Sooe
aeasure entz of long terrn biochezical oxygen dernand rates of Charles
River water sanpies were a.e c rir . the 1973 study and these results
agree well with the assured values(1). A r4itrification rate of 0.6
(base e) was ass ned and gives a reasonacly good calibratior. curve for
a oor ia. (See Figure 1C)
fleoxygenation rates fcr the treatnent plant discharges are also
assuoe values and fall veil witnir. a ncr:al ranCe of values as
descrioe in literature on the su ect(1 ). t:easure:ents of Icrir ter
bioohe: cal oxyger. de and rates of tne point discharges were cade durir
the 1573 stu y and in 197c.. Tne assu ed values are within a reascna: e
range of the easured values.
P ctcsyntretic Cxvzen ?rDducticr an: esoiraticr .
The procedure used for deteroination of photosynthetic oxyren
production. ir. the Charles i iver is aescnibed ir. a pacer entitiec
5y tez tic iurrai Curvr Anaiysi cy Jonn Erdnar.n(15). Data for tne
anaiys s was gatnerec curir.& the Septe Oer 1973 stucy; consecutive D.C.
aeasurecents were made at six hour intervals for tr.rce days.
The diurnal curve analysis. utilizing the co puter prograc DICUFV2
was usec to oeter ine a oaxi u dayligr.t hour photosynthetic oxygen
production rate (ALG?O). aily average respiration rates were
deter iaed by the relationship:
LLGhA 0.1 ( ALGPC )
1 1
ALGi A = daily average respiration rate, pprn/day
LLGPO = .axious daylight hour photosynthetic oxygen production
rate, ppm/day
The ALGP3 rates are those which occur at or near the water surface.
ithin the S EA -. model these rates are adjusted to an avera;e value
ttirougnout the water colurnn. This relationship is as follows:
ALGPT = . ALGPC (l.0 _ eALGhK(E)j .
ALGHi (h)
ALGPT average photosynthetic oxygen production rate ppz /day
ALGKK = light extenction coefficient, 1t 1
= atreaa depth, feet
31
A—224

-------
ALGhK values used were 0.3 and 0.6 in the upper (above
river reaches and 0.6 in tne lower river reaches. These were basec upon
the relative turbidity of upper arc lower river zegoents.
Photosynthetic oxygen production and respiration paraneters are
shown in Table 5.
It is inportant to enphasize that these photosynthetic oxygen
production and respiration rates represent the effects resultinc frcc
the algal an plant population and prysical conditions at the specific
location and tiie of sarnpling.
Conditions without algal D.C. production and respiraticr. were
simulated by setting the ALOFT rate equal to the ALOFA rate withir each
reach.
pdel Ca ib tiCn ?esults
Results of the model calioratior. will be exaz r .ed by a co parative
type analysis. k iver profiles of streanflow, dissolvec oxygen (L.c.),
ammonia (i — ) and caroonacecUS biochemical oxygen denanc C CL5) as
measured on Septemoer 3—7, 1973 arid as predicted are compared in Figures
5 through 10.
As shown in Figure 5, the streamfiow as simulated is nearly
identical to tne average flow as measured. The greatest difference is
in the flow measured at the altha: LSOS gaging station wnich is 2.2
miles from the downstream end of tne last modeling reach anc, tnerefore,
will not affect the simulation to any great degree.
Two P.O. profiles are shown in Figure 6. The profile indicated by
the solid line is the result of including averagf photosynthetic oxygen
production and respiration in the simulation. That profile indicated by
the dashed line is tne simulation in which average photosyflthCtiC oxygen
production through the water column has been set equal to the average
photosynthetic respiration rate. Thus, there is no net photosynthetic
oxygen production input to this particular simulation.
in Figure 7 the P.O. simulation with photosynthetic t.C. production
and respiration is compared to the range of daylight—hours D.L.
measurements for only September L, 1973. The maximum D.C. production
rate at the water surface, ALOFO, computed by the DlCU V2 metnod,
occurred on September i4 at all but one sampling station, that at
r.m. 5 .5.
These D.C. profiles in Figures 6 and 7 indicate the following:
a. the simulated profile of D.C. with a net photosynthetic D.C.
production is relatively close to the mean of the measured values for
September —6, 1973;
32
A— 225

-------
ior OTh’ H i•”eO
— 7* a l.a.
iirupp,t . e
I
.
. -4
LU
I (Ti
Jill
H
THU
. .1 -.
H
j j 1. I
Ii
I
:
L

J
H
1111
Simulated
..L 11 L
L L
L
--
.
I
I
10
I I
I
H]
b ) —--- --1.
I

fH 1L
r ±
II (1)
1 J1.i
WHI
A

HH .L
1•• l
W.JJi


II
i
o

± i
0
L
4

Hi,
i I
i .H
h

1 . . .i ._J . .
I’

H*
II
I iI
•41 flJ
HHHH
Mea8ured Values
YH’ ,
I -VHW

i4 HL

dli .. L III
II I ! I’

.1
nH
.,.
‘
H
LH
H
H
RverM11psAhnvpt e
i
Nit
H
.H .;
L:
10
H..
H
. . ...
..
Ii’ .
III
4
Figure 5
Simulated vq Measured
Streamfiow (Sept. 3—7, 1973)
I
I
-t
‘4
U
0
4,
U,
I ) 1
r j .

c I
:<
MEAN
--
Ii
I,
44 -f
ii
H
MIN.

-------
J
.1.
.f
U
L
in
Figure 6
Simulated vs Measured
Dissolved Oxygen (Sept. 4—6, 1973)
‘-4
C-
4’-
00
4’
0
1!1:
iT
Measured Values.
- [ ? AXL
11
tft
i L
I.
L
ilT.t ,
‘I
A
T
1L
tY fl
ALGPO > ALGRA\
1 +H -H IL.
-
iJIL tL L
‘1
r
I
L
H -i 4 ,
L L L
Prnfll
I I
( ‘I

_.L_._j._._
4
e
Lit
2 U
N
/
‘I
‘I
jI
L
0.
Predicted

MEAN
MIN.
III
L
ALCPO ALCRA
H
RIver Miles Above the Mouth
__L
I I
‘I

-------
I II
J.
—I
I.
.iIi
:1.1
—j
Figure 7
Simulated va Measured
IDiRsolved oxygen (Sept. 4, 1973)
+
I—
4L
ii
MAX
I I
U
Ii
sured VALuCB
0
H H
a
a
U
U
‘-4
0
to
t o
II
e
Profl.l
1±1
MIN.
1Ij
TI
Lt l
Predi cted
191
C.)
I I I
LL
t
I
It (
L
j ii
MEAN
LI
LL
IL
Ti
ILL
River M!les Above the Mniith
ILL,
c
I’

-------
b. the simulated profile of D.C. with no net photosyntnetic 0.0.
production is significantly celow that measurec on September —ô, 1973;
c. the section of simulated zero D.O. between river miles 70.3 and
66.1 cannot be compared to actual stream 0.0. measurements because no
sampling was done in that stretch of river;
d. the simulated profile with a net photosynthetic 0.0. productIon
as compared to only the Septemoer measured D.C. more often is celow
the mean of the measured values tnan when compared to the mean of the
measured values for Septemoer 4—6.
At this point it is interesting to lco closely at the D.C.
measurements on Septemoer , 5 and 6, 1973 an: the weather on those
days. As noted in the data report by the MC .?C, Septemoer was fair,
hot and humid”; September 5 was “mostly overcast and hot’; Septen:er 6
was cool with intermittent showers”. Looking at the maxiru day0 cnt
0.0. values recoroed at each station, twenty (d3 ) occurre: on Se;temoer
and three (i2.5 ) occurred or. Septemoer 6. Five (2D.5 ) of all tre
minimum values occurred or. Septemoer and 15 (62.5 ) occurrec on
Septemoer ó. These data are in Appendix .
Thus, the 5.0. measurements indicate that phctcsyntheti: L.C.
production on September exceeded tnat on September 6 and the D.C.
profile simulation more closely represents the mean 0.0. profile for the
3 days than the mean profile for tne date of the greatest pnotcsyrtnetic
D.0. production.
Figure 8 compares the simulated C600 5 profile to the C 3D measured
on September 4 and 6, 1973. The measured CSCD 5 represents daily aversoc
values because the samples were composited durir,; each cay. ith the
exception of river stretcnes between r.m. 70 and 7 4 , the simulated
profile is consistently lower than that measured an: very mar edly so
below r.m. 5. Also, below r.m. 45 the CLOD 5 measured on Septemoer is
considerably less than that on September 6.
The question now arises, how can the model be simulating averge D.C.
well, yet not simulate C00 5 at all well and, in fact, under simulate
the measured concentrations. Two plausible explanations are as follows.
The CBOD 5 measured in the lower reaches of the river is
predominantly decayir 3 ai ml matter in tne CLOD 5 sample water. ln tnc
stream this matter is contained in living algae producing 0.0. and
maintaining a growth and decay cycle such that there is a net D.C.
production during periods of sunlight. Once the algae are captured in a
closed sample bottle in the laboratory and out of’ daylight, the entire
algal mass dies and becomes ciodegradable organic matter which exerts a
consideraie biochemical oxygen aemand.
36
A— 229

-------
I TM 4 10
\‘ , * O Nr.lr
*pUpr,L S r,4r* C’
it
,Figure 8
Simulated v Measured
CP.()D 5 (Sept. 4, 6, P)73)
rrj
‘I ,
1W
1•
LJI -,
±1± LJ iI
IILd
\ Hi III
,Predicted Profile
fL
/
-1-
-J
1 HW :
‘I
0
-t
U
J 1,
H.
/ Me nu red V l ue
il.
A
LI
i1;
I.
H
f
LW
.—Sept. 6
iLl lL
__ 11T
l r4 —Sept.
H
I LL
) ,j7O
I I! I
L±
4 -
II
A’
- -. —-
L
‘ii
4
) I
I ’
River Miles Above the Mouth
I 1 -_:- -_-__. -_ __.
.1
(;1
_______________ j

-------
Tnis explanation is discussed by John Erdmann as follows .
The two traditional mainstays of stream water quality analya s
are D.C. and SOD. For the Charles iver, the regularities exoibited by
phytoplanktcn data indicate an intimate connection wltn both these
parameters. Simply put, all triree——D.C., SOD, and algae——rise and fall
together. Tnat tre first two of these should cc so directly contradicts
conventional sanitary engineering wisdom. Eut this wisdor. derives
chiefly from observations of rivers in wnich phytoplankton are not
abundant. The key to tne phenomenon observed in the Cnories iver is
photosynthesis, simultaneously prooucin; organic matter (EC ) in the
form of algal cells and dissolved oxygeri. ”( )
The second explanation relates primarily to the observation of
higher CEOD 5 on September 6 wnich were ncst evident in the lower reaoncs
of the river. As mentioned previously it rained tr.ro rout tne Cnar-les
River drainage area on Septemoer 6. This caused increased runoff which
may have lead to an accumulation of CEC in tne river or that cay. The
runoff occurred on September 6 and, therefore, its CEOEZ would not cc
evident in terms of oxygen withdrawal from the river water until several
days later as indicated by the 5—day SOD of the samples.
The runoff quantity is indicated somewhat by the increase of daily
average flow at the altha: US3S gaging station from September L _ of
129 cfs to 151 cfs, a 17 increase.
it is very likely that a combination of these phencnena occurred.
Figure 9 points out that non—point sources, probably including lanc
surface runoff and algae, contribute the majority of CEOD to the Criarles
River downstream of r.m. 145. t .ass loadings of CECD 5 increase after all
point source loadings have entered the stream and have been consumed.
Also mass loadings are higher on days of rainfall.
At this point, it Is extremely important to emphasize that the
NSTREAhII model used to simulate the river flow, D.C. and CEOD 5 profiles
can only simulate the average daily D.C. production due to
photosynthetic activity and cannot simulate algal growth and decay
dynamics or rainfall—runoff dynamics. Therefore, these phenomena and
their dynamic effect on the Charles River water quality were not
simulated.
Figure 10 compares measured hh 3 —N with that simulated. It reveals
that the lag time for nitrification (oxidation of ammonia—nitrogen to
nitrate—nitrogen) for i H 3 —N from the Milford discharge is somewhat too
long and that the hFi 3 —t loading is too low. Consistently higher ammonia
levels are seen to occur on September 6, which may indicate organic
nitrogen in runoff on that day. The t .1 3 —N decay rate of 0.6 per day is
shown to be reasonale by the shape of the measured and simulated
profiles.
38
A— 231

-------
toX. tHF M 4cl ?eO
I, .. 7*1 l
*ru rii S tser*
I
-‘
H
Ift
L 1
I..

. —
4
Mena Loadings
:
%L
H
4-
,
I

H;
1
JJ
CBOD 5
N11 3 —N
NO -N
rot
ji
al P
A
- -t’ T -
L.jj
II
River M l 1 t s Above t he Mouth
V ;L 1
±
11
j
Figure 9
Discharge Mass Loadings
and
River Ma’;s Loadings
T T • 1 Ti
T
H
11.4
I %) W
P .1
0
P4
River Mp n Loa 3irign
Dl. scha rge
li
Point Source
.4 .
I
L i i
‘0
T
ft
1
LI
1
i—h-
LJ±LJL

-------
l,% 10 x 10 TO T14t I 4CH 4 O7 O
1 P4CH
lated vs. MenRured
Itrogen (Sept. 4,6,1973)
1’
les AboVe the Month
L L J -
FIgure 10
0
tH
II
tL
V& uec
Mc nsured
j
—t
6
Sept

-------
111. Develppnent of the “Low Flow” Mcccl
The U.S. EPA approved water quality standards for flassachusetta
state: U avera&e ini un consecutive 7—day low flow to be expectec
once in ten years snail be used in the interpretation of the standarcs
(MD PC, !‘ay 197Z ).
This seven—day, ten year low flow for the Charles River as conputed
froz avera&e daily flow records for tne period of record at tne three
long—terz flow a in; stations operated by the U.S. Ceolo;ical Survey is
shown below.
Period of
Record
Charles River at Needhan, MA 1936—197
Charles River at ellesiey, MA 1962—1973 7.9
Charles River at aithaa, MA 1933—1973 5.1
A low flow aodel for the year has been developed based upon
this historically estaclisne: low flow regine. It is developed upon tne
assu ption tnat daily average flows at tne future seven—day, ten year
low flow will be equal to the seven—day, ten year low flow based upon
the period of record, plus tne added point source discharges wr.icn will
first enter the river scoetine between now and 2000.
Figure 11 presents a schematic of dischar&es to the Charles River
under low flow conditions in the year 2000. Flow rates of these sources
are shown in TaDle 7. Tributary flows are set to zero unless a
wastewater treatnent plant discriarges to then to provide a constant flow
during low flow periods. The runoff of 0.06 cfs/sq. i. accounts for
the natural low flow which includes tributary flow for the period of
flow records. Table b cornpares the low flows 1cr 1973 and 2000 as
sinulated in this analysis.
Low Flow Model Inout Data
Table 7 contains a portion of the model input data for the low flow
simulations. The eo plete data set is in Appendix C.
Point source pollutant loadings as shown in Table 7 were developed
by the Eriviron ental Assessnent Council, Inc., consultants to EPA,
Region I. They are based upon the projectea population to be servec by
the individual sewer systems in the year 2003 and levels of treatenent
applied to the systens loads which are the best attainable, given the
planned treatment plant configurations for the individual systems.
41
A—234

-------
FIGURE 11
CHARLES RIVER
YEAR 2000
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM
WAS TEVAT ER
RIVER MILES DISCHARGES TRIBUTARIES
80.0
73.4 MILFORD
70.0
60.0
58.9 CRPCD
STOP RIVER (r.m. 51.8)
50.0 ?EDFIELD—MILLIS
C SATELLITE I _____________
40.0 ALTERNATIVE LSO. NATICK DA (r. . 41.1)
LOCATIONS
DAR (r. . 34.6)
30.0
) MOTHER BROOK DIVERSION (r.m. 26.5)
20.0
10.0
A—235

-------
TABLE 7
CHARLES RIVER “STREAN” MODEL
LOW FLOW INPUT DATA
BIOCHEMICAL REACTION RATES, BASE e
CBOD NBOD
day 1 day—i
STREAM
(ALL REACHES) .09- .23 0.6 (0.2)1
SURFACE RUNOFF .139 0.6
POINT LOADS
M1LFORD ls’Pcr 0.42 — with 55.6 hour lag rir €
for nitrification
CRPCD 0.4
!€DFIELD-MILLIS 0.4
) C SATELLITE PLANT 0.4
BACKGROUD D CONDITI ONS
UPSTREAM OF R.M. 76.5
BOD 5 4.2 mg/i
D.C. 7.8 mg/i
UNIFORM DISTRIBUTED FLOW
(SURFACE RUNOFF)
CBOD 5 3.0 mg/i in reaches upstream of r.m. 41.1
4.5 mg/i in reaches downstream of r.m. 41.1
NBOD - 0
1 Some cases are run with NBOD rate at 0.2 day in river reaches 18 to
27 and others with NBOD rate at 0.2 day everywhere.
normal biochemical oxidation rate
43
A—236

-------
Stop t iver will receive, in the year 2000, 0.b cfs fro :. rentha :
State School anc ,CI— .alpole. Tne natural sever, day—ten year low flow
has been cornputed to e 1. 0 f 5 (.b)• Tr.us, the future low flow will te
the present low flow plus the year 2033 flows fro: the state
institutions. .asteloads entering the Charles iver fro’. Stop F iver
were cornputed using the classical Streeter—?helps relationship. These
co putationz are given in Appendix C.
Surface runoff CEOD 5 concentrations are the sarne as in the Septe::cr
1973 caliortalon simulations as are the oack;rour ,d loadings.
Eiochenical reaction rates in the river as shown in Ia le 7 are
identical to those in the September calibration si ulaticns. As noted
in the laDle so’e year 2300 sinulations were done with the in—strea
nitrificatior. rate ecual to 0.2. Tnis ran e of 0.2—D.c is nornal for
the nitrification rate cor,stant 1 .
TaDle 7 contains the data whior describes the rivers physical
condition as si uiatec at year 2000 low flow without ar L .0 satellite
plant dischar&e. 5edi er.t oxygen ae and rates and percer.t of Dcttc
witn sedirnent are the sa’e as in tne Septe cer calibration si ulaticns.
The river water temperature of 25.5°c. (77.501) is a typical su er h gn
value for tne Cnarles iver. Depths are approxirnate values as conpute
by the relationship previously nentioned under the rnodel calibratior
discussion. Cross sectional areas are computed within the nodel.
Time of flow and in—stream reaeration rates were computed followlrc.
the saie procedures as in the nodel calibration. It was assumed that
the change in water surface elevation within each river reacn will e
the sarne unoer future low flow conditions as under past low flow
conditions.
44
A— 237

-------
POINT SOURCES
? LFORD WPCF
CHARLES RIVER
POLLUTION CONTROL
DISTRICT
) DFIELD—MILLI S
WPCF
MDC SATELLITE
WP CF
TABLE 7 (continued)
POLLUTANT LOADINGS (2000)
EFFLUENT FLOW CBOD5
D.O., mg/i MGD mg/i lbs/day
6.0 6.0 5.0 250
6.0 8.4 5.0 350
6.0 3.0 5.0 125
6.0 31.0 5.0 1293
AND
6.0 19.0 5.0 792
NBOD
g/1 lbs/day
1.1 251.5
1.0 320.0
1.0 114
1.0 1181
1.0 723
‘RENTHA STATE
SCHOOL (INTO STOP R.)
NORFOLK-WALPOLE
MCI (iNTO STOP R.)
TRIBUTARY LOADS
STOP RIVER
SURFACE RUNOFF
BACKGROUND
at r.m. 76.5
6.0
.1
5.0
1.0
3.8
6.0
.4
5.0
1.0
15.2
3.9
1.2
3.0
5.0
• 0381 m12
3.0
.95
7.8
.47
4.2
16.7
.37
.32
30.4
.75
0
7.6
0
45
A— 238

-------
INDIVIDUAL REACH I• - DATA
RIVER LENCTH Qu 1 !)EPTH AREA 2 VELOCITY TIME OF SEDIMENT PERCENT OF 2
REACH MILES CES FEET FT 2 FT/SEC FLOW, DAYS DEMAND BOTTOM WITH
gm/tn 2 /day SEDiMENT day 1
1 1.0 .74 4.5 152.86 .007 10.8 1.0 50 .04 25.5
2 2.1 1.0 1.0 35.7 .031 4.1 1.0 50 .48 25.5
3 2.1 10.4 2.7 50.4 .21 .61 1.0 100 1.1 25.5
4 1.0 10.5 6.2 158.1 .06 .92 1.0 100 .32 25.5
5 4.2 10.6 4.0 124.6 .09 2.95 1.0 50 .39 25.5
6 1.5 11.02 5.0 90.5 .12 .74 1.0 50 .87 25.5
7 .45 11.27 1.0 22.17 .51 .06 1.0 50 1.86 25.5
8 1.05 11.27 2.8 62.9 .18 .34 1.0 50 1.03 25.5
9 .20 11.30 3.5 411.4 .03 .64 1.0 100 .08 25.5
10 2.2 11.3 2.3 86.3 .14 .98 0 0 .4 29.5
11 1.7 11.6 2.4 97.4 .12 .86 0 0 2.5 25.5
12 .1 11.8 2.0 2250.5 .005 1.17 0 0 .1 25.5
13 1.3 24.7 2.0 133.9 .18 .43 0 0 .3 25.5
14 5.8 24.7 3.7 312.0 .08 4.5 1.0 50 .22 25.5
15 1.9 27.0 5.2 417.6 .06 1.8 .5 50 .02 25.5
16 1.6 31.75 5.0 379.9 .08 1.16 .5 50 .03 25.5
17 0.5 31.82 4.8 460.6 .07 .44 .5 50 .07 25.5
18 5.8 31.83 5.1 386.1 .08 4.24 .5 50 .02 25.5
19 0.9 32.6 5.1 386.4 .08 .65 .5 50 .02 25.5
20 1.7 32.7 2.5 358.7 .09 1.13 0 0 .01 25.5
21 3.8 32.8 7.5 609.5 .05 4.31 1.0 25 .01 25.5
22 1.0 33.1 7.5 608.8 .05 1.12 1.0 25 .01 25.5
23 1.6 33.4 2.8 137.8 .24 .41) 0 0 .16 25.5
24 3.2 33.6 7.0 187.3 .18 1.08 .5 55 .11 25.5
25 3.3 33.9 7.4 269.8 .13 1.6 .5 55 .02 25.5
26 2.3 34.3 6.2 667.5 .09 2.7 .5 55 .02 25.5
27 3.0 22.4 7.0 322.4 .07 2.6 .5 95 .02 25.5
28 1.0 22.6 8.0 328.3 .07 .88 .5 55 .13 25.5
29 .2 22.7 3.5 784.1 .03 .62 1.0 55 .19 25.5
30 2.05 22.7 2.5 115.1 .19 .63 0 0 .16 25.5
31 2.55 23.0 5.7 696.1 .05 3.35 0 (1 .02 25.5
32 2.7 23.3 10.5 1762.6 .01 12. /s 1.0 50 .01 25.5
33 0.45 23.5 4.5 105.5 .22 .1 0 0 1.5 25.5
34 0.45 23.5 6.0 147.1 .16 .2 0 0 .23 25.5
35 2.0 23.6 4.3 128.0 .19 .65 0 0 .76 25.5
1 River flow at upstream end of reach
2 Cross sectional area

-------
TABLE 7 (continued)
PHOTOSYNTHESIS DATA
USED IN
LOW FLOW SIM’JL&TIONS
RIVER ALCPO* ALGPT* ALGRA*
REACH ppm/day ppm/day ppm/day
1 2.58 0.45 0.45
2 3.85 1.06 1.06
3 1.71 0.37 0.36
4 6.07 0.88 0.85
5 1.62 0.30 0.27
6 2.42 0.40 0.37
7 1.53 0.41 0.41
8 1.38 0.30 0.3D
9 0.99 0.19 0.18
10 0.78 0.18 0.18
11 1.27 0.29 0.29
12 1.84 0.44 0.42
13 2.36 0.57 0.57
14 1.30 0.25 0.25
15 0.80 0.13 0.13
16 1.10 0.18 0.18
17 1.29 0.22 0.22
18 3.06 0.50 0.50
19 3.06 0.50 0.50
20 4.60 0.76 0.76
21 9.03 0.63 0.63
22 9.03 0.63 0.63
23 2.96 0.46 0.46
24 4.83 0.36 0.36
25 4.47 0.32 0.32
26 4.68 0.39 0.39
27 7.51 0.56 0.56
28 7.85 0.52 0.52
29 3.75 0.50 0.50
30 3.94 0.65 0.65
31 7.89 0.71 0.64
32 7.16 0.36 0.36
33 3.20 0.35 0.26
34 5.58 0.48 0.37
35 7.10 0.81 0.65
* ALCPO Photosynthetic oxygen production rate at the water surface
ALGPT Average photosynthetic oxygen production rate through the water
column
ALCRA Algal respiration
67 Au240

-------
TABLE 8
YEAR 2000
PROJECTED SEVEN DAY-TEN YEAR LOW FLOW
RIVER REACH 1973 LOW FLOW 1 ADDITIONAL OR NEW 2 2000 LOW FLOV
cfs WPCF Flow, cfs cfs
BACKGROUND 0.72 0.72
REACH 3 at r.u . 73.4 5.39 5.07 (Milford) 10.46
REACH 13 at r.m. 58.9 8.9 10.61 (CRPCD) 24.7
REACH 15 at r.m. 51.8 11.1 .2 (State I ’s) 27.0
REACH 16 at r.m. 49.9 11.9 3.88 (Medfield—Millis) 31.75
REACH 23 at r.m. 34.3 13.7 47.74 ( C) 81.2
(C.R. Village USGS Gage)
REACH 30 at r.m. 20.0 12.4 70.4
(Wellesley USGS Gage)
REACH 34 at r.m. 12.0 13.3 71.3
(Waltham USGS Gage) ______________
Total = 67.5 cfs
1 Estimated annual minimu 7—day mean low flow at the 10—year recurrence
interval based upon flow data for period of record at USGS gaging
stations. This includes treatment plant flow which occurred during
the period of record.
2 Incremental flow increase between 1973 and 2000 based upon future
design flows for Milford, CRPCD, State Institutions and Nedfield—
Nulls treatment plants.
Mother Brook Diversion is set to 12 cfs.
48
A—2 41

-------
H. ALTERI AT1V1 RIVEF SThULAT1C CC DlT1Ch3
As stated in the Preface, Charles River dissolved oxygen conditions
at a year 2000 seven—day ten year low flow have been sinulated with an
)WC satellite treatnent plant discharging at alternative locations.
Also alternative river conditions have Deeri sinulated for each
alternative treatnent plant location condition. The following Table 9
indicates the various cozbinations of treatment plant discriarge
Conditions arid river conditions which have been sa ulated. Table 10
explains tne in ividual cases of river conditions and loading
alternatives. Only those model input pararneters wflich are different
than those given in Table 6 are mentioned in the individual cases of
Table 10.
The flow of the Charles River will change considerably when an LEO
Satellite treataent plant discharge of 31 GE ( 7.7 cfs) is adde3 to
the river arid tiie of flow will increase in river reaches oownstrea of
the point of discharge. Taole 11 contains the tiies of flow and tine of
(low dependent in—streaa reaeration rates for the conditions of a 1 .D
PiGO and a 31.0 hOD MDC Satellite plant discharge to the Charles ver.
49
A—242

-------
TAflLE 9
Alternative _ Low Flow Simulation Conditions Matrix
M RIV1 R CONDITIONS C1 SE
D
C Case A Case B Ca e C Case D Case C Case ‘ Case C Case if
j No MDC D1 charge
A 2. MDC at Medfield — 31 MGD(5,l)*
‘r3. (5,0)
E 4. — 19 MCD(5,l)
L 5. (5,0)
L
I 6. MDC at So. Natick Dam-3l 1C,D(5,l)
T 7. (5,0) •
E 8. —19MCD(5,0)
P 9. MDC at Cochrane Dam-31MCD(5,1) •
L10. (5,0) • 0
T 11. MDC below Cochrane Dait -31MCD(5,1) •
12. (5,0) 0
C
0
N
D
I
T
I
0
N
S
* 31 Million Gallons Per Day and (5.0 mg/i CBOD 5 , 1.0 mg/i NH 3 —N).

-------
TABLE 10
ALTERNATIVE RIVER CONDITIONS CASES
Case A — Sediment oxygen demand is included. Areal coverage and rates
are as in the September 1973 calibration simulation. In
stream nitrification rates are 0.60 day 1 @ 20°C (base e)
everywhere.
Case B — Identical to Case A with the exce tion that in stream
nitrification rates are 0.20 day @ 20°C (base e) in reaches
17 thru 26.
Case C — Identical to Case B with the exceptions that treatment plant
loadings have been changed for CRPCD and Medfieid and Millis
to 1.0 mg/l CBOD. and sediment oxygen demand is zero in
reaches 13 thru 0.
Case D — Identical to Case B with the exception that photosynthetic
oxygen production rates and algal respiration rates are as
in the September 1973 calibration simulation (Table 5).
Case E — Sediment oxygen demand is included. Areal coverage and
rates are as in the September 1973 calibration simulation.
In stream nitrification rates are 0.20 day - @ 20°C (base e)
everywhere.
Case F — Identical to Case E with the exception that treatment plant
loadings have been changed for CRPCD and Medfield and Millis
to 1.0 mg/i CBOD 5 arid sediment oxygen demand is zero in
reaches 13 thru 20.
Case C — Identical to Case E with the exception that sediment oxygen
demand is zero everywhere.
Case N — Identical to Case B with the exception that sediment oxygen
demand is zero everywhere.
ALTERNATIVE LOADINGS CONDITIONS
1. Milford, Charles River Pollution Control District (CRPCD),
Medfield—Millis and State Institutions are the onli discharges;
loadings are as given in Table 7 and as explained in
Cases C and F.
2. thru 12. An C Satellite Plant discharges to the river at the
location and flow rate indicated. CBOD 5 arid NH 3 —N concentrations
(mg/i), respectively, are shown in parentheses.
A— 244
51

-------
TABLE 11
Time of Flow and In—Stream Reaeration Constants for
Alternative MDC Satellite WPCF Discharges
at 2000 Projected Seven Day, Ten-Year Low Flow
River
Reach
No MDC
Discharge —l
Tf, hrs. K,, day
MDC
31
Tf, hrs.
at
MC I) —1
K 2 , day
MDC
1 .0
Tf, flr- -.
at
MGD —l
K 7 , day
18
101.8
.02
45.2
.05
57.2
.04
19
15.7
.02
6.9
.06
8.8
.05
20
27.3
.01
12.1
.03
15.3
.02
21
103.5
.01
43.3
.03
55.6
.03
22
26.9
.01
11.3
.04
14.6
.03
23
9.7
.14
5.2
.27
6.2
.23
24
26.1
.11
14.6
.19
17.3
.16
9
25
26
38.4
65.7
.02
.02
21.5
36.9
.03
.03
25.5
43.6
.02
27
63.3
.02
28.5
.02
35.1
.01
.13
u i
28
21.3
.13
8.9
.12
29
10.1
.19
3.3
.17
4.4
.20
30
15.2
.16
7.8
.33
9.3
.26
31
80.6
.02
27.7
.02
36.9
.02
,
32
298.9
.01
98.2
.01
132.3
“
33
2.6
1.5
1.2
1.5
1.5
1.5
34
4.6
.23
2.1
.n
2.6
.23

-------
V. F ESULTS OF LO FLC ALTE? IiVE SIEULAIIONS
Eankin and Scorir Sv te: for Fesults Conoarison
Each simulation of alternative river conditions and alternative
treatment plant loadings has been analyzed in terms of the resulting
tiles of river with dissolved oxygen less than 5.0 mg/i. This is the
desired E.G. standard for tne Charles Flyer.
In order to quantify the different D.C. conditions resulting frc:
each simulation a scoring syste was developed to rank eacn si 1zticn
in ter s of the nuzoer of river miles with D.C. less than 5.0 ag/ i and
bow much below 5.0 mg/i. The scoring systern is as follows.
For each simulation the Total Score =
buaber of river miles 5.O mg/i x 1. 0
bumber of river miles 4.0 mg/i x 2.0
Number of river miles Q 3.0 mg/i x 3.0
bumber of river miles 2.0 r ig/I x 4.0 =
bueber of river miles ( LO ag/i x 5.0
Total Score
Utilizing this scoring system the higher the score the poorer the
D.C. conditions.
The total score for eacn simulation in Table 9 is given in Table 12.
The f ezuits
There are three major groupings of the eight in Table 10. These
groupings and results of the simulations are explained hereon.
53
A—246

-------
TABLE 12
ALTERNATIVE LOW FLOW SIMULATIONS CONDITIONS SCORES
RIVER CONDITIONS CASES
M
D CASE A CASE B CASE C CASE T) CASE E CASE F CASE G CASE II
C
1. No MDC Macbarge 130.4 130.6 19.8 0
S
A
T 2. MDC at M 1fle1d —3lmgd (5,1)* 80.5 75.3 28.4 0 71.0 24.1 20.5
E 3. (5,0) 58.6 56.3 18.3 53. 6 14.5
L 4. —l9mgd (5,1) 95.6
L 5. (5,0) 70.5
I
T 6. MDC at So. —3lmgd (5,1) 93.9 88.2 27.8
‘4 E 7. Natick Dam (5,0) 74.9 74.9 18.3
8. —l9mgd (5,0) 82.3
L
A 9. MDC at Cochrane —3lmgd (5,1) 116.2 110.5 42.3
N 10. Dam (5,0) 97.3 96.7 29.2
T
C 11. MDC below —3lmgd (5,1) 13fL2 123.2 36.8 0 124.1 32.1 45.0
o 12. Cochrane Dam (5,0) 115.5 114.9 23.7 112.5 20.8
N
11
I
T
I
0
N
S
*31 MIllion Callona Per Day and (5.Ong/1 CR01 ) 5 , 1.0 mg/i N11 3 —N).

-------
Case.s A. E. E. C and Ii
These cases represent river conditior.s with tiilford, CRPCD and
Medfield—Eillis ?CF’s discharging 5.0 n;/l CEOD 5 and 1.0 og/1 hh 3 ..
Sensivitity sirnulations are run with and without sedinent oxygen dezarid
and with varying in—strean nitrification rate constants.
Major results of these simulations are:
1. D.0. water quality standards of 5.0 mg/i will not be met ur.er
any of these conditions.
2. The conditions with no ?DC Satellite plant discnarginz to the
river are similar to the conditions of an NC satellite plant
discharging just below the Cochrane Dan.
3. The conditions with an MDC Satellite plant disonarging to the
river just upstrea: of the So. Natic Dam or near the !edfield State
Hospital are sinilar and are significantly better than tne ccnd tior.s
witn no ! .DC Satellite plant or with an MDC Satellite plant discnar;ing
below the Cocnrane Dam.
. The conditions shown by Cases A, E and E are not very sensitive
to variations of the nitrification rate constant between 0.2 and 0.ô,
day 1 .
5. The conditions shown by Cases C and H indicate that sediment
oxygen denand nas a major effect on D.C., but even with no seciment
oxygen denand a D.C. level of 5.0 mg/I cannot be maintained.
6. Conditions with an MDC Satellite plant discharge rate of 15.0
M CD are worse than those witn a discharge rate of 31 MCD.
Cases C and F
These cases represent river conditions with Milford discharging 5.0
ag/I CS0D and 1.0 mg/i i H 3 —!J, and with C1 PCD and hedfielQ— illis
discharging 1.0 mg/I CEOD 5 and 0 m;/l NH 3 —h. Sediment oxygen denand is
zero in reaches 13 through 20 (r.o. 5 .9 to r.m. Z 1.1). These are the
conditions necessary to have the river D.C. greater than 5.0 zig/I when
MDC Satellite z-lar t oiscnar;es enter tne river. Sensitivity sinulations
are run witii varyir.; in—strean nitrification rate constants.
Major results of these simulations are:
1. D.C. water quality standards of 5.0 m /l will only be met
downstream of t edfield with an I’.DC Satellite plant discharing at
Medfieid or just upstream of the So. hatick Dam and the discharge
containing only 5.0 mg/I of CHQD 5 .
55
A— 248

-------
2. Conditions with an F DC Satellite plant located at edf elcor
just above the So. Natick Da and discharging 5.0 g/l of CECL 5 are
better than those with no iC Satellite plant; all others are worse.
3. Conditions with an MDC Satellite plant discnarging above the So.
Natick Dan are significantly better than those with a discharge be1o
the Cochrane Dan.
14. Conditions are not very sensitive to variations of the
nitrification rate between 0.2 and 0.6, day 1 .
Case D
This case represents river conditions with tlilford, C CD, and
Medfielc— .illis .PCf’s discharging 5.0 ng/l CBCD 5 and 1.0 n;/l hh —h.
Sediment cxygen demand is included as in the Septencer 1973 calibration
simulations. in—stream nitrification rates are 0.2 day in reaches 17
through 2u and are 0.6 in all ether reacnes. Phctosyntnetic oxygen
production is included at the rates shown in Table 5 (net positive 0.0.
production).
1. This case indicates that D.C. conditions will be above 5.0 n;/l
everywnere when there is a net positive D .C. procuction due to
photosynthesis equal to that wnich occurred during Septenoer 14—ô, 173.
Discussion of D.C. Profiles ar.d Alternative Sinulaticns
The D.C. profiles in Figures 12 throuki 16 are select profiles to
illustrate the major results of the simulations.
In Figure 12, profile El, the effect of discharges at C PC0 and
Medfieid— illis with sediment oxygen demand in beaches 13 through 20 is
seen to depress 0.0. between r.m. 60 and 20.
A reduction of oxygen demanding loadings at CF PCD and Nedfield—
Millis to 1.0 mg/I CEOD 5 and no aamonia, plus reduction of sediment
oxygen demand to zero between C PCD and the So. Natick Dan, is wnat is
required to keep D.C. at the level shown in profile Cl.
Profiles Eli and Cli indicate the effect on D.C. of an l DC Satellite
plant discharge witn 5.0 mg/i CEOD 5 and 1.0 mg/i in .H 3 —N located jUst
downstream of the Cochrane Dam. It is noteworthy that under this
condition of loading and location, with and without improved D.C.
upstream, D.C. falls to 2.0 mg/i and 1.0 mg/I, respectively.
The effect of dams upon river D.C. is evident at r.m.’s 70.3, 66.1,
614.6, 60.7, 141.1, 3L4.6 and 20.2. At these locations D.C. rises
instanteneously as the river passes over the dams.
56
A— 249

-------
0.0. sags eost rapidly in the impounded river reaches between r.m.
5e.9—r.zn. 1.l, r.m. 4 4l.1—r. . 3L..b, r.m. 3 4.6—r.m. 20.2 and r.m.
15. —r.m. 12.7. The more gradual slope of the D.C. profile, sucn as
between r.m. 3L .6 and r.m. 30 as compared to the slope between r.m. 30
and r.m. 20.2 indicates a hiOner in—stream reaeration rate due to the
relatively steeper water surface slope.
in Figure 13, the effects of an t DC Satellite plant discharge
located near tne t ecfield k .spital and below the Cochrane Dam are shown
by profiles C2, Cii and £2, £11, respectively. Profiles C2, Cli as
Comparec to £2, Eli demonstrate the effect of upstream discharges and
sediment oxygen demand.
P ote now close profile 02 comes to the D.C. standard of 5.0 mg/i;
removing the —I load from the Satellite loading raises the D.C.
profile aoove 5.0 mg/l oownstream of the cischarge as indicated by tne
score for Case C2 in Table 12.
in Figure the effects on the D.C. profile of an EDO Satellite
plant disonargin; 5 mg/i CE0 witn 1 mg/i t r 3 —N and witn only 5 n;/i
CbQD 5 are sr cwn Dy profiles 02, Lii and C3, £12, respectively. ± rcfi1e
C3 shows tne situation of the D.C. being aoove 5.0 m;/l at all locations
downstream of the discharge near the t’ edfield nospital (r.m. 47.c).
it is evident tnat even 1 mg/i NH 3 —N can exert a significant oxygen
demand.
in Figure 15, the sensitivity of the 0.0. profile to sediment oxy;en
demand and varying nitrification rate constants in the stream is shown.
Profile Gil indicates the effect of sediment oxygen demand upon the D.C.
deficit in the river. Note however, that even with sediment oxygen
demand at zero everywhere this case will still not meet the D.C. level
of 5.0 mg/l.
Profiles bil, All and Eli demonstrate the sensitivity of the D.C.
profile to varyir.g the in—stream nitrification rate between 0.C and 0.2,
0.6 in all reacnes and 0.2 in all reaches, respectively, it is evident
that tne predicted D.C. profile is not very sensitive to triis
coefficient. This is most likely attributable to the low concentrations
of in tne wastewater discharges.
Figure 16 demonstrates that if photosynthetic oxygen production
occurs at the peak rates of September , 1973, the D.0. will be above
5.0 g/1 everywhere along the river. D.C. production due to
photosynthesis is apparently a significant D.C. source at the rates of
September £4, 1973. however, the phenomenon occurs only during periocs
of sunlignt, is not reliable and requires abundant algal populations to
sustain it.
57
A—250

-------
•. $0 W 10 T0?H NC$4
(tUPPft. e
40
ie ç4
1
0
Lad
H
P
L)
U
I
U,
‘ -I
H
U
H
H
z
0
tJ)
4
U
8
Li
1
+
Figure 12
D.O. Prof heR Demonstrating
Upstream Discharge Effects
± I
U’
tsj
U,
I -a
00
a
01
00
01
‘-4
0
U ,
U)
‘.4
[ [
ji
t

•} :jj
!
I

4 1 -
H ULL
I
I L
cARe
c i i t
I
H
L 1L
L H 4 LJ
1L Lft
I I
Cl
•. L 4JJi
H
1
1
L 4 J
Ii
:11
a.,
- C se
I
• a
7
Bi 1
trt
T!fl
I
T


N
1H
!
Ce8e
titL
5
)
DI
I I L
River MLles Above the
3 J
Mo i t h
I L I
(

-------
ps ’ lOX 10 TO YHI INCH 40 0751)
R N .1,1.
tUrP!l. ..qiM C
.1
b
U)
‘-1
U
U
0
-I- 114
I p4
;
.I . ±
.i1
F
Figure 13
D.O. Profiles Demonstrating
Alternative MDC Satellite
Discharge Effects
TT T F
I’
I- 1

r o ,-
H H
--1-- •
-,‘CRRC Cli
‘.4
00
E
0I
00
0)
‘-4
0
U,
U)
ii;
-H
e CP
“ I
0
1)1
V.
nJJ
A
1•
rr
12 ! 1
t
N
j
LI.
F4 H r
C e
I’
• i L
ii
VC t

‘‘ .
J
t1
-t
I c ,
LN J
— ________ 1
I I I
-I -
4
)
II.;
±T 1 i i
E2
I
Pr
T
H
River Miles Above thr Moti h
s 4LI. k

-------
• ,. x Ia TO?I4 INCH 4 O7 O
PUP tt. S
:1
T [ 1 .
L
J ft
0
z
I L L’ F
c i I
IL)
I u
Li
1’
tJ )
p -I
, -1
I-I
c i
Ii
L
H
-- -- (I)
Figure 1 4
P.O. Pi off1e Pemon tratfng
AlternntIve MDC Satellite
1.oid1n s Effects
*
Hi
ft
I -,
bO
- a
Q)
bO
-
I i )
-
—I
0
U)
U)
ci
0 ’
0
t%J
U,
P
It
-41 -
Tr
4
44
—I
LI
ii i!
• : - \ J I:
‘L ‘
I - I ,
.4
Ce eC2 —’ 1
‘\
L.!
1L
4
I’
t
I
I
j
H
?
2
II
H
I I
--
! !1
fl

1.
i
.__‘iLLJ
Piver Mflv ; Ahov the Mouth
U

-------
1::
:
ILl
:
0
Ia
H
‘ -.4
‘-4
Li
U
U
U
1- 4
0
If)
T
ft
D.0. Pr 1 ofi1e Demonstrating
Sediment Oxygen Demand
i4
It W
•1
___L 0
.110
.,II)
-r
4
I
‘-a
F’,
Lfl
I t
/ 1
ILJI
H
LI
j
I
; Hi Figure 15
- YJitrif cation Rate
H
ilL CeReG11
/. .1

___ eAhl
Effects
iLi
4J
J 4
all
-r
L
4
1.
N I
T
I I
),
W1 -
Hc
+ H
liii
H H
River Miles
40
Above the Mouth

-------
10 X 10 10 ? 14E NCI4 4 0780
r *i’ r.
tI lt 00
0
1 . 14
U
C.-,
I—4
z
0
U)
]
1
U,
I-4
I
1 I
I
1
D2
J
L
1
¶1
I
‘-4
bO
.0
U
r-4
-o
I,)
-U,
I
IA
FIgure 16
T .O. Prof!’ CR DemonRtrRtjng
Eff et of
Phot.o ynthetI c Oxy c n
(I
JTHTIT [ T
i T
H-
I
0 ’
p )
01
U ’
LLL.
Pmductl.on
!IL
)
1 1.
11
L i i
1_ _J ,.
C e E2
- L
t Q
I -,’
j
H -
L
•1 - —--1
H
‘4
I-
• r
.i L
‘I
1 -i
r
I-
:ç
oH-
.7
-) H
LH
River M11r s Above th Month
L _ I I
ii]

-------
LIST OF REFERENCES
1. hater Quality Section, assachusetts Division of hater Pollution
Control, Charles Eiver 197 Part A. .ater CUty Survey Data ,
kest orough, MA (1971 ).
2. Dept. of the Ar y, Ne England Division, Corps of Engineers,
Eesources lrveati atipr. — Charles Piver tu y. Ac e d x L —
Evorolo v an vcra lics , altr a , MA (1971).
3. U.S. Geolo .ical Survey, hater Pesources Data Ferorts 1 7 thro h
197 , Boston, KA.
. ‘ater Quality Section, Rassachusetts Divisicn of ater Pollution
Control, Charles River arc Charles fiver :n, 1 7 —1 7 . ater
Cuality Anaiys s , estoorougn, MA (1977).
5. U.S. Environoerital Protection Agency, “STDPET—FL.CSTAT”, Ecaton, MA
(1977).
6. Metropolitar. Area Plannir.; Co=issicn, “Su nary of Data Analyses on
Secinents and Eentriic invertebrates froz the ips icn, Charles,
Assobet, Sudbury and heponset Rivers”, RAPC—2C hater Quality
Project, boston, MA (1977).
7. Quirk, Lawler, and Matusky Engineers, Systens Aoclicatior.s for hater
Pollution Control , t ew york (1971).
8. hater Quality Section, Massachusetts Division of water Pollution
Control, Charles River Easin. 1976. hater Cual ty Maraze:er.t Plan ,
bestborough, MA (1976).
9. Camp Dresser & McKee, inc., hater Cualitv anazeoent Plan. Nashua
J iver basin , Boston, MA, pp iv—65 — iv—71 (1975).
10. Tsivo;iou E. C. and Neal L. A., “Tracer Measurenent of
keaeration:lIl. Predicting tne Reaeration Capacity of Inland
Streams ”, Jour. hater Poll. Control Fed., 48, 12 (1976).
11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Field investigation
Center, “Sedinent Oxygen Deaand Studies, Still, Quinnipiac, k-iockanuo
and Pawtuxet Rivers”, Cincinnati, Ohio (Internal Me:orandu 1973).
12. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, Surveillance and
Analysis Division, “Charles River Lower Basin Study”, Neednan, MA
(1976). and Peter I . Nolan, Aquatic Biologist, EPA, Region 1,
Personal Coa. unication (1977).
63
A— 256

-------
13. Peter 4. Nolar’., Aquatic Eio1o ist, U.S. Environ enta1 Protection
Agency, e ion I. Personal Coi unicatjon (1977).
1 . Thoaann, F . V., Svste a Analys1 and Water Quality ana enent ,
Environmental esearcn and Applications, Inc., Ne 1or (1972).
15. Erdmann, J. B., Systenatic Diurnal Curve Analysis”, Massachusetts
Division of ‘ater Pollution Control, ‘ estborough, Mt. (1977).
64
A—257

-------
APPENDIX A
Listing of Sept. 1973 model calibration input data set for
conditions with net photosynthetic oxygen production.
65
A—2 58

-------
00000 100
00000700
00004) 0 1)0
o nA n’,’ 410
000oosno
On A 1 10 ’. 00
000041,00
00000000
000 ( 40 ‘4 00
0001114100
000011430
0041(1 1 701)
onool ion
0000 )4 n f l
noon icon
0000 $400
1)0001 too
00001 ‘00
0000 1000
00007 4 1 00
00007 )00
n0 00 . ’ . ’no
001)07100
1)000 . ‘ 4 I I I )
00 0 (3 7 0 0
0000 7 4 , 00
00 00 7 100
000 0?’ 0 0
000074300
000413000
000113100
00001300
00110 100
00001400
0000 V 00
41000 14.00
00003700
0004) 34flfl
00003100
00004000
00004100
000 4(4 ?0fl
00004300
00004400
0000 * 000
00 0 0 * cOfl
00004100
000044400
0000 * ‘40 4 )
001)05000
Oflfl0 I 1)0
00 0 0 . 0 0
0004l S 100
00000400
000 4 I5’00
0 1 )0 c c 0 1
000 0 5 1 4 )0
000ll . ’0 l )
000(15 ‘400
00000000
000110100
coin’ n ( ,i.A cy rcy • 1$$ 00h,f) 70 CFI (a 14
0.0 41.0 4.5 7 ’4 ’ ,
0. ) 0.0* 1.0 0.0
0.01) 0.0 0.1,10 $4.?
1 7 0. 1 1 I. ) )
1.41 0.33
0.3
1. 11 1.0
3.0 1.41 0.0
0.4? I i. ) ) 0.0
c r )A0 5.410 DflN)) DA ’ 4 TIp
0. 14 1.0
1.0
0.00
l ’4.O .440
I .003
I • ( I
1 1.4 0.0
0.0 —- - — -0 .0
SWAMP P044)) 0444
70 5 —0.5’)
0.13
II•6 ‘1.00
0.130
0.4 ,
0.) 3W
0.0
0.1 3W
0.’
4 4 4CM
‘CC 4
4 1)C 14
4) CM
40 CI- ’
4f,CH
•, (H
6 CM
1AC ’l
714CM
I CM
7 CU
3 CM
‘IC H
I 0CM
I . 4CM
5CM ) ) It
51410 A
SC ”)) H
S C “01 C
SC I ’ ll 4
SCM )) IM
SCIIOI I
SITU’) I J
SCull IL
SC 140444
5C 02T
SC H)) . 4 *
“C ‘4)? H
‘ 1(”01 ’O
SC HO? I
SC II (I$J
S C H))
SC II ’ ) 144
SCM0 iT
SC”)) 3*
SC ’40 44
5( .fl IC
Sr o
5C 4fl iu
5(44 I) 1 I
iJ
SCM’) 3 L
SC”II 444
St H)) 4 1
C I ’ 1) 4 A
/, ? ))AM7 I - f tC UI4.M1WI-* ..1
,,s,r ii . . Iii, OS •C ’l.O ’A ( $0.1 R. .1l44PLI .DIS°.3 ’4i.
00 Y41filIT. .
//ETOI P )ftn$ rn, ‘ISI- . I .STIP.IlPl1t.SysI,A.l)IcP . 144I-..,444 50).
/, S (’ICI ’ .lC”t. • I) .r ,c .I.(,,cl,P ,..os.L44 r1.oo,
II .I ,45$/4 •I’..’i. ”l 4OW4 1. (
/70 7054 0,4) IH( ‘ I
la.A I . ’ I$.H $1 • S 1:1.1
I?.
$7.0 $7 .7 11.0 1 1. 1 $1. 1
I I. )
$fl • I4 b.c $0.4 10.1 $4 1.0
41.7
9.•, ‘4. 4 . 4. ? ‘4.0 11.44
44 .7
41.4 44.? 1.0
1.44
7.6 1 5 1.4 7.3 7. ?
1.1
1.0 .4 . ,.# 0.7 0. l ,
fl ’ 4l. 0. ’ 4J 0.4 4 5 0.15 (4. 50
? 100.0 1210.0 350.n 310.0 $70.0
1.0* ) .f 1 4 1.1)4 1. 11? .0 ?
1.02
1.07 I.0 , 1.02 1.07
1.0 1.0 0.0
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 0.0
0.0 1.0 0.5 0.0
.
0.01 0.0 - 0.5 0.0
1 1.17 3.1 1P,.S 4•7 7.44 1) .0 0.1
I 33
Os)
U i
0
0 1 .
0 ”
3.0
0.10
0.0
411 OP’() SIP
77.4 71.* —0.50
0. )) 0.15
31 .* 0.0 0.00
0.0
0.1
0.110
0 •
0.3
I.0
3.0
0.0
F 1 1 1 )44
0.0
0.0
30.0
0.3
I • I ’
1 • I I
I nd • 1
3.0
0.75
4 ,
3.0
0.0
0.0
51° 7 11 10CC ?.
0.11 3.0
I .) I.n
0.0 4 • 14
$20.0 —--—-- .M ’4
1.’ ) 1 1.1. 10
0 • 100
I .)
I . ’ . ’ , 0.))
41.1) ‘ .5.1,
M I ))) 11 )1441)
141.1 7) • 3 —(4.5
0.0 0.)
II..$ 1.0 0.0
EHO.’ IMLFV. .4(10 114,440 TI) hIm O IO DAM
0.4) 0.0 0. • . h4?. 7n•3 —0.5

-------
•O00A O0 II .?? I.u o.n
00000.1100 0.0 0.0 u.u ?0..? 1.11 0.0
01)1)00.100 a 10..0 .97
ooooo. ’o 0.3 U.RS
011000.0.0(1 1.1 1.0
1)0001.700 0.11 I I. ? ‘. 4 1 0.13*1
001100.an 0.0 11. 11 0.11 0.1.
1 )0000.001)
000010011 DQM aoi 11000 ‘ II Tfl P4 0 ) 97 (4 ‘ 01LlP4OP40M DIM
00007100 0.0 0.0 4• l ( 77•f ‘‘.1 —1.0
0000170’) 0.?2 fl•3 -1.0 11.0 0• 3
1 1 ) 0 1 1 100 0.0 11.0 M.’jl 0.1. 0.0
1)0 1)0710 11 171.0 .10
000l )7’OO 0.030
0000?1)’) 0.3 0.27?
000’l7Tl )0 1.0 1.0
onnolno 0.11 — 2 1 1.0. 0.0 0.139
00007000 0.0 0. 11 0.0 0.1.
0 1 100u0 P 0
q’ )OuoIO ’ ) 01.04 P40 1 1T H HEI.LIPl(,’400 0*H TI) C*WYVTLLT (AM
00000700 0.0 0.11 0.7 Ill.? P,l (, —(P .S
000Iifl’0a 0.21 0.97 1.0 *1.11 0.1111.
011000400 11.0 )‘#1.0 fl.flfl.1.2 0.0 0.0
ooot,o o0 11 1.0 .1111
00000.00 0.071
0011110100 0.3 0.170
000IINI’OP) 1.0 1.0 -
00000001) 0.9 21.0 0.0
00009flfl1) 0.0 - — - - 0.0 -—- 0;o 1 1 .0.
00000100
00110’1,011 FO’)M CAPOYVILIP UIM TO 074001141; 1400011
0000*1100 0.0 0.0 2.0 70• 14 0.1.10 —0.?
0fl009 0 ’ ) 0.19 1.1.0 ).fl ( P.O 0. 17
000l9’-00 0.0 94 1 1• ( P 11.0 12.0 0. 0.0
00009 1 .0 10 - 0.1. - .110. — -
00000700 0.090
000119001) 0.3 0.110
000090010 1.0 1.0
00010000 0.0 71.00 -— — 0.0 0.139
0Ol1I0Iflfl 11.0 0.0 0.0 0.0.
000)0700 -.- -
000lO000 0 I400 P4OPPIMA (4l fl TO MINE (4(40)011
011010100 0.0 0.11 1.4 79.0. 0.3.1 —0.2,
001)101.00 0.10 1.10 1.0 ((.0 0.10.
000)00.00 2.4 0.0 0.0 ..o o.c 0.0
00010700 31.0 •1) 1 .
000 10•00 l• 1 1 1..? “fl.l0 0.91
00010000 0.3 0. (04
0001101111 1.0 1.0
1100111011 0.11 10. 1 11. 11.1. 0.139
00011700 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0.
000113110
011011001) Fl.l)M HONE HD ()01) 70 1(0 157 WFflWIY 0*4
000110.00 0.0 0.11 0.1 79.0
000ll’flfl 0.17 0.11 1.1) 0.0
0flO )I7 1) ) A .7 0.0 ‘.0 15.1.)
000l) 0 ( ( 90•7 0.00
0701190 17 I. ? 1.0 0.11. 11.1.9
0)1017000 0.3 fl.17 0 .
0011(7(00 1.0 1.1.
0011(7701) 0.11 1 . 7.0. I c.?
ICH00 I*
OC HOl!
SCHOo I
SCUD’ ’,
SCHOIL
SC H 01.0
C HO S V
c c
SC UQ SC
SC HO S (
5C HI) SG
St ‘ . 0 I
‘, ):p 0 Li
SC U n
5(4401.0
5 (uoiST
SC, I0 1 .I
Sf1 101.0
SCHOOl
‘,CHO I J
“C 000L
S l H07M
,CHO 17
SC HO PA
SC 44 0 7 0
5 (H () PC
5 (14 077
5(1407 0
5 (14071
SC HO I J
5CHO ?L
5(140MM
SC HO I I T
SI. 404*
SC 14 0 . 4 14
0 ( 1 1 0nC
SC (loll F
S C HO 01)
5(14(1111
•,(Ilfll J
SC ‘ n
S(. I40 P4
SC I - 4 U I 7
‘ ( lIOIA
“C II1) ( ( 1
St ‘I04C
S C” 017
5(11041)
SC’ l 09 1
“( 440 I J
SCHOOl..
0. 1.
0 S
0
do
3.0
0.21. 0.0
.1) .
3.’)
0.21. 0.0
0.0
0.25 0.11
3.0
0.20 0.0
.0.
3.0
0.20 0.0
. 1*
000 CHICKEN 000011
(,?. —o.
0.11. 3.0
1.11 0.0 0.75 0.0
0.6

-------
00012101) 0.0
00012*00
01)1)121.00
01)01 ?‘.0I)
1)1)91271) 1)
001)1 nfl
1)001 ? 0 ’1
1)091 01100
11001 :iino
0001 3100
0001 3104)
170013400
0001 4 .I)’)
0’IOI 1’ 00
11111111700
01101 10 1)1 )
0001 3 n9
0 00 711 C 00
0001410
000111100
0110111104)
0001111100
00014000
0O0I 4’ ’1l
000111700 1114) , —
0flfll11 00 0.0
0fl0I8 0fl 0.10
0o0I’ nc1) 0.0
000 10100
00tlI0.’flfl 0.3
00070100 0.0
000 10’.nn 0.0
0001004)7 )
00010000 1104)0
00010700 0.0
000lc nI) 0.10
000 1S000 0.0
00011,004)
noni,lon 0.3
00010700 ‘4.0
00010100 0.0
000101100
000 l Acflfl
0001 0 O0
non 10,701)
0001001)0
00010 ‘400
0001 1000
000) 7 )00
0001 1700
00077 0fl0
0001 1400
00017000
000174,0 ’)
00011700
0001 7.41)0
0001 7 ’)fl4)
O l )I ’ ’ lfl0
000) I I flit
ff010,110 0.3
00010100 0.’,
)‘ ‘ TO INLET. P’)P’JIOTIC
0.0 4.11 70.4
1.0!) 7.0 0.0
‘ 1 1 1 ,0 - -- 0.001 .l1
07 .0
1.0 0.1
0 • 0fl
07.1 11.0
0.0 • -• - 0.0 -
OUTLET. fl°’j74TIC P09 (1
0.0 •- - -- - 4.0
0. 70 l.a
0.41 •- - - - 0.1)
bl .3 .51.
0.57 - - —
00.5 0.0
0.l1 0.11
1 100’4 MILL MIVE” 7111 0!o otvl o
0.0 0.0 .•o. 71.4
0.111 *.IA - - - 7.0 11.0
0.0 0.)t 7.1
—— l 0 . - .110
1.0 3.) 0.70
0.1 11. 14 ’ ,
l.a I. ) ’
11.0 q’ 1 •7 110.1
0.0 0. ’ ) (1.11
111400 STOP .4 9 u TI) 5 )JC ,S14 R..t)Ø0
0.0 - 0.1 0.11
0.1? 0.4)4 1. 1 1
I ’ ).? 11.0 0.)’
4 1 1 7 . .140
0.714
I ) • I ,
P 7 ) i )
‘ °.0 —0.5
I i • I.
0.0 I.0
44 IV ( I ’
‘ ,T.’, —0.7
0.l ’ 4
0.0 0.0
S).M —1.0
11.10
0.0 0.0
0 • 3 2
0 • 1 30
0. ’, 0.0
• 05
ION
OCHIOT
‘4(04)0*
0C 1 014
-.11.? Of
0C ’ - ’l Ill
S rI - I l 0 )
‘,( I Of,
Of “I 0 I
‘ 41 ,- Il IIC
“C”l 114
IT
‘ Cl-4) I *
‘,1 4) 144
5(. ”I IC
‘ iC ’-l IF
‘,104)10
5 f I- ’I to
0 ) 04 ) II
‘41.041 IL
‘ 4CHI ?T
0(0 174
SC”l ‘14
‘4187
514-’).’ )
“( UI 71
OC’ ) 71
‘,(0) 3M
‘ 4C !1l 11
“ ( “I 4-I
‘ 41 ’I IC
0101 If
‘ (8) 11
“1404
0C014 I
510)4*
01 14 144
‘.101 11C
5(8) ‘F
‘.18141
“C ‘41 4 I
01010) J
0)4!) 4
‘.10) SM
“foist
018 104
51 ’ I 51
I S F
Sc ” 11
01 ‘I SI
01 .47) J
0.11 11.0 11.4 0.0 .
WEST E1)**V flaw L ou) CU ICO7N 141)00 W 70 M119W*Y
0,41 11.0, 19.? 0,0.7 —0. ’
o.c 7 .1) - 0.11 0.10
u.I) ‘4.0 0.) 0.0
•1, 4 ,
‘4.7 ll .I ’ 4 1. 10
0 • 1 74
- 00.0
I) • 1)
FOO
0.0
0.17
7.0
2.4
0.01)4
0.3
0.0 -
0.0
0.0
0.10
11.0
0.010
1 . ’,
0.3
0.0
O • 110
7. , ,
I) • 0
I ’ .)
0 ’ ,
I-. ’
O • I 39
0 . ’.
7141)1. POPII (*tTC 41 (1010 10 ‘, 11T171. 0 00III.*TIC
0.1 7.3 19.4 ‘50.14 —I I .)
11.11 ‘1.10
0.0 0.0 l7.1 ’# 0.0 11.17
2 ’ 4 .fl fl;nn- -
0.11?
01.3 - - 0.0 0.139
1 1.0 0.0 0.0
0*14
3.0
0.20 0.0
3.0
0.70 0.411
. 4,
POND
3.0
0.440 0.0
0. ’ .
3.0
0.00 0.0
3.0
0.14 0.0
3.0
0.0 0.0
TO 0IIj
I I • 0
17.91
0 • 1)9
- 0. ” 0.0 .
70.0 110.14 —0.’,
0.0 0.10
4.00 0.’, 0.0
-- 2. ’ 0.10
‘1.1.0
I.’)

-------
100 1$1S’) .0 313.0 l? 3 0. Ij o SCH ISI .
0flCIø .0fl 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 o .
one
000 1A700 YWOM SUGAN N .inn. Tfl ‘ oAsTow 80006
0fl0lN. 0 0.0 6.? Ti. *n•1 —0.2
G00l l n0 0.31 0.00 1.0 0.0 13,1 ! , 3.0
00039000 fl.? 0. 1 1 o. .P u.s 0.0 u.n o.o
00019100 611.0 . 90 ! ,( “I hF
00039100 I3M.0 .P 0. l .j
00010100 39 1.0 0.0 0.3 39
onniq’oo n. J o.l10
0003°””) 0. 3.0 .,c . ,oIJ
‘)0Q3Q flfl 5.0 ll ’,.M 4. s o. 1i9 ,r .P’ lht.
onotn’nn u. n i’.o 0 . . us, 51 1 1 FM
000I0m0 1 1
00039000 F6UM PO I ,Tfl.. kW()On To M11 Ilto MflçI. 1 y 01 5Cl l FT
0flQ1flfl 0 0.0 0.0 6.0 1051 *1,8 —0.1
00010100 0.33) 0.31 l.U 0.0 0.35 3.0 !,CHITH
ooo. ’o;oo 311.60 11.11 ( ‘.0 n,.Qt 0.c 0.0 0.0 0.0
00010100 ,1 9,O .90
000?0 0fl 3.? 7.2 0.30 1.00
ooo o ”nn 0.3 1 3. / I MINIFI
00010.00 0.0 3.0 . - 5C ’ lOIJ
000 10Ff’) 5.0 I’I.l 15.1 0.339 S(kI 1
ono . onon 0.u 0.0 0.0 os. 0. n ,
000 10000
00013000 FIH3” M0.OOIFL ,F .4C,OPIY*L TI, couT” NATICK 0*9 ! ,(NINT
ono i1no 0.0 11.1) .* TN. ”, l .l —3.0 5CN 1 8*
I100?Ilflfl 0.10 0.00 1.n - 0.0 0.30 3.0 . t oo
flflfl ) 100 0.0 0.0 0.?’ 35.93 Q•6 0.0 0.6 0.0
1 J 000 II’fl l . “ O’ ,fl .‘ n
0001) 500 ?1.3 3.0 0.36
000t’IbOfl 0.3 1) s ,fl • rNlNt
00011700 0., .0 SCII OIJ
000 ?IAOO 5•3) 306. 1 0.33 0.130 sC1 lH1
0 0 0 II O FIO4I.I) 0.0 0.0 0.1. 0.3, 5C4 1’ .M
00012000
000.??I00 CNOM 000114 5 TIr3, I)* TO WAHOO 0000* 5C N 1 91
00011200 0.0 0.0 3.1 70.4 30.4 —0.?
000??’flO 0.30 0.1)1 1.0 0.0 0.36
000Ilton 0,0 - 0q0 fl 0 . 0 fl3 0.0 0.0 o.o
0 00??’. 00 611.0 .90
000??’l10 0.0000 - . 5f 4 3 9 (
00012700 0.6 0.75? ! ,C ’ . 19 1
0002p ’no 5.0 107.5 - I,o 0.319
00022900 0.0 . 0,0 0.0 0.6 0.6
00021000 __ ._.
00023300 0009 90.4*8 4Nflq)V 1’) C0C ’4w*O 0*9
00023200 0.0 0.0 8.0 in.? 1*.b —1.0 scH .’na
00023’O° 0.16 0.00 3.0 0.0 0.10 4•5
000I1’00 32.00 0.0 0.11 39.79 0.2 , 0.0 0.14 0.0
00027000 3331.0 , . 87
00011600 — 0.30 — 0.93
3)00177011 0.6 0.610
00fl?1 00 1.0 1.0 OI N?QJ
000 /3 ”Ofl 0.0 1 ’ I.Q 16.1 0 1J9 ‘ .(H ,’fl
000?40 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6
000.” I(’O
ooOl4 o ’ 000” COCP490 ’ ,r naN 1CnrcTot,T ST° r ? . W€0HAM
00014100 0.0 0.0 4.* 734.0 31.0 —0.31
0001*400 0.34. 11,3’. I . ’ U. )) 0.36

-------
4.5
0.25 0.0
4.5
0.25 0.0
SCM? IC
SC H? 30
SC H?l0
SCH?1 I
SC U? IL
Sf 4 2/U
I U?? I
SC 4274
SC ‘ .‘?C
51 ‘I ’ (
SC’??l
3M
Sf473!
SC”? IA
SC 47J4
SC’- ’? 1C
IF
5(4 /3 3
5CU7 (33.
SC H? M
5CU2
SC 4/44
SC ‘ ?‘C
SC#?4L
5C 4/SM
5 14/54
51 “25*.
4( -4 ? SC
SC”?5F
SI ”? Sr
5 1474 1
SC “751
SC “ ? ‘ ‘ - ‘
SC “703
4( “‘4*4
SC ‘1/64
51
5( “ ‘‘ -r
51”? 3M
SC.’??!
7*4
0.’,
0 1
.4
0
000.’acfln I3.U 4.9.II 0.11 14.76 0.11 0.0 0.2!, 0.0
*3OOjA0,OhI 117.0 .71
00024100 0.010
000241100 0.4 0.4 47
04024°0(3 5.0 I M7.3 0.0 0.390
000/4000 0.0 0 ,. , , 0.0 0.0 0. ! ,
00fl ? ’.I 0*3
000eS’OO F4O ’o CH STPft*1 ‘*4 f’s AM 30 LOU ’, *111CM I *4U 9
0O025 00 0.0 0.0 30.0 13.0 /‘*, ‘l —3.4,
000 S’. 0 ’ 3 0.10 0.? ’ 3.0 ‘ 3.0
00023400 0.0 - 0.0 0.0 11. 7 (3.54 0.0
0 00 / 5 ’00 ? 6I , , ( 3
070/47*30 0 .0 ’ 0.10/
00o?4 o0 0.5
(3(3(3/490(3 4.0 1”?.? 0.0 31.3 * ‘*4
000/0000 0.0 0. ’ ) 0.0 (3.6 0.0,
000?’ .l OO -
( 3 ’ 3Q /470*3 FW ,IM LOUG *)l1CU t911 t 33) 141)147 14 4443)flI( 1) 15714533)5
00020900 0.0 15.0 30.3 1*4.? 20.5 —3.1
*300/040*3 0.10 0.0’ 1.” 0.0 0.34
*30*309 *3.0 0.0 0.0 ‘ •o o.c’- . 0.0
0*3*3/4 . 0 ( 30 I’ 14•ft .0.,
00024.700 *3.0. - 0.914 —-
00t12 ’ 0 0.5 3.’ )
00fl?h fll3 5.0 - I ’ 3 ”.2 0.0 0 .339
000/7000 0.0 • 0.’) 0.0 I . ’ .
00021 170
ooO2l’oO “ou OTM( i i )fl 030(05304 TO L iNO hiTch (13) TLOT
00077100 0.0 ) 1•Ø )l.i 70..11 24.? —I .?
000?7’00 0.10 ‘1.03 1.0 0.0 0.35
*30*3 /7 ( 3*3 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.1? *4.5’ . o.* ,
000 /7 4. 1 10 b71. .0F .
0*302710 1 1 0.b 0.19 7
00027300 0.5 3.0
000 /7’300 *3.0 -- 709.4 fl.0 - 0.330
‘ 3(3024000 0.0 0.0 ‘4.0 0..,
300
000?R 00 rOOM io r . OIICU OUTLOT TO 43)3)741 14 ( 43)00 ‘41400*!
000/4900 0.0 0.0 9.3 ?c,o 23.2 —3.?
0007 ’00 0.00 0.03 3. ! ; 0.0 0.34
000 /4 00 0.0, (3.0 - 37.59 0. S 0.0
000 ?’ 4e’00 5 M . .70
0002A100 3.0 0.4 - 0.15 0.91
000/11400 0.0 0.400
00074900 0.4 1.0 -
000 /9900 4.0 fl7 3 . ? 0.1)9
000/9300 0.0 — •r) 0.6
0 ( 30/020)
000/0100 040M 53)3*714 UCAIJI)W *4°003 00 413.0 M3 1 3)4*4
00029400 0.0 0.0 4.5 70./ 2”,? —0.5
3*3 ’ 37 ’) ’ -flfl 0.410 0./I I . ) V) fl 0.35
3fl070 0 ’ 3 2.40 0 f ) 0.0 1 0./ i 0 . , 0.0
?lMfl - .71
000/9.00 4,3 7. ‘ 3.15 0.27
(300/000*3 0.0 043*4
00090 00 (3.4 3,0
00040100 5.11 / 11.1 1.? 0.1.19
00010/00 ‘1.34 (.0 0.0 4.6
000 *0100 —— - - .
00030 ’0 ’) rOOM SILO Mitt 3)69 TO 40T4-’(IPOLITON CI CULA*4 lAM
90(3 *0 ’flO 0.0 0.0 1.5 70,4 , /0.0 —0.05
0.0
4.5
0.25
0.6
4.5
0./S 0.0
0.0

-------
eo3I’. ,nn ,.u. I I. ) ’. l .u 6.11 ‘1.18 A.
000307110 ‘).O ri9 .n 0. ” 15.64 1.6 0.0 0.0 St K??C
1100 .00 1 100 210. 1.0
Ofl030’. ’ ) O.004
*00111100 0.b - 0.4 ’ 1M 6CW?7l
l )O’I 41101) 1.11 I . ’ )
0 1 1 1 13 1 1P 1 1 8.11 e ll.3 1 1.0
OflO . 0I 1110 0.0 0.11 I,.0 “... o.o .
011001400
0lTn.4I ..flo rMQM MtTwuvOLlTA 4 CII CULA’I PAM TO 0 4 0 1 111 1 1 )4 J . .l)W W & 5
000 11600 0.0 II•l ) 6.6 70..’ jl•0 5 —1.1
0003, P1,0 0.011 11,111) 1.0 11.0 o. i 8 14? I4H
ono: ,i.nO 0.0 04 •l) 0.11 211.50 0.0 0.0 o. ’ 7 0.0
00fl3I fl0 ‘46.? •‘, ‘4
000120 (111 0.014 5 (1 1701,
00017100 0.6 U. ’ . 6 6
000i ?;nO 6.0 2 ) 6. 0 11.0 0.119
‘1n03? 00 0.11 0.11 11.11 0. ’ , 0. 6
001117401)
000 I? ’,I ’ ) 0141104 04 0T0P4 11 ,4 14 OAU5 70 IOILT?. 14 0 1 1 1 W 61 lOAM I’400,J ’ 4014r 041
0111 • ? ‘00 0.11 11.0 ‘ ,.1. 111. 1 16.4 —1.3
01)1) 171 110 0.U’11 0.118 1.0 11.0 0.1. . ‘, . ,
0003?fl°0 ‘1.0 110 ’ 0 , II T) I7 20.11 0.11 11.0 0.97 0.0
0 00J? ” O l ) I ’ . ’ 6.fl • ‘ l ,
001)11000 0.011 -
000111)01) 0. ), • 0.680
00031 ?fl0 5.0 ?‘?.l 11.0 0.13”
00031100 0.0 0.’) 0.0 I I. . , 0. T O M
00003400 - - —
00031.00 l’IP ’ ’ tw1 T. 1101107 5? 4)89 )M.’llI)040111P4’ TI) 040007 5714117 DAM CH1IIT
0003T fl0 0.11 0.0 )‘).11 70.0 j.) .7 —1.4 “ ( 1- 410*
011 0110 $1711’) 11.011 0.11? 1.1, 11.0 0.18 4, ’ , 5 ( - 11114
000J3”fl0 0.0 0.0 0.0 11.34 0.5 11.0 0.111 0.0 5C 1 C
0 0 0flc.n I ) ‘T4fl. 1.0
0110lAOflO 0.6 - 0 3f3 8C ’ Il Ot
00lI3..l00 1.0 1.11
01103’’flfl 6.0 775,0, 0.0 0.13’) SC ’ l l Tl
00034100 0.0 0. )) 0.1) I I . ’ , 0.11 ‘,(H I M
000 .1 4 I . 00
00014800 F144)M 14001)7 ST” )ET DAM 1).) i ’ ) AvOR 1414000. WALTHAM
00034600 0.0 0.0 6.11 77.7 17.2’. —0.3 ‘ -,C 1 13 1 8
000 .14100 0.01) 7 40 1.0 0.0 0.)’.) .S 8C 4 1 1 1 1 4
000)4 l’0 0.0 1 199 0 - 0.0 14.2 0.0 0.0 0.6) 0.0 6(1-’ TIC
0003 4 011 ? 4.° .70 8(1411)
00018000 0.011 -
( ‘0O) 1fl 0. ’ . ‘.26)
01 10)8701) 8.0 - - — -— 7 5 M -0.0-— 0.1311 8r l’I IL
00038100 0.0 0.0 11.0 0.6 0.6
0110 38801
00038800 runu li Avtq .40000. WA11HAU TO $1EAC61 IV lOAM 5(143711
0 ’ 103 6n0 0.0 0.11 7,11 77.4 11.14 —0.2
000387011 0.119 0.’) 1.11 ( I•I I 11.)’,
0110380110 0.116 0.0 0.’) ) ).47 0.0 0.0 0.6) 0.0
00 0ISQ°11 41.0 .10 6(14171
0 ’ )036”fl O 3.’4 5.11 11.18 1.01 5(143 , ’)
0110361000.6 0.36 5 5(4437)
0003’, ? 0 8.0 I I .? 0. 13 ’l 6(441?)..
011016100 0.11 0.0 0.0 0.’. 0.6 6(1411 ) 4
00036400 - - -- - -
00036800 004)0 U( ACH$KY D* TO W4TFIIT(JWH 9 AM
0110)81-00 0.0 0.0 8.1 11.0 9• 14 —1.8 8( 1 1114

-------
m
U i
-J
p9
eo,3 ?eI •. ø 1.0 0. 1 1 .S 5CH33fl
1100i, 00 .0 QI .fl 0.0 2fl. S 11.0 0.0 0.hl 0.0 SCH3jC
000J l Q00 14 ..0 .70
000jlnol, O.0flfI11
000.4710110.11 0. 1 1 t C’ 1 it
000 . 41 00 ,.U . . . 0.0 0.14 ’. ¶,CH33 4
0110.47100 1 1.U 0.11 44.0 I) . . CH 4M
00037 flt ’ /•

-------
APPENDIX B
Dissolved Oxygen, Time, arid Temperature
Charles River Survey
Sept. 4—6, 1973
Source: Reference (1)
73
A—2 66

-------
L
CHARLES RIVER 1973 SURVEY
WCATION OF SA ’LING STATIONS
STATION RIVE R
NUMBER LOCATION MILE
CR01 Dilla Street, Milford 76.5
CR02 Cedar Swamp Pond Dam, Milford 75.5
CR03 Howard Street bridge, Milford 73.9
CR04 Mellen Street bridge, Hopedal .e - Bellingham 73.0
CR05 Hartford Avenue bridge, Mendon - Bel linghan 72.0
CR06 Box Pond Darn , Bellinghan 70.3
CR07 Route 126 bridge, Bellinghatn 69.8
CR08 Pond Street bridge, Franklin - Medway 63.35
CH O8A Chicken Brook at Route 109, Medway 62.9, 0.65
CR09 Shaw Street bridge, Medway - Franklin 62.3
CR10 Walker Street, Medway 60.1
CR IOA Mill River at River Road, Norfolk 57.6, 0.02
CR11 Charles River at River Road, Norfolk 57.61
CR12 Forest Road bridge, Millis - Medfie ld 54.5
CH12A Sugar Brook near Dover Road, Millie 49.85, 0.05
CR13 Dover Road bridge, Millis - Medfie ld 49.9
CH13A Mill Brook at Mill Street, Medfield 49.5, 1.0
CR138 Bogastow Brook at Route 115 bridge, Millie 48.3, 2.3
CR14 Route 27 bridge, Sherborn - Millie 47.3
CR15 Bridge Street bridge, Dover - Sherborn 44.6
CR16 South Natick Das i, Natick 41.1
74
A—2 67

-------
TABLE I CONTINUED
STATION RIVER
NUMBER LOCATION MILE
CH17 Central Avenue bridge, Needhan - Dover 35.6
CR18 Chestnut Street bridge, Needham - Dover 33.0
CR19 Axues Street bridge, Dedha 26.85
CR20 Kendrick Street bridge, Needham - Newton 22.1
CR2 OA South Meadow Brook at Charles River, Newton 21.2, 0.01
CR21 Elliot Street bridge, Newton - Needham 20.3
CR22 Walnut Street bridge, Wellesley - Newton 18.3
CR23 Moody Street bridge, Waltham 12.7
CR23A Beaver Brook at River Street, Waltham 12.25, 0.05
CR24. Footbridge at Watertown Dani, Watertown 9.8
MINE BROOK (Confluence 63.1)
) 01 Route 140 bridge, Franklin 4.5
) 02 Near Route 495 (below Franklin SIT), Franklin 3.8
? O3 Pond Street bridge, Franklin 1.2
STOP RIVER (Confluence 51.8)
SF01 Route 115 bridge, Norfolk 8.0
SPO2 Winter Street bridge, Walpole 5.75
SF03 Ca pbe11 Street bridge, Norfolk 4.55
SF04 South Street bridge, Medfield 2.5
75
A—2 68

-------
0zij N (tng/1) - TLH Lt MP ,, I3RE .
1973 CHARLES RIVER SURVEY
9/4/13 9/5/73 9/6/13
StATION RUN 1 RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4 RUN 5 RUN 6 RUN 7 RUN 8 RUN 9 RUN 10 RUN Ii RUN
CHOl * 4 3Q 1000 1600 2200 0606 1002 1605 2200 0614 1007 1600 22C
** 78.0 78.0 82.0 80.0 76.0 76.0 77.0 78.0 76.0 75.0 76.0 74.
7.5 7.7 8.0 7.8 7.7 7.6 5.4 7.9 7.0 6.5 6.8 6.
CR02 0405 1010 1605 2205 0412 lOl l 1610 2205 0420 1015 1605 22C
78.0 82.0 86.0 79.0 77.0 78.0 79.0 78.0 76.0 76.0 76.0 76.
6.0 4.9 8.3 5.5 6.1 4.9 5.8 3.6 2.2 2.1 3.4 3.
CR03 0415 1017 1615 2215 0431 1021 1625 2210 0431 1023 1610 221
74.0 75.0 84.0 80.0 74.0 74.0 76.0 75.0 70.0 72.0 76.0 72.
1.9 3.1 9.8 5.6 2.1 2.5 7.8 4.3 1.9 3.6 4.1 3.
CR04 0425 1024 1625 2220 0419 1027 1630 2215 0640 1032 1615 222
76.0 77.0 80.0 76.0 76.0 76.0 75.0 74.0 73.0 75.0 76.0 73.
0.7 0.9 0.3 0.6 0.6 1.0 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.0 2.5 2.
CR05 0632 1029 1630 2230 0645 1032 1635 2220 0451 1037 1620 223
77.0 82.0 83.0 80.0 76.0 75.0 77.0 76.0 72.0 73.0 76.0 73.
0.4 1.4 4.9 0.3 0.5 0.7 2.5 0.8 0.7 1.1 1.7 1.
CR06 0439 1036 1640 2240 0453 1037 1640 2225 0657 1042 1625 223
79.0 84.0 87.0 83.0 79.0 79.0 80.0 79.0 77.0 78.0 78.0 77.
3.1 7.0 8.5 6.8 2.6 3.0 6.9 3.8 3.2 3.2 4.5 3.
* Time
** Tempernture
D1 o1ved Oxygen

-------
TABLE 3 CONTINUED
9/4/73 9/5/73 9/6/73
STATION RUN 1. RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4 _ RUN 5 RUN 6 RUN 7 RUN 8 RUN 9 RUN 10 RUN 11 RUN _ 12
CR07 0447 1041 1640 2265 0458 1040 1650 2230 0506 1068 1630 2265
76.0 78.0 80.0 78.0 76.0 74.0 76.0 75.0 73.0 74.0 74.0 73.0
1.2 2.3 2.5 1.6 1.5 1.6 1.8 1.2 1.6 1.9 2.8 3.3
CR08 0532 1117 1720 2325 0608 1105 1735 2305 0545 1115 1710 2320
76.0 80.0 82.0 80.0 76.0 76.0 77.0 76.0 76.0 75.0 75.0 73.0
4.6 6.7 7.1 4.9 4.5 6.9 6.3 6.9 5.0 5.7 6.0 5.6
C1tOBA 0538 1121 1725 2330 0612 1108 1740 2310 0549 1122 1715 2330
78.0 81.0 83.0 79.0 77.0 75.0 77.0 76.0 74.0 76.0 76.0 76.0
5.5 6.8 5.3 5.5 5.4 5.8 5.2 5.6 5.0 5.1 5.7 5.4
CR09 0550 1127 1740 2340 0628 1114 1800 2315 0556 1128 1720 2360
78.0 82.0 82.0 78.0 76.0 77.0 79.0 77.0 76.0 75.0 75.0 74.0
3.9 5.1 5.0 4.3 4.1 4.4 4.3 4.1 .5 2.2 4.9 5.3
CR10 0600 1137 1745 2350 0655 1120 1815 2320 0604 1135 1730 2345
78.0 80.0 80.0 78.0 77.0 78.0 76.0 77.0 75.0 76.0 76.0 74.0
6.2 8.2 6.8 5.7 6.3 7.3 6.9 5.2 6.6 7.7 6.8 6.9
C1I1OA 0609 1145 1800 2400 0700 1128 1825 2330 0613 1143 1740 2355
76.0 82.0 80.0 77.0 77.0 74.0 75.0 74.0 72.0 74.0 74.0 72.0
2.1 4.7 4.6 2.6 1.8 2.8 3.4 2.7 2.1 4.6 4.0 2.7
CR11 0611 1147 1800 2400 0702 1128 1825 2330 0616 1143 1740 2355
77.0 84.0 84.0 78.0 79.0 78.0 80.0 78.0 76.0 77.0 78.0 73.0
8.5 11.0 (13.7 11.0 8.5 7.7 6.8 5.3 4.3 3.7 3.9 4.1
CR12 0400 1000 1557 2200 0355 0955 1555 2155 0600 1000 1555 2155
78.0 77.0 76.0 73.0 77.0 76.0 72.0 70.0 74.0 74.0 70.0 67.0
6.0 5.2 5.9 6.4 5.9 5.0 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.2 4.8 4.5

-------
TIN
9/6/73 9/5/13 9/6173
STATION RUN I RUN 2 pjj!’I 3 RUN4 RUN 5 RUN 6 RUN 7 RUN 8 RUN 9 RUN 10 RUN 11 RUN 12
CRI2A 0406 1010 1606 2210 0600 1000 1600 2200 0405 1005 1605 2200
69.0 72.0 77.0 70.0 71.0 70.0 67.0 66.0 69.0 72.0 68.0 64.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00 0.0
CR13 0415 1014 1610 2215 0405 1005 1605 2205 0410 1010 1608 2205
76.0 78.0 79.0 73.0 78.0 76.0 72.0 68.0 74.0 75.0 70.0 67.0
5.0 4.1 5.3 5.8 5.2 4.7 5.1 4.5 4.2 4.4 4.8 4.6
CRI3A 0420 1020 1620 2220 0415 1012 1614 2215 0420 1020 1615 2210
67.0 69.0 72.0 68.0 68.0 f,7.0 64.0 63.0 65.0 67.0 65.0 63.0
4.1 5.4 5.9 4.0 4.5 5.6 5.5 4.5 4.7 6.1 5.3 5.0
CR138 0440 1035 1635 2235 0425 1025 1628 2225 0635 1030 1625 2220
76.0 82.0 81.0 76.0 76.0 77.0 73.0 70.0 75.0 78.0 69.0 67.0
7.0 7.6 7.8 7 4 6.5 5.0 5.2 4.5 3.7 4.4 5.0 4.7
%J
CR14 0430 1027 1628 2230 0420 1020 1624 2220 0630 1025 1620 2215
78.0 79.0 78.0 74.0 79.0 76.0 73.0 71.0 74.0 75.0 68.0 67.0
4.9 4.7 6.1 5.4 3.7 5.2 3.2 3.7 5.1 3.2 3.9 4.2
CR15 0450 1044 1645 2245 0640 1038 1635 2235 0450 1060 1636 2230
80.0 82.0 82.0 74.0 78.0 78.0 74.0 71.0 76.0 76.0 70.0 68.0
4.6 5.4 7.4 5.2 5.5 5.0 5.3 3.9 3.1 3.0 6.1 4.0
CR16 0500 1050 1655 2255 0448 1065 1645 2260 0500 1068 1643 2240
80.0 81.0 81.0 74.0 78.0 77.0 74.0 71.0 77.0 76.0 70.0 68.0
4.7 6.6 10.6 7.3 5.5 4.9 5.5 4.9 4.5 4.3 4.7 4.5
CR17 0512 1100 1702 2305 0510 1653 2250 0510 1100 1650 2250
78.0 82.0 80.0 73.0 78.0 73.0 73.0 78.0 77.0 70.0 69.0
6.9 7.9 10.5 7.0 6.2 5.9 5.1 3.6 3.9 4.2 4.0

-------
TABLE 3 CONTINUED
9/4/73 9/5/73 9/6173
STATION RUN 1 RUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4 RUN 5 RUN 6 RUN 7 RUN 8 RUN 9 RUN 10 RUN 11 RUN 12
CR18 0520 1110 1712 2310 0520 1107 1708 2300 0518 1300 1658 2255
78.0 82.0 79.0 73.0 78.0 78.0 73.0 72.0 76.0 78.0 71.0 68.0
6.7 8.4 8.5 6.4 6.3 7.3 7.3 6.3 6.4 7.3 6.9 6.1
CR19 0535 1120 1726 2325 0530 1120 1720 2310 0530 1118 1708 2305
79.0 81.0 80.0 73.0 78.0 79.0 73.0 72.0 76.0 76.0 70.0 73.0
1e7 8.3 9.8 8.0 5.7 6.9 6.4 6.0 5.1 6.5 6.6 6.4
CR20 0545 1135 1740 2340 0553 1132 1735 2325 0540 1128 1123 2320
80.0 83.0 80.0 75.0 79.0 79.0 73.0 72.0 77.0 78.0 71.0 68.0
8,9 11.5 12.6 8.4 6.5 6.0 8.6 7.4 6.2 7.3 7.7 7.2
CH2OA 0555 1153 1750 2345 0605 1140 1741 2330 0550 1143 1730 2325
82.0 75.0 70.0 72.0 18.0 70.0 72.0 71.0 76.0 70.0 67.0 65.0
9.7 7.9 7.7 7.5 6.9 8.1 7.2 7.2 6.5 8.2 6.6 7.0
CR21 0559 1200 1755 2355 0608 1145 1745 2335 0555 1150 1735 2330
80.0 84.0 79.0 73.0 80.0 79.0 73.0 72.0 76.0 78.0 70.0 68.0
8.0 12.6 9.6 6.2 7.3 7.8 6.8 6.5 6.9 7.6 8.5 6.2
CR22 0604 1205 1805 2400 0625 1153 1800 2360 0605 1200 1745 2335
78.0 82.0 79.0 74.0 78.0 79.0 73.0 72.0 76.0 76.0 70.0 68.0
5.2 9.0 9.0 5.4 4.7 6.2 8.4 5.7 5.5 6.5 1.7 5.8
CR23 0618 1229 1820 0015 0640 1212 1817 2350 0618 1220 1756 2350
79.0 83.0 77.0 73.0 78.0 78.0 73.0 73.0 78.0 76.0 70.0 68.0
8.8 10.1 10.2 8.7 7.1 8.2 8.0 6.7 6.0 6.1 7.0 5.4
CH23A 0624 1235 1825 0020 0650 1220 1825 2355 0623 1225 1800 2355
73.0 75.0 72.0 70.0 72.0 72.0 67.0 65.0 70.0 70.0 67.0 65.0
5.7 5.9 5.8 5.9 6.4 6.2 6.7 6.1 6.1 6.1 6.1 5.0

-------
T 3 ‘TtNI’ ”
9/4/73 9/5 /73 9/6/73
STATION RUN I PUN 2 RUN 3 RUN 4 _ RUN 5 RUN 6 RUN 7 RUN 8 RUN 9 RUN 10 RUN 11 RUN 12
CH24 0632 1248 1835 0025 071.0 1230 1840 0005 0630 1235 1810 0005
78.0 81.0 78.0 72.0 76.0 76.0 72.0 10.0 76.0 76.0 70.0 67.0
4.1 - ” 9.9 8.7 4.9 5.1’-’ 7.9 6.9 5.5 5.2 1.6 7.2 5.4
MN O 1 0500 1053 1700 2300 0508 1047 1700 2240 0516 1056 1645 2255
76.0 81.0 79.0 77.0 74.0 73.0 74.0 72.0 71.0 73.0 73.0 72.0
7.4 7.8 7.1 7.0 7.4 7.9 7.6 7.4 7.6 7.9 7.5 7.3
MN O2 0512 1057 1705 2310 0516 1053 1705 2245 0524 1102 1650 2300
74.0 79.0 82.0 76.0 75.0 74.0 76.0 75.0 72.0 76.0 74.0 71.0
1.6 2.6 1.0 1.2 1.9 2.5 1.3 1.2 1.8 1.9 3.2 2.3
MN O3 0525 1109 1715 2320 0603 1102 1730 2255 0536 1112 1705 2315
76.0 79.0 80.0 79.0 76.0 75.0 75.0 74.0 71.0 75.0 74.0 72.0
1.0 1.5 1.3 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.9 1.3 1.9
SPO1 0627 1158 1820 0015 0715 1145 1840 2360 0630 1155 1755 0015
69.0 72.0 72.0 70.0 72.0 67.0 70.0 68.0 67.0 67.0 70.0 68.0
7.0 6.9 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.2 6.9 7.1 6.9 6.9 6.5 6.6
SP O2 0634 1206 1830 0025 0721 1151 1845 2350 0638 1203 1800 0020
79.0 84.0 86.0 81.0 78.0 78.0 79.0 77.0 73.0 76.0 75.0 72.0
1.6 2.8 2.9 2.0 2.1 2.7 3.8 2.5 1.5 3.0 3.3 1.5
SPO3 0640 1212 1835 0030 0732 1155 1850 2355 0644 1209 1810 0025
78.0 84.0 82.0 78.0 77.0 77.0 79.0 77.0 76.0 77.0 77.0 75.0
6.5 6.2 6.2 6.1 6.2 6.6 6.6 6.3 6.5 6.4 6.7 6.7
SPO4 0667 1216 1845 0040 0737 1200 1900 2400 0651 1215 1815 0035
75.0 84.0 84.0 78.0 75.0 75.0 77.0 76.0 74.0 77.0 76.0 73.0
2.4 3.9 2.9 2.4 2.5 3.4 3.1 2.6 2.9 4.1 3.5 3.3

-------
APPENDIX C
Listing of Year 2000 low flow model input data set for conditions
of CASE F12. These are: nitrification rate constant = 0.2 everywhere;
upstreat loadings at CRPCD and Medfield—Millis are 1.0 mg/i CBOD 5 ;
sediment oxygen dernand is zero in Reaches 13 through 17; C Satellite
plant discharge is located downstream of the Cochrane Dan and discharges
only 5.0 mg/i of CBOD 5 .
81
A—274

-------
0000 0 1 o n
0 00 00 .’00
0f’0 3034
034000*00
on000 ’ .nb
000004.00
00000100
00000 ”034
0000’) 00
00001000
00001 (00
00001 00
00001 3(10
000 1(1 4(’O
0000 1 .-no
0 0 0ul ” ‘1 ( 7
00001 ‘00
000(11” (‘0
0000 (44(7 (7
0 000?n 0
000 Ofl no
00001? 00
0000? 100
en d op *no
0000? 5(10
0(1001.- (10
00 00? l IP ( 7
00002 “ ( ‘0
0000 ? 0 I )
00003000
00001100
(70003100
000 t I l n0
0000.3400
0000 1500
00001.-no
0000)1(10
0000
Of) Of, 744140
0 ( 10 ’ ) I. ( I 1 )
0000*100
000 04 10 ‘1
00004100
00004.00
0 00 0*.,00
0 00”.. ’ .no
00004 71 )0
00004400
00(7 04 ‘400
000 05(700
Ofl 0044 ((1 I I
00005100
000 1, 5100
(100111,4110
00 OI ,’, ’ - O O
onous nn
000’I’ 100
000(1’. ‘ (‘0
0000
00 0044000
000(1, ((10
044 1 )4 r )( 0 ‘ .144 ?rT. MI(,F ‘1’.!) 10 C(0*0
0.0 0.0 4 5 714 , 1)
0.1 —. n.o. — - (.0 0.0
0.00 0.0 0.01” 1)?.,’I
1.0
I. ,, I I . ) )
0.3
1.0 (.0
5.0 - 7.44 0.0
0.4? ( P.O ( ‘.0
70014 CIU* )) S.*.P
0.0 0.0
0.1 U. .1
fl.’ 70 - ‘14444.0
(044.0
0 • 4401
0.3
(.0
5.0
0.44
F.M 144.0 0.1
Sw* P P0140 3*44
15.5 -0.50
0.l’.
0.44 ((.00
0 • I 39
0.1 0.0 ’
0 • I 344
0.? 0.0
3.0
0.01, 0.0
4HC ’4
*CC ’4
4I(C (4
“C l- I
* 1 )CH
1 Cu
3, CU
la d-)
l ’nCu
(H
2 Cu
9Cu
I 0C 14
I PC I - I
SCHOI I
5C14f) IA
SCHOIP
IC
5d ,. ’ O I I
‘ .C 140 (H
I I
SC Up) I j
5db IL
5C’- ,O U
C “0 P 0
S( ”O? C
51 “0 ?F .
‘,f 14011
5 ( 1 10 J
51440 PM
5C’ (O )T
51 Hp) 3*
SCHO 44-I
5(4,0 (C
51,1 ) (f
SC ‘40 1 ,- I
S d 14031
I J
SIHO IL
S 141)444
//S?000M1 ‘pC D(.U& .?.4tA 7
,‘St7 L to i d ) ‘SH .CW.LLlfl.Ltft”.(tP-ffiL(.4.I) (s .c..i.
, 7034P0f ) ( 0 ), $Y44 1 ( ( )T.4
//s70447 1 11p I (4(4 ‘S ”.*J(MH.tJP4lTssV6D*.DTSPu3N0w.pASSp.
I S”*CI. (tIC • It .1)C44. f(l ’ .(D4l P’..( ‘L Nfl.
PP Hep5 73 ‘I44 ” ” ,’ C M ’- ’ (
//I7 (p5 r ( u
14.e.
(1.5
(0.43
‘1 . ’ .
‘I. ’ .
1. .,
7.0
0,
(.0*
1.0?
(.0
1.0
0.0
0.01
0.7?
1 35
(4.1 (.3.44
10.4 . - (0. ’
H.?
1.4
44,44
( 4 . 4 43 (1. ” .
l PJ o.o -— 5 5 )1.0
I.o (.04
I.u ’ . I. ) )?
(.0 0.0
1.0 1.0
1.11 0.5
(1.5
( (.6
In.?
44.0
1. I
1 • 3
4•. I
0.?’.
311’ •
I. )’?
(.17?
13.1
I I • .1
0 • 0
II . ”
7.44
44.3,
0 • ‘,I)
I •
1.11?
0.U
3.)
-J
U,
0. 0.’.
144.5 4.?
1.0 1.0 0.0
0. 0
I ? . ) ’
11.1
4.7
34• 7
1.14
1.1
(.0?
3.0
0.01, 0.0
3.0
0.03, 0.0
1 4
l ’lL 0Pt ’ SIP
731.0 13.4 —0.50
0. )) (4.15
3.44’. 0.44 ((.00
PflH() O* It)
(.0
I • 1 )
- 0.04)
‘(‘1
(.01,3
I •
Il.* 0.0
U. ’) - — 0.0
700)4 ItFOP ’) SIP 10 I lL€T , 14034 Pf 1’.()
0.0 0.0 P.1 144.0 71.3 —0.5
0.13 h I) (.0 0.0 0.3
(P .O 0.0 44.14 1 ,11 (.0 0.0
.43 ,)
5.1) 44 , 1) (1.40
0.3 0.11,0
I.e
5.0 0.0 0.1144
15 1. 4 4 0 ,11 “5.4, 0.? 0.44
(44171 1l)I POO l) 1(7 44(14 D4(4p1) 1)4*’
0.1 ) 0,0 (,, 7U• ) 10.3 —0.5

-------
00 01o,00 0.ei
oo00c. 00 0.0
00000400
00000000 0.3
000004 1.0
000007110 0 0
00000..n0 0.0
00000.100
0000 lfl Ofl
(10007100
00001700
000011(10
00007.00
00007500
0000 7 ’fl0
0000 7100
0000 7000
00001400
000000110
00000100 Fw(c
fl0OU 70O 0.0
00000 ,J0 0. / I
0(10(10400 0.0
00000500
00000100 0.0,1
0n00M nn 0.3
000U0 Ufl I.U
000011400 i.0
00009rinO 0.0
00009100
0000 11,1111 FIJ0 4
0000” (110 0.0
flQl) 119o00 0.19
00009-I ’O 0.0
000001 ,011
00009700 0.090
00 9”0f) 0.3
0000 ’lQoo 1.0
00010000 S.0
00010100 0.0
0001 0 0fl
00010100 rOOM
000lnoriO 0.0
00010500 0.10
000111000 0.0
00010700
000104011 0.)
00010900 1.0
00011000 ‘,.U
00011100 0.0
00011 7111 1
00011100 pft(P
000114011 0.0
000II ’Ofl 0.17
00011.00 0.0
00011100
00011.01) 0.3
0n,1 u90 1.0
‘lOOI’OflO ‘,.u
00012100 0.0
000 12/nO
l.u
0.0 u.0
210.0 .97
I I • P4
1.0
• 1 • I I
• 0. 3 ,0
1.0 --
24.0 0.0
—. 0.0 —-—— ——
CAI. IIIVIL1I (Jaw 00 M()04 1 1 1 4 04000
fl• 0 l./ 111.0
1.OS 1.0 0.0
094.0 0.0 1.53
0.0 -- .0 0
0.410
1.0
-- 0.0
u.n u.n
( ‘OPPlPl ( J “.i’PO. 70 MINI’
0.0 2.11
0.92 1.0
0.0 0.0
31.0
0.104- —
I • r I
II . .,
0.0 0.11
M 1 140 1 40 1 )00 00 wI.’ ! MOlIWAY (caM
- 0.11 - 3.’, 711.0
0.07 1. ’) 0.0
0.0 0.0 •11M ,
‘.90
0.1 7 1 ,
1.1.1
?0 —-. 14.7
11.0 0.0
3.0
1.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
0.139
‘ I.? 0. 1.
0.1(9
0.0.
04.1 —0.1
0.17
0.0 0.0
0.139
0. 2 0.0
03.1 —0.4
0.10.
0.0 0.0
0.139
0.;’
3.0
0.04 0.0
*14 1 1 c’4tc0 N (400(10
02.9 -0.2
fl.I , 3.0
1.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
0.1)9
0.2 0.0
%C’4040
,,C M O 4C
SC 404t
¶,CH O IJ
‘ .C ‘ 0 41
5( .4090
‘.,c 14n.,t
SC I I “0
5( HOSC
Sf. I ’ ( I
5r HO ’. C,
I J
SC llO ’4
.4 C ‘ 0 1 , U
14fl 1 ,T
SC I , 0011
5 C HQ P .7
SC 1 10 1 ,1)
5CH 0 P .I
SCHO I J
SCHOOL
5 (001 1 1
5 (110 7T
007*
9(11070
SCull 1C
5C ’I0 IF
SrliO 71)
SCHO It
SCHO I J
5(14071
9 C Hfl ON
•;cuos r
5 (110(4*
SC HQ 1 1 (4
SC HOOC
‘,c
5(140j J
SCHO Ol
S C .401111
9( u 0 0 0
- -
S C HO ‘49
51 140 ‘4
S C 0 , I
‘ICHO I)
SC I -Ifl
SCHI CM
0. ’ )
0.07
11.0
u • cc
71100 .0* Pfl9 1) 1 1*0 7(1 7 (0 0711
0.0 0.0 4.1,
• 1.0
0.0 ‘ 1 9 ’ 4 .fl 0.0
- ‘p1.0 . 1 10
0 • 0 30,
0.3 0.’ ? ?
(.0 I. ’ ,
0.0 — - 2 0• (, ‘1.0
0.11 u.n
.47 3. 1. 1000*4 0* 0
711.0 00.1 —I.e
0.0 fl . 3
)•1,/ (1.0 0.0
000 ,0 0 (1it#flw*. . 0*11 To C000vIiir 0*14
0.0 5.0 70.0 04.0 —U.’S
1.0 fl•I) 1 1. 111’,
0.11 2.4 ?? 0.5 0.0
149.0 . 0 1 4
-4
a.,
0 • Ii”
0.? 0.1.
3.0
0.00 ‘0.0
3.0
0.01. 0.0
3.0
0.00 0.0
11 1 100 1 1
1 14.0
0.0
I • 3M

-------
000 IPifl o
000 I? 4fl’)
floe l2cofl
00011000
00011100
44001181)0
0001 .‘wOQ
floe i 300)4
0001 3100
00013700
0001 3100
00013400
0001 icon
0001 1 ..0O
00011700
00444 31440
00)11 30110
00014000
00014100
0001 4fl0
000 14300 FI’OM
011014400 0.0
oootocoo o.ls
00014000 0.0
00014700
00Ol4 00 0.3
000l4°00 •,.0
00015000 0.0
00015100
00045200 0P J0
000151110 0.0
0 ..) 000)5400 0.15
—3 O00lS ’fl0 0.0
000 1 5000
00015700 1.0
000IS’4l10 0.3
00015000 5.0
00016000 0.0
000 I I , tO I )
00010100 0000
0001 ,100 0.0
00 1I0..o0 0.15
000lb 00 0.0
00010000
00016700 0.3
000104400 0.0
000101100 5.0
000111100 0.0
0001 7100
000)17410 04400
00011300 0.0
00011800 0.11
00017500 l .o1l
00017000
00017700 3.0
000h7 00 0.3
000171100 0.0
00olp In0 5.0
00040100 0.0
000111700
000144100
0000 W45t I0W*V IJ4M AM)) C’4(C 44N 4414411011 70 M000611 0*0
0.0 0.0 .3 744.44 4411.? —0.11
0.1? 0.30 1.0 0.0 0.15 3.0
0.0 ‘40Q fl 0.0 41.7 II 0.0 0.0 0.06
91.0
0.004
0.3 0. 1 70
5.4, 6 5.0 1.0 0.1 )9
0.0 - 0.0 0.0 0.? 0.0
00011*1 DA. ¶0 14410?.
0.0
2. /i 1.0
0.0
147.5 .50
0.2.0
07.1
0.0
T 4L0T. °fl ’4J1AT1C P0444) 10 007101. 00 0 IJ1A7IC P0 00
0.0 /.U 114.0 ‘,A•9 —0.1
0.00 t.U 0.0 0. 15 3.0
0.0 U.0 1.849 0.0 0.0 0.06
2 N.0 0.90
0.4?
07•3 0.0 0.139
0.0 0.0 0.? 0.0
O4ITIOT. P(JPULU IC 00041
0.0 1.0
0. / I ’ 1.0
0.0 11.93
07.3 .56
5.41 .140
0.6?
0.4)
0.) ) 0.0
M III 0 1V014 TO STOP 14!v0R
fl.0 - ). 7 70.0
0 ,/0 1.0 0.0
41.0 0.0 1.3
.110
0 • 245
I.e
• - 0 4J•7 — 10.3 0.139
0.0 0.0 0.?
TO 500*44 144) 0 1 1
5.1 70.0
I.) 0.0
0.0 0.110
90
0.144
SCHI 07
SC # 4 10*
5tH) 011
Sc P. IOC
SCHI (10
5 l •I - 4I 0!
SCHI 04.
SC I 144
SC 44 lIT
51”l 4*
“CP4I 444
‘( “I IC
5C 1 4 1 10
‘,CHI IC.
, IP.4 I I
6C 4U M
SCHI 21
,CHI /4
SCHI ?C
Ill
SIP.)?!
SC.4) / )
SCP4I 3M
5144131
SIP.) 11*
SCPII 444
5C I 31
51444.10
‘.1441344
S(•”I 1!
5 ( 1-44 IL
5144 I OM
5144141
5 I I4A
•, fl-I 4 1444
5( 44 C
40
51 4444!
5( I0 I J
‘, I I4L
SC 1 -4 1 544
5141) ST
‘ - I I ‘.14
‘111 11 51
41 I SC
51414 ,F
5 1 - 1 SI
cr l lr IIJ
S IH SI
‘1141 )014
5141! ST
0.0
0.14
0.0
0.0311
11.3
5.0
0.0
MoPIJlaT!C
7 1 1 • 11
0.) )
1.14
0 1 ) 00 )
‘, ‘ I.O —0.5
0.15
0.0 0.0
0 • 139
0.?
3.0
0 • 0 4 ,
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TI) 044.1
744 • 0
0.0
2. 3 4 -I
44494 • ’4
7.4 , —0.1
0.15
0.0 0.0
0 • 139
0.2
51.0 —0.5
0.15
0.5 0.0
3.0
O • 06
.0
3.0
0.06 0.0
6
3.0
0.06 0.0
STOP RIV O
0.0
0 • II?
0.11
1437.
3.9
Ii • I 30
1.0
110.0
49.9 —0.5
0.15
0.5 0.0
0 • 75
47.4 0.139
- 0.0 0.0 0.?
014140 SUGAR 44141100 70 P4004 5 7 0w HPO(4’(

-------
00010.0 1 0.0 0.0 5.0 PN.o .o.j •o.j
00Vl0! 0fl 0.11 0.974 .U 0.0 0. 15 3.0
000 10 .00 0.9 0.0 4 ,b? t.l 0.5 0.0 0.00 0 .o ,tNl6C
000)1 ) 100 0 3 I .0 .90
0011IOWnO .0 s.D 0.40 5Cw l .H
000 11) 1. 00 0.3 0. 110 OCPI#,l
0l1’l ) 0nI, 0.0 U. n
000)9 )00 S. ). I I ’, . . ) 4•1 5 0. )9
000 )0790 110.0 0.. ’ 0.11 9.2 0,4 .,t .4 I1u
000 I 9)00
000 )0400 UOM oGss’o lI0o0 ?O nritio H000l?At. ¶%t ’1 17t
1 100 19’.00 9.9 0.0 a , 4 19.0 4V.H —0.1 6C4 1(A
000l9 00 0.10 0.0’ 1.n 0.0 0.10 3.0 ‘,CHI7 II
000 )11100 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.29 0. ’, 0.0 0.00 0.0 0t 141?C
000)9000 - - .1111
000I0’3011 0.3 0.2?
000e’0000 0.0 1.r ‘ ,C II OIJ
000 ,0 )00 0.0 I’ ). ? 20.1 0.139 SCull).
000/0200 0.0 0.0 0. )) 0.2 0.4
00020300
onn mnn ruv .r,,rtot.o ki ,i TA U, o,. .. . .o,
90020 ’ .00 0.0 0.0 0.) o.o 42.0 —o.i
0011?0’00 0.10 0.0? - 1.11 0.0 0. 10 3.0
000/0700 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.00 , 0.5 0.0 0.06 0.0
00020000 2)21.0 -— .90
000201.00 0.3 0. ,0
0002)000 0.0 - 1.0 -
000 11100 0.0 1”s.D 0.11 0.130
00021700 0.0 0.0 -— n.r - 0.2 0.6
0002 )300
0002)000 FOOM P.M.. 42.0 tO SOUTH NATTCS 5CU)0T
0002)000 0.0 0.0 S.) 10.0 01.1 —0.3 SCHI9A
—4 00l!2l .flf ) 0.10 0.0? 1.0 0.0 0. 15 3.0 SCHIHO
0 0?1 79)) 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.06 0.’, 0.0 0.00 0.0 OCHIHC
000 1)000 V.0.00 .110
0fl0/l 0fl 0.3 0. fl
000/2000 0.0 1.0 ‘,CH l IlJ
00027)00 0.0 1 56.) 0.0 0.139 SCHIHI
909 /700 0.0 0.0 -— 0.0 0.2 0.6 SCH IYM
00022300
00012..))) ’ SOUTH M000Co-fl9M-flJ Wa99 4 1 ) 900 K ‘ ,C ’4 1 91
000?2 0fl 0.0 0.0 2.5 1)).0 39,4 —9.)
00027400 0.10 0.01 - 1.0 0.0 0.15 4.5
00027700 0.U 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.06 0.0 S(HI’ C
fl00 ?N0 ) ) 6 ) ),0 -- .90
000l?000 0.0000
0002)000 0,6 0.1 S7 5(H 19 )
00023)00 5.0 101.0 0.0 0. 139 ‘,(HI91
0002)700 0.0 0.0 0.0 0,2 0.6 SCH?OM
0002
0002)400 0)’o’• 9* 14*9 MHO l)K TO I0 ,M• 1 5•f
fl0fl?3 fl0 0.0 0.0 1.5 70.0 0 ,6 —0,1
0002). .)))) 0.16 -0.0) ).0 - 0.0 0.10
9007 )100 0.0 0.11 0.0 9.0.) 0.25 0.0 0.06 0.0
0002I ’)0 3fl 50 .91
9007)0110 0.6 0.4 1 1 1
00074 1 ( 10 1.9 1.fl
000/0)00 0,0 ) IH,O 16.1 0, 1)9
9o *?nO 0.0 - 9.0 - 0.0 0.? 11.0,
Onfl?4 IOn
000e ...flO cooa. P.M. 30.0 1(1 COC .,99H0 DAM ¶CH20T

-------
00024600
00020600
00024100
0002,000
000 24 000
000 .000
00026! 00
000/6200
000/6 ,00
00026000
00026600
0 0 0 / 67 0Q
0 0 0,c.-00
flflfl /S 1.flfl
000 2 0’ 0 0 0
00020100
00026200
00026 ‘on
00026400
000 ? 6cnfl
flflfl 24 ‘1
O 0 0 26 100
0 0 0 t’ 6 ”fl0
000200
00 0 21090
00021 ! O I l
0 0 ‘ 1 .‘ 1?0 0
00 02 l’ f l O
Ofl 0/7400
00 0?P.00
00027600
00027100
00 02 7 1 1fl 0
00 02 1 0
OQ O/H7( lfl
000 /H too
00 0 / 0700
00 0/0 ‘ 00
000? 4400
00020500 7 1 .0.1
000/ 14600 0.0
00029100 0.10
000261400 0.0
0002 0 ’ OO
00029000 0.6
00029100 0.%
000e9?flO 0.0
000.?9’Ofl 0.0
00029400
00029600 000.4
00029600 0.0
00079700 0.1 )0
000.’0”00 0.0
1100 . ‘190 I )
00030000 O .
00010100 0.0
000 10/ nfl 0.0
000.10 ‘00 0.0
000.104 1’ 7,
4100 JO 00
10.4’ J4. ’ 1 0.I0
0. )’ 0.13
9.03 n. c u.o
0.139
0.? 0.6
0.06 0.0
4. ,
0.06 0.0
4.,
0.06 0.0
.0
0.0’, 0.0
4.0
0.06 0.0
5CH? OA
%CH20C
5C H? Of
SC H 20 J
SC H? I l
¶,CH?I T
5 ( 0 /I 4
SC ”? I C
5(0/10
cc ” to
02 I I
SC H? IL
SC H 7/H
‘,CH??C
5( H??
SC H?
SC H??)
SCH? 1M
SC”?
SC “2 3 *
10
SC ”? )C
SC 1 4 / 7
5 ( /Il
SC”? !J
OCH? It.
SC H? 4 U
0 ( 0/4
SCH?44
SC 14/ 4 I I
SC ‘476
SC 07
ScH ? ST
5 ( 4 1 754
5 C ‘4 / S I I
5(4 -175 C
5( 0 7 5 7
Sr “75 i
cc “?SJ
SC “751
SC ‘4/4 , U
4.0
0 • 06
0.0
0’ .)
—3
So
0 ’ .
0.0 0.0 7.-,
0.14 0.0! 1.0
0.0 0.0 - 0.0
0A4.0 .91
1.0 1.0
0.0 103.9 0.0 0.1 19
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.?
7w ,p4 CoCo0414 ’ UAU TO C ..Pct# IUT 6711070, HOOlloOM
0.0 0. 1 1 2.0 10.0 3’.4I —0.4
0.16 fl. ’7 1.0 0.0 U.!’,
0.0 9°.0 41.14 2.90. 0.0 0.0
117.0 .1 !
0 .0 I I I
0.0 6.0 •4fl
0.6 - 0 . * ? -
0. 11 l OT.) 0. 11
0.0 0.0 -- 0.0
rooM CH STHUT c’prr,. 900004.1 TO 1OP 0 bITCH 19101
0. ) 0.0 1.00 19.0 /U• 14
0. !’. - - 0.10 I.fl 0.0
0.0 0.0 0.0 4 •M3 0.55 0.0
. 4 ,,
0.6 0.06?
0.5 1.0
6.0 I /.7 0.0 0.139
0.0 0.0 0. 11 - 0.? 0
F°0’o LOPIC, IIITCH PILOT TO l4oTHrp 9W o0 nIvrwoio.
0.0 0.0 r. 70.0 /4• ’, -0.1
0.16 0.0 1 1.0 0.0 0. 10
( 1.0 14.0 0.0 4.41 0.60 0.0
1 4.t7 .46
0.6 0.HM
0.0 1.0 -
5.0 lu ”.? 0.0 0.139
0.0 0.0 - - 0.0 0.2 0
.101.17* H”9flK IVFfl 5Ifl9 TO LOPIr. DITCH OUTLET
1.o 6.? 744.0 74 7 —1.2
0.07 1.0 - 0.0 0.1%
0.0 0.0 4•49 0.9’, 0.0
4 ,71.
0.19?
1.0
00.5 0.0 0.119
0. 1 1 0.0 0.2 0.6
10440 DITCH 0111101 TIb SOUTH 00*0 ( 1.1 00000
0.0 7.0 16,0 7!.? —0.2
0.0? 1 0 0.0 0.1 5
0.0 0.1, 7.5! 0.5’, 0.0
S ’II. .10
0.50.0
1.0
207.1 3.2 0.IJ ’
• 0.0 11.0 0.? 0. ’.
011044 SOUTH 440 4 1 )0W 0901)0 10 51141 “It . L 0444
SC 4? ST

-------
K.)
0
-J
•esis.e. •.• 0.6 6.6 111.0 240.? —0.1
06030100 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0, 3 4•
006360040 6.0000 -. 40.0 ‘.11 7 .147 0. 0 0.0 0.00. 0.0
006300040 ?I ’ ,. 0 .11
004030000 6.0. 0.S 0 13
000311010 0.’, 0.0
040030100 S.O 2 1 0.0 1.? 0.0. 0 0
000310040 0.0 0.11 0.0 0. ?
00030400
000 I.1 t) F110 SU.I’ 4 1L0. 0*14 10 u wl)PuLI1*N tII*CULOW ( IAN
01)030000 0.0 1. , ) - 3. 710.6 70,0 —0.1
000lIlpO 0.00 0. 10 1.0 n.o u.I ’ 4. ’ ,
00030000 0.0 0911,0 0.0 3.7S fl•’, 0.0 o.oo 0.0
0003l ”fl0 719. 1.0
‘ ) 1 1fl371100) 0.0043
400037000 0.11 0.4410
400037700 0.0 1.0
00007100 ‘,.0 200.3 0.0
00012400 0.0 0.0. - 0.0 0.2 0.6
0001 7 1 .00
000J2 l’fl ‘ 0M N7 T1)O11011TAP1 CIRC’114° DAM TO 44147111 (.0141” oA ( . Lc
00037700 0.0 0.1) l. . 740.0 I7. , —0.J ’
0011370110 0.00 0.31 - 1.0 11.0) 0.05 4.5
00032 00 0.0 4911.0 0.4) 3.94 0.0 0.0 (1.00 0.0
00031000 ‘ 00.?
01)031100 0.000.
00031700 0.0. 0.
000311110 5.0 200.9 0.0 0.I 3
000)14400 0.0 - 0. ) fl.fl 0.2 0.6
000)31.01)
00031 ..flfl 7H4 )M P 414 , 0 W ( .0b H r4ti 10 t’OUT. N0fl ST 0a14 into c it
0003 )70)0 0.0 0.11 ‘,•7 110.0 05.4 —ft. .0
01)033000 0.009 0.0’ 0.0 0.0 0.0’, 4. i
000. 1IQOO 0.0 1490.0 (4.4) 7.449 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0
00044 1 1400 11.”A.O”• .9’,
00034 140I ) 0.0117
00034700 40.0. 0. 040
000 )4’flfl 11.0 777 .3 0.0 0.030
0 O344flfl 0.0 00 0.0 0.7 0.11 ,
01)0)341.00
000344.01) FQl)M tP4Ut. NOflfl7’,tfl4 4 TU000HO’4(N1 10 “0000 1111104)1 0414
00034100 0.11 0,0 00.” 704.1) J? 7 —0.00
0003.PO0 0.09 0.00 t 0 0.0 0.05 4.’,
000.44°0)fl 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.004 0.110 0.0 0.00
0 1 )0)1.00 0 011 140. 0.0
01)030000 0.0. 0.0 ’. l
00031.200 0.0 0.0 —-
00031.10)0 11.0 77 ,.0, 0.0 0.034
0003 ’,eflO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0
000 3 ’ , ’O O
00030. 110 F110 ’4 00I,V ‘ , oti . , flA’ ,O l4 *V4)P NWQOK. WALTHAM
0003511)0 0.0 0.0 4 1 , 144.11 07.30 —11.2
l)003 5a040 0,09 0.7 -1; ’l 0 ,0 ‘0.05 4. ’,
000 3 ’, ’iflfl 11.0 0.0 1.? 0.0 0.0 0.06 0.0
000 . 00 000 , . .fl - .7,1
00010,000 0.001
Q ’ )fl11.700 0.11
flOflJO300 11.0 0.” 0.1011
001)44.40)0 (1.0 0.0 - - --- 0.1) 0.?
000 164.00
301120.6
SCH2M O
SCH? OC
SC ‘4700
‘ ,CH? 0 ,I
5(H? 1 .J
5 ç H,’ 4. 1
54)H? IN
‘.CH? 11
SC H? 1*
“0 H,’ 744
SC H,’ 7 C
‘ .cH , ’ IF
SC.’? 1(1
5C ?11
SCHO I II
50 1 1 ‘ P4*
SC ‘4 , ’ 4. 44
SCH?HC
‘. 1111114)
I , ? M D
SC ” ,’ ) )!
1 1C “?
SC 1179 7
5C 4 479*
“C H? ‘OH
SC “1 91
SC 117 DO
SC H 7 ‘4 1.
1.C ”?9 I
‘ C 47 ‘41
51111014
5144704
‘,CH 1004
‘.1 1 1) 0 1
5(11)0 1
S C 11 I ’ll
“IOJ
5111101
5( ‘(jiM
51*4300
5C11 lii
1.1 1 13004
S C H) IC
5 (113 iF
SC ” 4011
5 ( I) I
SCH IlL
5 (111714
‘0)” 104) IVOH 4,900, • WA LI ’4414 TQ uic4tuy 0)404

-------
00034100 0.0 0.0 4.0 ?b.0
II. —0.A
4CH OP*
0003400) 0.09 0. 1 ’ 1.0 0.0
fl.1 3
4.0
SCH 0
00034000 •.vn 0.0 - —- 0.0 •SU
0.0 0.0
0.0
0.0
5CH32C
000 3P 00 11 . 10
SCH 3
00037)00 0.4
,(H3
000fl’OO 0.0 / )7.. I I . ?
0. 1 3 w
00037100 0.0 - 0.0 0.0
fl•
,CH) M
0003740 ’)
.
oonj1 n0 ro n .. PtSaC” wY r aw 70 AT7PTOwN DAM
SC’4 137
flflfl3 ) .00 0.0 0.) 4.3 70.0
‘ M —1.0
5C’43J 4
00037700 0.09 - 0.03 — l;0 ‘). O
0.10
0.0
-
5CH))fl
0U037u 0 0.0 ‘ ) O ’ ).o 0.0 1. 0
0.0 0.0
0.06
0.0
5CH3JC
00fl 37 0fl l4 .0 - - .7 ))
¶jCH31F
000J,fl,U ) 0.0000S
‘ C ’-43 )(
000.Iqtnn 0.6
ooo: .n nn ‘..o t . , . , 0.0
o.I3
00030100 0.0 0.0 0.0 -
0.2
0.6
0003440)) 1•
I’ - ’

-------
APPENDIX D
Year 2000 — Stop River .aste1oads
(Streeter—Phelps Analysis)
Stop River 197 Conditions
Streanf low Sept. 73 — 18.7 cfs
CBOD 5 = L1 a gfl
0DN = 1.05 m&/l
haste loads:
at r.m. 4 — b a1pole CI — 0.25 MCD with
3 L3 a;/i CLOD 5 and LL2 me/i hh 3 —t
at r.m. 7.1 — Wrenthaa State School — 0.1’4 M CD
with 3.3 mg/i CLOD 5 and O.O mg/i t h 3 —N
Ston River Low Flow Conditions. Year 2000
atural Low Flow 1.1 cfs Reference (f.)
Station SPO5 — MCI to Confluence
1. of flow = Qcoett/Q QEX?
= 76.1 br/Q(0.5 ) 76.1/(1.6s)(.5 ):58.9 hours
At Confluence Q 1.1 cts + 0.8 cfs 1.9 cfs (0.8 cfs = wastewater
flowrate for renthan State School and MCI — alpole (1985—2000).
Above MCI Q river 0.8 cfs, CLOD 5 = 3.0 mg/ I.
Just below MCI = 1.Z cfs
Assume Wrentham State School BOD has been consumed and only natural
conditions are present above p CI as in Sept. 73. Then CBC D 5 above t CI
was 3.il mg/i.
Q below MCI (C below MCI) = 0.5 MGD (3.0 mg/i) + 0) MCD (5 mg/i)
.905(C) 1.5 • 2.0
C 3.6 mg/i CBOD 5 just below
‘ CI.
at Confluence of Stop River arid Charles River
89
A—2 82

-------
Lt = Loekl = 0.18 as in Cnarles River
t = 2. 45 days
L.o = 3.8 m&/l CbOD
Lt 3.be(. 16 )( 2 . 5)
Lt m /1 at Confluence
Computation of D.C. at confluence:
K2 determination r.m. i .0 to 0.0 assune h for water
surface = 5.0 ft
k2 .12M . -& 0.252/day
58.9
Deficit for D.C. at time t :
(.252—.18)
+3.5e 2 S(2. 5)
Dt = 2.5 mz/l
Further assume 2.0 m&/l deficit for sediment oxygen demand; no
photosynthetic D.O. input, 0.5 mg/i CEOD 5 Iron natural conditions.
Final conditions at confluence of Stop River and Charles tiver are:
lnmut . Variables
CBOD 5 = 3.0 mg/l (WCLT)
D.C. = 3.9 mg/i (CT)
0.75 mg/I (XN21Tb)
90
A— 283

-------
CORRECTIONS A D ADDITIONS
TO
DRAFT R ORT
DISSOLVED OXYG OD IIG
CPJtRLES RIVER
} . Ass , cHUSrI S
CV EB 30,1971
A— 284

-------
ERRATA
Page 11 — Third co1u n of Table 3 change “Years With
Flow Occurrences” to “Calendar Years With.
Change Table as follows:
Charles River Village
Charles River at Wellesley
Charles River at Walthan
One or More Low
1957
1966
1934, 35, 36,
40, 43, 50, 57
Page 20 — Nir th line fron the bottom should read “mile point 26.5 to
mile point 24.2”
Fi res 13,iL,15 Sc1id Lir.e L.C. Prcliie- D.O. at r.rn. bb s c 1d be
xir.um=5.E,mini u ’i=3.6; at r.rt. 61 .6 maximum =7.2,mintmum=6.C.
A—285

-------
ADDITIONS
Page 31 — (fourth paragraph) — After first sentence Page 31. Add the
following:
ALGPO rates were developed by taking the September L , 1973
peak hourly production rates and multiplYing thefl by 2 hours,’
day to give a peak daily rate which then is averaged tc ALGPT
accounting for 12 hours of sunlight and light extinction with
depth.
Equations for this in STRL .} mode2 are:
-ALG} (H)
ALGPT = ALGPO (1.0 — e )
ALCHK (H)
ALGPT = 2.O(ALCPT ALGP ALGF 0.5 days
Tr1
A—2 86

-------
ADDENDA TO
DiSSOLVED OXYGEN MODELING
CHARLES RIVER
MAS SACH 2 SETTS
May 15, 1978
Allen J. Ikalainen
Systems Analysis Branch
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region I, Boston, Massachusetts
A—287

-------
ADDENDA TO DISSOLVED 0XYGE MODELING, CHARLES RIVER, NASSACHL’SETTS
Introduction
Additional modeling beyond that described in the Report “Dissolved
Oxygar. Modeling, Charles River, Massachusetts”, November 30, 1977 has
been done to further elaborate upon the impacts of future wastewater
discharges upon the dissolved oxygen of the river. Existing (1978)
wasteloads effects are simulated under the seven—day, ten—year low flow.
These are compared to projected 2000 effects with and without sediment
ox-vgen demand and the proposed C Satellite plant at alternative
locations -
Procedure
The 1975 low flow conditions were developed using the 1973 waste—
loads as given in Table 5 of the original report. Appropriate reaeration
rates were computed using the Tsivoglou—Neal Energ Dissipatior. Model
and computed time of flow. Low flow depths are as given in the Water
Quality Management Plan by Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution
Control. Tributary flows were set to those of the Water Quality
Management Plan also.
In order to provide additional perspective on the impacts of waste—
water discharges to the Charles River, a low flow simulation was done of
the river receiving no treatment plant flow. Depth and reaeration
rates were developed for these conditions and input to the modal.
Pertinent input data are given in Table I A. Note that year
2000 plants were simulated with a deoxygenation rate of 0.20 day ’
(base e). The river was simulated with a deoxygenation rate of 0.09
da r’ (base e), a fairly low rate, to demonstrate the overall results
as compared to those of the original report in which a rate of 0.15
to 0.30 day (base a) was used.
Re s ut s
The results of these simulations are shown in Figures LA and 2A
1. River Flow
As compared to the present (1978) seven—day ten—year low flow,
year 2000 low flow will be 2.5 times greater with the added flow from
Milford, CR?CD and Medfield—Millis. The MDC Satellite plant flow would
further increase low flow by a factor of 2.5. This is using the present
base flow (groundwater) flow into the river. If groundwater flow is
reduced below its present contribution to river flow, at the seven—day
ten year low flow, of 30 percent (3.6 cfs) the future low flows will be
lower by a corresponding amount.
A— 288

-------
2. Dissolved Oxygen Levels With Benthal Oxygen Demand Included
Dissolved oxygen levels increase as river flow is increased
with present wastewater flows and year 2000 flows at Milford, CRPCD
and Medfieid—Miliis. MDC Satellite plant flows provide a net increase
in D. 0. levels only if located at Medfieid, but long stretches of
river remain below 5.0 mg/i within the South Natick Dam, Cochrane Dam
and Silk Mill Dan impoundments.
3. Dissolved Oxygen Levels Without Benthal Oxygen Demand Included
Dissclved oxygen levels decrease as present wasteloads are
added to the river and cause D. 0. sags to zero below Milford and within
the South Natick Dam, Cochrane Dan and Silk Mill Dan impoundments.
As year 2000 wasteloads at Milford, CRPCD and Medfieid—Miilis receiving
advanced treatment are discharged IL 0. sags are very much less such that
the river meets the 5.0 mg/i level below Milford and sags to about
2.5 mg/i within the South Natick anc Cochrane Dam impoundments. An MDC
Satellite plant discharge at Medfield causes a sag to about 3.0 mg/i
at the South Natick Dam and a sag to about 4.0 mg/i at the Silk Miii Dam.
If the Satellite discharge is located below the Cochrane Dam, the D. 0.
increases do not occur within the South Natick Dam impoundment and the
sag at the Silk Miii Dam drops to about 3.0 mg/i.
4. Total Oxygen Demand Concentrations
Present wasteloads cause peaks in Total Oxygen Demand (TOD)
concentrations below Milford and downstream of Sugar Brook which carries
wasteloads from Miliis and the Medfieid discharge. Year 2000 wasteloads
at Milford, CRPCD and Medfield-Millis, receiving advanced treatment,
reduce the present peak TOD concentrations and result in a more evenly
distributed TOD loading which is less than 2.0 mg/i in the lower river
reaches (below r.m. 20). An MDC Satellite discharge increases TOD
concentrations to about 9.0 mg/i and 8.0 mg/i at the discharge point
when located at Medfield and below the Cochrane Dam, respectively.
TOD concentrations in the lower reaches (below r.m. 30) are increased by
2 to 6 mg/i by the satellite discharges at the alternative locations.
Analysis of Ph orus Loadings
A very brief and simple analysis of present and year 2000 phosphorus
loads to the Charles River from municipal wastewater treatment plants
was dome to indicate the effect of the increased wastewater flows and
phosphorus removal treatment.
In 1973 and 1976 the total phosphorus loads discharged to the Charles
River from municipal treatment plants were about 200 pounds per day.
In the year 2000 with all plants removing phosphorus in the effluent
A— 289

-------
to 1.0 mg/i the total phosphorus load will be about 150 po .mds per day
for Milford, CRPCD and )4edfield—Milhis, combined. An MDC Satellite plant
viii add about 250 pounds of total phosphorus per day. Thus, after
phosphorus removal treatment the total phosphorus loads from all treat-
ment plants including an MDC Satellite plant discharge would be about
twice those of the present time.
In terms of total phosphorus concentrations in the river, the con-
centrations at the seven—day, ten—year low flow, accounting only for
dilution of the effluent with river water, will be about 3 mg/I at
present wastewater flows and about 1 mg/i in the year 2000 with or without
the Satellite plant.
In June and September, 1973 total phosphorus concentrations measured
in the Charles ranged between 0.4 and 0.2 mg/i. It was determined that
the major source of the phosphorus was the point sources or the treat-
ment plant discharges. Under these conditons of total phosphorus
loadings the river was observed to be “unusually abundant with algae”.
Thus, it appears that even after phosphorus removal treatment, the
Charles River in the year 2000 viii contain total phosphorus concen-
trations sufficient to produce abundant algae and plant growth.
A—2 90

-------
LEGEND
FOR
FIGURES 1A AND 2A
River without any treatment plant flow at seven—day,
ten—year low flow
= River with present treatment plant flow at seven—da”,
ten—year low flow
River with year 2000 treatment plant flows at Mi ] ford,
Medfield—Millis and Charles River Pollution Control
District at seven—day, ten—year low flow
_____ = River with year 2000 treatment plant flows and an
C Satellite plant discharge below the Cochrane Dam
at seven—day, ten—year low flow
— — — River with year 2000 treatment plant flows and an
Satellite plant discharge at Medfield at seven—day,
ten—year low flow
NOTE: Curves and modeling are based upon the 1978 seven—day, ten—year
low flow.
A—291

-------
b
1111
L _
bO
I )
bO
0
U,
U)
i L
LI.
14
Jj
0
I r l X 10 II lrI I ‘I Pi.•.)
1 * ,fl IP fl •
Kr r irn co.
‘-4
U
U
ll.
FIGURE 1A
FffecL of Prerent and F it. irc
Wnst,ewnter Di rhirRrr,
to the
Chorles River
- I-
____ -
I I
LLL i River Miles Above the Mouth
‘HI
ILL Li H I —
I I
H
__ J iJ i wi L tL • i
I’HIILLLLLH ___ ___
L L ‘1 L 1 Ltl
___
HJ±r
-H
‘_LLL U
H
HH
‘
3 L.
H
I

Li
River
H
Miles
H
Above
I ’
the
I
Month
•
.1
— 1.
/ 1
(
I
•
I I 1
N
I -
LLL
IN I
;i
j.
II •)
1_
II
I! I
• — — — —
-
p . .)
p..)
II
S.:’,
13F.NTIIItL OXYGflN D1 ’AN1)
I 3 INCLUDED A3 IN FUTOPT

-------
River Miles Above the Mouth
1JJii IL _______
I ,
-.
I I I
I I I
H
111 II
1. ‘ Lli
()
TI H
(“
River Miles Above the Houth
- T
i1
II .) U 1,.r
7K In ,P . !IP
Kr PrYrL K Co.
uc)
(I )
-4
‘-4
bO
P
a)
I
FIGUflE A
Effect of’ Present nnd Future
W stevntcr D1r chnrp,e
to tI r
Chnrlen fljvcr
I —
F# 1
‘.0
-4
I.
PFNTTTAL OXYGEN I)fltAND
EQUAT Z ZF.F O EVEfiYW1IERF.
50
I I
I.
A—
U.
3 )—
a)
-4.
(I,
I,
1)
‘-4
-T-%O.
1 -4
(I)
H

-------
EVALUATION OF SATELLITE IMPACTS AT FLOWS GREATER THAN
SEVEN-DAY, TEN-YEAR LOW FLOW
The impacts of year 2000 wasteloads, including the proposed MDC
Satellite treatment plant, upon dissolved oxygen at flows greater than
the seven—day, ten—year low flow were also evaluated. Future river
flows of approximately 120 cfs and 107 cfs at Charles River Village
were simulated. These correspond to present flows of 52 cfs and 39 cfs
or 4.5 and 3.4 times the present seven—day ten—year low flow, respectivel\.
It was noted it Table 2 of the original report that monthly average
flows for August have been as low as 30 and 50 cfs in past years.
At the flows of 120 cfs at Charles River Village minimum D. 0.
levels were 2.3, 4.2, and 4.2 within the South Natick,Cochrarie and Silk
Mill Dan impoundments, respectively. With river flows at Charles River
Village of 107 cfs, minimum D. 0. levels were 1.5, 3.7, and 3.7 within
the South Natick, Cochrane and Silk Mill Dam impoundments, respectively.
Thus, it appears that D.O. levels below the desired level of 5.0
mg/i may persist for several weeks in the su er when flows are con-
siderably above the seven—day, ten—year low flow.
In these analyses, the MDC Satellite discharge was located at the
South Natick Dam and upstream of the Charles River Village flow
gaging station.
Pertinent input data is given in Table 2A.
A—2 94

-------
TABLE 1A
CEARLES RIVER
STREAM MODEL IKP’JT DATA
FOR
LOW FLOW MODELING IN REPORT ADDEN L
Biocherr.icalReactjoc Rates , Base e CEOD NBOD
dav’ dav 1
STREA! 0.09 0.20
(.15—. 30) (O.60)*
SURFACE RL :OFF 139
POINT LOADS FRON TREATMENT P 1A TS 0.20 ( )**
! r un Conditions (Upstreari of r.m. 76.5)
BOO 5 = 3.0 mg/i (4.2 mg!i)*
D.O. = .7.8 mg/i
Uniform Distributed Flow
CBOD 5 = 3.0 mg/i in reaches upstream of r.m. 41.1
4.5 mg/i in reaches downstream of r.m. 41.1
NBOD = 0
Flow Rate 0.06 cf s/sq. mi.
* ( ) Values used in parentheses are for 1978 low flow simulation
** K 1 values for plant flows are as in Table 5 of original Report
All model runs were without a net D.O. input to the river from
photosynthesis.
A—295

-------
TABLE 2A
CHfi RLES RIVER
STRL MODEL INPUT DATA
FOR
FLOWS GREATER TBA SEVEN-DAY • TEN-YEAR LOW FLOW
I X ADDENDUM REPORT
Biocheti ical Reaction Rates , Base e CBOD NBOD
day day
STREA 1 0.3-0.15 0.2
SURFACE RUNoFF .139
PC1N LOADS FROM TRL;TMENT PLANTS 0.20
Background Conditions (Upstream of r.m. 76.5)
BOD 5 4.2 mg/i
D.O. 7.8 mg/i
Uniform Distributed Flow
CBOD 5 3.0 mg/I in reaches upstrean of r.m. 41.1
4.5 mg/i in reaches do .’nstream of r.m. 41.1
BOD 0
Flow Rate 0.40 cfs/sg. ml.
XOTE: All model runs were without a net D.O. input to the river
from photosynthesis.
Reaeration rates were computed using the Tsfvoglou—Neai
Energy Dissipation Model with time of flow at the respective
river flow.
A— 296

-------
ERRATA
DISSOLVED OXYGEN ND ELING
CHARLES RIVER
MASSACHUSETTS
May 20, 1978
Allen J. Ikalainen
Systems Analysis Branch
Environmental Protection Agency
Region I, Boston, MA
A—297

-------
ERRATA
Page 11 — Third column of Table 3 change “Years With One or More Low
Flow Occurrences” to “Calendar Years With. . .“
Change Table as follows:
Charles River Village 1957
Charles River at Wellesley 1966
Charles River at Wa1thar 1934, 35, 36,
40, 43, 50, 57
Page 20 — inth line frot the bottom should read “mile point 26.5 to
mile point 24.2”
A— 298

-------
Page 5 4th line from the bottom — the word “paranthesis’ should be
spelled as “parenthesis’.
Page 16 Last paragraph should read: “All chemical and biochemical
reactions in the river are adjusted to the temperature specified
for each river reach before computations begin.”
Page 23 Table 5 — CBOD, day Biochemical Reaction Rates, base e for the
Stream (All reaches) should be 0.15 — 0.30.
Page 31 4th line from the bottom, equation should be:
ALGPT ALCPO(l.0 —
ALCPT(H)
Page 32 4th paragraph from the top should read: ‘Conditions vithout
net photosynthetic D.C. production were simulated by setting
the ALGPT rate equal to the ALGRA rate within each reach.”
Page 34 F igure 6 — D.C. profiles labelled as ALGPO>ALGRA and
ALGPO • ALCRA should be labelled as ALCPT>ALGRA and
ALGPT = ALGRA.
Page 43 Table 7 — CBOD, day Biochemical Reaction Rate, Base e
for the Stream (All reaches) should be 0.15 — 0.30.
Footnote 2 should read: biochemical oxidation rates of 0.2
and 0.1 day’ (base e) were also used in some simulations.
It was explained by Metcalf and Edd , Inc., in review of this
work, that rates of 0.2 to 0.1 day (base e) are more appropriate
for advanced waste treatment effluents than is 0.4 day . This
was confirmed by several references.
D.C. profiles resulting from this change in input have
not been included in the report. The resulting D.C. profiles
were somewhat lower than those in the report. Thus, the
conclusions of the modeling are the same. Further explanation
of this is contained in correspondence between Metcalf and Eddy,
Inc., the Metropolitan District Commission and EPA Region I.
Page 44 The third sentence of paragraph three should read: “This range
of 0.1 — 0.6 is normal for ...“.
A—299

-------
Page 46 Reaeration Rate K 2 (day ) for river reach number 2 should be
0.98. This correction was made and the results checked for
their effect upon the D.O. profiles as indicated in the
original report. It was found that the D.0. profiles were
not affected significantly beyond reach number 3. The modeling
performed in the ADDE!WUM to the report includes this correction
in K 2
Figures 12, 13, 14, and 15 — Plotting errors in D.O. profiles for Cases
Cli and Eli have been corrected as sho .-n in the Figures.
A— 300

-------
0
,-.1
H
I
U
U
p - I
‘ -I
U
H
H
z
0
U,
_c:I
T
ii
t.1
1-4
H
U)
U
B
LI
I .
4 -
r1g ire 1 2
fl.O. Profiles 1Thmonstrat nr
Upstream Discharge Effrrts
0
H
F
I-
tH
LTH
LL f.L
‘ — .1
‘
:
!
I
-
I
‘-4
E
e
0
a,
>
“4
0
I)
In
L ± i±±i
± - I

TTT
: 4 1
Cn e C l i
I 1 t
HHi 1 HH\
VL IiL ±\ 4 J Lt
t ‘ H ‘ i
+H II
/
I.
IJ
/.. ‘ ..,.
I.
/: r.
_ 7
7 T ‘
We
i L! i
II
1+
__________ I
RIver Miles Above the Mouth
(

-------
River Miles Above the Mouth
Elgure 1 3
D.O. Profiles DornonctrntJn
Altermitive TT)C S.,t I I Re
Discharge Effects
rn rP
0
bO
00
a)
>
-I
0
-4
I I

-------
1
tn
‘-1
U
U
rr
-
p — I
I I
I H
1i
hi
if-H
LL
-40-- -
TTt t
F1 ure 1 4
110. Prn1I1 s D monstrit1np
Altcrnntlve M1)C S.it 1I1t
Loadings Effcct
(A)
1* )
L
‘I
‘1
r
Is
‘-4
E
a)
0
-a
a)
0
U)
U)
r 1
t
p
.‘Trj ”
L
Li
i_
L
J
t
i
j -
I I
C e
C2
- I
H
1 L L± LII
II
L JI
I\I1:c !Iii I
J LLLI. J !
Ut __
T TTh
I k
III.!
±
H
II I
I
11
HHH H H
River Miles Above the Mouth
H
( )
IT

-------
River Miles Above the Mouth
P .O. Profiles flemonctritlng
Sediment Oxygc n 1)r’m, ind
Effects
LA)
0
p .4
o
V
‘-4
0
U)
U)
!J4

-------
ADDITIONS
Page 31 — (fourth paragraph) — After first sentence Page 31. Add the
following:
ALGPO rates were developed by taking the September 4, 1973
hourly production rates and multiplying them by 21. hours!
day to give a peak daily rate which then is averaged to ALCPT
accounting for 12 hours of sunlight and light extinction with
depth.
Equations for this in STREM model are:
-ALGHK (H)
ALGPT = ALGPO (1.0 — e )
ALGHX (H)
ADGPT = 2.0 I’ALCPT ‘ \ALGP ALGP = 0.5 days
\7(1
A— 305

-------
cc 1 . i i o .s
1. Inc pr.ysical cnaractcr st1cs of tne Cnarlcs r ivcr arc such tnat it
nas a very low assinilative capacity icr oxy cc ae ancin; wastes at tne
scven— ay, ten year low 110w.
2. This analysis reveals a very major likelihood that the Charles
River, at the seven—day, ten—year 1o flow, when receiving year 2000
wasteloads (5 gfl CBOD 5 and 1 mg/i N} N) fran existing treaticent plar ts
in Milford, )ledfieid, and Millis and the Charles River Pollution Control
District Plant, will not attain the D.0. level of 5.0 ng/l for long
stretches. This condition will prevail with or without an MDC
Satellite plant discharge at any of the locations considered in this
analysis.
. if luturc aiscnarges at i.iiford, hedfield and t illis and the Cnanles
n ver. ollutior. Control District can oe reliadly treated anc the river
car. oe reuiauly treated zucr that D.C. levels in the river upstrea of
an ! .DL satellite plant discnarge arc at 5.0 mg/i at the seven-day, ten
year low 110w, then an DC satellite plant discharge containing E..0 c;/l
of CL b would not lower D.C. levels below 5.0 n;/1 if it is Jocatco
upstreac. of the So. t atic however, tnis condition would be true
only it no otner oxygen de anding phenonena sucn as al ai die off and
non—point source pollution occur during the .low flow erioas.
4 . It is unoerstood tnat tne “SThEAI.” model does not sinulate all of
the pnysical and biochenical processes tnat occur in the Criaries hiver
and wnicn determine part of its water quality and biotic conoition.
however, tnese processes, suon as algal growth and death dynanics,
lano—surface runoff dynanics, septic and solid waste leaching——all of
wnicn are known to occur in the Cnarles k(iver, can further worsen D.C.
conditions at critical periods oeyoric those processes whicn are
sinulated oy the “SThEt I’. ” model. Such critical conoitions would
prooaoly oe during periods of high temperature, low river flow and
octween perioos of short duration, intense rainfall. The occurrence of’
oase flow (groundwater flow) into the river has not been considered and
its efiect on water quality is not known.
5. am i- L satellite plant discharge under the anticipated year 2030
wasteloans (5.0 mg/i CLOD 5 and 1.0 r ig/i M- —b at all upstrearo
oiscnarges) will significantly improve D.C. levels in the Charles Iiiver
only if tne discharge is located upstreac of the So. t.atick Dan or near
the ,e fie1o bospital. me improvenent will oe % to 2 ri;/l increase in
D.C. along several miles of’ river, however, the ioproved condition will
be significantly oelow the desired level of 5.0 mg/i.
3
A— 306

-------
6. This analysis indicates that benthal oxygen demand is a significant
oxygen loss to the Charles River. For exan ie, at the seven—day, ten-
year low flow, without an’: sediment O fer demend and v thou: any
treatment plant flow or wasteloads, the Cnarles would meet the 0.0
level of 5.0 mg/i except for a short stretch upstream of Milford where
background loads would cause D.0.to fall to 2.5 mg/i. Current wasteloads
(1978) added to the river under these same conditions cause D. 0. levels
to fall to zero below Milford and within the South Natick Dam and
Cochrane Dan impoundments, if these wasteloads receive advanced treat—
merit (5.0 mg/i CBOD 5 and 1.0 mg/i Nil 3 — N) and the Charles River
Pollution Control District Plant receives advanced treatment, at year
2000 wastewater flows, the zero D.0. levels are raised to greater than
5.0 mg/i below Milford and to about 2.5 mg/i in the South Natick Dan and
Cochrane Dam impoundments.
If an MDC Satellite plant discharge is added to the river at Hedficld
with year 2000 flows with advanced treatment, 0.0 levels are raised by
1—2 mg/i within the South Na:ick Dam impoundment and lowered by 1.0
mg/i to about 1..0 mg/i within the Silk Mill Dan impoundment. If the
Satellite plant discharge is located below the Cochrane Dam, there will
be no D.0. increase within the South Natick Dan impoundment and there
will be an additional decrease in D. 0. of 1.0 mg/i to about 3.0 mg/i
within the Silk Mill Dam impoundment.
In comparison, with sediment oxygen demand at the levels used in
this analysis, as the volume of wastewater discharged, riot including
the proposed satellite plant, increases from no plant wastewater
discharged to 1978 flows to 2000 flows, at the respective levels of
treatment, the D.0. levels of the river increase successively. The
result is that the 0.0 levels will be significantly better in the
Charles at the year 2000 flows at Milford, CRPCD and Medfield—Miliis,
receiving advanced treatment, than at present flows and treatment
levels. However, there will be long stretches with D.0. very much less
than 5.0 mg/I within the South Natick Dam and Silk Mill Dam impoundments.
Adding the MDC Satellite plant flow at }ledfield will further raise D.0.
by 1—2.5 mg/i within these impoundments, but it will remain 1—2.5
mg/l below the 5.0 mg/i level. Adding the MDC Satellite plant flow
below the Cochrane Dam will raise D.0. about 1.5 mg/i at the discharge
point and lower it about 1.0 mg/l within the Silk Mill Dam impoundment.
A—307

-------
CO .;. AlC .5
1. C satellite plant snoLdQ not D located or the Charles hiver
urdess:
a. it can be shown tnrouZb furtner data collection ano analysis
tt at tnose river processes not considered in this analysis will not
increase ).0. deficits aurinc low flow perioos;
b. it. can be snown that treatmcnt facilities can be reliably
operatec to provide the pollutant rencvals as are shown to oe required
oy this analysis to maintain 5.0 m /l L.0. in the Cnarles hiver at low
flow;
c. the public is willing to bear the economic and environmental
i act co 5tS of a satellite plant at the required location and level of
treatment..
2. lreatment applied to wastewater discharges shoulo not reduce levels
of all pollutants oelow those occurring in runoff and other non—point
pollution sources of the Coarles iver unless it is proven throu n
aetaile: analysis that further treatnent is cost effective in terms of
significantly improving in stream water quality.
3. Toe water pollution control planning process (or the Charles i iver
snoula include, as a possible control for future wastewater from
t ilIoro, C}iPCD and hedfield—L-.illis, the limiting of sewer service area
arid wastewater loadings, suon that wastewater loadings to the Cnarles
River are minimized.
NOTE:
These recommendations are based upon the premise that the water
quality standard for dissolved oxygen (5.0 mg/l) has to be met at
the seven—day, ten—year low flow. Therefore, new discharges to the
Charles must be such that D.0. levels of 5.0 mg/l will be met at low
flow arid they will be discharging to a river which is meeting standards
at low flow.
4
A— 308

-------
APPENDIX 3.2.3-2
NEPONSET RIVER WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS
The classical equation developed by Streeter and Phelps
(1925) was utilized to model the impact of the proposed dis-
charge on the oxygen resources of the Neponset River. This
formulation describes the interaction of deoxygenation result-
ing from organic waste degradation and physical stream reaera—
tion, and takes the form:
KL f-Kt -Kt] -Kt
D = lo 1 -e 2 j +De 2 (1)
t 0
K 2 -K 1
where:
Dt = dissolved oxygen deficit after time t, mg/i.
= deoxygenation rate constant = waste decay rate
constant, days 1 (base e)
K 2 = reaeration rate constant, days 1 (base e)
L = initial oxygen demand, mg/i
e 0 = base of natural logarithms
t = travel time to desired point in reach, days
D 0 = initial dissolved oxygen deficit of river, mg/l
Accordingly, a first order decay rate is applied to the
oxygen demanding waste, which is stated as:
—K 1 t
Lt = Le (2)
Where:
Lt = oxygen demand remaining at time t, xng/l
L = initial oxygen demand, mg/l
= waste decay rate constant = deoxygenation
rate constant, days-i (base e)
e = base of natural logarithms
t = travel time to desired pint in reach, days
The total oxygen demand (TOD) of the waste discharge
was utilized in these computations. TOD is defined as the
sum of BOD 5 and the oxygen demand exerted by the transforma-
tion of ammonia nitrogen to nitrate nitrogen. Stoichiometric-
ally, 4.56 mg/i of oxygen are required to completely oxidize
1.0 mg/i of ammonia to nitrate (Sawyer and McCarty, 1967).
Therefore, the nitrogenous oxygen demand of the waste dis-
charge was calculated according to:
NBOD (mg/i) = mg/i ammonia x 4.56 (3)
and total oxygen demand of the waste load was
TOD (mg/i) = BOD 5 (mg/i) + NBOD (mg/l) (4)
A—309

-------
This type of analysis assumes BOD 5 and NBOD degrade at the same
rate and there is no time lag in NBOD exertion.
At a given temperature, the dissolved oxygen deficit (D)
is defined as the difference between the saturation (Cs) and
the actual (C) dissolved oxygen concentrations:
D (mg/l) = Cs (mg/i) - C (mg/i) (5)
Rate constants K 1 and K 2 are determined, respectively,
from laboratory studies of waste degradation and field studies
of river reaeration. These, however, are not available. Con-
sequently, the K 1 applied to the waste discharge in the Charles
River modeling (0.40 daysl) was utilized in the Neponset
analysis. The stream reaeration rate constant for each reach
was calculated by using the energy dissipation model developed
by Tsivigiov and Neal (1976). This model has the form of:
K 2 = c (th/tf) (6)
where:
K 2 = reaeration rate constant, hours (base e)
c = coefficient relating gas transfer to water
surface replacement and turbulence, ft 1
= water surface elevation change in reach, in
tf = time of flow through reach, hours
The recommended value for c,0.177 m applicable to
flows in the range from 0.71 to 85.0 xn 3 /s (25 to 3000 cfs)
was utilized. All units conversions were made as necessary.
When flow passed over dams in the river, the oxygen
addition was set equal to the addition measure during the
latest Water Quality Survey.
Temperature correction of rate constants was made
according to the relationship (Committee of Sanitary Engineer—
ing Research, 1961):
= K 20 e(T 2 0 ) (7)
where:
Kt = rate constant at temperature T, days 1 (base e)
K 20 = rate constant at stardard temperature 20°C, days 1
(base e)
e = temperature correction coefficient
T = temperature, °C
Temperature correction coefficients utilized by the
Charles River model were applied in the Neponset analysis.
A— 310

-------
Values for 8 of 1.04 and 1.02 were applied to K 1 and K 2
respectively.
The Neponset was divided into a series of modeling
reaches based on physical characteristics of the river.
Physical properties — slope and reach length — were deter—
mined from U.S.G.S. 1:24000 scale topographic maps.
Flow velocities, and hence time of travel (t) to a
reach point, are normally determined by field investigation.
However, those data are not available for the Neponset and
flow velocities were estimated by comparison to the Charles
River. The Charles was examined to determine reaches with
physical characteristics similar to the Neponset while the
output of the Charles model was checked to determine reaches
with flows approximately equal to that expected on the Nepon-
set with the wastewater discharge. When a reach meeting
both criteria was found the flow velocity computed by the
Charles River model for that reach was assigned to its cor-
responding Neponset River reach. Travel time to any reach
point was then defined as:
t (sec) = distance to point from reach head (m ) (8)
assigned flow velocity (m/s F
Discharge points were designated as the head of the
first modeling reach for their corresponding sites. The
length of this reach and downstream reaches was then defined
by physical river characteristics. Table A 3.2-1 presents
the designated discharge points and reach descriptions.
Table A 3.2—2 summarizes reach characteristics.
Background water quality in the river was assumed to be
equal to that measured by the Massachusetts Division of
Water Pollution Control in their 1973 survey. In particular,
for any discharge point the dissolved oxygen, BOD 5 , and ammonia
nitrogen concentrations were set equal to the values measured
at the closest upstream sampling station.
River flow modeled was the average 7 day low flow having
a 10 year recurrence interval. For the U.S.G.S. Gauging Sta-
ti ns at Norwood and Canton, these flows are 0.14 m 3 /s (4.9
ft 3 /s) and 0.096 m 3 /s (3.4 ft 3 /s), respectively. The water
temperature is assumed to be 25.5°C, (78°F) which has a cor-
responding dissolved oxygen saturation of 8.3 mg/l.
Initial conditions at the head of the first reach were
defined by the interaction of the river and waste flows.
Assuming complete, instantaneous mixing of the river and
waste discharge, the resulting instream conditions were cal—
culated using:
QrCr = Q C + Q C (9)
A—311

-------
TABLE A3.2-l
NEPONSET RIVER MODELLING REACHES
Discharge Point Reach Description
A 1 Discharge point is approximately at the beginning
of Fowl Meadow Marsh. The reach extends to the
confluence with the East Branch. River Kilometer
29.4 to 25.4 (river mile 18.3 to 15.8).
2 From the confluence with the East Branch to the
confluence with Mother Brook. This reach encom-
passes the majority of Fowl Meadow Marsh. River
kilometer 25.4 to 12.7 (river mile 15.8 to 7.9).
3 From confluence with Mother Brook to Tileston and
Hollingsworth Dam. River kilometer 12.7 to 11.1
(river mile 7.9 to 6.9).
4 From Tileston and Hollingsworth Dam to Milton
Lower Falls Dam. River kilometer 11.1 to 6.8
(river mile 6.9 to 4.2).
B 1 Discharge point lies at the approximate midpoint
of the Fowl Meadow marsh. Reach 1
extends downstream to the confluence with Mother
Brook. River kilometer 22.4 to 12.7 (river mile
13.9 to 7.9).
2 Same as reach 3 for Discharge Point A
3 Same as reach 4 for Discharge Point A
C 1 Discharge point lies 1.6 kilometer (1 mile) down-
stream of the site 9 discharge point. Reach
extends downstream to Mother Brook confluence.
River kilometer 20.5 to 12.7 (river mile 12.8 to
7.9).
2 Same as reach 3 for Discharge Point A
3 Same as reach 4 for Discharge Point A
A— 312

-------
TABLE A3.2—2
NEPONSET RIVER
MODELLING REACH CHARACTERISTICS
Discharge Point Reach Length (rn ) Slope (rn/rn) Velocity (in/sec) K2 (days 1 )
A 1 4023.4 0.00021 0.036 0.10
2 12713.8 0.00021 0.036 0.10
3 1609.3 0.00021 0.036 0.10
4 4345.2 0.0013 0.070 0.68
B 1 9656.1 0.00021 0.036 0.10
2 1609.3 0.—0021 0.036 0.10
3 4345.2 0.0013 0.070 0.68
C 1 7885.8 0.00021 0.036 0.10
2 1609.3 0.00021 0.036 0.10
3 4345.2 0.0013 0.070 0.68
at 20°C base e
Meters x 3.281 = Feet
A—313

-------
- t- Define Case
___________________ I
aDef ins Discharge Point
Specify riveL background
conditions
Compute conditions after mixing • Specify initial
of flows conditions of
Complte Do. added flow
Specify increfeentil points in reach
and compute accompanying travel times
— Compute’Dt, Lt
ecify Last Dt. Lr in
Reach as D , t., for
[ Go tb t Next Reach
Computed
next point
in ‘each
no
yes
DOCUMENT REACH D.O. PROFILE
New
flow added yea
Last no to river
Reach
yes
All
no Discharge Pt..
Modslled FLOW CHART
NEPONSET RIVER MODELLING
yes
FIGURE A3.2—l
no Both
Cases Modelled
7
yea
F ND

-------
where:
Q = river flow after discharge, m 3 /d
= concentration after discharge, mg/i
= initial river flow, m 3 /d
C = initial concentration in river, mg/i
Q’ = satellite plant discharge, m 3 /d
= concentration in plant discharge, mg/i
In addition, when other flows join the river - at the
East Branch and Mother Brook - equation 9 was utilized to
compute the resulting conditions.
A multiple reach technique was then employed to develop
the river dissolved oxygen profile for each discharge point.
Figure A 3.2-1 presents the flow chart of the calculation
sequence.
Dissolved oxygen profiles for each modelled discharge
location are presented in Figures A 3.2,2 A 3.2-3 and
A 3.2-4 . (See Figure 3.2—10 for discharge locations).
A—3l5

-------
8.
7.
E
U i
0
c
U i
> -
-J
0
U,
U) -
1_
20 19 18 17 18 15 14 13 12 11 10
RIVER MILE
1 A 2 B C 3 4 5
, , , , , V V
I —
30
10
20 16
RIVER KILOMETER
TIDAL PORTION
5
I I I I I I
9 8 7 6 5 4 3
FOWL MEADOWS MARSH—-
0 i
CASE 2
0
25
FIGURE A3.2-2 DISSOLVED OXYGEN PROFILE DISCHARGE POINT A

-------
8
- FOWL MEADOWS MARSH
CASE 1
2
V
E
25
w -
>.
X4
0
I i i
> -
-J
0
C l )
Cl)
1
I I I
20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
RIVER MILE
B C 3 4 5
V V _________ V V t
10
25 20 15
RIVER KILOMETER
TIDAL PORTION
I I I — — I
9 8 7 6 5 4 3
7-
CASE 2
0
1 A
V V
30
5
FIGURE A3.2-3 DISSOLVED OXYGEN PROFILE DISCHARGE POINT B

-------
____- -----FOWL MEADOWS MARSH—----
CASE 1
1 A
V V
2
V
B
V
C
V
I
30
25
20
TIDAL PORTION
5
I I I I I I
9 8 7 6 5 4 3
7-
E
z 5
LU
0
>-
X 4
0
U i
>
-J
0
U)
0
CASE 2
3 4 5
V V V
15 10
RIVER KILOMETER
I I I I I 1
20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10
RIVER MILE
FIGURE A3.2-4 DISSOLVED OXYGEN PROFILE DISCHARGE POINT C

-------
TABLE A3.2—3
FIGURE KEY
Synibol Description
1 U.S.G.S. Gaging Station at Norwood
A Discharge point for Site 3/8
2 Confluence with East Branch
B Discharge point for Site 9
C Discharge point for Site 5
3 Confluence with Mother Brook
4 Tileston and Hollingsworth Dam
5 Milton Lower Falls Dam
A—319

-------
APPENDIX 3.4.1
FINAL SCREENING
NON-SATELLITE SYSTEMS
A— 321

-------
APPENDIX 3.4.1—1
FIELD EVALUATION OF INTERCEPTER ROUTES
FOR ALTERNATE SOUTHERN SERVICE AREA TREATMENT LOCATIONS
In order to assess the environmental impact of construc-
tion of the proposed sewers, the alignments have been divided
into various sections and assigned alignment codes (Figure A
3.4-1). This analysis is intended to evaluate the new
interceptors necessary for treatment facilities at Squantum
(Deer:Deer/Squantum: Squantum) or Broad Meadows (Deer:Deer/
Broad Meadows: Broad Meadows).
For the Squantuni system, an alternative to construction
in Morrissey Boulevard was evaluated. This alternative
(Segments 1-7) could replace Segments 10 and 11. The results
of the evaluation indicated that Segments 10 and 11 offered
a better route. Another alternative to the Morrissey Boulevard
Route was suggested. This consists of construction of the 10
ft. x 14 ft. sewage conduit and 144 inch gravity sewer in
Wollaston Beach. Impact evaluations for this alternative are
identical to those listed for segments 10 and 11 in the Environ-
mental Evaluation Tables. Impact on the physical use of the
recreation area would, of course, be more severe with construc—
tjo of the “Beach Route”. The Squantum system then involves
Segments 8 through 23. The Broad Meadows alternative requires
14A, 15—23. Please note that segments 15-23 are required for
both alternatives with only a variation in pipe size.
Each of these segments was characterized in a series of
Environmental Characterization Tables, which follow this dis-
cussion. Following characterization in the appropriate table,
each segment was evaluated in a series of Environmental Evalua-
tion Tables. Each evaluation was made against the following
factors: vegetation, wildlife, water proximity, water cross-
ings, traffic, stabilization, housing, public/emergency/govern-
mental facilities and commercial/industrial facilities. Each
segment was evaluated with respect to each factor and assigned
a value from 0 to 3 as follows:
0 = Evaluation of parameter was not applicable in the
segment.
1 = Construction of segment is anticipated to result in
minimal impact upon the given parameter.
2 = Construction of segment can potentially result in
a significant environmental impact. However, the
use of constraints or alteration of the sewer
alignment can minimize this impact to an acceptable
level.
3 = Construction of segment can potentially result in
a critical environmental impact upon the given para-
meter. While the use of constraints or alteration
of the sewer alignment can minimize this impact, a
significant impact may or may not be avoidable.
A—323

-------
SQUANTUM
‘QUINCY SHORE DR.
500 0 500
METERS
2000 0
FEET
QUINCY BAY
SEA ST.
2000
NUT
I SLAND
FIGURE A3.4-1
INTERCEPTOR ALIGNMENT SEGMENTS

-------
This ranking of impacts from 0 to 3 represents an
attempt to categorize impacts, which are basically continuous
in magnitude, into four categories: from no impact to
potentially severe or critical impacts. Whenever a segment is
given a ran ing of 2 or 3, with respect to a particular
factor, potential impacts pertaining to the particular
factor are identified.
Certain sewer alignment sections have been termed sensi-
tive environmental areas, based upon the factors character-
ized and evaluated in the respective tables. Sections were
so termed due either to their environmental sensitivity or
the potential adverse impacts anticipated to occur within these
sections due to construction of the proposed facilities.
The discussion of factors which follows examines the
basis for characterizing a parameter as a “sensitive 11 environ-
mental area and discusses the alignment sections included within
each sensitive environmental area.
Vegetation and Wildlife
Sensitive vegetational areas were grouped into two main
categories: roadside trees and valuable plant communities.
Roadside trees were termed sensitive based on the following
factors: tree size (height of tree and dbh — diameter at
breast height), species uniqueness and proximity of trees to
roadway. Plant communities were termed sensitive based on:
species composition, wildlife value, habitat uniqueness, age
of community and location and size of community.
A majority of the proposed system alignments are to
be constructed within roadways. Many of these in-roadway
segments, due to the presence of numerous roadside specimen
trees, have been termed ‘sensitive” environmental areas.
These include alignment code numbers: 2 to 7, 12 to 14, 16,
19, 20, 22, and 23 even though in some cases direct damage to
roadside trees could be avoided, significant harm to these
trees is still possible. Large roadside trees have a sprawl-
ing root system, portions of which underlie the streets.
Damage to these roots, depending upon the severity of root dis-
turbance, can result in the eventual death of these trees.
Roadside trees provide shade and aesthetic value, in addition
to providing food and nesting sites for many residential
wildlife species.
The following code numbers represent segments which tra-
verse “sensitive” environmental areas such as floodplain
woodlands, swamps, marshes or bay areas: 1, 14A, 15, 17,
18, and 21. These segments are anticipated to have a signi-
ficant impact on either the vegetative or wildlife communities
characterizing these areas.
A—325

-------
Regardless of the area type traversed, vegetation
removal in the above areas will result in a number of associated
adverse impacts -— erosion, siltation, wildlife disturbance and
the loss of aesthetic value being the most significant.
Unless timely and comprehensive control procedures are
implemented, the removal of vegetative cover will leave the
soil bare to the elements, resulting in erosion and sedimen—
tation of drainage channels. Since a number of the slopes
along the project alignment range from 8 to 15% or greater
and a number of easements are proposed to be constructed near
marsh areas and adjacent to Quincy Bay, erosion and siltation
are serious considerations. Related impacts from these two
factors will be more fully discussed in following sections.
Regardless of the habitat type traversed, extant wildlife
species will be disturbed due to the noise and dust from
construction activities. The effects of these distrubances
will vary, depending upon the particular species present,
the degree and length of disturbance, and the season(s) of
the year. These effects could include the relocation of
affected species as well as the disturbance of the breeding
behavior of certain species. In addition, there will be a
removal of the potential and/or existing nesting sites within
the proposed easements. In general, utility line construction
through undeveloped areas results in little wildlife disloca-
tion, primarily because it involves the disturbance of long,
narrow areas rather than large concentrated expanses.
However, in wetland areas (e.g. Broad Meadows), direct
modification, or siltation from construction in adjacent areas
may alter initial drainage conditions to the extent that marsh
habitat will not be able to re-establish itself. Stringent
sediment controls and/or re—landscaping to original contours
can greatly reduce the potential for long term habitat des-
truction in these areas.
Water Proximity and Crossings
A number of the in—roadway and off—roadway segments have
been termed “sensitive” areas due to their proximity to or
crossing of various water bodies. These segments include:
1, 2, 8, 10 to 15, 17, 18, 20, 21, and 23. Construction of
these segments is anticipated to result in a number of adverse
impacts —- disturbance to the substratum of certain water-
courses, disturbance to aquatic floral and faunal communities,
removal of bank vegetation and erosion and siltation being
most significant.
The following will discuss impacts which generally
result from water crossings regardless of size. The
magnitude of the impact being related to the width of the
affected water course. In the study area, these range from
A—326

-------
minor feeder streams of Town River Bay to Blacks Creek, which
is approximately 125 ft. wide at its crossing point.
As discussed previously the removal of bank vegetation
will act as a catalyst to both the erosion and siltation
processes. Erosion factors such as period of soil exposure,
topography, soil erodibility, amount and intensity of rainfall
and the constraints utilized to minimize erosion will be most
important in determining the erosion severity.
Once the erosion process is set into motion, the trans-
ported particles, in many cases, will be deposited in water-
ways, resulting in an accelerated siltation rate. These
sediments from adjacent land areas coupled with trench
excavation within the watercourse will result in increased
water turbidity and a number of indirect impacts - - decreased
light penetration and availability being an example.
Depending upon the severity of the above conditions a
decrease in the photosynthetic activity of the phytoplankton
and other submerged aquatic plants could result. This, in
turn, could result in a lower DO (dissolved oxygen) level
which could have a deleterious effect upon the aquatic fauna
in the stream. Increased water turbidity could also cause
gill clogging of various fish species, resulting in an
increase in “coughing” (the process by which fish rid their
gills of particulates) which can have an effect on the behavior
patterns of the affected species.
Suspended solids also tend to eliminate algae and
plants and to alter the fauna by blanketing the substrate.
Some benthic organisms, such as worms and insect larvae,
would be temporarily disturbed during construction by the
sedimentation, but would adjust their position to the new
level of sediment. This would probably occur within a
week after the turbidity is reduced. Recovery may take
longer if the water is very cold (during the winter) due
to the more sluggish nature of the fauna in the cold water.
The impact magnitude on the community structure (diversity)
of aquatic biotic is directly related to the severity of
sedimentation. In severe cases, species populations as
diversity will be reduced, with resistant species (i.e. worms)
then becoming the dominant resident biota; as competition from
other species is reduced or eliminated. In milder cases,
species populations will be somewhat reduced, but aside from
biota with very restrictive niches (life zones) and therefore,
very sensitive habitat requirements, diversity will not be
drastically affected.
Sewer lines which are constructed adjacent to the
various watercourses and waterbodies can also result in
siltation impacts. Trench excavation and stockpiling of
trench spols adjacent to watercourses will result in the
A— 327

-------
potential introduction of these sediments into the water—
bodies.
From a physical standpoint, modification of surface
water drainage patterns on a limited scale is unavoidable
during construction. The buidling of temporary construction
access roads and the stockpiling of spoils create barriers
to surface flow which will result in limited changes in
erosional patterns and in temporary impoundments above the
barriers. The alteration of surface drainage patterns is
a great concern especially in swampy or marshy areas, where
the floral/faunal community is very sensitive to change
and severe impacts to the habitat can be realized fairly
rapidly. Mosquito breeding pools could become a problem
in the warmer months, especially in June through September
and would require control procedures. Restoration of original
or equivalent land contours would eliminate long term
habitat disturbance.
In most cases the above adverse impacts are short-term.
Upon completion of construction, water turbidity will decrease
and light penetration and availability, photosynthetic rate
and dissolved oxygen count will return to “normal”.
Traffic
Due to the highly developed nature of the study area,
virtually all in—roadway alignments would be severely
impacted by the proposed construction, either from a through
traffic, or localized access standpoint.
Segments termed sensitive environmental areas, with
regard tc the traffic factor include segment numbers:
2 to 13, 16, 18, 20. 22, and 23. A number of these above
segments represent major roads and intersections to be affected
by construction of sewer lines and which possibly would require
major detour routes. The remaining segments include major
secondary through routes, as well as small, narrow roads in
densely developed areas which could easily become congested.
Among the most heavily traveled roads are Quincy Shore
Drive, East Squantum Road and Sea Street. These roadways,
especially during the summer months, already have significant
congestion problems and the proposed construction would
severely aggrandize this situation.
Many residents depend on the free access of these road-
ways to either commute to and from work and/or travel to
commercial areas. The commercial establishments also rely
on these roads for delivery of supplies and customer access.
Additionally, Quincy Shore Drive serves as a tourist shore
route and runs adjacent to Wollaston Beach, which is one
of the largest public beaches easily accessible to Boston
residents.
A— 328

-------
The remaining affected roadways consist of narrow tree-
lined streets with no shoulders. The proposed construction
in these areas would severely affect local resident access,
as opposed to the through traffic impacts alluded to for
the three major or secondary routes named above.
Stabilization
As discussed previously, erosion and siltation can
pose significant environmental problems, especially in
areas of steep slopes or water crossings. Due to the above
impacts, the stabilization of steep slopes, trenches and
stream banks is an important factor to be considered in the
construction of the proposed project. Segments termed sensi-
tive environmental areas based upon the above parameter
include segments numbers: 1, 8, 10 to 15, 17, 18, and 21
to 23. The most severe stabilization impact associated with
the proposed sewer design are expected to occur in the
Broad Meadows and Houghs Neck areas.
The principal causal agents lending to altered soil
conditions consist of: (1) Removal of protective vegetational
cover, (2) Compaction and mixing of surface horizons by con-
struction equipment running over the surface, (3) Vertical
transportation of surface soils and subsoil strata resulting
from removal and replacement of trench spoils, and (4) Erosion
of topsoil, subsoil and in certain cases, even underlying
parent materials resulting from loss of protective vegeta-
tional cover, from discharge of trench water and from disturb-
ance of sloping land during construction.
As mentioned previously, the severity of erosion and
siltation is dependent upon a number of factors, such as
period of soil exposure, weather conditions during construc-
tion, topography, soil erodibility and constraints utilized
to minimize erosion and siltation.
Housing
Public/Emergency/Governlfleflta 1
Commercial/Industrial
Primary impacts against these “socioeconomic” factors
are applicable to virtually all alignment sections and are
predominantly construction related. The most significant
of these impacts are dust, noise, odors, access inconvenience
and disturbance to ornamental plantings and landscaped or
naturally vegetated areas. These impacts will generally
affect the three factor types in different magnitudes. For
example, all the above listed impacts will most likely be
realized fairly evenly against residents in construction areas
while dust, noise and odor are not severe subjective impacts
against fire station or post office facilities.
A— 329

-------
A number of these impacts against the housing factor
will be particularly significant in the project area due
to the fact that home setbacks are minimal, a large number
of ornamental specimen trees are in close proximity to
affected roadways and pipe diameters in some areas are so
large that the construction right of way will encroach far
into residents’ properties. With the exception of align-
ment segments 1 and 9, the entire proposed system design
has been termed sensitive in relation to the housing factor.
The public/emergency/governmental factor concerns
itself with construction related impacts against the fol-
lowing facilities: public: park/recreation areas, historical/
cultural resource areas, public schools, libraries, etc.;
quasi-public: private clubs, schools, institutions, etc.;
emergency: hospitals, fire, police stations, etc.; and
governmental: municipal, county regional, state and federal
offices. The following alignment segments were deemed to
be sensitive environmental areas, against the criteria
outlined above: 1, 2, 5 to 8, 10 to 16, 19 and 21.
Construction related impacts against the coinmercial/
industrial factor are expected to be significant in align-
ment segments 6 to 12, 14 14A, 15, and 19. The most serious
of these impacts will be severe access inconvenience to the
many small neighborhood stores interspersed within the
dense residential communities characterizing the study
area, especially in segments 6 and 7.
A—330

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERIZATION TABLES
The purpose of the Environmental Characterization Tables
is to present, in a concise manner, all relevant information
observed during the project field survey. During the survey,
the total project alignment is divided into segments.
Generally, each segment is delineated in such a manner that
environmental or cultural phenomena contained therein are
distinct from the proceeding and following segments.
Therefore, alignment segment boundaries generally represent
transition areas; i.e. between high and low density housing,
or between lowland woodland and swamp habitats.
The field information contained in the Characterization
Tables provides the basis for ranking impacts in the Environ-
mental Evaluation Tables (discussed subsequently). By cross-
referencing between the two data sets, the reader can form
a clear picture of extant conditions, and the effect project
construction will have on pertinent environmental factors.
The following items are recorded for inclusion into the
Environmental Characterization Tables:
• Alignment Section, Code Number and Name - This
identifies the location of sewer routes in two ways . First,
the segment nunther identifies the location of the alignment
in Figure A 3.4-1. Secondly, the alignment section name
delineates the names of the streets or easement sections
traversed.
• Length - This describes the approximate length of
the sewer route being evaluated.
• Area Types Traversed - This characterizes the area
through which the sewer route passes. A description of the
various off—roadway area types to be affected by the proposed
project follows:
Secondary Growth Woodlands - This habitat type is charac-
teris Ei of woodland areas which have been recently disturbed,
arid occurs on a variety of sites. Species composition varies
greatly, depending upon a number of factors-—soil type,
drainage, and recentness of previous disturbance being most
important. Most of the tree species characterizing this
woodland type are able to thrive most successfully in full
sunlight. Once the more shade tolerant species become estab-
lished, these secondary-growth species include red maple,
black cherry, sassafras 1 ailanthus, red cedar, gray birch and
mulberry.
Floodplain Woodlands - This habitat type occurs adjacent
to streams and rivers and is characterized by wet—site tolerant
species. The soils of these areas exhibit poor drainage and
standing water is a common occurrence.
A— 331

-------
Common wet-site tolerant species include red maple,
box elder, sweet gum, black gum, white oak, pin oak and
black willow.
Marshland — Two distinct marsh habitats comprise this
habitat type-—fresh water marshes and salt-water marshes.
Fresh—water marshes occur where depressions are kept rather
continuously flooded by streams or ground water. Salt water
marshes are present predominately along coastal areas and
are influenced by tidal fluctuations. Salt-marsh meadow
grass, salt marsh cord grass and reed grass comprise the pre-
dominant salt—marsh vegetation, while cattail and reed grass
are the predominant fresh—water species.
Swamp — Swamplands are wooded areas occurring in depres-
sional areas, where standing water is a common occurrence.
Wet—site tolerant species characterize these areas with spec-
ies composition being quite similar to that of the flood-
plain woodland.
Old Field — This habitat represents a very early stage
of plant succession, one in which herbaceous annuals and per-
ennials comprise the dominant vegetation. These field are
characteristic of abandoned farmainds, pasturelands, or other
disturbed areas on which vegetation has recently begun to
re-established itself.
Lawns — Lawns include all grassed areas which are
regularly mowed and maintained, and also include areas where
ornamental plantings are incorporated into the landscape.
Barren — Barren areas represent those areas which have
been denuded and are currently devoid of vegetation, but have
not been paved or constructed upon. These include quarries,
gravel pits, etc.
Developed — Developed areas include roadways, sidewalks,
parking lots, playground, etc.
• Proposed Sewer (Diameter ) — Indicates type of sewer
(gravity or force main) and inside diameter.
• Existing Uses - Existing uses describes the uses
occupying the parcels abutting-off the construction area.
These uses were identified during the field inspection.
• Zoned Use — The primary land use (s) for each segment
permitted by the municipality’s zoning ordinance and maps.
The distinction is made between existing use and zoned use
in order to be able to estimate the amount of land still
available fOr residential use.
• Roadway Description - This factor gives the width
of the combliled traffic 1 nes , whether or not shoulders are
present, their width and material makeup, and whether there
A— 332

-------
are lane markings. It is important to distinguish between
traffic lane width and the roadway as a whole, when doing
impact analysis. Whether two way traffic flow can be maintained
through the use of a portion of a shoulder is determined using
this information. It should be noted that the measurement of
roadway width does not consider the right-of-way beyond the
shoulder, or traveled way if no shoulder exists.
• Traffic Volume - Since much of the sewage collection
system will be placed in roadways, the volume of traffic flow
is estimated.
• Mousing Density - The density determination identifies
problems associated with the housing impact factor, such as
direct disturbance, dust, noise, and/or temporary access
inconvenience resulting from proximity to the construction
area. Housing density is estimated based upon existing lot
size and the amount of vacant land which has a potential
for residential use.
• Public/Emergency/Governmental Facilities - Identifies
the location and setback of service facilities, including re-
creational facilities which construction activities may dis-
turb include: fire, administration, school building and
medical centers.
• Commercial/Industrial Facilities - This measures the
setback distance of commercial and industrial enterprises
from the roadway curb. Accessibility of the establishment is
measured by customers, employee and supplier dependence upon
the roadway as an extension of the parking area and adequate
backup room for vehicles to be able to leave in any desired
location.
• Dominant Plant Community — In the case of in-roadway
segments, this section identifies the species composition of
the roadside vegetation. Dominant plant species, within the
community structure identified in the ‘area type traversed’
section are identified here for off—roadway segments.
• Cano y Cover — This parameter expresses, in percentage
form, the ratio of the area of canopy cover to the total
possible sky area within the measured area. That is, if the
area of canopy cover equals 25 square feet and if the total
open sky area within the measured area equals 75 square feet,
then the percent canopy cover would be 25.
• DBH — This is an expression of the diameter of a par-
ticular tree species, at breast height ( 4 1/2 feet above the
ground).
• Specimen Trees — This designation refers to trees of
unique aesthetic value. The factors involved in designating
a tree as a “specimen” are dbh, height, species uniqueness,
A— 333

-------
and location of tree species (i.e. shade tree, lawn planting,
woodland, proximity to roadway).
O Wildlife Potential - This factor measures the general
suitability of a particular habitat to support a wildlife pop-
ulation. The major factors used in obtaining a general rank—
ing (low, medium, high) for the above parameters are habitat
type, quality and uniqueness. If any wildlife species are
observed during the field examination, they are noted here.
O Water Crossing — Proposed construction across any
watercourse, waterbody or wetland is noted here.
• Water Proximity - The nearness of construction acti-
vities to surface water bodies needs special attention because
of the possibility of siltation of those surface water bodies.
The distance from the construction R.O.W. is noted.
• Percent Slope — The slope of the land surface traversed
by the sewer route is characterized as a percentage. Where more
than one slope category is listed, a noticeable break in slope
occurs. Slopes of off—roadway segments were determined by the
natural slope of the land, whereas slopes of in-roadway segments
were based on the slope of the roadway, as it was traversed.
• Bedrock - The information given under this factor
gives a general indication of the depth of unconsolidated
material overlying solid rock. This information indicates
areas where blasting may be required for sewer installation.
The following factors, not specifically noted in the
Environmental Characterization Tables, are analyzed in the
Envirorunental Evaluation Tables;
Stabilization — This refers to the stabilization of
slopes and excavated materials. Impact analysis is based
on topographic location of alignment, and percent slope.
Recreational Facilities — Construction activities may
directly disturb these areas or interfere with the access to
and/or use of recreational facilities.
A—3 34

-------
L )
( , )
01
Et VIRONMENTAL CHARACTERIZATION TABLE
ALIGNMENT CODE NUMBER
1
COMMENTS
ALIGNMENT SECTION NAME (LENGTH)
Merry Mount Park (800’)
Adjacent to Memorial
Cemetary
AREA TYPE TRAVERSED
___________________________
IN-ROADWAY
OFF ROADWAY: wet old field - marsh
PROPOSED SEWER IOIAMETER
GRAVITY LINE: 10’ x l 4’ and 144”
Squantum Plant
EXISTING USE(S)
Merry Mount Park
— NOTE: The following
zoning designa-
tions are used
on this and the
following tables
RES A: single family
RES B: multi-family, low
density
RES C: multi-family,
medium density
BUS A: local business
BUS B: general business
IND A: lictht industry
PUD: P1 anned Unit
Development
OS: Open Space
ZONED USE(S)
ROADWAY DESCRIPTION lIP APPLICABLE)
WIDTH IINCL. SHOULDER)
SHOULDER(WIDTH I
TRAFFIC VOLUME
flCENTER LINE MARKED [ IDIVIDED
N .A.
[ I

[ ]Low LIJMEIDIUM [ ]HIGHNTh.
HOUSING DENSITY
SETBACK FROM CURB
—
PUBLIC/EMERGENCY/GOVERNMENTAL
FACILITIES (DESCRIPTION)
SETBACI( FROM CURB
j NO
[ 1 —
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES
(DESCRIPTION)
SETBACK FROM CURB
j NO

UTILITY R.O.W. PRESENT
IDESCRIPTION/LOCATIONI
NO
LIVES:
DOMINANT PLANT COMMUNITY
(IN-ROADWAY SEGMENTS: SIDE OF
ROADWAY INDICATED BY COMPASS
DIAEC T b N--N. E. S. W)
PERCENT CANOPY/DBH RANGE
SPECIMEN TREEISI (DEN)
Phragrnites, sumac, reed grasses,
willow, red oak, red pine in clumps
in elevated areas
0—50 -
3011 red pine —
WILDLIFE POTENTIAL
(SPECIES NOTED)
[ ILOW ]MEDIUM [ 1HIGH
WATER CROSSING
WIDTH)
[ I NO
( JYES: 10—15’ (tributary of Blacks Ck)
WATER PROXIMITY
(DISTANCE FROM R.O.W.I
LI NO
[ ] YES:
PERCENT SLOPE
0-3% LI 8-15%
LII -8% [ 115% & GREATLR
BEDROCK
rOUTCROP [ 1 SHALLOW NOT VISIBLE
L]VISI BLE

-------
0
ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERIZATION TABLE
ALIGNMENT CODE NUMBER
2
COMMENTS
ALIGNMENT SECTION NAME (LENGTH)
Fenno St.-Andrews Rd. to Rice Rd (1300’
Squantum Plant
AREA TYPE TRAVERSED
IN-ROADWAY
o OFF ROAD WAY:
PROPOSED SEWER (DIAMETER)
J GRAVITY LINE: 10’x14’and 144” —
EXISTING USE(8)
Residential
ZONED USE(S)
OS, RES A
ROADWAY DE8CRIPTION (IF APPLICABLE)
O CENTER LINE MARKED ODIVIDED
NO MARKINGS JNOT DIVIDED
WIDTH (INCL. SHOULDER)
—
SHOULDER (WIDTH)
flPAVED: [ JNOT PAVED: N.A.
TRAFFIC VOLUME
LOW JMEDIUM OHIGH
HOUSING DENSITY
SETBACK FROM CURB
1 ¼ ac.
—
20—30’
Residential area
ot ai,gnment
to
north
PUSLICIEMERGENCYIGOVERNMENTAL
FACILITIES (DESCRIPTION)
SETBACK FROM CURB
ONO Beechwood Knowl School @ corner
YE8 Rice Road. —
Merry Mount Park
of Alignment
to
South
COMMERCIALIINOUSTRIAL FACILITIES
NO
(DESCRIPTION)
fl YES:
SETBACK FROM CURB
UTILITY ROW. PRESENT
LJNO
(DESCRIPTIONILOCATION)
t 1YE8: phone/power line, w side, 3’off rc
DOMINANT PLANT COMMUNITY
(IN-ROAD WAY SEGMENTS: SIDE OF
ROADWAYINDICATEOBYCOMPA8S
OIRECTION--N,E.S.W)
old field/marsh to south
trees line both sides of street:
r. oak, elm
PERCENT CANOPYIDBH RANGE
20 30hI DBH
SPECIMEN TREEI8) (DBH)
WILDLIFE POTENTIAL
J LOW IL] MEDIUM fl HIGH
(SPECIES NOTED)
WATER CROSSING
] NO
(STREAM WIDTH)
LIVES;
WATER PROXIMITY
El NO
(DISTANCE FROM ROW.)
YES;
PERCENT SLOPE
•BEDROCK
T o-3% L I I 8-15%

[ jis & GI1EATER
SHALLOW jNOT VISIBLE

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERIZATION TABLE
AREA TYPE TRAVERSED
IN-ROADWAY
LI OFF ROADWAY:
PROPOSED SEWER (DIAMETER)
GRAVITY LINE lO’x14 1 and 1441
EXISTING USE(S)
Residential
ZONED USE(S)
RES B, RES A
ROADWAY DESCRIPTION (IF APPLICABLE)
WIDTH (INCL. SHOULDER)
SHOULDER (WIDTH)
TRAFFIC VOLUME
J CENTER LINE MARKED L]DIVIDED
-
LI NO MARKINGS ]NOT DIVIDED
—
fl PAVED: [ ]NOT PAVED: N .A.
LI LOW JMCDIUM LII-HGH
HOUSING DENSITY
SETBACK FROM CURB
¼C.A t.COfl1 l X9 SOUth
20—30
PUBLIC/EMERGENCY/GOVERNMENTAL
FACILITIES (DESCRIPTION)
SETBACK FROM CURB
J NO
LI YES:
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES
(DESCRIPTION)
SETBACK FROM CUR8
] NO
LI ‘ ES:
UTILITY ROW. PRESENT
(DESCRIPTION/LOCATIONI
[ ]NO
YES: phone/power 1 the on south
DOMINANT PLANT COMMUNITY
(IN-ROADWAY SEGMENTS: SIDE OF
ROADWAY INDICATED BY COMPASS
DIRECTION--NE,S.W)
PERCENT CANOPY/DBH RANGE
SPECIMEN TREEIS) (OBHI
street tree lined —
r. oak, pin oak
20—30 DBH
WILDLIFE POTENTIAL
(SPECIES NOTEDI
LOW [ ]MEDIUM [ ]HIGH
WATER CROSSING
(STREAM WIDTH)
NO
LIVES:
WATER PROXIMITY
(DISTANCE FROM ROW.)
NO
LI YES:
PERCENT SLOPE
LI 8-1 5%
fl3-8% LI15%EGREATER
ALIGNMENT CODE NUMBER ______ 3
ALIGNMENT SECTION NAME (LENGTH) Fenno St.—Rlce Rd. to Marlboro St (1301 ))
COMMENTS
(-s)
Squantum Plant
Trees immediately adjacent
to roadside
BEDROCK
LI SHALLOW [ ]NOT VISIBLE

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERIZATION TABLE
ALIGNMENT SECTION NAME ILENOTH)
riar oro St. (i uu’
Squantum Plant
trees off road
ALIGNMENT CODE NUMBER -
COMMENTS
)
AREA TYPE TRAVERSED
IN-ROADWAY
.
LI OFF ROADWAY:
PROPOSED SEWER IDIAMETER)
j GRAVITY LINE: lO’x14’ and l 4”
EXISTING USE(S)
Residential
ZONED USE(S)
RES A
ROADWAY DESCRIPTION (IF APPLICABLE)
WIDTH (INCL SHOULDER)
SHOULDER (WIDTH)
TRAFFIC VOLUME
[ 1CENTER LINE MARKED [ 101 VIDED
NO MARKINGS [ ]NOT DIVIDED
30’ no shoulder
EPA VED [ ]NOT —
JLOW L I MEDIUM JHIGH
HOUSING DENSITY
SETBACK FROM CURB
< ¼ ac.
15—20’
PUBLICIEUEROENCY/OOVERNMERTAL
FACILITIES (DESCRIPTION)
SETBACK FROM CURB
NO
[ 1YES:
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES
(DESCRIPTION)
SETBACK FROM CURB
NO
[ 1YES:
UTILITY R.O.W. PRESENT
(DESCRIPTION/LOCATIONI
LIN0 phone/power line on west side
jYES: 2’ off road
DOMINANT PLANT COMMUNITY
(IN-ROADWAY SEGMENTS: SIDE OF
ROADWAY INDICATED BY COMPASS
DIRECT (ON--N.E.S.W)
PERCENT CANOPY/DBH RANGE
SPECIMEN TREE(S) 1DBH)
tree lined, both sides
Norway maple
sugar maple
red oak
W(LDLIFE POTENTIAL
(SPECIES NOTED)
1LOW [ 1 MEDIUM [ 1 HIGH
WATER CROSSING
ISTREAM WIDTH)
] NO
[ jYES:
WATER PROXIMITY
(DISTANCE FROM P.0W.)
NO
[ J YES:
PERCENT SLOPE
03% 1] 8- )5%
& GREATER
BEDROCK
[ ]OUTCROP —- - - [ 1SHALLOW NOT VISIBLE

-------
(J)
ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERIZATION TABLE
ALIGNMENT SECTION NAME (LENGTH)
ALIGNMENT CODE NUMBER
5
COMMENTS
St.. E. Elm St. (l 00 )
Squantum Plant
divldinq median 10’ wide
on Elm St. only
AREA TYPE TRAVERSED
j IN-ROADWAY
OFF ROAOWAY
PROPOSED SEWER (DIAMETER)
Li GRAVITY LINE: x14 ’ and 14411
EXISTING USE(SI
Residential
ZONED USE(S)
RES A
ROADWAY DESCRIPTION (IF APPLICABLE)
WIDTH (INCL. SHOULDER)
SHOULDER IWIDTH)
TRAFFIC VOLUME
CENTER LINE MARKED IDI VIDEO
NO MARKINGS NOT DIVIDED
Elm St 30 T, TE1 T 0 rF ul
El PAVED: —— — flNOT PAVED: N .A.
JLOW JMEDIUM [ ]HIGH
HOUSING DENSITY
SETBACK FROM CURS
¼ 8C
20_40 1
PUBLIC,EUERGENCY/GOVERNMENTAL
FACILITIES (DESCRIPTION)
SETBACK FROM CURS
flNO Eastern Nazarene College on east
YES: of E. Elm Ave.
— ——
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES
(DESCRIPTION)
SETBACK FROM CURB
J NO
[ I] YES:
UTILITY P.0W. PRESENT
IDESCRIPTION,LOCATION)
L I I NO phone lines on both side of Elm
j YES; St. 4’ off roads ide
DOMINANT PLANT COMMUNITY
IIN-ROAD WAY SEGMENTS: SIDE OF
ROADWAY INDICATED BY COMPASS
DIRECTION--N.E,S.W)
PERCENT CANOPY/OS)-) RANGE
SPECIMEN TREE(S) IDEHI
Street tree lined on both sides
red oak
sugar maple
25_40h1
40’ sugar maples
WILDLIFE POTENTIAL
ISPECIES NOTED)
JLOW LIMEDIUM [ ]HIGH
___________________________________________________
WATER CROSSING
ISTREAM WIDTH)
NO
LIVES:
WATER PROXIMITY
IDISTANCE FROM ROW.)
E I NO
YES;
PERCENT SLOPE
0-3% L IE- isA

Li_3-8% - - [ Ii_ 5%_& GREATER
BEDROCK
OUIUHOP ]SHALLOW
LI VISIBLE
k]NOT VISIBLE

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERIZATION TABLE
Hamilton Street Parker Sch.
ground between Glover &
Hollis Avenues.
ALIGNMENT SECTION NAME (LENGTH)
ALIGNMENT CODE NUU8ER
6
COMMENTS
— Ar .r*r I
Gould St/Ranson Rd/Faxon
Rd. (‘+ouu )
squantum Plant
Gould Street one-way (traf-
fic flow to east only)
AREA TYPE TRAVERSED
IN-ROADWAY
[ j OFF ROADWAY:
PROPOSED SEWER IDIAMETER)
J GRAVITY LINE: 10 1 x14’ and l 44
EXISTING USE(S)
Residential
ZONED USE(S)
RES A, BUS A
ROADWAY DESCRIPTION (IF APPLICABLE)
WIDTH (INCL. SHOULDER)
SHOULDER (WIDTH)
TRAFFIC VOLUME
[ ]CENTER LINE MARKED LiDI VIDEO
NO MARKINGS [ JNOT DIVIDED
L1PAvE O ; [ INOT PAVED;
LJLOW LJMEDIUM LIHIGH
HOU8ING DENSITY
SETBACK FROM CURB
PU LIC/EMERGENCY/GOVERNUENTAL
FACILITIES (DESCRIPTION)
SETBACK FROM CURB
NO Mass. Field School and Church @
[ j YES: @ Bill ings Rd. Jefferson St. Play
15—75’
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES
(DESCRIPTION)
SETBACK FROM CURb
fl NO
f YEs: food store @ Beach St.
51
UTILITY R.O.W. PRESENT
(DESCRIPTION/LOCATION)
LINO h2ne/po r l fles lter a
YES: e lee f O d.w siues or
DOMINANT PLANT COMMUNITY
(IN-ROADWAY SEGMENTS: SIDEOF
ROADWAYINOICATEOBYCOMPA SS
DIRECTION--N.E.S.W)
PERCENT CANOPY/OBH RANGE
SPECIMEN TREE(S) (DBH)
Tree lined on both sides of road,
except only on NE side, N. of Billings
Rd., O_31 off road - red maple,
sugar maple, red oak
20_5011 DBH
sugar mapTe —
WILDLIFE POTENTIAL
(SPECIES NOTED)
LOW C] MEDIUM [ ]HIGH
WATER CRO8SING
(STREAM WIDTH)
NO
[ lyss:
WATER PROXIIIITY
(DISTANCE FROM ROW.)
NO
C] YES;
PERCENT SLOPE
0-3% L1I8-1b%

I I - [ ]15%&GREATER
BEDROCK
r OUT C POP
‘VISIbLE C] SHALLOW IX1N0T VISIBLE

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERIZATION TABLE
ALIGNMENT SECTION NAME (LENGTH) E. SnIi ntum St. F vnn Rd. to Ouincv Sh re Dr. (2800’
AREA TYPE TRAVERSED
E l IN-ROADWAY
El OFF ROADWAY:
PROPOSED SEWER (DIAMETER)
[ J GRAVITY LINE: 101 x14’ and T44”
EXISTING USE(S)
Residential
ZONED USE(S)
RES A, RES B, BUS A
ROADWAY DESCRIPTION (IF APPLICABLE)
WIDTH (INCL. SHOULDER)
SHOULDER (WIDTH)
TRAFFIC VOLUME
CENTER LINE MARKED EIDI VIDEO
ENO MARKINGS E NOT DIVIDED
301401 no shoulder
[ I PA VED: LINOT PAVED: N .A.
LOW MEDIUM — JHIGH —— —
HOUSING DENSITY
SETBACK FROM CURB
. . ¼ ac
15’
PUBLICIEMERGENCY/GOVERNMENTAL
FACILITIES (DESCRIPTION)
SETBACK FROM CURB
ENO Day Care Center near corner of
BYES Faxon and Squantum
COM)AERCIALIINDUSTRIAL FACILITIES
(DESCRIPTION)
SETBACK FROM CURB
El NO
gIYES neighborhood business on Atlantic
lO l
UTILITY ROW. PRESENT
IDESCRIPTION/LOCATIONI
LINO
YES: Phone/power line on east 21 off
DOMINANT PLANT COMMUNITY
(IN-ROADWAY SEGMENTS: SIDE OF
ROADWAY INDICATED BY COMPASS
DIRECTION--N.E.S.W)
PERCENT CANOPYIDBH RANGE
SPECIMEN TREEIS) IDBH)
Norway maple, both sides of road
20_301 DBH
WILDLIFE POTENTIAL
(SPECIES NOTEDI
JLOW LIMEDIUM El HIGH
WATER CROSSING
(STREAM WIOTHI
NO
LI YES:
WATER PROXIIIITY
(DISTANCE FROM ROW.)
NO
El YES:
PERCENT SLOPE
[ 18-15%
[ 13-8% L115%&GREATLR
EOUTcROP
VISIBLE
Squantum Plant
St.
road
ALIGNMENT CODE NUMBER
7
COMMENTS
I- J
I -
BEDROCK
[ TI SHALLOW ]NOT VISIBLE

-------
F’)
ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERIZATION TABLE
ALIGNMENT SECTION NAME ILENGTH)
ALIGNMENT CODE NUMBER
8
COMMENTS
E. Sauantum Rd. No.of Quincy Shore Rd.
AREA TYPE TRAVERSED
IN-ROADWAY
L I I OFF ROADWAY:
PROPOSED SEWER (DIAMETER)
GRAVITY LINE: 10’ x14’ and 14411
EXISTING USE (S)
Residential School
ZONED USE(S)
RES B 0S PUD
ROADWAY DESCRIPTION (IF APPLICABLE)
WIDTH IINCL. SHOULDER)
SHOULDER (WIDTH)
TRAFFIC VOLUME
]CENTER LINE MARKED [ ]DIVIDED
LI NO MARKINGS I ]NOT DIVIDED
5&noshouTd r —
[ ]PAVEO: [ ]NOT PAVED: N.A.
[ j LOW MEDIUM OHIGH — — —
NOU8INGOENSITY
SETBACK FROM CURB
0 - cluster dev’t
100’
PUBLICIEMERGENCY/GOVERNUENTAL
FACILITIES (DE8CRIPIION)
SETBACK FROM CURB
EN0 Miles Standish Elem. Sch. on west
JYES:MOSSWetUSSet Hummock (Nat’ 1 RegisI
l50
COMMERCIALIINDU8TRIAL FACILITIES
(DESCRIPTION)
SETBACK FROM CUR8
HO
LI YES:
UTILITY R.O.W. PRESENT
(X IESCRIPTIONILOCATION)
OHo existing sewer in Tidal Marsh ar
IIYES: phone/power line of east
DOMINANT PLANT COMMUNITY
(IN-ROAD WAY SEGMENTS: SIDE OF
ROADWAY INDICATED BY COMPASS
DIRECTION--N.E,8.W)
PERCENT CANOPY/DB H RANGE
SPECIMEN TREE(S) IDBH)
roadside vegetation
— -
WILDLIFE POTENTIAL
(SPECIES NOTED)
LOW ]MEDIUM L I I HIGH
WATER CROSSING
ISTREAM WIDTH)
J NO
[ I I YES:
WATER PROXIbIITY
IDISTANCE FROM ROW.)
[ 1 NO
(] YES: 30’
PERCENT SLOPE
0-3% I_-I 8-18%

3-8% [ & GREATLA
(1800’)
Squantum Plant
r Site) on East
Tidal Flat to east high
tide approaches roadway
BEDROCK
i P i VISIBLE -‘ SHALLOW [ JNOI VISIBLE
Mosswetusset Hummock

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERIZATION TABLE
ALIGNMENT SECTION NAME (LENGTH)
Victory oa ( bUUU
Squantum Plant
ALIGNMENT CODE NUMBER
9
COMMENTS
AREA TYPE TRAVERSED
IN-ROADWAY
OFF ROADWAY:
PROPOSED SEWER (DIAMETER)
GRAVITY LINE: 10 ‘xi 41 and 14411
EXISTING USE(S)
Commercial Industry
ZONED USE(S)
PUD, IND A, BUS B
ROADWAY DESCRIPTION (IF APPLICABLE)
WIDTH (INCL. SHOULDER)
SHOULDER (WIDTH)
TRAFFIC VOLUME
EICENTER LINE MARKED flDI VIDEO
NO MARKINGS L jNOT DIVIDED
30_ 50
[ ]PAVED: [ jNOT PAVED N .A.
LOW MEDIUM EIIHIGH
HOUSING DENSITY
SETBACK FROM CURB
0
—
PUBLIC/EMERGENCY/GOVERNMENTAL
FACILITIES (DESCRIPTION)
SETBACK FROM CURB
NO
IIYES: Boston Harbor Marina
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES
(DESCRIPTION)
SETBACK FROM CURB
L i NO
J YES:
UTILITY POW. PRESENT
(DESCRIPTION/LOCATIONI
[ I NO
EYES; phone/power line
DOMINANT PLANT COMMUNITY
(IN-ROADWAY SEGMENTS: SIDE OF
ROADWAY INDICATED BY COMPASS
DIRECTION--N.E S. WI
PERCENT CANOPY/DBH RANGE
SPECIMEN TREE(S) (DBH)
NSRV
WILDLIFE POTENTIAL
(SPECIES NOTED)
JLOW LIMEDIUM flHIGH
WATER CROSSING
ISTREAM WIDTH)
NO
LIVES:
WATER PROXIMITY
(DISTANCE FROM R.O.W.I
NO
Li YES:
PERCENT SLOPE
0-3% LI 8-15%
LI [ 115% &
BEDROCK
--WU [ CHOP [ 1 SHALLOW LXLNOT VISIBLE
- 1 VISIBLE

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERIZATION TABLE
Squantum Plant
No shoulder north of Milton
St. parking area on N0/E
starts by Milton Rd., con-
tinues south adjacent to
Quincy Shore Dr. small
parking area by Webster St
turn St. and Quincy Shore Rd
Beach area to North/East
of Quincy Shore Dr. varies
from 50-500’ wide
ALiGNMENT SECTION NAME ILENOTH)
ALIGNMENT CODE NUMBER
10
COMMENTS
Oulncv Shore flr F “ r’tum St. to Anti
)rp St. (4200’)
AREA TYPE TRAVERSED
IN-ROADWAY
LI OFF ROADWAY:
PROPOSED SEWER (DIAMETER)
11 GRAVITY LINE: 10’x14’ and 144’
EXISTING USEISI
Residential, Public Beach, Park
ZONED USE(S)
B. RES A. OS
ROADWAY DESCRIPTION (IF APPLICABLE)
WIDTH (INCL. SHOULDER)
SHOULDER (WIDTH)
TRAFFIC VOLUME
] CENTER LINE MARKED [ 110) VIDEO
LI NO MARKINGS INOT DIVIDED
60’4 lane 80-lQparkifl ar _(
]PAVED: !0 (PA’) LIINOT PAVED:
LI LOW El MEDIUM HIGH
HOUSING DENSITY
SETBACK FROM CURB
1/ _ .A. . —
25
PUBLIC/EMERGENCY/GOVERNMENTAL
FACILITIES (DESCRIPTION)
SETBACK FROM CURB
EINO Nursing Home by Hovey St. Day
YES Care Center y Anthor St. —— — —
25
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES
(DESCRIPTION)
SETBACK FROM CURB
LIN0 warehouse showroom, gas st. and
IvEs:liquor store at corner of E. Squa
l0_15 1
UTILITY R.O.W. PRESENT
(DESCRIPTION/LOCATION)
JNO
LI YES:
DOMINANT PLANT COMMUNITY
(IN-ROADWAY SEGMENTS: SIDE OF
ROADWAY INDICATED BY COMPASS
DIRECTION--N.E.S.W)
PERCENT CANOPYIDBH RANGE
SPECIMEN TREE(S) (DBH)
NSRV
WILDLIFE POTENTIAL
(SPECIES NOTED)
I LOW L i MEDIUM [ ]HIGH
WATER CROSSING
(STREAM WIDTH)
j NO
[ JYES:
WATER PROXI 4ITY
(DISTANCE FROM ROW.)
1 I NO
[ YES: 50 3001
PERCENT SLOPE
[ ]O-3% [ 18-15%
[ 1 3-8% [ 115% & GREATER
BEDROCK
fl (iui ¼. flU
- VISIBLE LJSHALLOW [ ]NOT VISIBLE

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERIZATION TABLE
St. (‘ uu)
Squantum Plant
Parking area continues fro
last alignment segment and
ends at Fenno St.
staurants by
St., Bowling alley
at Vassel St.
ALIGNMENT SECTION NAME (LENGTH)
ALIGNMENT CODE NUMBER
11
- - —_COMMENTS
Ouincv Shore Dr.. Aothoro St
to Fenno
01
AREA TYPE TRAVERSED
IN-ROADWAY
El OFF ROADWAY:
PROPOSED SEWER (DIAMETER)
f GRAVITY LINE: 10’ xl 41 and 14411
EXISTING USE(S)
Residential , Public Beach
ZONED USE(S)
RES A, RES B, OS
ROADWAY DESCRIPTION (IF APPLICABLE)
WIDTH (INCL. SHOULDER)
SHOULDER (WIDTH)
TRAFFIC VOLUME
CENTER LINE MARKED LIDIVIDED
LiNO MARKINGS JNOT DIVIDED
60—120’
]PAVEO: T LINOT PAVED:
El LOW MEDIUM HIGH
HOUSING DENSITY
SETBACK FROM CURB
¼ ac
15—40’
PUBLIC /EMERGENCY/GO VERNUENTAL
FACILITIES (DESCRIPTION)
SETBACK FROM CURB
EJNO Squantum Yacht Club at Channing St
JYES:WOllaStOn Yacht Club at Beach St.
COMMEAC)ALIINDUSTRIAL FACILITIES
(DESCRIPTION)
SETBACK FROM CURS
LINO 2 restaurants by Strand St., 2 R
YEs Sachem St. Carpet store by W. E1H
15—40’
UTILITY ROW. PRESENT
(DESCRIPTION/LOCATION)
NO
I1YES:
DOMINANT PLANT COMMUNITY
(IN-ROADWAY SEGMENTS: SIDE OF
ROADWAY INDICATED BY COMPASS
DIRECTION--N.E S. WI
PERCENT CANOPY/DBH RANGE
SPECIMEN TRELIS) IOBHI
NSRV
WILDLIFE POTENTIAL
ISPECIES NOTED)
LOW U MEDIUM [ T I HIGH
WATER CROSSING
(STREAM WIDTH)
NO
El YES
WATER PROXIMITY
(DISTANCE FROM ROW.)
fl NO
j YES: 50—300’
PERCENT SLOPE
fle-15%
El a- 1115% & GREATER
BEDROCK
OUTUHOP El SHALLOW (1NOT VISIBLE
Ii VISIBLE

-------
. 0.
0• 1
ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERIZATION TABLE
ALIGNMENT SECTION NAME (LENGTH)
ALIGNMENT CODE NUMBER 2
COMMENTS
Quincy Shore Dr.. Fenno St. to Furn e B
AREA TYPE TRAVERSED
-
IN-ROADWAY
OFF ROADWAY:
PROPOSED SEWER (DIAMETER)
j3 GRAVITY LINE: 101 x14’ and 14411
EXISTING USE (S)
Public Beach, Merry Mount Pk.
ZONED USE(S)
Os
ROADWAY DESCRIPTION (IF APPLICABLE)
WIDTH IINCL. SHOULDER)
SHOULDER (WIDTH)
TRAFFIC VOLUME
CENTER LINE MARKED LJDIV )DEO
U NO MARKINGS JNOT DIVIDED
-
EPA VED: :JNOT PAVED: N.A.
LOW Li MEDIUM 1 IHIGH — —
HOUSING DENSITY
SETBACK FROM CURB
0
PUBLICIEMERGENCYIGOVERNMENTAL
FACILITIES (DESCRIPTION)
SETBACK FROM CURB
c:JNO Merry Mount Park, Caddy Memorial
vEs Park.
COMMERCIAL,INOUSTRIAL FACILITIES
(DESCRIPTION)
SETBACK FROM CURB
gj NO
EYES:
UTILITY R.O.W. PRESENT
(DESCRIPTIONILOCATION)
1NO
EYES:
DOMINANT PLANT COMMUNITY
(IN-ROADWAY SEGMENTS: SIDE OF
ROADWAY INDICATED IY COMPASS
DIRECTION--N.E.S,W)
PERCENT CANOPY/DBH RANGE
SPECIMEN TREE(S) (DBH)
.
Marsh with vegetation hummocks
WILDLIFE POTENTIAL
(SPECIES NOTED)
LOW MEDIUM [ I HIGH
WATER CROSSING
(STREAM WIDTH)
U NO
RIYES: Blacks Ck. (1251 )
WATER PROXIMITY
(DISTANCE FROM R.O.W.I
- Li NO
YES: 0_501
PERCENT SLOPE
kio-3%
11 115% 8 GRE AT ER
—_‘ntLtc_DaD
Pkwy (3400’)
Squantum Plant
Entrance to parking area
for park south of Fenno St
Beach narrows sharply in
this area
BEDROCK
LJSHALLOW NOT VISIBLE

-------
WIDTH (INCL. SHOULDER)
SHOULDER (WIDTH)
TRAFFIC VOLUME
HOUSING DENSITY
SETBACK FROM CURB
WJCENTER LINE MARKED LID VIDEO
LI NO MARKINGS I 1 N0T DIVIDED
50’ no shoulder
LI PAVED L1]NOT PAVED: N .A.
LI LOW [ ]MEDIUM [ ]HIGH
¼½ a . -
25 1001
Sea St. uuu)
Squanturn Plant
Heavy traffic at intersec-
tion with Sea St.
Entire raised area travers
ed by this alignment is a
historic site - “Merry
Mount”, adjacent to John
Adams Birthplace (home
built 1681) heavy commer-
cial development along Sea
St. near intersection with
Quincy Shore Dr.
ALIGNMENT SECTION NAME (LENGTH)
ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERIZATION TABLE
ALIGNMENT CODE NUMBER
uuincy Shore Dr.. !-urnace Bk. PkwV. to
AREA TYPE TRAVERSED
E IN-ROADWAY
El OFF ROADWAY:
10 1 x1 41 and 14411
PROPOSED SEWER (DIAMETER)
GRAVITY LINE:
EXISTING USE(S)
ZONED USE(S)
RES A
ROADWAY DESCRIPTiON (IF APPLICABLE)
PUBLIC/EMERGENCY/GOVERNMENTAL
FACILITIES (DESCRIPTION)
SETBACK FROM CURB
LINO Quincy Shore Dr. — Pleasure
jYEs:vehicles only
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES
(DESCRIPTION)
SETBACK FROM CURB
NO
LIVES:
UTILITY A.O.W. PRESENT
(DESCRIPTION/LOCATION)
lNO
LIVEs:
DOMINANT PLANT COMMUNITY
(IN-ROADWAY SEGMENTS: SIDE OF
ROADWAY INDICATED BY COMPASS
DIRECTION-NE,5W)
PERCENT CANOPY/DBH RANGE
SPECIMEN TREE(S) (DBH)
Tree lined on both sides
sugar maple Norway maple,
black oak

sugar ma 1e —
WILDLIFE POTENTIAL
(SPECIES NOTED)
ILOW DMEDIUM El
WATER CROSSING
(STREAM WIDTH)
NO
LIVES:
WATER PROXIMITY
(DISTANCE FROM ROW.)
kI NO
LI YES:
PERCENT SLOPE
E 0-3% LII 8-1 s%
-
j3-8% L115%&GREAT ER
El OUTCROP
VISIBLE
BEDROCK
Li SHALLOW ]NOT VISIBLE

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERIZATION TABLE
ALIGNMENT CODE NUMBER
14
COMMENTS
ALIGNMENT SECTION NAME (LENGTH) Hiah level sewer R.O.W. - Ouln v Shore R i
AREA TYPE TRAVERSED
IN-ROADWAY
OFF ROADwAY:
PROPOSED SEWER (DIAMETER)
GRAVITY LINE: 7211
EXISTING USE(S)
COlntTlerci al/Residential
ZONED uSES
RES A.. RES C.. BUS B
ROADWAY DESCRIPTiON (IF APPLICABLE)
WIDTH (INCL. SHOULDER)
SHOULDER (WIDTH)
TRAFFIC VOLUME
EJCENTER LINE MARKED EIDIVIDED
NO MARKINGS NOT DIVIDED
s uJd ’ —
9 PAVED: 9NOT PAVED: N . .
LOW 9MEDIUM LIHIGH
HOUSING DENSITY
SETBACK FROM CURB
O— ac —
15—25’
PUBLIC/EMEROENCYIGOVERNMENTAL
FACILITIES (DESCRIPTION)
SETBACK FROM CURB
ENO Church off Sea St. across from
1YES Chickatawbut St., Skating rink,
COMUERCIAL/INDU8TRIALFACILITIES
(DESCRIPTION)
SETBACK FROM CUllS
LJN0 Tavern off Sea St. by

UTILITY R.O.W. PRESENT
(DESCRIPTION/LOCATION)
9N0
E YES: existing high level sewer
DOMINANT PLANT COMMUNITY
(IN-ROAD WAY SEGMENTS: SIDE OF
ROADWAY INDICATED BY COMPASS
DIRECTION--N.E,S,W)
PERCENT CANOPYIDBH RANGE
SPECIMEN TREE(S) (DBH)
WILDLIFE POTENTIAL
(SPECIES NOTED)
LOW EJMEDIUM 9 HIGH
WATER CROSSING
(STREAM WIDTH)
NO
9YES:
WATER PROXIMITY
IDISTANCE FROM ROW.)
NO
9 YES:
PERCENT SLOPE
0-3% 9
LI 3-8% [ Ii 5% & (iREATER
to High School (3 UO)
Squantum Plant
road Meadow School
9OUTGROP
ui InI C
BEDROCK
[ JSHALLOW JNOT VISIBLE

-------
WATER CROSSING
(STREAM WIDTH)
ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERIZATION TABLE
AliGNMENT SECTION NAME (LENGTH)
ALIGNMENT CODE NUMBER
14A
COMMENTS
Broad Meadows (=4000’)
AREA TYPE TRAVERSED
0 IN-ROADWAY
OFF ROADWAY: Marsh
PROPOSED SEWER (DIAMETER)
E J GRAVITY LINE: 721 ’ or T0 x14’
EXISTING USE(S)
Marsh
ZONED USE(S)
IND A, RES A
ROADWAY DESCRIPTION (IF APPLICABLE)
WIDTH (INCL. SHOULDER)
SHOULDER (WIDTH)
TRAFFIC VOLUME
CENTER LINE MARKED 0DIVIDED
El NO MARKINGS ONOT DIVIDED
N

EPA VED: —— — DNOT PAVED: N .A.
LOW MEDIUM 0HIGH
HOUSING DENSITY
SETBACK FROM CURB
PUBLICIEMERGENCYIGOVERNMENTAL
FACILITIES (DESCRIPTION)
SETBACK FROM CURB
El NO
1YES: skating rink, Broad Meadows Sch.
COMMERCIALIINDUSTRIAL FACILITIES
(DESCRIPTION)
SETBACK FROM CURB
NO
YES:
UTILITY R.O.W. PRESENT
(OESCRIPTIONILOCATION)
I jNO
EYES:
DOMINANT PLANT COMMUNITY
(IN-ROADWAY SEGMENTS: SIDE OF
ROADWAY INDICATED BY COMPASS
DIRECTION-- N. E S. W)
PERCENT CANOPY!DBH RANGE
SPECIMEN TREE(S) (OSH)
.
Phragmi tes
WILDLIFE POTENTIAL
(SPECIES NOTED)
JLOW R I MEDIUM El HIGH
Broad Meadows Plant
500’ removed from single
family residences and
school at closes point.
filled area - wet through-
WATER PROXIMITY
(DISTANCE FROM ROW.)
ENO
YES: 50’
ENO
YES:
PERCENT SLOPE
EJa-iss
[ 1 Eliss & GREATER
out
BEDROCK
‘ OUTCNur Li SHALLOW JNOT VI&)BLE
U VIS )HLF

-------
U,
0
ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERIZATION TABLE
PROPOSED SEWER (DIAMETER)
EXISTING USE(S)
ALIGNMENT CODE NUMBER
15
COMMENTS
ALIGNMENT SECTION NAME (LENGTH)
Broad Meadows Sch. to Utica St. (900’ )
AREA TYPE TRAVERSED
•
LI IN-ROADWAY disturbed, secon ary
OFF ROADWAY: growth
Follows Route of existing
high level sewer
GRAVITY LINE:
Hiah l v 1 c w r R.0.W.
ZONED USE(S)
adjacent to RES C, BUS B
ROADWAY DESCRIPTION (IF APPLICABLE)
WIDTH ((NCL. SHOULDER)
SHOULDER (WIDTH)
TRAFFIC VOLUME
EICENTER LINE MARKED EDIVIDED
1:Jwo MARKINGS ENOTD DED N.A.

[ ]NOT PAVED N.A.
LJLOW EMEDUM HIOHN .
HOUS(NGDENSITY
SETBACK FROM CURB
Medium densit partments —
lool
PURLICIEMERGENCY100VERNUENTAL
FACILITIES (DESCRIPTION)
SETBACK FROM CURB
F NO
t:JYES: —
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES
IDE SCRIPT(ON)
SETBACK FROM CURS
DNO runs 100 2001 behind local
._.Si_n!S_ .
UTILITY R.O.W. PRESENT
(DESCRIPTION/LOCATION)
LI NO
YES existing high level sewer
DOMINANT PLANT COMMUNITY
(IN-ROADWAY SEGMENTS: SIDE OF
ROADWAY INDICATED BY COMPASS
DIRECTION-- N. S S, WI
PERCENT CAHOPYIDBH RANGE
SPECIMEN TREE(S) IDBH)
Raised R.0.W. bordered by secondary
growth: red oak, scarlet oak

WILDLIFE POTENTIAL
(SPECIES NOTED)
JLOW [ I MEDIUM L]HIGH
WATER CROSSING
STREAM WIDTH)
J NO
[ ]YES:
WATER PROXI 4ITY
(DISTANCE FROM 1 .0W. )
LI NO
g]YES: 50 (trib. to town River Bay)
PERCENT SLOPE
[ ja-I5% (embankment
3 -8% 15% & GI(EATLR
Squantum Plant: 72” gray.
3road Mead. Plant: 72”grav.
slope)
BEDROCK
LISHALLOW LXINOT VISIBLE

-------
(A)
U i
I—i
ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERIZATION TABLE
ALIGNMENT 8ECTION NAME (LENGTH)
ALIGNMENT CODE NUMBER
16
COMMENTS
St t Street (950’)
AREA TYPE TRAVERSED
Ei IN-ROADWAY
L I I I OFF ROADWAY
PROPOSED SEWER (DIAMETER)
GRAVITY LINE:
EXISTING USE(S)
Residentia I
ZONED USE(S)
RES A, BUS A
ROADWAY DESCRIPTION (IF APPLICABLEI
WIDTH (INCL SHOULDER)
SHOULDER (WIDTH)
TRAFFIC VOLUME
CENTER LINE MARKED LILDI VIDEO
NO MARKINGS NOT DIVIDED
—
[ JPAVEO: —— [ INOT PAVED;
[ BLoW LIMEDIUM Lj]HI GH
HOUSING DENSITY
SETBACK FROM CURB
¼ ac.
15’
PU LIClEMERGENCY,GOVERNUENTAL
FACILITIES (DESCRIPTION)
SETBACK FROM CURB
fl NO
yES: Library at State St. & Palmer St.
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES
(DESCRIPTION)
SETBACK FROM CUNLI
NO
[ I YES:
Squantuni Plant:72’ gray.
Broad Mead. Plant: 7211
gray.
Power substation near
Noanet St. off Sea St.
Bank located at Braintree
Ave. and Sea St.
UTILITY ROW. PRESENT
IDESCRIPTION/LOCATION)
[ ii NO
L I1vEs ; high level sewer under road
DOMINANT PLANT COMMUNITY
(IN-ROADWAY SEGMENTS: SlOE OF
ROADWAY INDICATED 8YCOUPAS8
DIRECTION--N,E.S.W)
PERCENT CANOPY/OBH RANGE
SPECIMEN TREE(S) (DEN)
Scattered oak borders street on
both sides

40_60 I EJBH
red oak (6011)
WILDLIFE POTENTIAL
(SPECIES NOTED)
jLOW [ iMEDIUM —— r]HIGH — ——
WATER CROSSING
ISTREAM WIDTH)
j NO
LiVES
WATER PROXIMITY
(DISTANCE FROM ROW.)
NO
[ JY Bs ;
PERCENT SLOPE
[ 18-1 5%
[ 13-8% [ Li 5% & GREATER
BEDROCK
rUTCH [ 1 SHALLOW ]NOT VISIBLE
VISIBLE

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERIZATION TABLE
ALIGNMENT CODE NUMBER
17
COMMENTS
ALIGNMENT SECTION NAME (LENGTH)
iign level sewer R.O.W.. from StatéSt. to rump t. ‘ i’wu)
AREA TYPE TRAVERSED
o IN-ROADWAY
OFF ROADWAY: mars
PROPOSED SEWER (DIAMETER)
GRAVITY LINE:
EXISTING USE(S)
ZONED USE(S)
ROADWAY DESCRIPTION (IF APPLICABLE)
WIDTH ((Nd. SHOULDER)
SHOULDER (WIDTH)
TRAFFIC VOLUME
Li CENTER LINE MARKED 001 VIDED
N.A.
0 NO MARKINGS DNOT DIVIDED — —
N. A.
DPAVED: DNOT PAVED: N.A.
0LOW DMEDIUM DHIGH FT .
HOUSINODENSITY
SETBACK FROM CURB
1 4- J3ac.mu1ti -fami ] -
PU$LICIEMERGENCYIUOVERNMENTAL
FACILITIES (DESCRIPTION)
SETBACK FROM CURB
NO
DYES:
COMUERCIALIINDUSTRIAL FACILITIES 0 NO
(DESCRIPTION) IYEs:pufl1 station
SETBACK FROM CURB
UTILITY R.O.W. PRESENT
I DE SCRIPTIONIL OC A lION)
DOMINANT PLANT COMMUNITY
(IN-ROADWAY SEGMENTS: BIDE OF R.0.W. edged by red oak, scarlet oak
ROADWAY INDICATED BY COMPASS marsh to east
DIRECTION--N.E,S.W )
PERCENT CANOPYIDBH RANGE 50 i5_25Il
SPECIMEN TREE(S) (DBH)
WILDLIFE POTENTIAL
(SPECIES NOTED)
JLOW JMEDIUM HIGH
WATER CROSSING
(STREAM WIDTH)
J NO
DYES:
WATER PROXIMITY
(DISTANCE FROM R.O.W.)
LI NO
EYES: 501 from marsh
PERCENT SLOPE
0-3% 08-15%
tI 3-8% [ 115% & GREATER
NO
YES: existing high level sewer
Li VISIBLE LI SHALLOW [ ] NOT VISIBLE
U,
Squantum Plant: 7211 gray.
Broad Mead. Plant: 72°
gray.
BEDROCK

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERIZATION TABLE
LICENTER LINE MARKED LIIDIVIDED
NO MARKINGS flNOT N.A.
N.A.
flPAVED: LINOT PAVED N .A.
SLOW LI MEDIUM [ ] GH N. .
alignment crosses
Hubbard Street
ALIGNMENT CODE NUMBER
18
COMMENTS
ALIGNMENT SECTION NAME ILENGTH>
high level
sewer R.O.W., Pump station
to Rockland St. (4100)
Squantum Plant: 14 ’ F.M
Broad Mead.Plant:l4” F.M.
AREA TYPE TRAVERSED
IN-ROADWAY
OFP ROADWAY:
marsh
PROPOSED SEWER IDIAUETER>
JFORCE MAIN: —
EXISTING USEIS>
Open Space,
Residential
ZONED USEIS>
RES A
ROADWAY DESCRIPTION IIF APPLICABLE>
WIDTH IINCL. SHOULDER>
SHOULDER IWIOTH>
TRAFFIC VOLUME
HOUSING DENSITY
SETBACK FROM CURB
¼ C. to N. and W. of
5—50’
PUBLICIEMERGENCV/GOVERN >AENTAL
FACILITIES (DESCRIPTION>
SETBACK FROM CURB
J NO
LIVES:
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES
IDESCRIPTION>
SETBACK FROM CURB
fl NO gas station at Newton and
i 1 YES: Sea St.
UTILITY ROW. PRESENT
(DESCRIPTION/LOCATION>
LINO
EYES: existing high level sewer
DOMINANT PLANT COMMUNITY
SIN-ROADWAY SEGMENTS: SIDE OF
ROADWAY INDICATED BY COMPASS
DIRECTION--N,E.S.W>
PERCENT CANOPY! DBH RANGE
SPECIMEN TREE(S) IDBHI
Ditched marsh-reeds to S. and E.
yellow birch, red oak border
embankment

WILDLIFE POTENTIAL
ISPECIES NOTED>
JLOW [ )MEDIUM [ JHIGK
WATER CROSSING
(STREAM WIDTH>
NO
LIVES:
WATER PROXIMITY
(DISTANCE FROM ROW.>
LI NO
JYES: marsh (50’)
PERCENT 8LOPE
0-3%
D3-el D1s% I GREATER
“CROP —
BEDROCK
LJ8HAt LOW JNOT VISIBLE
large hummock In marsh

-------
‘ -‘I
ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERIZATION TABLE
ALIGNMENT CODE NUMBER
19
COMMENTS
ALIGNMENT SECTION NAME (LENGTH)
Sea St., Rockland/Winthrop Sts. to Park
urst St. (2000’)
Squantum Plant
Broad Meadows
AREA TYPE TRAVERSED
IN-ROADWAY
LI OFF ROADWAY:
PROPOSED SEWER (DIAMETER)
LI GRAVITY LINE: 1FORCE MAIN: 14” -
EXISTING USE(S)
Residential /Corm ercia1
ZONED USE(S)
RES A. BUS B
ROADWAY DESCRIPTION (IF APPLICABLE)
ECENTER LINE MARKED EDIVIDED
NO MARKINGS NOT DIVIDED
WIDTH (INCL. SHOULDER)
SHOULDER (WIDTH)
p.j.b .qu.L r: -
LIPAVED: EJNOT PAVED N.A.
TRAFFIC VOLUME
flLOW MEDIUM DHIGH
HOUSING DENSITY
—
SETBACK FROM CURB
15’
Rockland St., Fire
Church at corner of
Station
Sea and
PUBLICIEMEROENCYIGOVERNMENTAL
FACILITIES (DESCRIPTION)
LIMo American Legion Hall; Playground
JYES: at Manet St; Atherton Ilough School
SETBACK FROM CURB
—or -
Darron Streets
COMMERCIALIINDUSTRIAL FACILITIES
LI NO neighborhood business between
(DESCRIPTION)
YES: Mannet and Hull Streets
SETBACK FROM CURB
10
UTILITY ROW. PRESENT
LINO
(DESCRIPTIONILOCATION)
YES: phone/power on south
DOMINANT PLANT COMMUNITY
,
(IN-ROADWAY SEGMENTS: SIDE OF
ROADWAY INDICATED BY COMPASS
sugar maple, Norway spruce
DIRECT 10 N--N , E. S. W)
PERCENT CANOPYIDBH RANGE
SPECIMEN TREE(S) (DBH)
WILDLIFE POTENTIAL
E 1LOW [ ]MEOIUM E]HIGH
(SPECIES NOTED)
WATER CROSSING
NO
(STREAM WIDTH)
Li YES:
WATER PROXIMITY
NO
(DISTANCE FROM ROW.)
LII YES:
0-3% LI 8-15%
PERCENT SLOPE
13-8% [ ii 5% & GREATLN
BEDROCK
LI SHALLOW IINOT VISIBLE

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERIZATION TABLE
ALIGNMENT SECTION NAME ILENOTH)
ALIGNMENT CODE NUMBER
2Q
COMMENTS
Park Hurst Street (1000LI
squantum Plant
I road Meadows
( J
U i
Ui
AREA TYPE TRAVERSED
IN-ROADWAY
LI OFF ROADWAY:
PROPOSED SEWER (DIAMETER)
LI GRAVITY LINE: I 1 FORCE MAIN: 1411
EXISTING USEIS)
Residential
ZONED USE(S)
RES A
ROADWAY DESCRIPTION (IF APPLICABLE)
WIDTH (INCL, SHOULDER)
SHOULDER (WIDTH)
TRAFFIC VOLUME
LI CENTER LINE MARKED LIDIVIDED
NO MARKINGS f JNOT DIVIDED
3O—3 —— —
JPAVED: 31 raIsed LINOT PAVED: —
JLOW LI MEDIUM UNION
HOUSING DENSITY
SETBACK FROM CURB
lJ4— ]J3ac. —
15’
PUBLIC/EMERGENCYIGOVERNMENTAL
FACILITIES (DESCRIPTION)
SETBACK FROM CURS
NO
fl YES:
COMMERCIALIINOUSTRIAL FACILITIES
(DESCRIPTION)
SETBACK FROM CURS
LI NO
YES: Marina at B yswater Road
UTILITY R.O W. PRESENT
(DESCRIPTIONILOCATION)
LI NO
lYEs: phonefpower on east
DOMINANT PLANT COMMUNITY
(IN-ROADWAY SEGUENT8: SIDE OF
ROADWAY INDICATED BY COMPASS
DIRECTION--NE.S.W)
PERCENT CANOPYIOBH RANGE
SPECIMEN TREE(S) IDBH)
tree lined: sugar maple, red oak
1 5_351I DBH
WILDLIFE POTENTIAL
(SPECIES NOTED)
LOW LI MEDIUM C] HIGH
WATER CROSSING
(STREAM WIDTH)
NO
LIVES:
WATER PROXIMITY
(DISTANCE FROM ROW.)
LI NO
JYES: (301 from Bay)
PERCENT SLOPE
f O-3% L118-15%
-
l l & GREATER
bEDROCK
r WUTUHOP El SHALLOW { NOT VISIBLE
Li VISIBLE

-------
U i
O•i
ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERIZATION TABLE
ALIGNMENT SECTION NAME (LENGTH)
ALIGNMENT CODE NUMBER
21
- COMMENTS
c m nt: Parkhurst St. to Island Ave.
(1200)
Squantum Plant
Broad Meadows
AREA TYPE TRAVER8ED
IN-ROADWAY
OFF ROADWAY: Beach
PROPOSED SEWER (DIAMETER)
[ ] GRAVITY LINE: t FORCE MAIN: 14”
EXISTING USE(S)
RG jd ntj al lODen Soace
ZONED USE(S)
RES A
ROADWAY DESCRIPTION (IF APPLICABLE)
WIDTH (INCL. SHOULDER)
SHOULDER (WIDTH)
TRAFFIC VOLUME
LICENTER LINE MARKED LIDIVIDED
El NO MARKINGS LJNOT DIVIDED
N.A.
EPA VED: ENOT PAVED: N.A.
Li LOW LJMEDIUM EHIGH
HOUSING DENSITY
SETBACK. FROM CURB
jJ3—jJ2 c
homes atop high level sewer embankment
PUBLICIBMERSENCYIGOVERNMEP4TAL
FACILITIES DESCRIPIION )
SETBACK FROM CURB
0 NO
lYE$: Beach area
COMMERCIAL,INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES
(DESCRIPTION)
SETBACK FROM CURB
NO
flYES:
UTILITY R.O.W. PRESENT
(DESCRIPTION/LOCATION)
ENO
YES: existing high level sewer R.O.W.
DOMINANT PLANT COMMUNITY
(IN-ROADWAY SEGMENTS: SIDE OF
ROADWAY INDICATED BY COMPASS
D IRECTION--N.E,S.W)
PERCENT CANOPY/DBH RANGE
SPECIMEN TREE(S) (DBH)
WILDLIFE POTENTIAL
(SPECIES NOTED)
EjLOW EMEDIUM EIHIGH
WATER CROSSING
(STREAM WIDTH)
NO
El YES:
WATER PROXIMITY
IOISTANCE FROM ROW.)
El NO
YES: adjacent to Bay
PERCENT SLOPE
0- 5% L I 8-15%
& )3REATLA
BEDROCK
[ Juu ur [ 1 SHALLOW NOT VISIBLE

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERIZATION TABLE
ALIGNMENT CODE NUMBER
22
COMMENTS
Island Ave. SIP to Nut Is. Ave. (lO0 )
AREA TYPE TRAVERSED
E1 IN-ROADWAY
L I OFF ROADWAY:
PROPOSED SEWER (DIAMETER)
[ 2 GRAVITY LINE: FORCE MAIN:
EXISTING USEISI
Residential
ZONED USE(S)
RES A
[ ]CENTER LINE MARKED [ 1101 VIDEO
ROADWAY DESCRIPTION (IF APPLICABLE)
NO MARKINGS flNOT DIVIDED
WIDTH (INCL. SHOULDER) ¶5rflos ouTaey. —
SHOULDER (WIDTH) PAVED: [ ]NOT PAVED:
TRAFFIC VOLUME LOW LI MEDIUM LIHIGH
ac.
5-20’
HOUSING
DENSITY
SETBACK
FROM CURB
Squantum Plant
Broad Meadows
Road extremely narrow
sharp upslope to east,
sharp downslope to west
PUBLICIEMERGENCYIGOVERNMENTAL
FACILITIES (DESCRIPTION)
SETBACK FROM CURB
[ NO
YES:
COMMERCIALIINDUSTRIAL FACILITIES
(DESCRIPTION)
SETBACK FROM CURB
NO
YES:
UTILITY ROW. PRESENT
(DESCRIPTION LOCATIONI
LINO
jYES: phone/power line on west
DOMINANT PLANT COMMUNITY
(IN-ROADWAY SEGMENTS: SIDE OF
ROADWAY INDICATED BY COMPASS
DIRECTIO N--N E • S. W)
PERCENT CANOPYIDBH RANGE
SPECIMEN TREE(S) (DBH)
cottonwood, shrubs, red oak
— —
WILDLIFE POTENTIAL
(SPECIES NOTED)
LOW MEDIUM [ I HIGH
WATER CROSSING
(STREAM WIDTH)
NO
[ ]y :
WATER PROXIMITY
(DISTANCE FROM ROW.)
NO
[ 1 YES:
PERCENT SLOPE
0-3% [ 118-15%
3-8% L11s%&GREATER
[ ]OUTCROP
- VISIBLE
ALIGNMENT SECTION NAME (LENGTH)
L I
u -I
BEDROCK
[ ]SHALLOW ]NOT VISIBLE

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERIZATION TABLE
AREA TYPE TRAVERSED
IN-ROADWAY
Li OFF ROADWAy:
PROPOSED SEWER (DIAMETER)
GRAVITY LINE: flFORcE MAIN:
EXISTING USEIS)
ZONED USE(S)
ROADWAY DESCRIPTION (IF APPLICABLE)
WIDTH I)NCL. SHOULDER)
SHOULDER (WIDTH)
TRAFFIC VOLUME
CENTER LINE MARKED 001 VIDEO
NO MARKINGS JNOT DIVIDED —— —
20— 30’ no shoulder
:. _ . —
LOW D MEDIUM LIHIGH —
HOUSINGOENSITY
SETBACK FROM CURB
—
10—30’
PUBLIC/EMERGENCY/GOVERNMENTAL
FACILITIES (DESCRIPTION)
SETBACK FROM CURB
NO
DYES:
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES
(DESCRIPTION)
SETBACK FROM CURB
J NO

UTILITY R.O.W PRESENT
(DESCRIPTION/LOCATION)
DNa
YES phone/power line on west
DOMINANT PLANT COMMUNITY
(IN-ROADWAY SEGMENTS: SIDE OF
ROAD WAY INDICATED BY COMPASS
DIRE CTION --N.E.S,W)
PERCENT CANOPY/DOll RANGE
SPECIMEN TREE(S) )DBH)
sumac, bik. birch, bik. willow, red
oak, sugar maple, Norway maple orna-
mental s, isolated woodlands
: : i E:::::_ —
WILDLIFE POTENTIAL
(SPECIES NOTED)
3LOW DMEOIUM [ IHIGH — — — —
WATER CROSSING
(STREAM WIDTH)
P lO
Elyss:
WATERPROX) 4 )TV
(DISTANCE FROM ROW.)
LINo N. end of Winthrop P1
[ /55: at Bay
I
PERCENT SLOPE
[ X l 0-3% 8-15%
[ 115% 5 GREATI R
Roadway ends at bluff
5O over Bay
ALIGNMENT CODE NUMBER 23
ALIGNMENT SECTION NAME (LENGTH) Wlnthroo St.. Wlnthroø P1 (2000’)
COMMENTS
UI
Route Changed
road narrows at Winthrop P1
BEDROCK
I LISHAI LOW JNOT VISIBLE

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION TABLE
ALIGNMENT
CODE
NUMBER
1
2
3
ALIGNMENT SECTION NAME
Merrymount Park
Fenno Street,
Andrews Rd. to Rice
Rd.
Fenno Street, Rice
Rd. to Marlboro St.
—
<
0

—
0
Z
2
3
3
—



U
2
1.
1
—

)•
-4


0
<


-4
-(
2
2
0
—

>
-4


0
0)
0 )
—
C)
3
0
0
C C
0
2
2
- .


>

Q
z
2
1
1
0

z
C)
0
3
3
-U
C
ow
oc


rn
2CC
—Irn
>Z
rc .)
<
-, .
3
3
1
C,
0


r i
2
i

o
C
(U
4


r
0
0
1
COMMENTS
4
5
6
7
Marlboro Street
ElmSt.,E.ElmSt.
Gould St./Rawson Rd/
FaxonRd.
E. Squantuin St.,
Faxon Rd. to Quincy
Shore_Drive
3
2
3
2
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
2
3
1
1
1
1
3
2
3
3
1
3
3
2
1
0
3
2
I . . . )
U,

-------
0
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION TABLE
0
ALIGNMENT
CODE
NUMBER
ALIGNMENT SECTION NAME
<




s
>
-4



E

-<
E
>
4



‘

,
0
z
G)W
O

ç

-4rfl C
¶f

COMMENTS
;
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
r
—
8
E. Squantum Rd.,
north of Quincy
Shore Drive
1
1
2
1
3
2
2
3
3
9
Victory Rd.
1
1
1
1
2
1
0
0
2
10
Quincy Shore Dr.
E. Squantum St. to
Apthorp St.
1
1
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
This evaluation also
reflects the potentia
impacts of the altern
Wollaeton Beach Route
11
Quincy Shore Dr.,
Apthorp St. to
Fenno St.
1
1
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
12
Quincy Shore Dr.,
Fenno St. to Furnace
Bk. Pkwy
2
1
2
3
3
3
2
3
2
13
Quincy Shore Dr.,
Furnace Bk. Pkwy.
to Sea St.
3
1
2
0
3
2
3
2
1
High level sewer
ROW, Quincy Shore
14
Dr. to Broad Meadows
School
3
1
0
0
3
2
3
2
2
I
a
a
tive

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION TABLE
0
ALIGNMENT
CODE
NIJM SER
ALIGNMENT SECTION NAME
<
m
C)
n

>

6

r
D
r

>
-‘
T


0
X

-I
-<
I
>
-
m

o
1
0
ci
“

C)
>
“

0
C ,,


F

>

0
7
o
C
, ‘
Z
0
0
oC
<0


m
zO
-41?!
Z
0
<
m
D


o
C
C?!
-4


r
COMMENTS
14A Broad Meadows 2 2 2 2 1 3 3 3 2
15 Broad Meadows School 1 1 2 0 0 2 3 3 2
to Utica St.
‘JJ
0•
16 State Street 3 1 0 0 3 1 3 2 1
High level sewer ROW
17 from State St. to 2 1 2 0 0 2 3 1 0
Pump Station
High level sewer ROW
from Pump Station
18 to Rockland St. 2 1 2 0 2 2 3 0 1
Sea St., Rockland!
19 Winthrop Ste. to 2 1 0 0 3 1 3 3 3
Parkhurst St.
20 Parkhurst St. 2 1 2 0 2 1 3 1 0

-------
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION TABLE
C)
ALIGNMENT
CODE
NUMBER
AUGNMENT SECTION NAME
<
m
C)
,
-

-4
5
z
—
r


,,
in
—
4
m


—
0
)(


-C
—
*

-4
in
‘
C

0
U)

z
0
—
n

C)
—
Q)

T
t

>
4
0
Z
-—
0

(I ’

C)
a
0
O

m

Ein
m
ZC)
“
>Z
r-ç )
-C
—
—-
m

;
‘

z
0

. )
—I

;
I—
—
COMMENTS
Easement; Parkhurst
21 St. to Island Ave. 1 2 3 0 0 3 3 3 1
Island Ave., STP to
22 Nut Island Ave. 2 1 1 0 3 3 3 1 1
23 Winthrop St., Win— 2 1 2 0 2 3 3 1 1
throp Place

-------
APPENDIX 3.5.1
COMPARISON OF SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
WATER QUANTITY
A— 363

-------
SrAT 1E TO Bi ATTACHED TO AN l1.D.C. REPOXT ON THE SITE’SELELTION 1’ OCESS 3.5.1—1
FOR A MID-CHARLES SEWAGE TREAT 1 NT PL\NT
by
TOWN OF WELLESLEY COMMITTEE MEMBERS, September 30, 1976
The report states on Page 2 that t.he E.M.M.A. Study found that the highly
aerated effluent from a Mid-Charles Sewage Treatrnent Plant would improve the
Ø srles River’s water quality as well as increase significontly the quantity of
flow in the river during periods of low water volu ae. The Wellesley representa-
tives do not concur with the increased quality argument c ontending that an
inland treatment plant may raise Severe environrcental problems, including
the spread of polio and hepatitua viruses. These adverse environmental and
health conditions would result in a degradation of water qu 1ity in the middle
and lower reaches of the Charles River. For a full dL cu sion of the consequences
of locating a plant in the middle reaches of the Charles River, Gee “Report
of the Middle Charles Sewage Treatment Study Committee” to the 4el1cs1ey Board
of Selectmen, tecember, 1975.
The report of the Site—Selection Conraittee lists ten additional sites,
(Sites 10 through 19) that were added for consideration during the Comitnittee’s
deliberations. The Wellesley representati’ es feel that a further explanation
is necessary in order to evaluate four of these sites’ potential for inland
sewage treatment plants. Three of the3e locations (site (4 - Pond Road, Site 17 -
Wellesley Incinerator, and Site 18 — Wellosley Office Park) were not considered
to be serious candidates by the Welles ley representatives who nominated them.
Rather, they constitute an exhaustive list of open sites or non-residentially
zoned parcels of 38 acres or more that were available within the Town and
seemingly meritcd.consideration. This list served to demonstrate the difficulty
in finding a suitable site for an inland sewage treatment plant in Welle3ley.
The IJellesley representatives did not attempt to identify comparable sites
in any of the other three tweicipalittea that were part of the Study area.
A—365

-------
state1 nt to he attached to an M.D.C. Report on the Site-Selection
Process for a Mid-Charles Sewage Trentnent Plant
2
That task was left to the representatives of those rnember nunicipalities.
The butt site, (Site 19 — Vellesley Country Club) was suggested by a l atick
representative. The Wellesley representatives do not consider it to be an
acceptable candidate. It is part of the Town’s welifield aquifer, a part
of the Town’s open space system and otherwise unsuitable for consideration.
The Wellesley representatives are also in receipt of a Member Report by
Shirley H. Brown, a Natick representative, which includes a recommendation of
four possible sites, in declining priority, for the placement of an inland
sewage treatment plant to se rve the Mid-Charles area. At the outset, the
Wellesley representatives would like to restate their disagreement with the
conclusion reached by Mrs. Brown that such a Mid-Charles Sewage Treatment Plant
is superior to other alternatives for handling the waste water management
problem that presently results in the pollution of Boston P.arbor, the primary
ncern of the E.M.M.A. Study. It is true that such a plant would augment the
Charles River under low flow conditions, but the Wellesley representatives feel
there are other ways of doing this should low flow augmentation be proven
necessary. Furthermore, the Wellesley representatives believe the critical reach
of the Charles River which requires highest priority for low flow augmentation is
actually upstream of the discharge point propo3ed for a )fld-Charlea Sewage
Treatment Plant. An extended discussion of alternatives with respect to low-flow
augmentation actions is found in the “Report of the Middle ctharles Sewage Treatment
Study Committee” that was referred to earlier in this statement.
The Wellesley representatives believe that further coements on one of the
sites proposed by Mrs. Brown, which lies partly in Wellesley, are in order.
The other sites are all in adjacent municipalities, and we leave it to the
representatives of those towns to cossnent on the particular sites if they
desire. Hrs.Broun lists as priority site No. 2, a tract of land lying partly
A- 3 6

-------
state to he attached to an M.D.C. Report on the Site-Sehction
ProcesS for a Mid-Charles Sewage Treatnent Plant
‘t’jge 3
withjn Wellesley and partly w ithin Needharn which would include the present Wellesley
Incinerator. We cannot concur that this is an acceptable site for a Mid-Charles
Sewage Treatment Plant. of the site is actually within wetlands 29
defined by the State Dept. of Natural Resources. The remainder of the site
fs on high ground that presently is used for solid waste disposal activities.
The term “incinerator” is misleading, because no burning is done in the area;
all materials being either re—cycled or transferred for disposal at an out-of—town
location. Most of the land not identified as tlands is used for these solid
waste disposal/re—cycling functions. In addition to the land being not avail-
able because of its use for other waste di pos l processes, the section of the
site in 1.Iellesley would not aeet the distance criteria with respect to residential
areas. Furthermore, there is no railroad track near the site and the roedway
that would have to be used to haul materials, such as sludge if it is nut dispoa j
of by on-site burning, is lined with residential structures. Turning that
Street, despite the fact that it has a State highway nurnber designation, and
the other connecting streets along which these trucks would have to travel,
into a haul road for sludge-laden trucks and other heavy con rcial vehicles
associated with the maintenance and operation of a sewage treatment plant
would be completely incompatible with the residential structures now lining the
streets for miles in both directions.
In conclusion, the Wellesley representatives wish to re—emphasize the
observation in the report that none of the sites meet all of the criteria
for an inland sewage treatment plant and conclude further that probably no
site can be found within the four town study area which would meet all of the
criteria for an inland sewage treatment plant.
A—367

-------
APPENDIX 3.5.1-2
GROUI D-WAT I4A AGE • T
CEARL RiV 5ASI , MASSACHUS TS
Section 3.03
This report is one input to the Southeastern New England Study. It is
a preliminary version and subject to review; co ents and criticians
are welcome and will be compiied as an addendum. A new single—Durpose
report will not be produced. Rather, this report and. all reco er ded.
revisions will be integrated into a lti—purpose par. which wil be
produced by the combined efforts of’ the participating Federal and
State agencies and citizens.
By Michael H. Frimpter
United States Department of the Interior
Geological Survey
Open—rile report
1973
A— 368

-------
COI TENTS
Section Title Page
CONTENTS ii
FIGURES AND TABLES
1.0 DISTRIBUTION AND CHARACT ISTICS OF GROUND—WAT
R OURCES 1-1
2.0 WATER DEM.UD, USE, AND AVAILABILITY 2-1
2.1 Be11ingha. 2-5
2.2 Dedharn 2—5
2.3 Dover 2—6
2.1 Franklin 2—6
2.5 Ho11is on 2—7
2.6 Lincoln 2—7
2.7 Medfield 2—7
2.8 Medway 2—8
2.9 Millis 2—8
2.10 Natick 2—8
2.11 Needham 2—8
2.12 Norfolk 2—9
2.13 Sher’oorn 2—9
2.1k Wellesley 2—9
2.15 Wrentham 2—9
3.0 FACTORS AFFECTING WATER AVAILABILITY 3—1
4• 0 STREA1Q ’LCW AUG!. TATION WITH GROUND WATER
5.0 WATER QUALITY 5—1
6.0 CONCLUSIONS 6—j.
7.0 SELECTED REFERENCES 7—1
A—369

-------
FIGURES AI D TA.BLES
Section Title ge
1.0 DISTRIBUTION AND CHARACT ISTICS OF GROUND—WAT
R WRCES
Table 1—A Ground—water quality of public supplies
in Charles River basin 1 _Li
Figure 1—1 Map of Charles River basin At back
Figure 1—2 Map showing principal i id—water
reservoirs in the Charles River basin
2.0 WATER DEMA ND, USE, AND AVAILABILITY
Table 2—A Public ground—water supplies of the
Charles River basin 2—3
3.0 FACTORS AFFECTII WATER AVAILABILITY
Figure 3-1 Graph showing expected flow of the
Charles River at Waltha.r. 3—3
4.0 STREA LCW AUG?’ TATION WITH GROUND WAT
Figure 4—1 Graph shoving delayed effect of ground-
water withdrawal on strea lcw
Figure 4—2 Graph showing nir.i iu distance required
between auguentation wells and streans
5.0 WATER QUALITY
Figure 5—1 Diagraatic section showing undergrour.d
path of landfill leaohates 5—5
6.0 CONClUSIONS
Table 6—A Evaluation of alternative solutions 6—3
A— 370
111

-------
1.0 DISTRIBUTIC:; AN C CT lSTCS OF GRCUND—WAT RESOURCES
The Charles River basin is well endowed with ground—water resources
and, exclusive of the Boston metropolitan area inside Route 128, about
90 percent of the municipal si piies are derived from ground water. A
study of the ground—water resources of the basin by Walker, Wand.le, and
Caswefl, of the U.S. Geological Survey, is nearing completion. with
their reports, the inventory of ground—water supplies arid ground—water
reservoirs will be complete.
Major ground—water reservoirs in the Chares River basin occur as
thin, irregularly shaped deposits of sand and -avei figs. 1—1 and 1—2).
They lie primarily in low fiat areas adjacent to the Charles River, its
tributaries, and some lakes. These reservoirs naturally discharge water
to the streans of the area and are a major fa ctorinsustainino
streamflow during periods of little rainfall arid .oigh evapotranspiratico.
They are represented by conceDtual ie1s types A, 3, and C, as described
in section 2 01, the Introductory Svdrolc r Section of this renort.
harac erist cally, the detailed geologic structure of the aquifers is
cd p1ex and exploratory drilling and hydrologic testing is required for
optimal well location. The average yield of 55 wells constructed in the
sand and gravel acuifer for large suprlies is reported by Walker, Wandle,
a d Caswell (written co un., 19T3) to be about 600 m (gallons per
minute). Wells tapping the bedrock aquifer generally yield only a few
gallons per minute as in st other locations in southeastern New
England.
A—371
1—1

-------
1-
U,
0
0
420 15’
2 0 2
BaS fl bour iary
(Adapted ‘rc Walker,
and Caswell, biished data.)
Figure 1-2.--Prnc_ a .. gr n i- ater reservoirs (stippled)
b NAT
C )
0
42°15’—
4
0
0
42—4

-------
Water in the aquifers is generally of good chemical quality,
suitable for domestic and industrial uses (table i—A). It is soft,
slightly acidic, and generally free of suspended solids and bacterial
contamination. Water with high concentrations of iron and manganese and
associated high degree of color, which exceeds U.S Public Health Service
(1962) reco menied limits for d2’inking water, is obtained from some we s
and causes clogging of well screens. Follution of ground water th
highway deicing salt is a problem and solit—waste leachate is becoming a
problem to Ground—water ;‘oaity. The generally pccr ;‘oality of water in
the lower reach of the Charles River, a potential so ce of ground—water
recharge for st ound—vater reservoirs, also represents a potentiaL
degrading inf uence.
A—373
1—3

-------
Table l-A.--Ground-water qu lity of public supplies in Charles River basin
(Range of water quality reported by MassachusettB Departhient of Public Health, 1970)
City or town Color p1- I Hardness Iron Manganese Chloride Sodium
mg/i mg/i mg/i mg/i mg/i
Bellinghe n 2-8 6.3 -6.4 21-34 0.01-0.21 0.00-0.03 4.3-14 3.9-9
Dedham 0-22 6.0-6.6 42-90 .01-1.0 .01-1.8 25-110 8-80
Dover 15 6.6 162 .96 .00 198
Franklin 0-2 5.2-6.2 26-36 .00- .12 .00- .22 11-16 6.1-9
Holliston 1-6 6.1-6.6 30-46 .07- .35 .00- .29 14-47 5.0-25
Lincoln 4. 6.5 63 .13 .01 28 14
Me&field 0-5 6.5-8.6 25-74 .01- .05 .00-. .04 9.0-4.4 11-21
Medway 3-4 6.2-6.6 27-67 .02- .24 .01- .06 15-23 13-14
Mllford 13 6.3 32 2.9 .62 14 --
Millis 9-40 6.3-6.4 70-71 .02- .05 .00 32-36 13-14
Natick 4-8 6.4-7.4 80-105 .01- .03 .08- .4.3 29-117 14-39
Needham 2-4 6.2-6.9 67-81 .01- .03 .00- .01 29-43 13-26
Norfolk 0-27 6.2-8.4 25-105 .01-1.8 .00- .10 9-55 4.7-18
Wellesley 0-5 6.5-7.2 68-87 .02- .23 .02- .32 44-w 20-22
Weston 0-4. 6.2-6.7 78-248 .01- .08 .00- .02 46-279 34-119
Wrentham 2-4 6.0-6.3 31-91 .00 .01- .09 lj-lä 5.8-6.6

-------
2.0 WATER DEMAND, USE, AND AvAILAB:ll:’-
Historically, ound water has been a ma,jor source of supply for the
people in the basin. In 1873, Waltham dug a large—diameter well close to
the bank of the Charles River, and by 1935 the town was supplied by two
additional large—diameter wells. Brookline, in 1875, constructed an
infiltration gallery over 1,000 feet long adjacent to the Thames River
in Boston. In 1918, the town added an iron and manganese treatment
plant. By 1935, the town had installed an additional l,LOC feet of
infiltration galleries and, in Dedham, installed 175 small—diameter
veils. Newton also obtained -o’zid water from an infiltration gallery
and veils ad acent to the Charles River in the town of Ieedham. This
system, aided by recharge basins, had a capacitY of 8 d (mlllicn
gallons per lay) in 193 . Because of increasing water demand arid
deteriorating water cuality in the Charles River, Newton, Brookline, and
Waltham abandoned these sources and now obtain water transported from
western Massachusetts through the Metropolitan District Co ission (MDC)
system.
Recently, a high—capacity well of Weston became cont nated with
highway deicing salt causing the town to Durchase water from the MDC.
Also, a potential high—yield well site in Wellesley was rejected by the
Massachusetts DeDal ment of Public Health because the site was close to
the Charles River and a trunk sewer line. Withdrawa would have diverted
water from the already low flow of the Charles River and might have
intercepted leakage from the sewer.
A—375

-------
As urbanization of the basin continues, stress on the water
resources of the basin is expected to increase. If trends continue,
towns progressively farther upstream from the Boston metropolitan area
will be .ziable to meet demands with local water supplies and will look t.
water imported from the Connecticut Valley by the MDC. Wellesley,
Needhain, Iedham, and part of Natick are the next four towns upstream from
Newton, Brookline, and Waltham that have large water demands (17.28 d
in 1970) and strong population growth (a. 28 percent increase Dro )ected
for 1990).
The 1970 water consumptior. and 1970 pumping capacity for towns in
the basin are shown in table 2—A. Most of the rural towns are expected
to double or triple in population by 1990. If these predictions are
accurate and per capita water consumption increases at anticipated rates,
water demand for some of these towns may quadruple.
A—3 76

-------
r:)
U)
e, estimate.
t includen water
Tebie 2—A.—— Publia grouri4—i.at r pp Li. ør
CMABLES RXVZ1 ASXN
(All figures in million gallons per d*y.)
City
or
town
1970 average
daily water
consumption
1970 average
daily
ground-water
Ground-water
production
capacity
Other water sources
and remarks
production
Dellin,ghajn
0.85
0.85
2.2
BOSWN
141.68
0
--
MDC.
Brookline
7.38
0
--
MDC.
CAMBRIDGE
22.59
0
--
MDC.
Dedham
3.79
6.38
f 7.72
2.58 mad exported to Weetwood.
Dover
.07e
.07e
.07
Private wells.
Franklin
1.47
1.47
2.39
Holliston
.88
.88
1.91
Lexington
4.51
0
--
MDC.
Lincoln
.43
.30e
.72
Sandy Pond, iron
problems at potential well sites.
Medfield
Medway
.93
.66
.93
.66
1.10
1.77
Includes State Hospital wells.
Miltord
1.60
.4e
.43
Charles River.
Hulls
.64
.64
1.00
Natlck
6.39
6.39
9.16
Needham
3.45
2.41
3.40
MDC, Iron problems.
NE\41\JN
11.62
0
--
jjc.
Norfolk
.61e
.61e
--
Private wells.
Sherborn
0
0
—-
Private wells.
WALTHAM
10.79
0
--
MDC.
Watertown
4. 8
0
--
MDC.
Wellesley
3.65
3.65
7.71
Inc lthJe8 0.28 mgd fro, college.
Weston
1.12
.30
2.1
MDC.
Wrenthrtra
.99
.99
2.00
Includes 0.46 mgd frau StAte
sc ioo1.
Droduced from wells In Ne!)onset River Msln.

-------
Nine of’ the 2 Charles River planning area towns arid cities do not
seem to contain ground—water resources capable of meeting their estimated
1990 water demands.
? ximum day
Municipality demand, in mgi 1
Boston 187
Brookline 15.6
Cambridge 414• L4
Lexington U .
Milford 5.9
Newton 28.3
Waltham 19.8
Watertown 11.8
Weston 716
11990 demand estimates from “Alternative regional water supt’ly systems
for the Boston 4etropolitan Area,” by Ca , Dresser and McKee, ccns tim
engineers (1971).
In 1970 all these municipalities were obtaining water from surface
sources.
Eleven municipalities appear to have enough favorable land to
warrant further exploration, with the objective o ’ revealing and devel-
oping ound—water resources to meet 1990 demands. ifl addition, Dedham,
Franklin, Natick, and Wreritham y be unable to meet their estimated 1990
water demands with ound water from within their bcundaries.
A— 378
2—]4

-------
2.1 Bellingham
In 1970, only 0.85 mgd of ground water was used, although a 2.2 ngd
pumping capacity was available. Estimated maximum—day demand for 1990 is
about rngd for a population of 25,900. The most favorable areas for
round—water exploration are along the north and west sides of the
Charles River (fig. 1—i).
2.2 Dedham
The Dedham Water Comcamy serves Dedham and st of Westwood with
round water from the Charles River basin and the Neponset River basin.
In 1970, the company had a pumping capacity of 7.7 mgd. In 1970,
Eedham’s average daily water consumption was 3.8 mgi, but its 1990
average daily demand is expected to be ..6 mgi. Also, in 1970 Westwood’s
average daily water consumption was 0.9 mgi, but its 1990 average daily
demand is expected to be 2 mgi. The 1990 maximum—day demands for Dedham
and Westwood are expected to be ii.3 mgi and .1 mgd, respectively.
Although the existing pumping capacity in Westwocd is 4.9 mgi, enough to
et its 1990 demand, Dedham does not have present capacity to meet its
estimated 1990 maximum—day demand.
The areas most favorable for exploration for additional ground—water
81 p1ies lie on the flood plains of the Charles and Neponset Rivers
(fig. i—i). Perhaps some of the abandoned well field areas adjacent to
the Charles River in Boston and Newton could be recoi iss!oned to
:3 plement Dedham’s supply. However, high iron and manganese concentra-
tions in the water might require treatment, and ground—water withdrawals
i n these areas would deplete the flow of the Charles River.
A—379
2—5

-------
2.3 Dover
The 1990 estimated maximum—day water demand is only 1.8 mgd. Expi o—
ration of the areas indicated as favorable for groi. d—water exploration
in figure 1—1 could reveal sufficient ground—water potential to meet this
demand.
2.L j jj
Although well endowed with areas favorable for the exploration for
gro tmd water, the possibility of the toy being able to supply 3.5 rngd,
the estimated 1990 aver e daily demand, seems to be poor. The watershed
of the type A and B ground—water reservoir in Mine Brook valley is sma 1.
Therefore, the natural inflow from precipitation is a major limit on
potential water—supply development from these grcund—va:er reservoirs.
The drainage area that could contribute to the recharge of the ground-
water reservoirs is less than i) square miles. Measurements of the flow
of Mine Brook downstream from these ground—water reservoirs were made ir
1969 and 1970.
Date Discharge (mgd )
10—31—69 3.6
1. - 6—70 59
Ii —2 1—70 18
7—29—70 2
8—12—70 2.8
8—26—70 3.6
A—380 2—6

-------
If an average of 3.5 ngd and a maximum of 6.8 mgd is withdrawn from
ound—water reservoirs ad jacent to Mine Brook, considerable stre flow
depletion will occur and the water table and pond levels will be lowered
as well. Quantification of these impacts caused by ground—water
i .thdraval is dependent on description of the disposition of waste water.
Waste water sewered out of the drainage area would cause streanftv
depletion about e ua1 to ground—water withdrawal. Franklin and Medvay
are planning a regional sewage treatment plant with direct discharge to
the Charles Fiver.
2.5 Holliston
A pumping capacity of .9 d has been develo ed and additional
si plies may be located to meet the town’s estimated 1990 maximum—day
demand of ,.l mgi.
2.6 Lincoln
Water surp l ies have been developed from a well off Tower Road and
from Sandy Fond in the Charles River basin. Average of 3. 43 mgi was
si p1ied from these sources in 1970. Additional ground—water supplies
can be developed that are sufficient to meet the estimated :993 maximum—
day demand of 3.1 mgd from a previously tested site adjacent to the
Sudbury River. The water, however, would probably recuire treatment for
the remcvai cf iron.
2.7 Neifieli
Ground—water supplies capable of meeting the town’s estimated 1993
maximum—day demand of mgd might be developed. The areas most favorable
for exploration lie along the Charles River (fig. i—i).
A—381 2—7

-------
2.8 Medway
There is presently a 1.8 mgd ground—water supply, and additional
und—water sources to meet its estimated 1990 m cimum—day demand of
2.7 mgd can probably be located. A favorable area fcr exploration
crosses the Charles River in the eastern part of town near the Mills
town line (figs. l 1 and 1—2).
2.9 Millis
There seems to be several areas favorable for the location of
ground—water souroes (fig. 1— I), and the 1 mgd system can proba’tly be
exoanded to meet the estimated 1993 maximum—day demand of 3.8 mgd.
2.10 Natich
The pumping capacity already developed equals the towns’ estimated
1990 average—daily demand, and its ound—water surply might possibly be
expanded to neet the 15.1 d estimated 1990 maximum—day demand.
Increased grount—water withdrawal, however, will lower lake levels. :
addition, Lake Cochituate and 4orses Pond, which are major souces of
infiltration fcr mcst of Natick’s wells, are receiving increasing
quantities cf dissolved minerals ( stiy sodium chloride) from the
drainage of four major highways.
2.11 Needham
The town has ground—water sources and also obtains water from the
C. Its use of water from both sources will probably be expanded to
et its estimated 1990 maximu iay demand of 9.7 mgd. Additional
ground—water withdrawals will deplete the flow of the Charles River,
however,
A— 382
2—8

-------
2.12 Norfolk
There are three large areas favorable for locating ground water
(figs. 1—1 and 1—2). Exploration of these areas would probably reveal
ound—water sources capable of surDlyIng the 2.5 mgd estimated for
ma cimum—day demand in 1990.
2.13 Sherborn
The town does not have a public water—surply system. An estimated
1990 maximum—day demand of 2 mgd might be supplied from ground—water
sources if ex oration in the va .eys of Ltdian Dooping Brook, or
a few smaller areas (fig. i—i) is successful.
2.lb Weilesley
Ground—water sources capable of surrlying T.5 mgd have been devel-
oped, but estimated 0993 maximum—day demand is about 9.5 mgi. Hiobly
successful e c 1craticn in the past indicates that the town ma’; be able to
develop an additional 2.3 mgi to meet 0993 maximum—day demand. Additional
o md—vater withdrawal, h ever, will cause depletion of the flow of the
Charles River.
2.15 Wretthan
The town straddLes the drainage divides between the Charles Biver,
Taunton River, and Tenmile River basins. Therefore, although the geolo
is favorable for the development of wells, the yield of these wells is
limited by the sma watersheds of the t: e A ground—water reservoirs.
Pi ping of ground—water supplies to meet a 3. mgd average daily water
demand for 1993 would lower recreational pond levels and deplete
Streanflow. The degree to which these impacts would be felt is largely
dependent on recycling waste water, as previously descr ’ced for the town
of ñ ankijn.
A—383 2—9

-------
3.0 FACTORS AFFECT::; L::
The hydrologic system of the Charles River basin is stressed, and
many of these stresses and their results have been described in detail r.
scientific, engineering, and planning reports and have received
considerable attention in newspapers. The high r -e f - a:er - i:. the
basin is fundamental to the water troblems of Charles River basin
hydrology. Through what is probaby the oldest canal in the United
States, a diversion constructed in 1639, one third of the flow of the
Charles River nay be diverted to the e cnset River through Mother Br:
for industrie. use. Most of the runoff from 23.6 souare mfles of the
Stony Brook basin is dive ed for municipal water su;ply in Cambridge.
Apprcxinate: y I i of ground water punped from the :asin is discharged
outside the basin as sewage. Many sources of pulluticn, paroicular-y an
Milford and in the lower reaches f the Charles, degrade the river water
to a quality unsuitable for st uses.
It is the intent of this repcz to explore the relationships ‘be:weer.
the hydrology of the basin and ground—water use. Crou nd water is
sometimes erroneously considered as an alternate water source independent
of surface sources within a hydrologic basin. nether the water
diverted from a basin comes frcm a surface reservoir, ground —Water
reservoir, or stream, the quantity of water diverted from the basin
lost from that basin and is iavaiaLle for subse uent use. Consider the
conceptual hydrc ogio dels of aquifer t Tes A, B, and C in the
Introductory 1 ydrology Cection (2.31) of this report. For water
management and accounting purposes these de1s represent the Charles
River hydrologic system fairly well.
A— 384
3-i

-------
The Charles River baSin faces a water quantity and quality crisis
far eater than even its present degraded condition indicates. The
trend in the Bcstcn metropolitan area, as in st such areas, has been to
extend sewerage service into the basin soon after the spread c$
urbanization. Presently, about 20 cfs (c ic feet per second) of ground
water pu ed in the Charles River basin is dIscharged into the ocean
throu€h the Metropolitan District Coo dssion sewerage system. If a large
propoftion of a basin’s groi.z d—water suop - is pumoed cut of the basin,
the negative effect on ground—water resources as well as streanflow will
be pronounced.
To visualize the res ts of present trends, consider the highly
prob ly situation wherein edham, ) eeiban, Wellese:r, and part of Natick
et their pr:, ected 1990 water deands w:th water derived frorn the basin
and that, after use, all this water Is sewered out of the basin. The
estimated averaoe daily :990 demands of these towns is about 00.5 cfs
eater than in 1970. As of 1970, the discharge of the Tharles River at
Waltham was eoual to or less than 10.5 cfs 2.5 percent of the time, or
9 da rs during an average year (fig. 3—1). Therefore, if the st.reaicf lcw
re 1ation remains unchanged, if the water consumption increases as
predicted, end if the sewage is discharged outside the basin, the flow of
the Charles River at Waltham will be expected to approach zero for
approximately 9 days during an average year. Rowever, because the
ximum cnthly demand is expected to be 1.2 times greater than the
average demand and is exoected. to occur when streamfiow is lowest, the
flow of the river will be exoecced to approach zero for approximately
114 days during an average year.
A—3 5

-------
_________ _____________ jo oc; o :. .. T
::.:i -. --
)50 02 05 2
90 i
TT -
- - — — - . -.. .--
i’ t::r. based r ric .
.TtJ. eo rd ( 3 .c-66)
—+-- Expected r :w rat1on
I e 3 are e
- ‘ - . - tasin a a dlccts&rged ttr €. ext-:
-. - : . . . . - :::. sever 1i s and a :t er
t aj ed.
- - - - — - . -- - — = c .x c ted ‘1 rat cr r .
1 I . J IiiLIii de . 5 are et - - w&te fr- - .e EE
ra .n s .c . . - &. J . ae age isc .a ; . -
- . - - -‘-- . outsi 1e the basin a
- —- -- -- -- t1 - re .a r u . cc r: .
- - . — - - -- • - - ._ - L . ._ - - .- - --- -
. - _ - . - - .----- - . _ _ ._.- . . - -- -r -: - . -
\ : c. .
- : li .
- ___________
— --.--— - - .- - ,- - _-—- ——
1 1 - - -- - -- -
- _ .3! •. .... . - .-.- _ !.. . ‘_
________________ = . —_____
-T — — —-- —
_________________________ -_ -
- - . . - - . . 1 —— -.
—
____ -. - - .: .- J
_ __

- -—— —
_____________________________________________
____ -: ; : _ L .L- i i L L - .

-— -——— - --—- z _____. _ _
- — — , - — - . - — . p - - -
‘ ‘ 1
5 *0 20 33 40 50 6C 70 SO 93 5 95 99 5 99 5 9 c
Pereenta.ge of time r s eq a .ec exceeded
oosc o2 o 2
Figure 3_L__Exp.Cted flow cf te Cbarles River at Wa .1t
3—3 A—386
0
C)
x
C-
I-
N
C)
N
U
C)

-------
If by 1990 all water used in the basin is severed to the ocean, the
flow of the river would approach zero at Waltham approximately 15 percent
of the time, or 55 days out of an average year.
Use of the Charles River and its tributaries as ground—va
recharge sources and for assimilation and transport of secondary or
tertiary treated sewage effluent is compatible. With a program of
recycling water through the natural hydrologic system, ground—water
resources would be conserved; and n st, if not all, towns presently
dependent on this resource would be able to meet 1990 demands without
importing water. Flows in the river would also be maintained. The
greatest cost would be sewage and ether waste—treatment facilities, a
cost that may be ultimately the lowest of all alternative costs if
o d—water resources are to be retained arid river—related resources and
esthetic values are to be improved.
A— 387

-------
L .O STBHA1 LDW AUG TATIO WITH GHOU D WAT
The problem of low flows in the Charles River during July, August,
and September could be alleviated by flow au entation. The source of
water for au entation might be diversion from another strew, storage i
surface reservoirs, or ground—water reservoirs.
All ground—water reservoirs i the basin have hydrologic connection
with the river or its tributaries, and withdrawal of water fron them will
reduce strewl’iow by inducing infiltration and by intercepting ground-
water runoff that would normally discharge ‘to the strew. However,
because of the relatively slow water transmission properties of aquifers,
the effect of ground—water withdrawal may not effect streamflow for many
days after punping begins (fig. .—1). This lag effect can be managed to
allow large withdrawals from ground—water reservoirs during low—flow
periods and to defer infiltration effects or. streanflow to periods when
streamflow is not critically low. I o major factors controlling the
desigr of well fields for streanflow ai entation are: (1) the trans—
ssivity of the aquifer, and (2) the distance of the well from the river
or tributary. The re transaissive the aquifer is, the re rapidly the
effects of withdrawal will reach the river.
A—3 88

-------
Well 2,000 feet from atresa.
Pi. ping period 30 daye.
Tran izieeivity 14,000 feet e uared per day.
Storage coefficient 0.20.
ABe,n e no recharge from precipitation. :
1.’’’
120 1140 160 180 200
///////
( &)
00
‘.D
I I

DAYS AF R flJMFU 0 BEGAN
Figure 14-l.--Delayed effect on ground-water withdrawal on atreemtlow.

-------
The transmissivities of aquifers capable of yielding 1 cfs to single
wells in the Charles River basin range from 3,000 to about 10,000 feet
squared per day. Based on techniques described by C.T. Jenkins (1970) of
the U.S. Geological Survey, the relationship between aquifer transn
sivity and well to river distance is determined for aq iifers puped for
20—, 30—, 60—, and 90—day periods using a maxinum allowable strean
depletion to pumpage ratio of 1:10 (fig. 14—2). Aquifers with transiols—
sivities less than 3,000 feet squared per day probably do not occur with
sufficient water—saturated thickness to yield I cfs to single wells.
Inspection of hydrogeologic ps of the basin prepared by Walker, Wandle,
and Caswell of the U.S. Geological Survey shows that in glacial outwash
only 9 sites are favorable for ground—water exploration at 2,500 feet or
re, 22 sites at 2,000 feet or more, and 66 sites at 1,500 feet or r re
from the Charles River or its tributaries. Aquifer properties for these
sites are not well known, and it is probable that about 75 percent of the
sites would be eliminated from consideraticn because of insufficient well
yields due to low transmissivity or because of transmissivities high
enough to allow re than 10 percent river depletion before the end of
the pumping period.
In summary, in the Charles River basin there appears to be no possi-
bilities for locating wells capable of yielding 1 cfs that could ‘be
pumped for 90 days without depleting streamfiow more than 10 percent
during the pumping period. There are probably less than two possibi1it e5
(75 percent failure for 9 sites) for locating wells that could be pumped
60 days, less than six possibilities (75 percent failure for 22 sites)
for locating wells that could be pumped 30 days, and 17 possibilities
(75 percent failure for 66 sites) for locating wells that could be p 1 , ped
20 days for augmentation of streanflow.
A—390
4— 3

-------
4000
K
z ________ ___________
F .
a)
2000
F.
K
3000
F.
C)
0
TRANSMISSIVITY, I 7EZT 8QUAR D PS DAY
Figure 4 -2.--Minimum distance required between augmentation
wells and streams to insure stream.fiow depletion will not
exceed 10 percent of pumping rate under variable aquifer
transmlssivity (T) after 20, 30, 60, and 90 days pumping.
A—391
4-4
H
.

:HiJ ::T
per.
second t C r1es tver baCtn
I i
i I11F
000 2000 34 )0 4D00 5000 70bQ

-------
To estimate cost of augmenting streamflow with 1 ngd for 30 days,
construction costs for land, pipeline, wells, exploration, and testing
are considerations. Using cost estimates made for the North Atlantic
Regional Water Resources Study, Appendix 1), Geolo ,’ and Ground Water
(U.S. Geological Survey, 1971) and reasonable distance requirements, as
outlined in this report, the cost of installation of a single well, 1 d
(1.5147 cfs) augmentation system is:
Test well (75 ft.)—————————————————— $1,350
Production wel (75 ft. x 114 in.)—————— 2,550
Screen (20 ft. x 10 in. )—————————————————— 1,1430
Development (3 days )——————————————————————— 600
Pump (Too gpm)———————-——————————————————— 5,0140
Well house————————————— — —— 2,500
Test (148 hours)—————————————— —————— 960
1gineering and contingencies———————————— 3,600
Pipeline construction (about 2,000 ft.)—————— 26,500
Right—of—way easement s——————————————————— 8 o
Total cost—————— $145,380
A—392 45

-------
Amortization of the cost of this installation is computed to cover
interest on the initial cost of 5—1/8 percent and payments to a depreci-
ation fund over a 25—year period. Annual a rtization cost is estimated
to be $3,330. Maintenance costs are estimated at 0.50 percent per year
for the well and 0.25 percent per year for the pipeline for a total of
$165. Power costs of $270 are estimated to pumD 1 mgd for 30 days.
Amortization 3,330
Maintenance —— 165
Power— 270
Annual cost—— 3,765
This amounts to $125.50 per day to increase streamfiow 1 mgd for
30 days, a rate of 12.55 cents per thousand gallons. The cost of
installation of facilities capable of a’ enting streamflow with 10 mgd
would be about 10 times the cost for 1 mgd or $14 3,870. The daily cost
to au ent streamflow by 10 mgd is, therefore, estimated to be $1,255.
The flow of the Charles River at Waltham is 31 cfs or less for
30 days during an average year. The addition of 9 mgd (10 mgd pumpage
—1 d streanflow depletion) or 114 cfs during this pericd will au ent
streamflow by at least 145 percent during those days.
In conclusion, these estimates are presented for comparison with
other estimates for au enting low flows in the Charles River and other
programs for upgrading river water quality. They are intended to be a
guide for planning decisions and only a first approximation for possible
engineering and design.
A— 393
14—6

-------
5.0 WATER QUALITY
Disposal of liquid and solid waste on or below ground surface is a
threat to the quality of ground and surface water. The disposal of
noxious liquid wastes below land surface in the Charles River basin !s
not practical because of unfavorable geologic conditions. Only near—
surface rocks (less than 150 feet deep) in the Charles River basin ‘nave
sufficient porosity to accept si ificant quantities of liquid waste.
Subsurface disposal of liquid wastes such as sewage is difficult and
expensive owing to the tendency of suspended solids to clog injection
veils and the receiving rock. Sewage, before being inJected into a well
on I ng island, N.Y. (Cohen and others, 1966), receives tertiary
treatment (the effluent meets drinking water standards). Benefits fro
this injection are increased recharge to e aquifer and a pressure
barrier to salt—water intrusion, in addition to the disposal of waste
water. In the Charles River basin, however, the need for au entation c ’
streamflow ic much greater than the need for ground—water recharge, and
salt—water intrusion is not a problem. It would, the” efore, seea rnore
advantageous to discharge tertiary treated sewage into streans rather
than into ground—water reservoirs.
Surface disposal by spray irrigation of sewage re u.ires large
acreages of land (no less than 21 acres per 1,000 people) and large
networks of distribution pipes. Iii a high value land area such as the
Charles River basin, other disposal methods are probably i re practical.
A— 394
5—1

-------
Practical disposal of solid wastes in landfills is possible, but
leachates formed by water percolating downward through the refuse become
highly concentrated with dissolved solids of particularly noxious
character. An analysis of leachate from DuPage County, Illinois, listed
j “ ydrogeolo of solid waste disposal sites in northeastern Illinois”
by Hughes, Landori, and Farvolden (1969) showed very high concentrations;
Dissolved solids— 13,1409 mg/I
Chemical 0 cjgen Demand——— 145,6146
Organic acids— ————— 9,200
Hardness (as CaCC3)—--—— — — 10,600
Su lfate———--—————— —— 11200
Sodium (estimated)———— —— 1,292
Chloride——————————————— 2,000
T7 .
On a basis of iron concentration alone, 1 gallon of this extreme example
of leachate could contaminate slightly re than 2,800 gallons of iron-
free water to a level unacceptable for public drinking water, under
U.S. Public Health Service reco endei limits. A sample of ground water
from the Natick Dump area had 1,160 ng,’l (milligrams per liter) dissolved
solids due to leachates. Landfill leachates obviously are potent sources
of contamination.
A— 395
5—2

-------
Co liance with regulations for sanitary landfills ad.mdnistered ‘cy
the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (1971) can prevent degra-
dation of major ground—water reservoirs. Re lation 2 of “Regulations
for the disposal of solid wastes by sanitary landfill of the Commonwealtr.
of Massachusetts” contains rules pertinent to ground—water quality.
Section 2.3, part (e) states that it is necessary to “evaluate public
i ortance of ground—water supply to be affected ‘by the operation” and
Section 2.14 states, in part, that “no area shall be considered tr
assigued (c) which does not provide for protection of all sources of
private and public water supplies.” Generally, the use of land for
sanitary landfill precludes the use of the sane land for ground—water
supply unless leachates are prevented fron reaching aquifers (Eugyies,
1972). Similarly, the use of ground—water recharge areas (fig. 1—i) for
sanitary landfill will contaminate aquifers unless leachates are
prevented from entering aquifers along with recharge water. Generally,
the more protective asures required in the iesi of sanitary landfill
operation, the more expensive the operation will be; sites requirin&
minimal protective asures are more economical to operate.
A— 396
5—3

-------
Preliminary evaluation of sites nay be made through use of the nap
in this report, which delineates ound—water reservoirs highly favorable
f r the location of wells capable of sustaining municipal water sup lies.
The ap also delineates the major areas of &ound—water recharge in the
Charles River basin. This map may be used as a guide to site selection,
but not as a substitute for site investigation and testing. Sanitary
landfill leachates may be discharged to nearby streams in the -ound—
water runoff (fig. 5—1). Such discharge would be st noticeable in
s ll streams, particularly during periods of low flow, when oreamflow
is sustained mainly by ground—water discharge. To estimate the effect on
stream water quality, leachate concentrations and quantities and groi.ztd—
water velocities are compared with the dilution potential of the stream.
Application of a fixed horizontal distance or separaticn requirement
(such as 63 feet) between a site and a stream may not be sufficient to
prevent si ificant deterioration of water quality and development of
nuisance conditions in some streams.
A—397
5 14

-------
Figure 5-1. --Underground path of landfill leachates
( )
‘ 0
‘I ) ,

-------
The concentration of chloride in uncontaminated ground water in
eastern Massachusetts ranges from 5 to 15 mg/i; however, contanination
from highway deicing salt has forced abandonment of some ound—water
supplies in southeastern New England. The Nickerson Field well, a I n d
supply in Weston, has been abandoned owing to chloride concentration in
excess of 250 mg/i. The well is located in a low area between two super
highways near a toll plaza and taps an aauifer that receives some of its
recharge from runoff from the pavement. A mixture of sodiun and calcium
chlorides applied to the pavement for snow and ice removal is carried in
solution by the ltwaters which recharge the aquifer. As a res’ilt the
chloride content of the water from the well increased.
Chloride concentration in water
from Weston’s Nickerson Field well
(Average concentration, in milligrans per liter)
1970 278
1969 172
1968 163
1967 162
1966 111
1965 95
l96L 66
5-6
A—399

-------
Similar increases of salt concentration in grotrnd water have been
reported in other areas adjacent to highways and salt—storage piles.
During the winter of 1969—TO, the application of deicing salt to Massa-
chusetts highways reached a record of 202,000 tons or about 21.75 tons
per lane mile annually. Additional deicing salts were also applied by
cities and towns. The Massachusetts Department of Public Works has
reco ized the need to investigate the migration and dispersion of salt
in the environment and in 1965 began a study in cooperation with the
U.S. Geological Survey. Through this irivestigat oc, it is anticipated
that more knowledgabie decisions can be made on:
(1) location of highways to minimize water supply and
environmental de adat ion
(2) desi of highway drainage or diversion of dissolved
salts along the least hazardous routes
(3) management of optimum application rates and programs
to minimize water supply and environmental de ada—
tion, while assuring safe highway deicing
( ) prediction and planning for maximum and minimum envi-
ron nta1 impact of deicing salt application under
various management schemes.
A—400 5_7

-------
Although complaints of deicing salt contamination of water supplies
are increasing, the problem has been well publicized and simple preven—
tive asures have generally been taken at storage and handling areas.
Uncovered salt—storage piles, which can be leached by rain water, once
the eatest source of contamination, are now rarely seen. Covering the
stored salt not only reduces the seepage of concentrated brine into the
ço md, but reduces the loss of salt. Storing on impermeable pads, with
controlled drainage, also reduces the release of salt to the environment.
Where a highway crosses aquifer recharge areas, controlled drainage
desi would seem to be effective in preventing contamination of cund
water. By diverting salt—contaminated meltwater from gro d—water
recharge areas through drainage desi i and structures, contamination of
sound—water may be avoided while allowing salt to be spread for safe
highway travel. To evaluate desi i alternatives, the additional cost of
a desi that prevents loss of a ound—water supply may be compared with
the cost of development of an alternate water s ply and the increased
costs of its operation. The diversion of salt—contaminated meltwater
directly to streams r y have an insi ificano effect on strea.m—water
q lity due to the dilution effect of the streamfiow, which is substan-
tial during snownelt periods. If the salt water is allowed to recharge
the aquifers, it will eventually discharge to streams during low
Strea flow periods, when dilution will be less effective.
A—401
5—8

-------
6.0 CONCWSIONS
If trends continue in the Charles River basin, ground—water
resources will continue to deteriorate in quantity and quality. Ground-
water supplies will be abandoned and demands for interbasin transfer of
water from the Connecticut and errimack drainage basins will increase.
As ground—water quality degrades, water of the Charles River will also
degrade, particularly during low—flow periods when streanflow is derived
al st entirely from gro id—water discharge. increased urbanization will
eliminate potential ground—water supplies, as was the case in Wellesley,
where the Massachusetts Department of Public Health rejected a proposed
veil becauseof the health hazard posed by a large nearby sewer line. Use
of solid—waste disposal in inadequate sanitary landfills will continue to
deteriorate water quality. Chloride content of water viii increase
throughout the basin if application of highway deicing salts increases.
Loss of ground—water supplies, however, will probably become less co on
because of protective asures applied to salt stockpiles.
Preliminary estimates of ground—water availability indicate that if
water quality does not deteriorate further, and if diversion from the
basin does not increase, nearly all towns presently dependent on ground
water can i et 1990 demands with ground water. Return of tertiary
treated used water to the basin vii ]. increase streamfiow during low—flow
periods, which will increase the value of the streams for ground—water
recharge by infiltration, for assimilation and transport of liquid waste,
and for esthetic qualities.
A— 402
6—i.

-------
Jobin, W.R., and Ferullo, A.F., 1971, Report on the Charles River: Mass.
Water Resources Comm., Div. of Water Pollution Control, 148 p.
Koteff, Carl, 19614, Surficial geolo of the Concord quadrangle, Massa—
chusetts: U.S. Geol. Survey Geol. Quad. Map G —331.
LaForge, Laurence, 1932, Geolo r of the Boston area, Massachusetts: U.S.
Geol. Survey Bull. 839, 105 p.
Massachusetts Department of Public Health, 1970, Report of routine
thenical and physical analyses of public water supplies in Massachu-
setts, 1970: Boston, MA, 97 p.
1971 , Regulations for the disposal of solid wastes by sanitary
landfill: General laws, chap. 839 of the Acts of 1970.
Swallow, L.A., Petersen, R.G., and Searles, G.M., 1971, Flood of March
1968 on the Charles River, Massachusetts: U.S. Geol. Su ey Hydrol.
m v. Atlas HA— 1 419.
JU.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, 1972, Charles River, Massachusetts:
Waltham, MA, 68 p., attachments, 2 volumes.
IU.S. vironmental Protection Agency, 1971, Charles River water—quality
study.: Boston, MA, app. E, 65 p. and attachments A—F.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1971, Geolc&r and ground water, in North Atlantic
re .onal water resources study: North Atlantic Regional Water
Resources Study Coordinating Committee, app. 0, 173 p.
U.S. Public Health Service, 1962 (revision), Public Health Service
drinking water standards: U.S. Dept. Health, Education, and Welfare,
Public Health Service, pub. no. 956, 61 p.
A—403
7—2

-------
Au ientation of streamflow by interbasin transfer of water may be a
solution to excessively low strea flow and poor water quality in the
Charles River basin. The configuration and physical properties of the
aquifers in the basin severely limit the length of time that streanflow
can be au ented with local -ound water.
Enforcexnen. of new regulations pertaining to new and present
sanitary landfills will help prevent deterioration of gro d—vater
quality. Geohydrologic investigation of potential sites will permit
desi of landfills and their operation to maintain water ; ality and the
environment. Similar investigation can apply to industrial wastes,
chemical stockpiles, and handling of noxious substances.
A— 404
6—2

-------
U ?rseasrnt sod raryciln 1 of
east. eat., to th . flee)...
tIle., to one. qoslity sod
qs.otltp 01 •tresfloo for
Iun ) ..w.ocr tfiltrstfua sod
Other roescas.
It ; ‘
bJa .4. .Ies*eahS .t alWeeeeIi..
r1a. Rise., (seuag..sbe. nhS .j 103
tlthr,mU e
rstia,l M 140,
a ert4_ i ae
5


ea.be .s..t
U . 0Js .stioc
‘
‘
t
ls . .ee i.
.eel ,mUea
‘
l

ie s a Sre.i
•euatl o ,
‘.
i
L. i sal
isltlb ,tieual
ieaUcst )ua.
5
S
,
O I 1 Iel
t 1odSttO 5•
S


‘

i U.stt e e.
£11 *.tabil.h S rei. l V . I. P
or SuWsorltp ho
eoo iln.to the a% of
ter resource. L a bbs upper
Chgr ).u River ba sin.
5 1 . 1 ,.
0 dS.refLO . 50 5fltatiee With ugh vale-. taft-ova, river
grOOoel oat., drri,.d tSee the ,o.tor qtol.t ty .1 io ,nt l ty
Charles RiCer basin. dori periods of lie floe.
La,.
C.-rtrol .04 r..trtettes of 11 val...--pveveet. RoLbu li* ,al ,s.-.etth uai.t 1e Lffertivrjp rod to IbJ ra .ojr. OCLOg sod eV. p S. ,e .tated by tadssteLas,e* f rthor .bleUoi V.
1*04 see, Ia st*r i4*oip for S Ot gIosal ester 504 SStoISl dat . . , sIe ,iesl effort to ).*04 10bt Ut y of ratastroyblo lr .noslnl, sod y raqu ) .,, 4seelo r.. end reel sodaS. p iaadoeasr . sod developer.
solid cast. IAMfLU sat ,graad.estor dl.eherg.p reS u., pL e asing; eap avert :srctdeotsl .pilIap. sod datailed hydroio 5 iv Isoesti- Lathesat. Sbus. costs cUb be ibot tuadi to l ,ttaln oe
deleLni salt storage, on prI i.,e4 for rsdlreeti ,s of esto,fb tsr, lose f rassovee; redurys ttit..ntt.t for Iradal atjos for io .o o otRaodtatiecrasasd or class. properties zqs .Jl sod rWd sC. saber
rrrsasrgp so... Op yr.vasst ,4.es ,oj. to other cat., sad u dotsrto.l astor qoalit, si,) osi-taores; — be tayl.-. ,sJ$ht be d.c.-bosd. bust.
4 r. ..iatlon ‘f safer 4alt . re.oun.. .04 gvevsu.y has 5 : tde .jsditlon; roctarpe arcs. seated ty toes sat City
lilgi. rssourns—coo.erots 4 value. br the Cloerios It err boom yMa010g Lard.; requires
ha,. be. asppri. :roforvnt of entitle 1
- vSutat in.
tgh esle i.prcers rice. : 1 11gb ..le—-pe,-slts gr.st.r :ottoolt y 5 ,11 cot -alt lobed-- i i ti-n in string ly .ornsu - .(od A .r.pt..us. bp gso. ,sl public
:Vatmr qalitp sod mr.. . .. see of ricer sroI bloee-rCisod rroults an. hiqtiy vsloed if (to eisi o ,oLsts,o Pras 120. 15 horns.. Of .trns4
in. ti .., lest to ba-rn.. I - rosoiro, ,. Ia- reese, ritsietO. :‘ rre’t. ft etc Lr,a .nt, trot,): r, tera ar-I slot. orr lt ents’. pibi In interest In ClaSflI.4
55 of r 10cr for rn’rmasl,too; :prcpsrty ‘site; to riea neyor I I to. . ran mo,t:er si I 7 rrm at ry so -i tea. up the Chart.. lOner.
:l..jroeec soetletir appsarszxe-pas t ,tIty sod quality of : 5 ) tor . .tI.e .et .,4 of Ito, t2It :tI,,ssiInot 15 I c r .; tarot if I I
51 stress, spoon.. squat-to I$ro ,iM aster sleilabi. Uoboi*n sr,s 1 0) 0th redo,, •trsifl io .b :P,blir IrOith . 5 fIned nsa I
osniro,o ,t .lloeio fir ind.rod tOtLltc%ttofll coesti. and the qeal it 1 Sod qt.oti 14 1 .00 fr i I Ci L Ie otto
greeter 4i .arstty of ape-l.a trouble quo.ot.lty f fed . , .) of grroor .i t,atr •esil.aW. 4Lr.itiuo. to ursa. Stress I
.04 r.dur.. potentIal for sari stat. fuede avaIlable fnefr-t lo,tur.d infiltrattos. toollotlos. I
fist blUe. I000stra-tios of ferlittira. I 1 1
I I I I
11gb v.lIs e--teo i. to prevent tRAerato cole ..s vehicle titeqoIrea iiailfted persuroosi. btS ipCotnibIiitlrs s .d aoe l.rItJ,CuapsUtL . . for reatroi
boonfltol. bet., ., senirl- tUor,.ngb c li 0 e5t. .oi , . . ,lti i.st.bltet ,e , 5 in 5 on. (beer.- be.. SM .o.trersrstal.
b)*Litt.. eblrb result is tie-ares. 0 t 1* desi*SM to 5.0 1 .1 ln ,ty Stot to 55 1s0 1l4
detertoretion of the Sent. :prt:nhl, suet effiCient 1 LOetttotii ,5 ort-esatry; 005151
:r.o0t 54 value of riufln; :4eoelç lfl .ot of t, basis. ar, sass % heel, regional, , I
bUrstS to protect si , ) r,a-.s.nq :flt.r silt a atolual dag,.4. stat., nod fsdrrsl ,rflo ‘a— I
resource. .04 I rro.st waste. btIon steno;, r, Ial qi. Sty.; itt 00.00 0Onpl 000007ael p I
I S otto too Cb .srl.s. I
I I I
toe celtic-. the soc or higI,- ito. eslIse- -tr .lI 5Js.r, Sleds— 5.00 altos .04 t,sotcsla. ;PTobsbI sees oppo.itis. to i
:qu.llty c I.l 5h-oau , ester ICtios todlsst . 5 Slat .5. 5.7 IbIs. sasseots .oiId 0.05 tO loot a pi.sa eoel.d ort4i.asts S
:fnr a • ,rf loser quality or shoot 22 pbtsottl*l sib ., lb. .rqihrrdi .. ,oadeeent eou.Utn spstre toeDe free ShUt $
I teWilt see ono- .’ .aet .ful. ihaieoeUqy of •spborstl for prod ab1 1 be eserrisal ij i 00hs (rotiat Saber could be I
I to .. of drInking quality ee ISr:cnrto us. eolst in the basin r.saiseire or sutbortty ,s.traen,4 chIns doe ,sstrI I
• fir Ii. dilutIon eat trsocsoet:Rirer basin, tnd Utt over :bee tflrtsriv. cou Ld t.r . 1 to I
lot srssg, in tit C leric. 01 .515 or these coe14 be p pe4 I I 150:0 opo. it fa,iotsbt.y. I
tIttyer ses IreffO loot. tro0ttsrsesel3 for tas 5,,, tho : 5 I
p c :10 dooy’ .j airy. If sot soo.t, 0 I I
tot those itt-ye curs)) los fnu $
ion-p after ii S
1 IW S P )nrabtee. 0 0 $
I I reel.. pobbis r 5 es 504
too ..) taproeSs 5 ss1it 1 of
tttvtront 5.04 res•rvss
I ts.uare.s,
beISstabii l S r iOV..i 1. 5.2
lot $acar sl.
nt u al

-------
7.0 S 1ECTED REFERENCES
Barksdale, H.C., O’Bryan, Deric, and Schneider, W.J., 1966, Effect of
drought on water resources in the northeast: U.S. Geol. Survey
rdro1. mv. Atlas HA—2 3.
Chute, N.E., 1966, Geo1o r of the Norwood quadrangle, Norfolk and Suffolk
Coi ities, Massachusetts: U.S. Gecl. Survey Bull. 1163—B, 78 p.
Cohen, Philip, Franke, 0.L., and Foxworthy, B..L., 1968, An atlas of Long
Island’s water resources: New York State Water Resources Comm.
Bull. 62, 117 p.
Cushman, R.V., Allen, W.B., and Pree, E.L., Jr., 1953, Geologic factors
affecting the yield of rock wells in southern New England: New
England Water Works Assoc. Jour., v. 67, no. 2, p. 77—95.
Ha.rwood, M.P., Frame, J.D., and McKinney, R.E., 1950, The pollution of
the Charles River: Boston Soc. Civil Engineers Jour., v. 37, no. 2,
p. 170—182.
Hughes, G.M., 1972, Hydrogeologic considerations in the siting and design
of landfills: Illinois State Geol. Survey, Environmental geolo
notes, no. 51, 23 p.
Hughes, G.M., Landon, R.A., and Farvolden, R.N., 1969, Hydrogeo1o ’ of
solid waste disposal sites in northeastern Illinois: U.S. Dept.
Health, Education, and Welfare, interim rept., 137 p.
Jenkins, C.T., 1970, Computation of rate and volume of stream depletion
by veils: U.S. Geol. Survey Techniques of Water—Resources mv.,
book , chap. Dl, 17 p.
7—1
A—406

-------
APPENDIX 3.5.4
COMPARISON OF SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES
AIR QUALITY
A—407

-------
APPENDIX 3.5.4-1
METROPOLITAN BOSTON SLUDGE INCINERATION
AIR DISPERSION STUDIES
A— 409

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
3. METEOROLOGICAL DATA
4. COMPUTER CODE DESCRIPTIONS
5. AIR QUALITY STANDARDS, OBSERVATIONS AND PROJECTIONS
6. LONG-TERM ANALYSIS
7. SHORT-TERM ANALYSIS
8. SPECIAL CASE-MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS
9. ESTIMATES OF TRACE MATERIAL EMISSIONS
1—1 — 1—4
2—1 — 2—7
3—1 — 3—8
4—1 — 4—3
5—1 — 5—19
6—1 — 6—24
7—1 — 7—40
8—1 — 8—8
9—1 — 9—2
A—410

-------
METROPOLIT BOSTON SLUDGE INCINERATION
AIR DISPERSION STUDIES
1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
The purpose of this study is to provide computer estimates
of air emissions for sludge incineration at various sites
within the Greater Boston Metropolitan Area. A total of
five cases were modeled with various combinations of four
sites.
Estimates have been prepared which describe the annual and
short—term ground—level concentrations of sulfur dioxide
and total suspended particulates, annual concentrations of
nitrogen oxides, short—term concentrations of hydrocarbons,
and emissions of trace materials resulting from the operation
of these proposed facilities. Air quality estimates have
also been prepared for the “Recommended Plan,” which involves
incineration of all primary sludge and only a portion of
the secondary sludge.
Data describing the existing and projected air quality at
key monitoring stations within the Greater Boston
Metropolitan area are examined.
A—411
1—1

-------
Table 1-1, which follows, summarizes the impact of both
the Recommended Plan and 100% sludge incineration at Deer
Island for the year 1985, including background projections.
None of the promulgated air quality standards are exceeded,
except for the secondary 24 hour particulate standard. The
incinerator emissions add a maximum of only 12.2 pg/rn 3
and 10.2 pg/m 3 standard. In Table 1-2, these same
cases are shown to be substantially below maximum allowable
increases for Prevention of Significant Deterioration.
It should be noted that the maxima observed in these
studies almost invariably occurred over adjacent water
bodies. These maxima, therefore, may not be additive to
observed values for land based observation stations. (See
section 5.4 Air Quality for a more detailed discussion).
The 110 Foot stack height (above grade) chosen for this
study is not sufficiently tall to prevent downwash problems.
A height of at least 150 feet is recommended based on a
building 600 feet high (200 feet wide). The stack
height limitation for the Deer Island location, based
on information from Nassport is 170 feet. The higher
stack height will not affect the conclusion in this
report , but would reduce the concentrations reported.
A—412
1—2

-------
TABLE 1—1
IMPACT OF DEER ISLAND CASES ON
1985 AIR QUALITY
Maximum
Incinerator 1985 1985
Averaging Generated Background Total
Pollutant Time Concentration Concentratiofl* Concentration* Federal Standard
____ 8+ Primary Secondary
Particulate 24 hr 12.2 10.2 168 180.2° 178.2° 260 150
Matter annual 1.4 1.2 55 56.4 56.2 75 60
Sulfur 3 hr 172.5 137.8 648 820.5 785.8 — 1,300
Dioxide 24 hr 42.8 34.2 189 231.8 223.2 365 —
annual 5.1 4.1 12 17.1 16.1 80
Nitrogen annual 8.4 6.7 65 73.4 71.7 100 100
Dioxide
Hydrocarbofls** 3 hr 12.2 9.7 160 160
I- .
C-.)
* Second highest background concentrations for other than annual averages (see Table 5—10)
+ Case A = 100% sludge incineration at Deer Island; Case B = Recommended Plan.
Background data not available.
** The hydrocarbon standard is a guide to devising State Implementation Plans to achieve
the oxidant standard. The models available for this study do not treat hydrocarbon/
nitrogen oxide/ozone interactions.
° NOTE: Maximum concentrat’ ons due to incineration occur approximately 800 meters due
east of Deer Island over water. Since Revere represents the closest air quality monitoring
station, the estimated concentrations from this station were used. It is emphasized that
the actual background concentrations should be lower on Deer Island and the maximum
incremental concentrations due to incineration will not occur in Revere.

-------
TABLE 1-2
COMPARISON OF DEER ISLAND CASES
TO MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE INCREASES
FOR PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT
DETERIORATION (iig/m)
Max. Allowable Incinerator Contribution
Increase for Deer Island
Pollutant B*
Particulate Matter:
Annual Geometric Mean 19 1.4 1.2
24 Hour maximum 37 12.1 10.2
Sulfur Dioxide:
Annual Arithmetic Mean 20 5.1 4.1
24 Hour maximum 91 42.8 34.2
3 Hour Maximum 512 172.5 137.8
*Case A = 100% sludge incineration at Deer Island;
Case B = Recommended Plan.
A— 414
1—4

-------
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
A computer analysis was performed to determine the impact
of primary plus secondary sludge incineration at four
sites in the Greater Boston Metropolitan area on the
existing air quality (sulfur dioxide, particulates, and
nitrogen oxides) and the projected air quality. Four sites
were modeled in various combinations to give five specific
cases. Estimates have also been made for a “Recommended
Plan,” described elsewhere, which involves incineration of
all primary sludge and only a portion of the secondary
sludge.
The locations of the sites with reference to Universal
Transverse Mercator coordinates on the standard U.S.
Geological Survey Map are as follows:
Deer Island 19/0338680/4690660
Squantum 19/0332250/4684930
Mid—Charles 19/0313240/4683150
Upper Neponsett 19/0319120/4670465
The proposed Deer Island site would be adjacent to an
existing sewerage treatment plant on Deer Island in Boston
Harbor just east of Logan International Airport. Similarly,
the proposed Squantum site is west of an existing disposal
plant, which in turn is located about two kilometers west
of the town of Squantum between Quincy and Dorchester Bays.
2—i
A— 415

-------
The proposed Mid—Charles site is considered a satellite
site and is located west of the town of Needhaxn about 600
meters from Newman Junior High School. The Upper Neponsett
satellite site is located near the Norwood Arena, an aban-
doned drag strip on the Neponsett River south of Norwood.
The emphasis in the computer modeling was given to two
pollutants, sulfur dioxide and total suspended particulates.
Values for nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons were estimated
from the computer work based on the relative total emissions
shown in Table 2-3.
The basis for pollutant emissions, operational data, and
estimated yearly emissions are provided in Tables 2—1, 2—2,
and 2—3, respectively. In general these data are self—
explanatory. In all cases, the stacks were assumed to be
110 feet above grade.
In the detailed modeling to estimate maximum short-term
concentrations, the emissions at the Deer and Squantum
sites were assumed to be emanating from a single stack.
This approach was used to add conservatism to the analysis
and to accommodate the computer program limitations
with regard to source configurations. Downwash estimates
A— 416
2—2

-------
were made for the Deer Island 110 foot stacks, and the
effect of raising stack height to 150 feet was estimated.
Conditions of looping, coning, fanning, and fumigation
were also considered.
It should be noted that sludge incinerator design and
operation may be subject to standards under consideration
by EPA to meet the requirements of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act of 1976 (PL 94-580, Oct. 26, 1976)
The long—term estimates of ground—level concentrations of
the pollutants are examined for each of the cases. The
potential interaction of the sources in the defined com-
binations is examined using a grid size appropriate to the
separation of the sites. Dispersion patterns illustrating
the expected diffusion of sulfur dioxide are included for
each case. The related concentrations of total suspended
particulates are related to these dispersion patterns.
No specific computer analysis was prepared for nitrogen
dioxides. However, by using a proportional relationship
between emission rates for sulfur dioxide and nitrogen
dioxide, reasonable estimates can be established for
comparison to the annual nitrogen dioxide standard.
A—417
2—3

-------
The short—term analyses consider the ground—level concen-
trations of the pollutants for time periods up to 24 hours.
Specifically the 3-hour and 24—hour SO 2 standards and the
24-hour total suspended particulate ambient air quality
standards must be examined. The primary analysis for the
short—term concentrations was prepared using the Single
Source Model (CRSTER) and the Texas Episodic Model (TEM).
Only Case I (Deer Island) and Case IV (Deer Island and
Squantuin) were analyzed for the short-term effects.
The special case analysis uses EPA document 450/4—77-001
to estimate maximum short—term concentrations under a
variety of atmospheric conditions. Using the PTMAX
computer program for all but one of special conditions,
estimates were made for the looping plume, the coning plume,
and the fanning plume. The fumigation condition was
estimated using manual procedures. It is shown that the
occurrence of these conditions is unlikely to bring about
the violation of any air quality standards at the sites
considered.
A—418
2—4

-------
Table 2.-i
BASIS FOR POLLUTANT EMISSTONS
Particulates
1.3 lbs. per dry ton of conditioned sludge plus screenings
plus skinunings (emission limit)
Sulfur Dioxide
0.8 lbs. per dry ton (1.) of thickened sludge plus 0.072
lbs/gal. (1,2) fuel oil
Nitrogen Oxides (as Nç )
5 lbs. per dry ton (1) of thickened sludge plus 0.08
lbs/gal (1,2) fuel oil
Hydrocarbons
0.2 lbs. per dry ton (1,3) of thickened sludge plus 0.003
lbs./gál. (1) fuel oil
Maximum Emissions
Multiply calculated emissions for 24 hr/day incinerators by
1.25 to allow for additional capacity for a maximum of 1
day continuous operation at higher rate; and by 1.5 for 16
hr/day incinerators for a maximum of 1 day continuous
operation at higher rate
(1.) U. S. EPA Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission
Factors, second (2nd) Edition
(2.) Based on 0.5% S
(3.) Based on 80% removal of hydrocarbon in afterburner
A— 419
2—5

-------
TABLE 2—2
BASIC OPERATING DATA
FOR AIR DISPERSION CALCULATIONS
Total
Screenings ÷ Acfm to Stacks ’ Fuel Oil
Flow Sludge Tons/Day (Dry)(]. ) Skirnmirtgs No. of ATM Per Diarn. GPH Per Oper.
Case Site Thickened Conditioned Tons/Day (Dry) Incinerators Incinerator No. Ft. Incinerator Hrs/Day
I Deer 586 403 492 20 8 23,500 4 4.5 145 24
III Deer 530 360 440 18 8 20,000 4 4.25 130 24
Neponsett 25 29.3 36 1.1 2 7,000 1 2.5 40 16
Charles 31 37.3 45 0.8 2 9,500 1 3.0 50 16
586 426.6 52]. 19.9 12 6
IV Deer 400 230 280 13 4 25,500 2 4.75 170 24
Squantum 186 173 210 7 4 20,000 2 4.25 130 24
586 403 490 20 8 4
V Deer 400 230 280 13 4 25,000 2 4.75 . 170 24
Squantuni 130 130 160 5 3 19,000 1 5.0 115 24
Neponsett 25 29.3 36 1.1 2 7,000 1 2.5 40 16
Charles 31 37.3 45 0.8 2 9,500 1 3.0 50 16
586 42 6 521 19 11 5
VII Deer 400 230 280 13 4 25,500 2 4.75 170 24
Squantuin 130 130 160 5 3 19,000 1 5.0 115 24
Neponsett 56 71.7 72 1.9 2 12000 1 3.25 90 16
586 431.7 512 19.9 9 4
(1) Primary plus secondary sludge.
(2) Diameters based on 50 ft/sec., increased to nearest 0.25 ft.

-------
Table 2—3
ESTIMI TED YEARLY EMISSIONS - PONS*
1+ Deer
NITROGEN
SULFUR OXIDES
PARTICULATES DIOXIDE ( as NO 7 )
121.5 424.6 774.2
* Short tons (2000 ibs). See Tables 2—1 and 2—2 for basis.
+ Recommended Plan: Incineration of all pri nary sludge plus
a portion of secondary sludge plus screenings and skimmings,
or 391 Tons/Day conditioned (322 Tons/Day thickened) plus
20 Tons/Day screenings + skiinmings. Particulates prorated
based on conditioned sludge plus screenings and skiminings;
SO 2 , NO 2 , and hydrocarbons based on thickened sludge.
A— 421
CASE SITE
I Deer
Deer
Nep9nsett
Charles
IV Deer
Squantum
V Deer
Squantum
Neponsett
Charles
VII Deer
Squantum
Neponsett
108 . 7
8.8
10 . 9
69.5
51.5
69.5
39.1
8.8
10 . 9
69.5
39 . 1
17.5
380.5
21.1
26.5
248.0
189.2
248.0
127.8
21.1
26.5
248.0
127 .8
48.3
HYDROCARBONS
30.0
26.8
1.8
2.2
17 . 3
13.1
17.3
9.3
1.8
2.2
17. 3
9.3
4.2
692.9
45.5
57.4
448.1
340 . 1
448.1
239.5
45.4
57.4
448.1
239.5
107.5
101.5 321.0 618.6 24.0
2—7

-------
3. METEOROLOGICAL DATA
The air quality estimates for both long-terra and short-term
studies are based upon meteorological data from the Logan
International Airport. The data used in the G/C Air Quality
Model* (modified Air Quality Display Model) require the use
of stability/wind direction/wind speed in the STAR format in
five stability classes. Data in the STAR format for six
stability classes with the “Day—Night” classifications were
available within existing files for the period January 1966
through December 1970. This format was adjusted into five
stability classes by combining Stability D-Day with Stability
D—Night. These data are presented in the tables which follow.
The data used in the short—terra studies were provided by
the Region I EPA Office in Boston, Massachusetts. Hourly
surface meteorological data for Logan International Airport
covering the period January 1970 through December 1974 were
combined with mixing height data derived for the Portland,
Maine radiosonde station. These data were used in the EPA
computer model CRSTER (Single Source) format.
The Logan International Airport data are considered very
representative of the atmospheric conditions at both the
Deer Island and Squantuxa sites. These data were also used
at the Charles and Neponsett satellite sites because no
*Gi1be /Corp nwea1th
A— 422
3—1

-------
other data were available for application to these locations.
Although it was felt that local topoqraphy would distort
the Logan International wind rose at these sites, it was
felt that the overall wind pattern and stability classifi-
cation would apply.
The n an annual air temperature arid the mean annual air
pressure values used in the long—term analysis were taken
from climatological records for the Logan International
Airport. Values of 51 F and 1014 millibars were used,
respectively. In accordance with the requirements of
the computer code, an annual afternoon mixing depth of
1100 meters was extracted from data given by Holzworth.
A—423
3—2

-------
ANNUA1
RELATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
STATION 14739 BOSTON, MASS. 66—70 8 Obs Per Day
SPEED (IcrS)
Direction
N
0—3
0.000000
4—6
0.000000
7—10
0.000000
11—16
0.000000
17—21
0.000000
21
Total.
0.000000
0.000000
NNE
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
NE
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
ENE
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
E
0.000008
0.000068
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000076
ESE
0.000015
0.0001.37
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000152
SE
0.000008
0.000068
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000076
‘
SSE
S
0.000008
0.000015
0.000068
0.0001.37
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000076
0.000152
SSW
0.000008
0.000068
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000076
Sw
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
wSW
0.000076
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000076
w
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
wN
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
NW
0.000000
0.000000
0. 00000()
0.0000(10
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
NNW
0.000000
0.000000
0. 00000()
0. 000000
0. 00000()
0.000000
0. 000000
Total
0. 000137
0.000348
0. 000000
0. 000000
0. 000000
0. 000000
Relative Frequency of 0ccurren e of A Stability = 0.000685
Relative Frequer cy of Calms Distributed Above with A Stability 0.000068

-------
AN WAL
STATION 14739 5OSTON, MASS. 66—70 8 0b Per Day
ULA ZVE FREQUENCY DXS VRIBUTIOM
SPEED (KTS)
DIRECTION
N
0—3
0.000232
4—6
0.000137
7—10
0.000205
11—16
0.000000
17—21
0.000000
Greater Than 21
Total
0.000000
0.000574
NNE
0.000074
0.000000
0.000205
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000279
NE
0.000074
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0 000000
0.000074
ENE
0.000011
0.000137
0.000411
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000558
E
0.000248
0.000342
0.001027
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.001617
ESE
0.000174
0.000342
0.000890
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.001407
SE
0.000211
0.000822
0.001644
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.002677
SSE
0.000011
0.000137
0.000479
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000627
(.71
s
0.000248
0.000342
0.000548
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.001138
SSW
0.000021
0.000274
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000295
SW
0.000169
0.000274
0.000411
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000854
WSW
0.000184
0.000479
0.000753
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.001417
W
0.000432
0.000822
0.000959
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.002213
NW
0.000153
0.000068
0.000274
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000495
NrW
0.000005
0.000068
0.000205
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000279
SNW
0.000016
0.000205
0.000137
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.000358
Total
0.002260
0.004452
0.008151
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
Relative
Frequency of
Occurrence of B Stability =
0.014863
Relative Frequency of Calms Distributed Abowe with B Stability 0.000479

-------
ANNUAL
RELATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
STATION = 14739 BOSTON, MASS. 66-70 8 Obs Per Day
SPEED (KTS)
U,
t’ .)
Direction
N
0—3
0.000146
4—6
0.000616
7—10
0.002740
11—16
0.000205
17—21
0.000000
Greater Than 21
Total
0.000000
0.003707
NNE
0.000074
0.000411
0.000548
0.000000
0.000000
0.000000
0.001033
NE
0.000145
0.000548
0.001027
0.000000
0.000000
0.000068
0.001789
ENE
0.000003
0.000274
0.002055
0.000342
0.000068
0.000000
0.002743
E
0.000073
0.000342
0.005616
0.004384
0.000137
0.000000
0.010553
ESE
0.000287
0.000822
0.005479
0.002329
0.000342
0.000000
0.009259
SE
0.000011
0.000959
0.005616
0.001301
0.000000
0.000000
0.007888
SSE
0.000008
0.000685
0.001301
0.000274
0.000000
0.000000
0.002268
S
0.000077
0.000685
0.002260
0.000548
0.000068
0.000068
0.003707
SSW
0.000004
0.000342
0.000959
0.000548
0.000274
0.000000
0.002127
SW
0.000006
0.000548
0.001781
0.001096
0.000068
0.000000
0.003500
WSW
0.000013
0.001096
0.004178
0.002055
0.000548
0.000068
0.007958
W
0.000081
0.001027
0.004658
0.002603
0.000411
0.000000
0.008780
WNW
0.000006
0.000548
0.002534
0.001164
0.000068
0.000068
0.004390
NW
0.000081
0.000959
0.003630
0.000890
0.000137
0.000000
0.005697
NNW
0.000147
0.000753
0.001781
0.000411
0.000000
0.000000
0.003093
Total
0.001164
0.010616
0.046164
0.018151
0.002123
0.000274
Relative
Frequency of
Occurrence of C Stability
0.078493
Relative Erecuencv of Calms Distributed Above with C Stability = 0.000137

-------
AN WAL
R*LATIVE FREQUENCY DXSTRXBU ZON
SrATXON — 14739 ROSTON. MASS. 66—10 8 Ob P.r Day
SPEED (KTS)
Direction
0—3
4—6
7—10
11—16
17—21
Greater Than
21
N
.000575
.005343
.017808
.025000
.005822
.001643
NNE
.000332
.003219
.006781
.008904
.002671
.001369
NE
.000452
.002123
.008630
.009863
.003424
.002397
ENE
.000383
.002191
.007877
.010068
.002876
.001233
E
.000759
.003904
.016712
.024315
.003836
.001712
ESE
.001108
.004315
.012740
.019384
.003356
.000684
SE
SSE
.000255
.000320
.002876
.002534
.008219
.007055
.006712
.004178
.000679
.000274
.000000
.000068
S
.000431
.005206
.024315
.022192
.003356
.000753
SSW
.000232
.001370
.012603
.026644
.007260
.001301
SW
.000019
.001232
.010685
.029863
.006644
.001301
WSW
.000157
.001095
.014932
.042192
.007808
.001164
W
.000160
.001301
.008493
.050274
.015959
.007192
WNW
.000020
.001232
.010959
.049178
.018493
.007123
NW
.000313
.002123
.01 1575
.062123
.012397
.002876
NNW
.000105
.002191
.010548
.024384
.004383
.000684
Total
.005621
.042255
.189932
.395274
.099038
.031500
Relative
Frequ ncv of
Occurrence of D StobiLity
.761781
Total
.056191
• 02 32 76
.026889
.0246 28
.0512 38
.041587
.018541
.0144 29
.056253
.0496 10
.049744
.067348
.083379
.087005
.071407
.04 2295
Relative F’requencv of Calms Distributed Abov t i.th 0 St lhi1Lty = .000793

-------
AI NUAL
RELATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION
STATION = 14739 BOSTON, MASS. 66—70 8 Obs Per Day
SPEED (KTS)
0—3
4—6
7—10
.-J I
I ’. ,
03
Direction
N
.001299
.006096
.008082
11—16
.000000
17—21
.000000
Greater than 21
Total
.000000
.015477
NNE
.000784
.001918
.001849
.000000
.000000
.000000
.004551
NE
.000969
.001164
.001438
.000000
.000000
.000000
.003571
ENE
.000415
.001575
.001096
.000000
.000000
.000000
.003087
E
.000684
.003014
.001986
.000000
.000000
.000000
.005684
ESE
.001029
.002740
.001370
.000000
.000000
.000000
.005138
SE
.000910
.003356
.002192
.000000
.000000
.000000
.006458
SSE
.000470
.003014
.001986
.000000
.000000
.000000
.005470
S
.001443
.006164
.005479
.000000
.000000
.000000
.013087
SSW
.000570
.003767
.004521
.000000
.000000
.000000
.008858
SW
.000465
.002877
.005411
.000000
.000000
.000000
.008753
WSW
.000562
.003562
.009863
.000000
.000000
.000000
.013987
W
.000539
.002945
.006781
.000000
.000000
.000000
.010265
WNW
.000473
.003082
.009315
.000000
.000000
.000000
.012870
NW
.000333
.003151
.012329
.000000
.000000
.000000
.015813
NNW
.000425
.003699
.006986
.000000
.000000
.000000
.011110
total
.011370
.052123
.080685
.000000
.000000
.000000
Eelative
Frequency of
Occurrence of F Stability
.144178
B.e1ati ze r qua cy o Calms Dt tributad thove . Stab Ut’ — - 002329

-------
ANNUAL RELATIVE FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION STATION 14739 BOSTON, MASS. 66-70 8 Ob.s Per Day
SPEED (KTS)
Direction 0—3 4—6 7—10 11—16 17—21 Greater Than 21 Total
N 0.002269 0.012192 0.028836 0.025205 0.005822 0.001644 0.075967
NNE 0.001294 0.005548 0.009384 0.008904 0.002671 0.001370 0.029171
NE 0.001667 0.003836 0.011096 0.009863 0.003425 0.002466 0.032351
ENE 0.000830 0.004178 0.011438 0.010411 0.002945 0.001233 0.031036
E 0.001781 0.007671 0.025342 0.028699 0.003973 0.001712 0.069178
ESE 0.001872 0.008356 0.020479 0.021712 0.003699 0.000685 0.056804
SE 0.001370 0.008082 0.017671 0.008014 0.000479 0.000000 0.035617
SSE 0.000827 0.006438 0.010822 0.004452 0.000274 0.000068 0.022832
S 0.002209 0.012534 0.032603 0.022740 0.003425 0.000822 0.074332
SSt1 0.000809 0.005822 0.018082 0.027192 0.007534 0.001301 0.060740
SW 0.000641 0.004932 0.018288 0.030959 0.006712 0.001301 0.062833
WSW 0.000962 0.006233 0.029726 0.044247 0.008356 0.001233 0.090757
0.001170 0.006096 0.020890 0.052877 0.016370 0.006096 0.103493
WNW 0.000641 0.004932 0.023082 0.050342 0.018562 0.007192 0.104751
NW 0.000753 0.006301 0.027740 0.043014 0.012534 0.002877 0.093218
NN 0.000699 0.006849 0.019432 0.024795 0.004384 0.000685 c .056863
Total 0.019794 0.110000 0.324931 0.413424 0.101164 0.030685
Total Relative Frequency of Observations = 1.000000
TotaI Relative Frequency of Calms Distributed Above 1.003767

-------
4. COMPUTER CODE DEscRIPTIONS
Four computer codes were used in this analysis: the Air
Quality Display Model (with modifications) , Point Maximum
(PTMAX) , Single Source (CRSTER), and the Texas Episodic
Model (TEM) All these codes are on the list of air
quality models approved by the EPA for use in preparing
air dispersion estimates.
The G/C Air Quality Model is based upon the concepts used
in the Air Quality Display Model (AQDM) . Using the gen-
eralized diffusion equation found in Turner’s Workbook of
Atmospheric Dispersion Estimates together with observed
combinations of stability class, wind direction, and wind
speed, the computer code calculates the annual arithmetic
average ground level pollutant concentrations for each of
up to 225 receptors from both point and area sources. The
original AQDM calculated plume rise used Holland’s equation,
but the option to use the more up-to-date Eriggs concepts
has been added to the G/C code. The C/C computer code has
also been modified to account for terrain differences
between sources and receptors. The effective plume height
is reduced by half the difference between the source and
receptor height, with the exception that the plume is never
permitted to be less than half the height above the ground
that it would be with no topography. This approach provides
A—430
4—1

-------
a general conservatism to the modeling results. In addition,
Larsen’s technique for determining a statistical estimate
of ground level concentrations for selected receptors and
different sampling times is included as a program option.
The computer code Point Maximum (PTMAX) is one of several
codes available to provide a first estimate of ground level
concentrations for time periods up to 24 hours. This code
produces an analysis of the maximum ground level concentra—
tion of a pollutant as a function of wind speed and stability
class. Plume rise follows the methods of Briggs.. Input to
the code consists of the stack parameters such as physical
stack height, stack gas temperature, stack diameter, stack
gas velocity, emission rate, ambient air temperature, and
the selected atmospheric stability conditions being examined.
Output gives the effective height of the emission, maximum
ground level concentrations, and the distance of the
maximum concentration from the source for each specific
stability and wind speed condition. It is assumed that
the stability is constant from the ground level to well
above the top of the plume, that there are no topographic
obstructions in the vicinity of the stack and that the
source lies in essentially flat or gently rolling terrain.
The Single Source (CRSTER) Model is based upon a modified
version of the Gaussian plume equation. It is designed to
A—431
4—2

-------
calculate the contributions 1 from multiple elevated stack
emissions at a single plant location, to ambient air quality
levels. The program calculates concentrations for an
entire year and prints out the highest and second-highest
1—hour, 3—hour and 24—hour at a set of 180 receptors
surrounding the plant. The annual mean concentration is
also estimated. Pollutant concentrations are computed
from measured hourly values of wind speed and direction
and estimated hourly values of atmospheric stability and
mixing height. The model assumes a continuous emission
source, a steady—state downwind plume and a Gaussian
distribution for concentrations of pollutants within the
plume in both the crosswind and vertical directions..
The Texas Episodic Model (TEM) is a computer program which
may be used to predict air pollution concentrations for
short time periods up to 24—hours. Concentrations of one
or two pollutants may be calculated for up to 2500 locations
in a rectangular grid of arbitrary dimensions and uniform
but arbitrary spacing between rows and columns. Up to 300
elevated point sources and 200 area sources may be input
to the model. Meteorological input in the form of ambient
air temperature, wind directions, wind speed, and mixing
height are used to create scenarios simulating the dispersiofl
of airborne pollutants in the lower atmosphere.
A—4 32
4—3

-------
5. AIR QUALITY STANDARDS, OBSERVATIONS AND PROJECTIONS
The National Air Quality Standards which apply to the study
area are given in Table 5—i. The Commonwealth of Massachu-
setts standards are identical to the Federal standards.
The air quality standards pertaining to the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration as contained in the 1977 amend-
ments to the Clean Air Act are given in Table 5-2. Only
the standards which apply to a Class II area designation
are included.
Table 5—3 lists the 1976 Non—Continuous Data Suii mary for
total suspended particulates in the Boston Metropolitan
Region. The sites listed were selected to depict the general
air quality characteristics of the region. Several are
located close to the four incinerator sites considered in
this report. Their specific locations are shown on the
dispersion analyses in a subsequent section. The Revere
Garfield Junior High School location is the closest to the
proposed Deer Island facility. The Quincy monitoring site
is in the general vicinity of the proposed Squanturn facility.
The proposed Mid-Charles facility is about two kilometers
from the Needham Glover Hospital monitoring site. The NorwOOd
Fire Station site is in the vicinity of the proposed Upper
Neponsett incinerator facility. These data were received by
telephonic communication directly from the commonwealth of
A—433
5—1

-------
Massachusetts Department of Public Health. Earlier pre-
liminary reports had been received during a visit to
the Boston area, but these data had not been quality
assurance checked. It is for this reason that Kenmore
Square observations have been omitted from Table 5-3.
The preliminary 1976 data for Kenmore Square station
showed numerous violations of the particulate standards
for the 24-hour time period. The location of this monitoring
site is being reevaluated at the present time. With the
exception of this site, only the two Medford monitoring sites
show a violation of the particulate annual geometric mean
standard. During 1976, six monitoring sites in the study
area violated the NAAQS 24—hour secondary standard.
Table 5-4 lists the 1976 Non-Continuous Data Summary for
sulfur dioxide in the Boston Metropolitan area. It is
noted that there are no violations of the annual or 24-hour
standards. Table 5—5 presents observational summaries for
some of the continuous sulfur dioxide monitoring stations
in the Boston region. It is noted that there are no
violations of the sulfur dioxide air quality standards.
A—434
5—2

-------
The emission offset requirements for non-attainment areas
as promulgated by the EPA in December 1976 have been
included in the recent 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments.
Major sources whose emission rates exceed 100 tons of
pollutant per year must meet the
lowest achievable emission rate for the particular source.
In addition, emission offsets (reductions from other
existing sources in the region around the proposed new
source) must be effected so that there is an overall
reduction of pollutants even with the new source added to
the background. Conditions for possible waiver of these
requirements are given in the Clean Air Act Amendments.
Since the Boston area is currently in non—attainment for
particulates, the requirement of the emission offset may
apply to the proposed incinerator facilities.
A— 435
5—3

-------
Table 5—6 gives the results of converting some of the non-
continuous particulate data in Table 5-3 to maximum and
2nd highest 24-hour concentrations using Larsen s techniques.
It should be noted that the second highest concentration
for the 24—hour period within a given year determines com-
pliance with the ambient air quality standard. For
comparison purposes the results of the projections for 1975
have been extracted from the EcoiSciences Report Appendix V,
“Air Quality Impact Analysis.” For the two common stations
for which data are available, there is a notable decrease
in the expected maximum and second highest concentrations
for the 24-hour period.
Tables 5-7 through 5-9 treat 1975 second quarter and 1976
NO 2 data (non-continuous) for stations in the Boston
metropolitan area. None of the available annual averages
exceed the air quality standard, although the average of
14 observations at Kenmore Square for the second quarter
of 1975 does. As noted before, the location of this
station is being reevaluated.
Projections for 1985 are provided in Table 5-10, based on
EcoiScience’s work for particulates and SO 2 , and a similar
study for NO 2 . All projections are based on Revere 1 the
station closest to Deer Island.
A—436
5—4

-------
Figures 5-1 through 5-4 have been produced by the Common-
wealth of Massachusetts Division of Air Quality Control
to show the annual estimated concentrations of sulfur
dioxide and particulates for 1975 with projection to 1985.
Figures 5-1 and 5-2 show quite clearly that the estimated
annual concentrations of sulfur dioxide are well within the
national ambient standards of 80 pg/rn 3 . (The maximum
concentration estimated for central Boston converts to
54 pg/rn 3 .)
The maps (Figures 5-3 and 5-4) depicting the annual ground-
level concentrations of total suspended particulates for
1975 and 1985 suggest a continued violation of the secondary
ambient standard within a small area of metropolitan Boston.
A— 437
5—5

-------
TABLE 5—1
NATIONAL AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Pollutant
Sulfur Dioxide
Particulate Matter
Nitrogen Dioxide
Hydrocarbons
Averaging Time
Annual Arithmetic Mean
24 Hours
3 Hours
Annual Geometric Mean
24 Hours
Annual Arithmetic Mean
3 Hours
Primary Standard
80 jig/rn 3 (.03 ppm)
365 g/m 3 (.14 ppm)
75 jig/m
260 jig/rn 3
100 j g/m 3 (.05 ppm)
160 LIg/m 3 (.24 ppm)
Secondary Standard
1300 g/m 3 (.5 ppm)
60 jig/rn 3
150 ig!m 3
3 -
100 jig/rn (.0 ppm)
160 ug/rn 3 (.24 pprt)
National Standards other than those based on annual arithmetic means or annual geometric
means are not to be exceeded more than once per year.
National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adaquate margin of
safety, to protect the public health.
National Secondary Standards: The teveis of air quality necessary to protect the ub1ic
welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.
Note: 1.
3.

-------
TABLE 5—2
PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORXrIoN
OFAT.R_QUALITY
CLASS II
Maximum Allowable Increase
Pollutant ( micrograms per cubic meter)
Particulate Matter:
Annual Geometric Mean 19
24—Hour Maximum 37
Sulfur Dioxide:
Annual Arithmetic Mean 20
24 —flour Maximum 91.
3—Hour Maximum 5.12
Note: 1. The maximum allowable increase over the baseline concentration
is given above.
2. The maximum allowable concentration of any air pollutant shall
not exceed a concentration for such pollutant for each petlod of
exposure equal to:
(a) The concentration permitted under the national secondarY
air quality standards, or
(b) The conceiitrat Ion permit ted under the nat: tonal primary
ambient air quality standard. Whichever concentration Is
lowest for such pollutant for such period of exposure.
A—439
5—7

-------
TABLE 5—3
1976 NON—CONTINUOUS 24—HOUR TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATE DATA
METROPOLITAN BOSTON
Station
1. Boston
2. Nedford
3. Needham
4. Quincy
D. Revere
0
01
$ 6. altham
7. Norwood
Site Location
Ken ore Square
Fellsway & Rt. 16
Glover Hospital
Fore River Bridge
Garfield Jr. High School
Moody and Main Streets
Number of
Observations
(Not available
52
42
46
49
45
77
3
58
47
67
1.54
2.69
1.46
1.59
1.48
Reading Arithmetic
igIm 3 ) — Arithmetic Standard
Max. Mm. Mean — Deviation
Geometric
Mean
Standard
Deviation
— quality assurance evaluation)
283 23 57 27
17 1 5 4
179 29 62 27
147 14 53 27
174 29 72 30
Fire Station
46 142 20 51
24 46 1.53

-------
TABLE 5-4
1976 NON—CONTINUOUS DATA SU L4RY - METROPOLITAN BOSTON
SULFUR DIOXIDE
Station
1. Boston
2. Brookline
3. Medfor
4. Needham
‘.7 ’ 5. Quiricy
“.0
6. Revere
7. Wa1tha
8. Norwood
Site Location
Kenmore Square
High School
el1ington Circle
Clover Hospital
Fore River Bridge
Garfield Jr. High School
Moody and Main Street
Fire Station
Annual Arithmetic
Mean
ppm ig/m 3
.010 29
.006 17
.010 29
.005 14
.010 29
.011 31
.010 29
.007 20
Max. 24—Hr.
Concentration
ppm ig/m 3
.031 89
.041 117
.058 166
.017 49
.033 94
.047 134
.037 106
.021 60
Violation
Standard
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

-------
TABLE 5-5
1976 CONTINUOUS DATA SITht IARY - SULFUR DIOXIDE
METROPOLIT BOSTON
¾ of Possible Arithmetic Mean Maximum 3—hours Maximum 24—hours
Station Site Location Observations ( ppm) ( L1g/m (pp ( 1g/m 3 ) LPJD L ( g/m 3 )
1. Boston Kenmore Square 87 .019 54 .133 380 .069 197
2. Medford Wellington Circle 90 .013 37 .129 369 .070 200
3. Quincy Fore River Bridge 81 .010 29 .081 231 .044 126
4. Waltham Moody and Carter Streets 92 .010 29 .057 163 .041 117

-------
TABLE 5—6
PROJECTION OF TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATES
NON—CONTINUOUS DATA
1976 1975*
Projected Max. Projected 2nd Projected Max. Projected 2nd
24 Hour Highest 24 Hour 24 Hour Highest 24 hour
Concentration Concentration Concentration Concentration
Station Site Location ( pg/rn 3 ) ( pg/rn 3 ) ( pg/tn3) ( uglrn 3 )
1. Boston Kenmore Square missing missing 235.5 212.0
2. Medford Wellington Circle 185 161 259.9 220.0
3. Needham Glover Hospital 55 13
4. Quincy Fore River Bridge 176 157 197.4 172.0
“ 5. Revere Garfield Jr. High School 183 159 **183 157
6. Waltham Moody and Main Streets 212 188
7. Norwood Fire Station 161 141
* Extracted from Ecolsciences Report — Appendix F, ‘Air Quality Impact Analysis”
** Covering period April 1974 — March 1975.

-------
TABLE 5—7
ANNUAL AVERAGE NO 2 DATA
Site Locatio
Kenmore Square T
Main Street
Fellsway and Rte. 16
Glover Hospital
Rte. 3A
Garfield Jr. High School
Moody and Main Streets
Fire Station
1976* 1975
A nnijal Arithmetic Arithrnet’ i
Mean, pg/rn 3
** 60
91
** 49
52 62
** 61
72
54
* From 1976 Annual Report on Air Quality in New England,
U.S. EPA Region 1, May 1977
** Insufficient data
+ From Air Quality Data-l975 Second Quarter Statistics,
U.S. EPA, October 1976
Location of this site is being reevaluated.
A— 444
Station
1. Boston
2. Medford
3. Medford
4. Needham
5. Quincy
6. Revere
7. Waltham
8. Norwood
**
62
**
5—12

-------
Station
1. Boston
2. Medford
3. Medford
4. Needham
5. Quincy
6. Revere
7. Waltham
8. Norwood
Site Location
Kenmore Square
Main Street
Fellsway and Rte. 16
Glover Hospital
Rte. 3A
Garfield Jr. High School
Moody and Main Streets
Fire Station
Number of
Observations
14
15
15
14
Arithmetic
Arithmetic Standard
Mean Deviation
125 28
60 20
91 22
49 14
62 33
61 23
72 25
54 31
Geometric
Geometric standard
Mean Deviation
121.66 1.26
56.27 1.42
88.06 1.31
47.18 1.35
49.02 2.49
57.13 1.43
68.41 1.38
47.17 1.71
TABLE 5-8
1975 2nd QUARTER NON-CONTINUOUS 24-HOUR NO 2 DATA
METROPOLITAN BOSTON
Reading
( .ig/m 3 )
______ Max. Mm . ___________
190 79
100 32
137 43
77 30
01
‘ -.3
01
15
132
13
118
30
15
130
38

-------
TABLE 5-9
PROJECTION OF 1985 AVERAGE
ANNUAL NO 2 CONCENTRATION
FOR REVERE STATION
pg/rn 3
24 hr max. observed
(from Table 5—8) 118
Geometric standard deviation
(from Table 5—8) 1.43
Geometric mean
(from Table 5—8) 57.13
No. of deviations from median
for 24 hr. averaging time* 2.94
Estimated maximum for 1975
based on 24 hr. averaging time* 163.5
Estimated maximum for 1985
based on composi e growth factor
of 1.074 for NO 2 175.6
Estimated arithmetic mean
concentration for 1985* 65
* From Larsen, R. I., “A Mathematical Model for Relating
Air Quality Measurements to Air Quality Standards,” EPA,
Office of Air Programs Publ. No. AP-89, Nov. 1971
From EcoiSciences Table V-9 and emission fractions for
NO 2 (fuel combustion 0.532; industrial processes 0.028;
solid waste 0.008; transportation 0.424; and miscellaneous
0.008) taken from National Air Quality and Emissions Trends
Report, 1975, EPA—450/l—76—002, Nov. 1976
5—14 A—446

-------
TABLE 5-10
PROJECTED 1985 BACKGROUND CONCENTRATIONS
(Estimated for Revere — pg/rn 3 )
Averaging 1975 1985
Pollutant Time Max 2nd High Max 2nd High Avg .
Particulates 24 hr. 183 157 196 168k — +
annual — — — — 55
SO 3 hr. — — 847 648k —
24 hr. 213 163 247 l89 —
annual - — — — 12+
NO ** 24 hr.* 164* 176* —
2 +
annual — — 65
* Estimated for calculation purposes only
+ These values used as background values for comparison with
standards-—see Table 1—1
From EcoiSciences
** See Table 5—9
A— 447
5—15

-------
Pioneer V tey
-
I - - - -- -- -- - . -- — -
- -. - / —— - - - - — — - —.• :- - •- - .
- 9
ç - ±TL H. .X:H7:.
- C : e s
t )
Note oo E c e 5 / — — —
ç Y 1 :
T - E CC E ’T - OF A SACHU ET 5 _jt -_u
Department of Env ronmentai — - - Y L -
- — - - - Southe3stern
Qucitty Eng neenng FIGURE 5-1 • Mass c usc ts
Di son of Air Quo’tt Controt

-------
- - — Pioneer Valley .

E
‘9 5 C x c (S 21
L Leye (ppb) .
2: e o. Pe; :, Effective 5-1-76
THE CCMMON’,%EALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Department of Envircnmental
Quality Engineering FIGURE 5-2
Division of Air Quality Control
cb
Metr po itar Boston
(‘I
- ::L
J
:1
Southeas er n
Mass.3ch setts
‘

-------
Memmack Valley
0e’’3 ‘.‘S3C’ LSC S
/975
(TSP)
::d 1 r’c i: !
Lee’e/s ( ‘cr M 3 ’.
Reçu/c . s
t
tICe. êcsed a.,
THE COMMCNWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Department of Environmentai
Quc!ity Engineering
ri ,UkJi 3—.)
Division of Air Quahty Control
‘ ‘S
Pioneer Valley
E
0
/
U i
40
Matrcpo!t n Boston
4 Q
S Lrt I em
M. .1cr.L1
to 0 ‘ 0 *0

-------
CD
Mc cp i Ecs o*i
45
/
Qua ty Engineering
FIGURE 5—4
Division of Air Quah y Control
;
U ’
U’
¼0
( •.
4C
Cer. a . s:-. c 40 43
Av rEstr ’t91 ‘ ,!c/ S sc ’- d FJp !c J/c-e
( rS, 7 L ’ /s ( ;z 1-’L
ti e 5:s6d ci R8ç. ’ .’i 7s (‘f tfre 5_/_7’5$
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
Department of Environmental
40
Southeastern
Ma cs.a c h S 15
SCALL

-------
6. LONG-TERM P NAI.,YSIS
The G/C Air Quality Model (Modified Air Quality Display
Model) was used to determine the annual ground-level
concentration of sulfur dioxide and total suspended
particulates. Values for nitrogen dioxide are obtained
by proportional estimates. The stack parameters for
each case are given in the tables at the end of the section.
In the cases where more than one stack is proposed for
a site, the stacks are assumed to be separated by a distance
of 45 feet (13.7 meters). The grid interval used in each
case was selected based upon the distance between sources.
In some of the cases the grid interval selected was 3
kilometers with intermediate values at 1.5 kilometers
determined by re-running the program with the point of
origin shifted. (This method is referred to as “offset.”)
STAR meteorological data for Logan International Airport
for the period 1966—1970 was used for the analysis of all
cases. The dispersion pattern of ground—level concefltratiofl 0
of sulfur dioxide have been plotted and contoured for each
case in Figures 6—1 through 6—5. Similar information for
particulates for the Deer Island and Deer Island/SquantuI1
cases may be found in Figures 6-6 and 6-7. Table 6—6
relates maximum annual concentrations of sulfur dioxide,
total suspended particulates, and nitrogen dioxide to
ambient air quality standards.
A—452
6—1

-------
Case I - Deer Island
The Deer Island analysis was produced using stack parameters
given in Table 6—1. A grid interval of 1 kilometer was
chosen for the initial analysis. When the area of maximum
annual concentration became clear, a subsequent “fine mesh”
analysis using a grid interval of 200 meters was performed
in an attempt to isolate the maximum annual value of both
sulfur dioxide and total suspended particulates.
The maximum annual groundlevel concentration of sulfur
dioxide and total suspended particulate is 4.6 pg/rn 3 and
1.316 pg/rn 3 . The maximum concentration occurs at a point
approximately 800 meters due east of the proposed plant when
using the 1 kilometer grid interval. The “fine mesh” analysis
increases this value to 5.049 and 1.444 pg/rn 3 for sulfur
dioxide and TSP, respectively. These values occur slightly
east-northeast of the site. The grid interval chosen did not
include the monitoring station at the Revere Garfield Junior
High School, north-northwest of the proposed site. The
operation of the Deer Island facility would have minimal
effect on the Revere monitoring station. As suggested by the
data in Figure 6-1, the annual value of sulfur dioxide at this
monitoring station appears to be less than 300 x 10 3 pg/m 3 .
The maximum concentration occurs over the water adjacent to
the proposed plant. The impact for the Recommended Plan
would, of course, be even smaller.
A— 453
6—2

-------
Case III - Deer Island, Neponsett, and Charles
The analysis for this combination of sites was made using
the air quality computer program with a 3 kilometer grid
spacing with a 1.5 kilometer t1 offset” in order to obtain
better resolution of the dispersion pattern. The input
parameters used in this analysis are listed in Table 6-2.
The dispersion pattern is shown in Fiqure 6-2. It is quite
apparent that this combination of facilities impacts the air
quality of the region independently. There is some sugges—
tion of interaction between Charles and Neponsett sites on
the annual basis, but the sulfur dioxide amounts only
approach the small value of 600 x l0 pg/rn 3 . The maximum
annual groundlevel concentration of sulfur dioxide at the
Deer Island site is slightly over a value of 5 pg/rn 3 at a
point approximately 800 meters east of the site. The
corresponding particulate concentration is equivalent to
1.491 pg/rn 3 on an annual basis. The concentrations decrease
rapidly with an average concentration within about 3 kms of
the plant amounting to only 1 pg/rn 3 SO 2 .
Three monitoring stations are located within the vicinity
of the Deer Island site when the 3 kilometer grid is used.
The Revere Station (Garfield Junior High School) is identified
by “1”; the Kenmore Square station west of the site is
A—454
6 —3

-------
designated 2 ”; and the Quincy (Fore River Bridge) is
located by the “3” south of the site. At the Revere
Station the estimated addition to the sulfur dioxide back-
ground concentration is 0.3 pg/rn 3 while the addition to
the particulate background is 0.064 pg/rn 3 . At Kenmore
Square the combination of facilities will add 0.343 pg/rn 3 SO 2
to the background amount and 0.061 pg/rn 3 total suspended
particulates. At the Quincy Site (“3”) approximately 0.45
pg/rn 3 SO 2 and 0.1 pg/rn 3 TSP will occur. With the possible
exception of the Revere site the effect of the three sites
operation will be indistinguishable from the background
from major sources in the area.
The Charles satellite site would add a maximum of 1.7
pg/rn 3 of sulfur dioxide to the existing background in the
immediate vicinity of the proposed plant. The corresponding
TSP concentration is estimated to be 0.061 pg/rn 3 . It is
significant to note that the point of maximum concentration
for this small source corresponds to the location of the
Glover Hospital monitoring station in Needhain. This moni-
toring station is identified by “5” just east of the site.
The Waltham (Moody and Carter Streets) monitoring station
(“4 ’) is located almost due North of the Charles site.
The contribution of this site to Waltham would be indis-
tinguishable from other sources.

-------
The Neponsett satellite site is estimated to contribute a
maximum annual concentration of 2.3 jig/rn 3 sulfur dioxide to
the general background in the vicinity of the site. The
maximum concentration of particulates in the same vicinity
approaches 0.088 pg/rn 3 on an annual basis. The Norwood
Fire station monitoring site (“6”) is located about 3 kilo-
meters north of the proposed site. It is estimated that
the Neponsett site would contribute about 0.9 jig/rn 3 sulfur
dioxide and O. 37 pg/rn 3 particulates to the annual averages
of the monitoring station.
Case IV - Deer Island and Squantum
The analysis for the combination of Deer Island and Squantum
was based upon computer program grid of 2 kilometers. (The
grid points in the same column and row are separated by 2
kilometers.) In order to add greater detail to the analysisi
a 1 kilometer “offset” grid was used. The stack parameters
employed in the analysis are given in Table 6—3.
The dispersion pattern for the sulfur dioxide grouridlevel
concentration is shown in Figure 6—3. The reference points
“1” and “2” indicate the location of the Revere (Garfield
Junior High School) and the Kenrnore Square monitoring sites,
respectively. The maximum annual groundlevel concentrations
associated with the operation of the Deer Island facility
A— 456
6—5

-------
occur approximately 800 meters East of the site. It is
estimated that 4.4 pg/rn 3 of sulfur dioxide and 1.228 pg/rn 3
total suspended particulates are added to the background
pollutants. The operation of the Squantum facility con-
tributes a maximum groundlevel SO 2 concentration of 2.5
pg/rn 3 to the existing background. This corresponds to
0.732 pg/rn 3 of particulate matter. The impact of the two
sites on the Revere and Kenmore Square monitoring stations
is too small to measure. Due to the prevailing winds the
maximum concentrations occur over the bay.
The dispersion pattern suggests that only during periods
with northeast or southwest winds will the two sites con-
tribute together to receptors downwind of the sites. During
these conditions the maximum annual concentration of sulfur
dioxide appears to be on the order of 1.5 pg/rn 3 .
Case V- Deer Island, Squantum, Neponsett, and Charles
The analysis for the combination of the two primary sites
of Deer Island and Squantum together with the satellite
sites of Neponsett and Charles was made with a 3 kilometer
grid with a 1.5 km “offset.” The input parameters for the
annual estimate are given in Table 6-4. It is noted that
the Deer Island site has two tall stacks operating while
the remaining sites have one stack each.
A— 457
6—6

-------
The dispersion pattern reflecting sulfur dioxide concentra—
tions from the operation of the sites is shown in Figure
6-4. Only the Deer Island and Squanturn show any joint
effect on the overall dispersion pattern. The Deer Island
plant contributes approximately 3 pg/rn 3 sulfur dioxide and
1.0 pg/rn 3 total suspended particulate to the existing
background. The Squantum facility exhibits about one-half
the Deer Island concentration with 1.5 pg/rn 3 SO 2 and 0.5
pg/rn 3 TSP the estimated annual amounts added to the background.
The contribution of the Deer Island and Squantum sites to the
Revere (“1”), Kenmore Square (“2”) , and Quincy (“3”) monitoring
stations is minimal. At the Revere site approximately 0.25
pg/rn 3 SO 2 and 0.063 pg/rn 3 TSP will be added to the background
concentrations. Similar concentrations are noted for the
Kenmore Square monitoring site. At the Quincy station it iS
estimated that 0.3 and 0.1 pg/rn 3 of sulfur dioxide and partiCU
lates will be added to the existing background on an annual
basis.
The maximum annual groundlevel concentration of sulfur
dioxide and particulate due to the operation of the Neponsett
satellite site is estimated to be 0.32 pg/rn 3 and 0.094 pg/rn 3 r
respectively. The contribution of this proposed site to the
monitoring station at the Norwood Fire Station (“6”) is
estimated to be 0.16 pg/rn 3 SO 2 and 0.04 pg/rn 3 TSP.
A— 458
6—7

-------
The operation of the proposed Charles sludge incinerator
satellite will contribute approximately 0.25 pg/rn 3 sulfur
dioxide and 0.066 pg/rn 3 total suspended particulates to the
monitoring site at the Needham Glover Hospital. The hospital
is located about 2.5 kilometers east of the proposed site.
Case VII — Deer Island, afltum, and Neponsett
The analysis for this combination of sites was made using the
3 kilometer grid with the 1.5 km “offset” procedure. The
stack parameters for each site in this case are given in
Table 6—5.
The resulting dispersion pattern for sulfur dioxide under
normal operating conditions is given in Figure 6-5. As in
previous cases only the Squantum site with one stack and
the Deer Island site with two stacks suggest any interaction
of emission on an annual basis. The Neponsett satellite
site acts quite independently of the other primary sites.
The maximum annual groundlevel concentration of sulfur
dioxide and total suspended particulate from the Deer Island
facility is estimated to be 3.5 pg/in 3 and 0.994 p9/rn 3 ,
respectively. The area showing the maximum concentration
pattern is confined to within 1500 meters of the proposed
plant. At Squantum the maximum annual concentration is
A- 4 8

-------
estimated to be 1.5 pg/rn 3 and 0.5 pg/rn 3 for sulfur dioxide
and particulates, respectively. The estimated addition to
the sulfur dioxide background measurements at Revere (“1”)
Kenmore Square (“2”) , and Quincy (“3”) monitoring sites is
0.28 pg/rn 3 , 0.212 pg/rn 3 , and 0.35 pg/rn 3 , respectively. The
corresponding particulate additionSare 0.062, 0.062, and
0.11 pg/rn 3 .
The operation of the Neponsett satellite facility is estimated
to add 0.56 pg/rn 3 sulfur dioxide to the existing background
at a point almost due east of the site. The estimated con-
tribution to the particulate background is given as 0.152
pg/rn 3 . The addition to the Norwood Fire Station (“6”)
monitoring site is negligible (less than 0.1 pg/rn 3 for both
SO 2 and TSP)
A— 460
6—9

-------
TABLE 6-i
CASE I
DEER ISLAND
Stack Parameters
Deer Island — 4 High Stacks 110 feet (33.5 meters)
Emission Rate
Sulfur Dioxide .291 tons/day/stack (4 stacks)
Particulates .083 tons/day/stack (4 stacks)
Hydrocarbons .021 tons/day/stack (4 stacks)
Nitrogen Dioxide .53 tons/day/stack (!4 stacks)
Stack Temperature 322° K
Stack Velocity 15.2 meters/sec (high stack)
Stack Diameter 1.4 meters (high stack)
*
Volumetric Flow 11.09 m 3 /sec
Ambient Air Temperature 284° K
Mixing Depth 1100 meters
*per incinerator
A—461
6—10

-------
TABLE 6—2
CASE iLl
DEER ISLAND, NEPONSETT, AND CHARLES
Stack Parameters
Deer Island — 4 stacks
Emission Rate
110 feet (33.5 meters)
Sulfur Dioxide
Particulates
Hydrocarbons
Nitrogen Dioxide
Stack Temperature
Stack Velocity
Stack Diameter *
Volumetric Flow
Ambient Air Temperature
Mixing Depth
— 1 stack 110 feet (33.5 meters)
Emission Rate
Sulfur Dioxide
Particulatos
Hydrocarbons
Nitrogen Dioxide
Stack Temperature
Stack Velocity
Stack Diameter *
Volumetric Flow
Ambient Air Temperature
Mixing Depth
.261 tons/day/stack
.074 tons/day/stack
.018 tons/day/stack
.475 tons/day/stack
332° K
14.3 meters/second
1.3 meters
9.439 m 3 /sec.
284° K
1100 meters
16 hours/clay
.539 tons/day
.016 tons/day
.0039 tons/day
.1.0 tons/day
322° ‘K
14.5 meters/sec
.8 meters
3.30 m 3 /sec
284° K
1100 meters
Charles — 1 stack 110 feet (33.5 meters) 16 hours/day
Emission Rate
Sulfur Dioxide
Particulates
Hydrocarbons
Nitrogen Dioxide
Stack Temperature
Stack Velocity
.676 tons/day
.02 tons/clay
.012 tons/day
126 tons/day
322° K
13.7 meters/sec
A—462
6—11

-------
TABLE 6—2 (coNT D.)
Stack Diameter .9 meters
Volumetric Flow 4.483 m 3 /sec
Ambient Air Temperature 284° K
Mixing Depth 1100 meters
*per incinerator
A—463
6—12

-------
TABLE 6—3
CASE [ V
DEER ISLAND AND ANTUM
Stack Parameters
Deer Island — 2 stacks 110 feet (33.5 meters)
Emission Rate
Sulfur Dioxide
Particulates
Hydrocarbons
Nitrogen Dioxide
Stack Temperature
Stack Velocity
Stack Diameter
Volumetric Flow*
Ambient Air Temperature
Mixing Depth
Squantum — 2 stacks 110 feet (33.5 meters)
Emission Rate
Sulfur Dioxide
Particulates
Hydrocarbons
Nitrogen Dioxide
Stack Temperature
Stack Velocity
Stack Diameter
Volumetric Flow*
Ambient Air Temperature
Mixing Depth
• 339 tons/day/stack
.095 tons/day/stack
.024 tons/day/stack
.614 tons/day/stack
322° K
14.6 meters/sec.
1.45 meters
12.03 m 3 /sec.
284° K
1100 meters
.2395 tons/day/stack
.07 tons/day/stack
.018 tons/day/stack
.466 tons/day/stack
322°
14.3
1.3
9.44
284°
1100
K
meters/sec.
meters
m 3 / sec.
K
meters
*per incinerator
A—464
6—13

-------
TABLE 6-4
CASE V
DEER ISLAND, SQJJANTUM, NEPONSE’IT AND CHARLES
Stack Parameters
Deer Island — 2 Stacks 110 feet (33.5 meters)
Emission Rate
Sulfur dioxide
Particulates
Hydrocarbons
Nitrogen dioxide
Stack Temperature
Stack Velocity
Stack Diameter
Volumetric Flow *
Ambient Temperature
Mixing Depth
339
.095
024
.614
322° K
14.6
1.45
12.03
2840
1100
tons / day / s tack
tons/day/stack
tons/day/stack
tons/day/stack
meters/second
meters
ni 3 /sec
K
meters
Sulfur Dioxide
Particulates
Hydrocarbons
Nitrogen Dioxide
349
1.07
.026
.657
tons/day
tons / day
tons/day
tonS / day
Stack Temperature
Stack Velocity
Stack Diameter
Volumetric Flow *
Ambient Temperature
Mixing l)ep Lii
3220 K
14.75 meters/second
1.52 meters
8.967 m 3 /second
284° K
1100 meters
— 1 stack 110 feet (33.5 meters) 16 hours per day
Emissjo Itate
Sulfur Dioxide
Part I c u l.a too
Hydra carbons
4 itrogen Dioxide
A—465
6 —14
.0537 tons/day
016.1 tons/day
.0038 tons/day
.099 tons/day
. qt.y ntum — 1 stack 110 feet (33.5 meters)
Emission Rate

-------
TABLE 6—4 (CONT’u. )
Stack Temperature
Stack Velocity
Stack Diameter
Volumetric Flow *
Ambient Temperature
Mixing Depth
322° K
14.47 meters/second
762 meters
3.30 m 3 /second
284° K
1100 meters
Charles — 1 stack 110 feet (33.5 meters) 16 hours per day
Emission Rate
Sulfur Dioxide
Particulates
Hydrocarbons
Nitrogen Dioxide
Stack Temperature
Stack Velocity
Stack Diameter
Volumetric Flow *
Ambient Temperature
Mixing Depth
*per incinerator
A—466
.068 tons/day
.0198 tons/day
.00495 tons/day
.126 tons/day
322° K
13.66 meters/second
.914 meters
4.483 m 3 /second
284° K
1100 meters
6—15

-------
TABLE 6_.5
CASE VII
DEER L UANJJ ANDNEP0NSETT
Stack I’arameters
Deer Island — 2 stacks
Emission Rate
110 feet (33.5 meters)
Sulfur Dioxide
Part i Cu hi t es
Hyocarbons
Nitrogen Dioxide
Stack Temperature
Stack Velocity
Stack Diameter
Volumetric FLow*
Ambient Air Temperature
Mixing Depth
antum — 1 stack 110 feet (33.5 meters)
Emission Rate
.339 tons/day/stack
.095 tons/day/stack
.024 tons/day/stack
.614 tons/day/stack
322° K
1.4.62 meters/second
1.45 meters
12.03 m 3 /second
284° K
1100 meters
Sulfur 1)ioxide
Part i cu late s
Hydrocarbons
Nitrogen Dioxide
.349 tons/day
.107 tons/day
.017 tons/day
.438 tons/day
Stack Temperature
Stack Velocity
Stack Diameter
Voluiaeiric Flow*
Ambient Air Temperature
Mixing Depth
Ppns tt — 1 stack 110 feet (33.5 meters)
Emission Rote
322° K
14.75 meters/second
1.52 meDers
8.967 m 3 /second
284° K
1100 meters
Sulfur 1)i.oxide
Part icu I a
H yd r o ca rho 05
Nitrogen Dioxide
Stack Tenepralure
Stack Velocity
Stack I)tarneter
Vo1un trjc F1ow*
Air Temperature
Mixing Depth
123 tons/day
.032 toiis/day
.0091 tons/day
.235 tons/day
322° K
.14.7 meters/second
.99 meters
5. 66 m 3 /secnnd
284° K
16 hour/day operation
A—467 1100 meters
6—16
* er incinerator

-------
TABLE 6—6
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL GROUND-LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS
% of TSP
Estimated % of S02 Estimated Primary Estimated % of NO2
Maximum Standard Maximum Standard Maximum Standard
S02 (hg/rn 3 ) ( 80 1g/m 3 ) Particulates 75 iig/m 3 NO 2 ( ig/m 3 ) 100 hg/rn 3
Case I Deer Island 5.1 6.3 1.4 1.9 8.4 8.4
Case III Deer Island 5.1 6.4 1.49 1.99 9.3 9.3
Neponsett 2.3 2.9 .09 .11 5.0 5.0
Charles 1.7 2.1 .06 .08 3.7 3.7
Case IV Deer Island 4.4 5.5 1.23 1.64 8.0 8.0
Squantum 2.5 3.1 .72 .96 4.9 4.9
Case V Deer Island 3.0 3.8 1.0 1.33 5.4 5.4
Squantum 1.5 1.9 .5 .67 2.8 2.8
Neponsett .32 .4 .09 .13 .6 .6
Charles .25 .3 .07 .08 .5 .5
Case VII Deer Island 3.5 4.4 .99 1.33 6.3 6.3
Squantum 1.5 1.9 .5 .67 2.8 2.8
Neponsett .56 .7 .15 .20 1.2 1.2
Case 1* Deer Island 4.1 5.0 1.2 1.6 6.7 6.7
* cO ended Plan

-------
tWO
0
200
I D
(0
1 :2
a’
/
/
100
\
\
3O Ocerrra-tioi
(x :c-
t -ete
0Q 300
400 400

-------
250
500
Antaual S : o:.ce: rat O ’-
(x ig/: 3 )
I
/
/
V
/51j
(0
d,___375
375 500
/
I
3,’
750
loon
- 1
0
C
/
/
I
(
II
/
250
1’

-------
\
F- ’
0
-r
200
(0
‘1
I — ,
(0
(0
T1
/
f
\
\
203
/
2
\
)
I
k H
2 eters
1
/
/
200
,,300
I
303
I
Annual 302 Concentration
‘:x i -3 /m3)
I
/
I
300

-------
I-i
-4
1%,
(11
(D
C s.
3
CD
0
c c
cc
C t
‘1
CD
cc
1 .-
,1
I
125
15 0
/
300
5 0
i. )
/
I
)
/
302
200
-l
\
150
Am us3. 302 Conceatratio
(x i .g/r 3
too

-------
530
;3)
I—

3
An ua1 302 Concentration
x io-3 ig/m 3 )
CD
CD
I-I
c .
(‘3
(0
0
to
CD
C t-
C t -
6’
/
/
-3C
\
-4
L)
)
I
‘So

-------
FIGURE 6—6
Deer Island
Annual
Total Suspended Partjcuiateg
(X i - ig/m 3 )
A—474
/
7
\
50
1 t1 .t.r
6—2 3

-------
FIGURE 6—7
Deer Island, Squanturn
Annual
Total Suspended Particulates
(X lO pg/rn 3 )
A—475
— .
/
I
/
I
50.
.75
1 0
V
50
\
1’
5() 75 100
2 iL et.ra
/
I
I
75
6—2 4

-------
7. SHORT-TERM ANALYSIS
The short-term analyses consider the maximum ground-level
concentrations of pollutants for time periods up to 24
hours. In this study it was necessary to provide estimates
for the 3 hour and 24 hour sulfur dioxide concentrations,
the 24 hour particulate concentration, and the 3 hour
hydrocarbon concentration. The Single Source (CRSTER)
Model, used for short term analysis, estimates concentrations
for 1 hour periods, averaging these for the required 3 hour
and 24 hour periods. No arbitrary scaling factors are
required.
The short term analysis was based upon sulfur dioxide con-
centrations and these results applied to the other pollutants
using proportional methods. Emission estimates were for
normal incinerator operations; however, in the analysis which
follows, a factor of 1.25 was used, where appropriate, to
take into account possible short term operations beyond
normal design rates. When simplifying computer computations
by converting multiple stacks to a single source, the
volumetric flow rate for a single incinerator was used with
the total pollutants emitted. This procedure tended to make
the final results more conservative; producing higher
maximum concentrations closer to the source.
A—476
7—1

-------
The analysis was started for total incineration at Deer
Island. Assuming total emissions from the proposed four
stacks would be emitted from a single source, the program
Point Maximum (PTMAX) was used to estimate the potential
points of maximum groundlevel concentrations resulting
from the operation of Deer Island alone. The results of
this screening analysis are shown in Table 7-1. Based
upon this, radial distances of 0.50, 0.75, 1.00, 1.25,
and 1.50 kilometers were chosen for input into CRSTER.
The Single Source Model (CRSTER) is described fully in
EPA Report 450/2—77-013, July 1977. The CRSTER program was
run on data for the years 1970 through 1974 for one pollutant,
sulfur dioxide. Using the options available in this program,
the meteorological conditions associated with each concen-
tration at 180 receptors for the five year period were
printed out. The meteorological conditions for the five
maximum 24-hour concentrations were noted. The program was
then run for the squantuin site alone for the year 1970.
comparison of the days giving the highest 24-hour concen-
trations in 1970 at Squantum and Deer Island was made. The
results are shown in Table 7—2. Based upon these data it was
assumed that those meteorological conditions that brought
about the worst 24 hour groundlevel concentrations at Deer
Island would also have a similar effect at Squantum. Two
A— 477
7—2

-------
days were isolated that produced the highest 24 hour con-
centrations at Deer Island. The associated meteorological
conditions were then input to the Texas Episodic Model
for both the Deer Island and Squantum sites.
Figure 7—1 shows the radial distances superimposed over
the Deer Island source location. It is noted that only
in the northwest—southwest quadrant is land a factor in
the analysis. (The terrain heights for these receptor
points were input to the CRSTER program as discussed in
the User’s Manual. ) The CRSTER program only produces
results for 1 year at a time. The program was run five
times to analyze historical meteorological conditions for
the period 1970—74. As discussed earlier, surface meteoro-
logical data for Logan International Airport were combined
with upper air data from Portland, Maine in order to meet
the program input requirements.
The CRSTER program results for the annual, 1-hour, 3-hour,
and 24—hour time periods for sulfur dioxide are given in
the tables which follow this section. In addition, the
option to print out the input meteorological data was
selected in order that the atmospheric conditions associated
with the maximum groundlevel concentrations could be reviewed.
These atmospheric data could then be used for a subsequent
A— 478
7—3

-------
analysis of the Deer Island and Squantum sites jointly ,
an analysis beyond the current capability of the CRSTER
program.
Summary tables have been prepared which show maximum sulfur
dioxide and particulate groundlevel concentrations produced
by the CRSTER program for the years 1970-1974. Only the 10
highest for the time period have been included. Table 7-7
shows the annual concentrations for the five year period
1970-74. The maximum concentration for the radial distances
selected occurred at a distance of 1 kilometer from the
source in the northeast direction. The concentration of
2.8 pg/m 3 is somewhat smaller than the 4.6 value calculated
using the long—term model (Table 6-6), but the techniques
for calculation differ significantly and both values are
only a small fraction of the primary air quality standard.
The annual total particulate concentration of 0.80, seen
in Table 7—8, is only 1.1% of the primary standard. In
addition, the direction from the source confirms the pre-
vailing wind directions with westerly components noted in
the STAR summary in the meteorological data section.
A summary of the maximum 24 hour sulfur dioxide and particu-
late concentrations using the CRSTER program is given in
Tables 7—9 and 7-10. The values in the table reflect the
A—479
7—4

-------
range of concentrations suggested by an application of the
recommended conversion factor (0.25 from EcoiScience Report)
to the 1 hour PTMAX output in Table 7-1. For example,
Stability Class 3 with a wind speed of 5 meters/second
persisting for 6 hours yields an estimated 24 hour value
of 0.25 x 161.55 or 40.38 pg/rn 3 . Stability Class 4 with a
wind speed of 4 meters/second converts to a 24 hour value
of 0.25 x 138.69 or 34.67 pg/rn 3 . Somewhat higher values
result from lower wind speeds. The highest value for the
CRSTER program occurs on Day 165 in 1973 (Table 7-4), a
value of 34.23 pg/rn 3 . The meteorological data for this
day is given in Table 7-13. It is noted that the maximum
concentration occurred under persistent wind conditions
from the west-northwest and northwest throughout the
24 hour period. Except for the early morning hours, the
atmosphere was quite unstable, thus causing maximum concen-
trations to occur closer to the source. Nevertheless, the
maximum concentrations for the 24 hour period are much less
than the primary ambient air quality standard for sulfur
dioxide (365 pg/rn 3 ), even when these values are multiplied
by the 1.25 capacity factor. For example, the CRSTER
maximum of 34.23 x 1.25 equals 42.8, 11.7% of the standard.
The comparable value for particulates is 12.2 pg/rn 3 (including
the 1.25 factor).
A— 480
7—5

-------
Tables 7—11 and 7-12 list the maximum three-hour concentra-
tions of sulfur dioxide and hydrocarbons for the five year
period 1970-1974. The maximum concentration for sulfur
dioxide calculated by the program is 138.01 pg/rn 3 . This
concentration multiplied by 1.25 (172.5 pg/m 3 ) is 13.3% of
the secondary standard for sulfur dioxide (1300 pg/rn 3 ).
If EcolScience’s scaling factor of 0.84 is applied to the
PTMAX output, values forStability 3, wind speed 5 meters/
second, and Stability Class 4, wind speed 4 meters/second
are 135.7 and 116.5 pg/rn 3 , respectively. These values
compare favorably with the CRSTER output. The comparable
value for hydrocarbons is 12.2 pg/rn 3 (including the 1.25
factor) , 7.6% of the hydrocarbon standard.
The short-term analysis applied to the Deer Island and
Squantum sites operating together required the use of a
multiple—source program. The Texas Episodic Model (TEM)
was employed in this phase of the analysis. Input data
was taken from the results gained from the use of the
CRSTER model on the Deer Island site. As noted previously,
CRSTER runs were made for Deer Island and Squantum indepen-
dently for the year 1970. In general it was determined
that the meteorological conditions that brought about
maximum groundlevel concentrations at one site also
A—4 81
7—6

-------
brought high concentrations at the other. In the interests
of economy the Texas Episodic Model was applied to day 165
in year 1973 and day 246 in 1971. These days brought about
the two highest concentrations of sulfur dioxide at the
Deer Island site (see Table 7—4) . A much more complex
study of meteorological conditions could possibly have
revealed interactions between Deer Island and Squantum
resulting in higher maximum concentrations for other days,
but such a result is by no means certain. The meteorolog-
ical conditions for the two days studied are reproduced in
Tables 7—13 and 7—14.
Since TEM requires the use of 3—hour scenarios as input
rather than the hourly data used by the CRSTER program,
the averages of stability class, wind direction, wind
speed, ambient temperature, and mixing height are also
given in the tables. A cursory examination of both days
shows that the maximum concentrations occurred with
persistent wind directions and relatively strong wind
speeds. Day 246 in 1971 also exhibited low mixing heights
through the 24 hour period.
In an effort to determine the relationship between the
Texas Episodic Model and CRSTER using the same input data
(with the exception that hourly data were used in CRSTER
A—482
7—7

-------
and “3—hourly scenarios” in TEM) , a test on day 165 year
1973 was run on Deer Island alone. There was only fair
agreement between the programs since TEM predicted a
maximum concentration of 21 pg/rn 3 whereas the CRSTER
program predicted 34 pg/m 3 . This discrepancy could be
due in part to the averaging methods used, with the
CRSTER program more likely to be correct.
The Texas Episodic Model was run using stack parameters
for Case Iv. As in the CRSTER runs for Deer Island alone,
all the emissions were assumed to be emanating from a
single stack. For day 165 in Year 1973 the maximum coneentrations
(24 hrs) due to the Squantuni site were 11.49 pg/rn 3
sulfur dioxide and 3.36 pg/rn 3 total suspended particulates.
The maximum concentrations occurred approximately 600 meters
from the proposed site. The maximum concentrations noted
at the Deer Island site were ll. pg/rn 3 SO 2 and 3.31 pg/m 3
TSP at a distance 700 meters from the site. In both cases
the dispersion pattern was directed towards the east-
southeast. There was no interaction between the plumes.
The analysis of Day 246 in year 1971 showed some interaction
between the Squantum and Deer Island plumes because of the
prevailing wind from the west-southwest. The maximum ground-
level concentration from the Squantum plant occurred at a
A—483 7—8

-------
distance of 1300 meters from the source. The sulfur
dioxide concentration was estimated to be 6.47 pg/rn 3 and
the particulate concentration was 1.89 pg/rn 3 . The Deer
Island maximum concentrations occurred at a distance of
1400 meters from the source. The sulfur dioxide and
particulate concentrations were 8.41 and 2.35 pg/rn 3 ,
respectively. The plume interaction effect on the Deer
Island concentrations was almost negligible. Even if
the wind had blown directly from Squanturn towards Deer
Island the maximum concentrations would have been only a
small fraction of thepermitted 24 hour sulfur dioxide
standard.
An analysis of the maximum one hour NO 2 concentration was
made. A value of 383 pg/rn 3 was calculated. This was
based upon a proportional estimate to the maximum one
hour sulfur dioxide concentration. This concentration
3
would not exceed the suggested one hour standard of 1300 pg/Th
(.5 ppm). The annual increment of 6.7 pg/rn 3 due to incinera-
tion would not cause a violation of the NAAQS.
The results from using the CRSTER program on the Deer
Island site and the TEN program on the Deer Island and
Squantuxrt plants combined show that the short-term ambient
A— 484
7—9

-------
air quality standards for sulfur dioxide, particulates,
and hydrocarbons will not be violated under the worst
atmospheric conditions. The Deer Island/Squanturn com-
bination showed lower 24 hour concentrations than Deer
Island alone. Table 1-1 summarizes the Deer Island
results, including background data.
A—485
7- 9A

-------
TABlE 7—1
DEER ISLANT )
STAC J A BAMETh
4 STACK EMISSIONS - 1 STACK
EMISSION RATE (G/SI-.C) =
PHYSICAL STACr. HLIi T (M)
STACK GAS TF MPF l A1 (JPE (U G ) = it’;’. 00
AMFiIENT A lP T MPL0A1?kE (1) (, ) 2 6.
VOLUME FLOW (CU M/5F C) II .05
STAbIL I TV W IND SPEED p x CUNC U 1ST Of- r Ax U-F I GHT
(M/SF C) (C”cu ‘) (NM)
1 0.5 ?.35 oe—o 0.549
1 0• 2 .647 f-04 0. 56 i1fl. ;
1 1 .() ?.45??L—04 0.416 . I
1 1.5 2.40 it-— 0f U.34 i 7 . ‘
1 2.0 2. O’35 —0’4 0.30r
1 2.5 ?.18 14E—04 0.? 3
1 3.0 ?. OSclh— 04 0.?h5
2 I .6672r—o4 1 .(‘5
2 0. 1.Q663L— 0 fl.7l 9
2 1.0 ?.0611f-— 04 0. - i0 0 . I
2 1.5 2.1 4 7U-—0” 0. 53( 7 .S
2 2.0 2.I07? .—0’ U.4fS
2 2.5 2.03 ?E—06 0.4,0 I
2 3.0 1 .93 f- L—04 U.3 3
2 4.0 1 •74)—u U.J ? ‘ .9
2 5.0 1.5bShr— U6 .3 -’
3 2.0 2.051H E—0’4 ().if3 •
3 2.5 ?.0072L—u4 0 .1 4f I
3 3 • 0 1 • 93c - 3E —04 1) • • I)
3 4.0 1.77?:4 UL. 0. 5_u’
3 5.0 1 6 }t. 5 04
3 7.0 1.3541t—0’+ 0. 4’)f
3 10.0 1.o7 3L—o4 3 . 1
3 12.0 ‘ .4700L—0 0.414 3B.
3 15.0 7.9954E —05 0.40?
4 0.5 6.5343t —05 e .Iio
4 0.R 9.71 —0 5 J. f1 l1fl.
4 1.0 1 .1235E—fld4 2.131 - -• I
4 1.5 1 •3450r—04 1 • r,9 74.5
4 2 .i 1. 44r3r—0 4 1.40’+
4 2.5 I.47 00h—04 1.?ff-’
4 .0 1./-+6J 4E—04 1.13? 54.0
4 4.1) l.38 5f-.—04 0.9 O
4 5.0 1.?7c ’7b _04 0.913 45.
4 7.0 1.0B1f- I-.—06 0. ) 1 42.3
4 10.1) 0.b YE—OS U.7 1 ?. 7
4 12.0 7. 662 —05 u.7c_
4 15.0 6.4Y 1L—05 n.7j1 31.h
4 20.0 5. I7 O 1E—05 ‘)./ I5
5 2.0 C . 12 ? ._Ot
P.S .o oL—0 t-.k5?
5 3.0 7.?074E—O ?.7 3
5 4.0 ,.0531L—05 2.53
5 5.0 5.26 Sfr—0 2.41? Lj
6 2.0 2. I
6 2. 5 6.7025L—05 5.134
6 3.0 6.0359h—05 4.k- 7
6 4.0 5.00 1 —05 4,e 5(J
6 5.0 4.437 5E—0 5 4.231
A— 486
7—10

-------
TABLE 7—2
ORDERED DAYS OF MAXIMUM 24—HOUR
SULFUR DIOXIDE CONCENTRATION
Deer Island
Day
Squantum
Day
2
__ 2O4
265
147
62
142
2
__ yl9 6
.—.-— ,
151 <
-> 151
A—487
7—11

-------
TABLE 7—3
CASE I — DEER ISLAND
SULFUR DIOXIDE (CRA tS PER CUBIC METER)
‘ SEAR—19 70
MAXIMUM MEAN CCNC= 2.7771E—)6 D1 5CTIC 6 DISTAN CE= 1.3 KU
DIR
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
to
11
12
13
1 ‘4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
23
25
26
27
28
29
30
32
33
34
35
35
6. 154055—37
6. 553135— 07
4. 73433E—07
5. 738265—37
3.272915—37
I • I 5 ’355E— C6
. 69 055— •37
7. 421675—37
7. 64046E07
7.635325—07
6.513585—37
‘7. 7’)453E—07
7.333405—07
7. 752675— )7
5. 567245—07
4.5) 340 —37
4. 19 25E—37
3. 932 765—C?
2. 253315—07
2. 351716—C7
2.891 C8 —07
2.6 )‘ 71 6 C?
2 • .349605—07
3.554115—0?
5. 435255— C7
7. 81299E—C7
9. 2)439E— 17
1. 13 ?52E—C5
1• 7 725—C5
1 • 6571 55— J6
1. 492115 ’06
• 0961 SE—OS
5. 577 )7E— 37
3. 72536E—07
7 • ó2 9425— 07
6 • 89 3245— 07
0.3 KM
1. 29 935 —06
1 .576275—06
9. 390505—07
1 • 05253E—C6
1 .485 7E—06
2 • 21 1 41 E—06
I • 533995—06
1 • 1335 15—36
1 • 3393 IE—06
1 • 661 515—06
1. 499)25—36
I • 921 375—06
1 • 630525—OS
1.353335—36
I • 2 16306—06
8.801965—07
. 96673—37
7. 3913E—07
4. 639’43E—07
3. 051 345—07
5 05739F—O7
5. 85401 5—07
4. 9333 3E -07
o.432255—07
8.031 725—07
I • 1103 35—05
I • J3b9 E— 36
1. 194995—06
1. 30.7E—05
• 863615—36
1 • 5205s5—06
1 • C 85 1 °E—06
. 925565-37
3.908235—07
5.51 0435—07
1.. 36)745—36
1 .0 KW
I • 587 16E—)
2.074005—05
1.190936—36
1 .25229E-JS
1 • 795935—36
2 • 777C65—06
I .35553E—06
I .26394E—05
1 .540 14E—3ó
2 • 041305—06
1.881155—36
2.51 C88E—05
2.100265—06
1 .736575—)6
1 • I 79385—06
1.307075—Co
I • ) 16185—36
I • 121 54E—0
5.31643E—D
5 • 325275—37
6.348225—07
7 .804 8E—07
6. 822386 —07
9.2 8Q3 I E— 7
3.53244 6—07
1.235815—06
1.103705—06
1.320075—06
1.362335—06
2.135746—35
1 .482 155—36
3.602665—07
5 • 1 85756— ) 7
A . ‘ 28 745—07
7.247045—07
I .405325—36
1.3 KM
I .58387E—06
2 • 067376—06
1.175275—06
I .2’ 304E—06
I • 735135—06
2.736265—06
1 .76636E—06
I • 1. 167E—06
1 .44625E—C6
1 .96634E—06
1.22756—06
2.480745—06
2 • 073615—06
I .8’)36’4E)5
I • 193165—06
1 • 052 165—06
1. 1721)5—16
• 1891 15—06
7 • 4 88295—).
5.631795—07
6 • 40 1685—07
7.982205—07
o • 608515—37
6 • 435865—07
9.33450 6—07
1 • 182635—06
1.323535—06
1 .2 55515—Oo
1 .368246—06
I .937235—06
I • 433 1 8 E —06
8.759795 -07
4.914165—37
S • 0 53985—07
7.538615—07
I . - 4559E—06
1.8 KM
I .02145— )6
1 .947575—06
I • 1 02355—06
1 • 151365— 36
1.604195—06
2 .561335—06
1.615835—06
1 .070925—06
1.3091 IE—06
1 .80733E—06
1 .677345—06
2.313895—06
1.935815—06
I .70734E—06
1 • 134 i6 —06
1.325465—06
1 • 35’) 3 1 5— j 6
• 164 185—06
7.612075—07
5.629 )4E—37
S • 147065—07
7.693655—07
6.32)7 )E—37
8 • I 36225—07
8.879095—07
I • 102335—36
9 .2764oE—07
I • 161 63E—06
1 • 338445—06
1 .67.3805—06
1.443735—06
S • 553425—07
4.601165—07
4.931015—07
7.353235—07
I • 4)32)5—36
AN ‘4 U AL
. ANGE 0.5 KM
MSAN C3NC5 TPAT1CN AT EACH RECEPTC
•jJ
I- .
1 )

-------
TABLE 7—3
CASE I — DEER ISLAND
SULFUR DIOXIDE (GRAMS PER CUBIC METER)
YEAR—1971
MAXIMUM M AN CONC= 2.692bE—06 DIPECT!CN 6 DISTANCE 1.0 KM
5
6
8
0 9
10
11
L2
13
14
1
It,
17
1
19
21
22
“4.
25
26
27
2°
2Q
30
31
32
33
‘A.
35
36
1 . 5KM
1.471 83E—06
1.708372—06
1 • 100565—06
1.09 4322—06
I .3 772E—C6
2 .469 192—06
1.983 7 -o6
1.501 14E—0
1.81(4742—06
2.187t,7 2— 36
2.1€3S3- —C5
2. 1E402.—0
1 .Q2 ’ 17 )L— j) ”
1. 57 9 10 5—05
_1 .1h7412-1C
1.25531 ’— r’
1. .128 —0
1 .3?2—
6.22 183 —)7
5 ,417
6
8 .22& 33—07
7 .?7 1-— 7
8
I O OC9”—U3
1 -228515—05
Q-1Sc 215—c7
8.5573 12— 7
1 1 7 26—:
-32 13 2— C S
8 - ° 2 2 5— 3 7
5S1 Of 35—07
5 • q77 O6 —07
6 • 825.65—37
!.!°55’ E—06
0
ANNUAL MEAN C0NCENT ATtN EAcH RECEPTC
RANGE 0.5 KM 0.8 K 1.0 KM 1.3 KM ______
-3
6..)33 ’) 4 .E—)7 1.137)92—36 1.54582E—Oó 1.552072—06
2 6.14434E—c7 1.373322—06 1.303302—05 1.80973E—C6
3 4. 64434E—C7 9.507075—07 1. 1 99 6 5 2—06 1.178862—06
4 4. ‘41 59 )E— .17 3.923 )8—)7 I • 1 5673E—J6 1 • 1 5642E—06
€.73617E—C7 1.195425—06 1.49063 2—05 1.472872—06
1.177282—06 2. 17219 2—06 2.692€ E—06 2.641775—06
____ ______ ____2.2 9 3 9 .12—is 2.177352—36
1.12 coE—Co i.64127E—Oo 1.302182—06 1.66862E—06
1.19’331—06 1 . 89329E— Oô 2.144562—05 2.0071 F—06
I.2213 8 5 —C6 2.15yQ )F_:)6 2.5353 E—)6
1.0!’ 415—C6 1.977902— 06 2.40322—05 ?.34 902—C5
1.84 8 905—Go 2.352 35 —)6 2.212015—Cf
8.42330 —C7 I.66508 —06 2. 119 15—)6 2.jç 3 38E: Th
8.05233 E—07 1.2933R -—0o t. 58523—C
6.337175—) ? 1.4G1 —05 1,2332 2—0
5 .97 ( 4- i5—C7 1 .163 —06 1 .2932oT— 5 1.21715 5—3 5
£.18562—07 .0Q248—07 t .1953SE— o 1.14 —0
5. ’ 95 —C7 1.006642—06 1.- lQF -—•
2. 63.364- —C7 ‘ . 55)9 —”7 t, ,4?OtjO3—j7 16 1T—07
2 3—o7 5775—OP
I ,8A76Q —( ’ .S —’ - 2 --o7 6 6C6 4—O7 6 2. ’q —— 7
? .2 .01) —’ .. .e 2675-07 M —37
5 72- 625—7 7-’-)Ict5—7 7 6 60 iW— 7
A .. 956t ,75—07 7 .7622—07 (4 ,Oc74ç :3- )7 c -1,727 ’2 —c7
74 5 01 1-072.25—C S 1 . 239cV’— )6
1.30 1 . ’ 4)) 5 — 0o
8- ‘o. —? 1 3 — O6 1 1 o?555—m . .i i Q:35— , ;E,
975 7
1.. T • 7-—Cjt .2 5—b 1. 9’ 2:— . i .212C_o
1 7?2—O5 1 72 — ) .. 1 . 5 0 112E— )S
___1 - 2 fl32—O5
5.5 2 02—07 6 . 04S8E—07
4.1 ‘=—C7 4. 561 S22—O 635—07 6.197305—07
‘.1977 1—07 5. i°?7 —07 6.713475—97 6.962 65—07
6.2443 55—’27 O. -D5793 - -97 !.I ” 00E 0 1.232472—06

-------
TABLE 7—3
CASE I — DEER ISLAND
SULFUR DIOXIDE (GRANS PER CUBIC METER)
YEAR—1972
.IAX1MUM MEAN CONC= 2.4217E—06 DIkECTION= 6 DISTANCE 1.0 KM
DIP
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
S. 440 14t—0 7
6.261 12E—07
5. 39900t—07
S. 77513E—07
7.25812E— 07
9.51 169 —07
9.82433E—07
8. 38550E—07
9. 73824E—07
9.69761E—07
8. 07”73E—O 7
7.9 1 948E1—07
7. 38337E —07
8.531 72E—07
7.59 133E—07
5. 90427E—07
5.7 9 13EO7
5.8f 156E—O7
2. 72OO7 —O7
1 .83259E—0 7
2.51 274t—07
3.3?232E—07
3. 9o95 —O 7
5. 34365E—07
6.970’.6L—01
8.57407E—07
8. 567?6E —07
8.2R 55 —07
I • 11 789E—06
1.31 0 4 6t—06
I • 33669E—)6
1 .03812E—06
6.70210L—O 7
‘.S?274t—O 7
7. 7 ’ +13t —07
5. 382o2 —O7
1.1321 1E—06
1. 3700 IE—OS
I .07166E—06
I • 0451 2E—06
1. 380 1OE—O ’
1. 87787E—06
1 .60058E—06
1. 16012E1—06
I .50823E—06
1. 74425E—O€
1 .5681 5E—06
I .62497E—06
1 .59266E—06
1 .45509E—06
1 • 71068E—06
1 • 164C5E—06
9.2 ’67OE—O7
1. 0999 6E— 06
6.1 5268E—07
4.20P77E—07
5. 67P56E—07
6. 9672 1E—fl7
7.85953 E — 1)7
9 • 91831 El—C 7
1. 0906’+E —06
1 .22193E—06
9. 54’.0 E—O 7
8. 296 E—O 7
1. 164Q6E—06
1 .4242’+E0f’
I .3167’+E ‘)6
1. 0 6?54E—O6
6 • 190 IdE —07
4.66520F1—O 7
5 • 65023 El —07
8.420 85E—07
1 .50601E—06
1 .78176E—06
l .33653E—06
1 .27021E—06
1 . 70986E—06
2.42171E—06
1 .88277E—06
1 .24253E—06
I .68717E—06
2. 07602E— 06
1 .9401 OE—06
2 • 061 74E—06
2. O6 6OE—06
1 .92250E—06
1 .S12 ?E—O6
I .31759E.—06
1 .3?733L—06
1 .56461L—flb
8. 8540 7E—07
6. 364 7E—07
7. ‘-26 IE—0 7
9.11 895t.—07
1 • 0] 094t—O6
I .274d2E—0
I .31 39t—06
1. 38 26E-06
I .03740E—O6
M.81221E—07
I .25371E—06
1 .b00 7h-06
I .35631E—06
0.57177E—07
6.fl929L—07
5. 7 697E-o7
7 • S’ 1 39L—07
1. 16633E—06
1 .52162E—06
1 .76749E—06
I .30492E—06
1 .23350E—06
1 .66898E—06
2 • 41 955E—06
1 .80782E-06
1 • 14174E—06
I .57988E—06
1 .98670E—0E
I .89157F—06
2 • 03460E—06
2 • OSSROE—06
1 .92375E—06
1 .S?2 .-E—O6
I .35 iR1E—06
1 .38358E—06
1 . 6 ?963E—06
9.35912E—fl7
7. 006’.4E—0 7
8 • 30389E—07
9. lq600E—07
1 .01 066E—06
1 .28768F-06
1 .30372F—06
1 .33436El—06
9. 760 68E— 07
8. 18225E—07
I .17033E—06
1 .‘.7662E1—06
1 .33253E—06
8. 87 O 7E—O 7
‘ . 72988E-07
5.’43636E—07
7. 79808E—07
1 .22330E1—06
1.5 KM
1.44704El-06
1 .66004E—06
I .2]2i ’+E—o
1. 1460 1E—06
1.5511 7E—06
2.2871 1L—06
1 .66585E-(jb
1 .02178E—06
1.431 78E —06
1 .d2039E—06
1 • 75775E—08
I . 9 0439r—0b
I .92871E—Oo
1 .8119eE—o6
1 .44104E—06
I .3J7?9E—06
1 .34124E—O6
1 .58060t—Ob
9. 19369E—07
7.133 1’.E—07
8.1 1988h—07
8. ‘660 1E—07
9.57424E— 07
1 .23362E—06
1 .d31! 3E—O6
I .2’.203E—06
8. 9’ 7 ’ -3E—07
7 .43567 —O 7
1 .0651 5E—08
1 .232?5 .—o6
1 • 3634 ’.E —06
8 .80652 El —0 7
6 .34627 —0 7
5. 70A3 —07
7.5 5P1E —07
1 .2f)0?8E—06
ANNUAL MEAN CONCENTRATION AT EACH RECEPTOR
RANGE 0.5 KM 0.8 KM 1.0 KM 1.3 KM
0
-4

-------
TABLE 7—3
CASE I - DEER ISLAND
SULFUR DIOXIDE (GRAMS PER CUBIC METER)
YEAR—1973
frAXIMIJM tAEt N CONC= 2.5332E—06 DIf ECTION= 12 OISTANCE 1.0 KM
DIR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
6.36565E—07
5.6061 1E—07
3.87163L—07
4.570R2L—07
l.63265t—0l
1 • 10332t.—06
1 .13472L—Ob
1 .11189E—06
1. 16256t—06
I • 1 079 —06
I • 05332 —06
1 • 13049 —0b
I .14636E—06
1. 05320 .—06
7 • 46519 F —07
5.57917E—07
‘ .84783E—07
‘ . 5249t-07
3. 05l24t -0 7
2.12936E—07
2.12556E—07
2. 91929E —07
2.9A599 _07
3.72870E—07
6. 13124E1—07
9 • 27857t—0 7
1 .2 ’ 307 —06
1.14866E—0S
1 • 153 121—06
l.J3577 — 6
I .311 12E—06
I .25364F—06
1 .034Q2E—0 -
7 • 9S R3 —07
1 • 123457L—06
6.94481E—O 1
1 .20774E—06
1. 13902F—06
7.22bE—07
B • 571 F—07
1 • 34750E—06
1 . 95430E—OS
1 .881’.1E—06
1 .60526E—06
1 .77603E—06
2. 035 52E—06
1 .98335E—0
2. 0550SF—Oh
1.98 19OE—0 ’
1 .482’57E—136
1. 38952F—Of,
9.22S. 1E—O7
7 • 0’035E—07
7.95 1 59E— 07
5.8 39 IE—07
‘.. 14306E—07
4.40952E—07
6. 1952 7E—07
6.6278 1F—07
7.4 8797E07
9 • 75 71 F —07
I .25329E—t 6
I .3591# E—06
I • 11 387E—06
1. 15 29E—06
I .474 + iF—OS
1 .‘2P80F—flS
I .33?73E—Of-
9. 397R8E —07
5. 05345E —07
. 1046 IE—07
9.97999E—07
1 .60555L—05
1.5] 314 —06
9.25933E—n 7
1 .08b35 —O6
1 .56022L—06
2.40
2.2 44 L-06
1. 786S3E—06
2. 025 4F—06
2.41912L—06
2 .43847F—06
2.53J24 —06
2.38 309E—06
1 .80934E—06
1 .20508E—06
9.9 981E—07
9. fl&61E—07
1. &3903E—06
7. 76339L—07
5. 75708F—07
S • 04537 F —07
8. 300851—07
8.958 0E—07
9. 90739E—07
1. 15999E—06
1 . 0O12E—o6
1 .4584 IF—OS
I • 1 38H6E— 06
1 .229e 1t—06
1 .s6o5e —oS
1 .440 4E—06
1 .200 SF—OS
9.80799E—07
9. 3 6 4R9E—fl 7
I .0 .1h4t—06
1 . 30499E—06
I .54748F—06
1 .537S F—O6
9. 20’84E—07
1 .077 55E—06
1 .62R78E—0
2.350 5 2F—O€
2. 17299E—0h
1 .f7779F—0f
1.9 171SF—OS
2.31273E—06
2 • 3S590F—of
2.47040E— OE
2.30502E—0S
1 • 7647SF—Of’
1 • 19 .37F—0S
1 .OO801E—0f
9 • 795 lsF—07
1 .007E—OE
8. 0459Q -07
6. 19132E—07
b.345? OE—07
8 .5JJ32 —07
9. 17636E—07
1.01458E—Of’
1 • 1306SF—OS
1 • 34’96E—O6
1 • 38 589E—( ’S
1 . 0S2? +F—OS
I • 1569SF—Of’
1 .S4797E—n -
1 .4L 9O6F—06
1 • 101 77F—O
9.211 17F—07
9 .23 55E—07
I • 0651SF—OS
1. 3439SF—OS
1.5 KM
I .59213E—o6
I .47 lOSE—OS
.6215F—O7
1. Ol 75F—06
1. 5?382E —06
2. 1632L—fl6
2. 01Q65E—06
1. 5283 iF—OS
I • 153 1SF—OS
2. 12025E —06
2. 19048E—06
2.2960 7E—Oo
2. 13334E—06
1 .6 154E—06
1. 12 +78E—o6
9.640 3jF—07
S • ‘ 776 E—Q 7
1 .01290E—06
7. 4389E—o 7
6. 229 3E—tj7
6 • 25348E —07
8.279?2E— 07
8 . 5157F—n7
9.83063F—07
1 .OS5R1E—06
1 .25322E—o6
1 .29000F—06
9 • 601 36E—O 7
I • 0 536SF—Cs
1 . 30959E—06
1 . fs3L—06
1 .073 8E—oS
5 • 51,101 F —07
F . 76140E—07
1 .01304E—06
1 • 30889E—06
PANGE
ANNUAL MEAN CONCENTPAT
0.5 KM 0. PSM
ION AT EACH PECEPTOP
1.0 KM 1.) KM
U ’

-------
TABLE 7—3
CASE I — DEER ISLAND
SOLFUR DIOXIDE (GRAMS PER CUBIC METER)
YEAR-1974
iAXIMUM MEAN CONC= 2.87 0E—06 DI ECTION= 6 OISTANCE 1.0 KM
DIR
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
16
19
20
21
22
23
2’÷
25
26
27
26
30
31
32
33
34
3 ,
36
3.72 175E -O7
4.41839E—0 7
3. 3889 +E—O7
4.60935L— 7
7.56630E:i—07
1 • 02055t —06
8.96558L—07
7.93575E—07
8. 83020E—° 7
9.2760 i L—fl 7
8 .409f)’+L—O 7
8.39773 E -07
7.87512L—07
8.641 7O —07
6 • 38163 E —07
7 • ii 03’ +t—0 7
5. 10792E—O 7
2 • 60657 i — 7
1 .76636k- —07
1 .38627 —fl7
1 • 75277t —07
2.31020t—0 7
3.51054E—07
5.24465E-37
7. 19296 —fl7
7 • 79339 —0 7
7. 7866 7E-27
9.23729L—01
1 • 16247t—06
1. 197 18t— b
8 • 39585 f- —07
5.2? 49L—07
4. 03535r.-fi 7
6.29279 -O7
3. 7653OEi—07
8. 872 B5E—07
1. 1 252E—06
8. O +S58E—07
9. 9099 7 L—07
1 .55f’.81F—06
2. 23184E—fl
1 64085E—O6
I .2375bE—06
1 .49799E06
1 • 7576L+E_06
1 . 73324F—06
1 .73’t’ 7 —06
1 .6O1 7E—fl -.
1 . 2 12E—06
1 • 77 3UE—06
I .20#”73Ei—06
1 • 11 B3E—O6
9 ‘ ?23E—O7
5 .97 98E—o7
- 4.23?41E—07
• 3.7d ’72E—07
. 5672.3E—0 7
5. 05681 E—0 7
6. 66 64E—0 7
8. 03 4 iL—fl 7
1 .O7736E—O ’
9.50 15’.E—07
8 • 7 ‘ 58 L — o 7
1
1 . .3362F—fl -’
1 .39 ’77F—0
9 • 97 9 E —0 7
5 • 28431 E —0 7
4. 7’+528E—07
4. 68734E—fl 7
6 • 27168 E —07
I .20914E—06
1 .512?it.—08
1 • 051 05E—06
1 .26006t—06
I .3732E—06
2. R7498 —06
1 .9783 ’ 5 —flb
1 .36010E—Ob
1 .72997t—0b
2. 120 7 i—06
2. i75’+ ’ 5t —06
2. 172b9E—Q
1 99330h—0c
1. 825S4 ,—06
I .S2107t —0b
1. 3 1096E—flb
1 .49774c -O0
I .303’- 3 --flb
6.50404L—0 7
. 1440 St-—Ui
5. 53523E—07
r,.571 5 it—U 7
6. 179Jt t-—3 7
8. 5310 9L—07
9.261 94L—07
I .20823L—06
1 .85’13ft—06
i. 546 - it—Ui
I .251t5c-—fl6
1 . 7?33’ — f lo
1 .‘4 ( ’t-flb
.55Ri0 —O7
6• 301 D #t-—0 7
6. 33861 —O 7
6.47016 t—07
6 30O5 It-—Ui
1 .?29 4E—O6
1 .51464E—06
I .03127E—06
1 .23518E—06
1 • 6 6 0 21 F —0 &
2.640 33F—06
1 • 9 fi 351 —0 6
1 .28396F—06
1 .632’.QE—0E
2.0 3 69E—fl6
2.11 990E—fl6
2. 12U36E—06
1 .Q3472 —O6
1 .7 1 +F— ’6
1 .50556E—06
I .31 1b —06
1 .50507E—06
1 . 325bh —06
•
6.536 12F— 07
5.631 73 [ —07
6. 56I 1F—07
6 •
8.5 706E—07
S. 5 f 9L E —fl7
I • i3/7S . —06
9.c33 ’ 57E—07
‘5 • 95’.39E—0 7
1 . Ii 32F—O -
I .ofi ’95E—(
I . I0 —fl6
9 • 071 27E—fl 7
6. 2339 1F—07
b.56 i7E—07
6. 73398E—07
9. 24’ 55E—O7
1.5 pcjA
1 • 1 7474E—06
1.42H%4E—06
9.b745bE—O7
1 • 1490b —06
1 .1 3753E —06
2.
I. ?S2i OE.— 06
1. 15567E—06
1.4 - 128E—U6
1.86
1 .
1 .9 ’D534E06
1.1662 7E—06
1.6 7826E—06
1 •‘4j 1 1SF—OS
1.2461 1E— 6
1 .1S4E—(
1 .26340F—0S
8. 7155SF —07
& .L+6728E_07
5. 709’ 7r —O7
6.6 5631E—07
6. 5 33 it- —07
8.157 ’ .3E—07
8.1 7522E — 7
1 .03741E.—O6
9.33 19’+E—Q 7
8. l ’ 5eSOL—0 7
I • (H I 33E—U6
I • 33 7SE—06
I •-901 —06
9.0 ’+436t .—0 7
5 • 89 ÷ . 7t—0?
6. 37725E—07
6. 54353E—07
9. 0754 ’ -+ [ 07
‘ .0
I .’ ,
ANNUAL MEAN CONCENTkAIION AT EACH k CEPTCR
R4 GE 0.5 KM 0.8 \M 1.0 \M 1..) M

-------
TABLE 7—4
CASE I —DEER 1SLANI)
SULFUR DIOXIDE (LEANS J’ER CUBIC METER)
YEAR—1970 —-
VAXIMUM C.AIL’ CCNCEt I ATIONS
DAY
204
165
32
142
265
297
264
1 96
324
1 52
151
161
153
268
171
168
‘47
62
238
160
205
220
199
206
190
238
11
1 67
17 3
162
59
155
337
145
226
189
148
230
214
346
203
244
166
147
119
232
I 84
266
236
91
24—HCUR CUNCENT ATICN
3 • 022 9E— 05
2.791 ÔE—05
2.5644E_ 3
2 .4339E—05
2.381 2E—05
2.26915—35
2 • 209 7E— 05
2 • 181 0 0
2 • 1 545E— 05
2. 1435 —05
2 • I 026E—05
2.091 7E—05
2 • 042 4E— 05
2 • 033 OE— 05
2 • 02505—OS
I •9972E— 35
1 .9944 5—05
1 .989 SE—OS
1 •9824E—)5
1 .9548E—05
I .94045—05
I .91595—05
I .91098—05
1. 886 IE—OS
1 .878 IE—OS
1.87128—05
1 .8695E—C5
1.86425—05
1 • 850 7E— 05
1 .848 SE—OS
1 .82495—05
1.8)805—35
1 .79795—05
1 .7939E—05
I .7777E—05
1.75495—05
1.73935—05
1 • 736 15—05
1.721 2E—05
1 • 718 1 8— 05
1 .71625—05
1 .7127E—05
1 .70895—05
1 .6935t—05
1 .6894E—J5
1 .68925—05
I .o8SOE—05
1.65955—05
1 .6478 —O5
1 .64765—05
DI9ECT ION
31
31
6
6
6
‘4
5
2
33
7
6
6
6
6
I0
2
13
18
6
-3
31
28
6
30
36
8
10
6
7
7
-Jo
28
6
30
6
5
30
12
.31
18
10
12
5
13
27
6
12
2
D ISTANCE
0.50
0.50
1 • 25
o. sc
1.30
1 30
1.00
1 • 00
1.03
0.50
• 00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1 • 00
1.25
0.50
1.00
I. 33
1 • 00
0.50
3.53
0.75
0.50
l.03
0.50
1.25
1 • 00
0.75
1 • 00
1.25
) • 53
I • 25
1.25
1. 33
I • 00
0.50
1.00
0.50
1.25
1.00
1 • 00
0.75
O • SO
3.50
1.25
1.25
1 • 3 0
1 • 00
1 • 00
A—493 7—17

-------
TABLE 7—4
CASE I — DEER ISLAND
SULEIJR DIOX [ DE (J A i ’ ER CUB [ .C 1ETER)
YEAR-1971
MAXIMU’ CAILY CCNCENTRATIONS
DISTANCE
3.25125—05
3 .20735—o5
2 • 84 8 E —05
2.575 4E—Q5
2 • 574 6E— 05
2. UB2E—05
2 • 3538—05
2.277oE—c5
2 .2 38 SE—OS
2.1995E— 5
2 • I 7025—CD
2.1 743E—05
2. 168 c!_ 35
, ,.2.0993E—05
2 • OH 79E —05
2.01025—05
2.00485—05
1 .9876E—oS
1.98335—55
I .96785—Q5
1 .95755—05
- I .93545—05
1 .9276E—35
1 .921 4E—05
1 • 920 45— 08
-. 1.90305—CS
1 .. 9 9I E—0
1 .880 15—05
1 .85925—05
I .85235—15
1.84665—05
I .84525—05
1 .d4 tE— )
. 82 82 5—05
I .91975—05
1 .79985—05
I .78635—oS
I .76705—05
1.76705— 05
1 .75825—oS
1 .75J8E—05
1 • 751 ME—OS
1.7 ’ 565—)’3
1 .7457 —05
I •
320 _____ 1.72375—OS
337 1.7171E—Q5
275’ 1.71265—15
192 t.7088E—o S
CAY
24—HCUR
CONCENTrATICI¼,
CIPECTION
246
6
i70
7
1.00
0.70
181
,
6
247
6
1.30
248
10
1.00
7
1. OC
191
. ,

, ,
10
.
218
11
0.75
21:
1.00
18
1.25
242
8
1.00
.
198
2
0.75
236
9
1.00
31
0.75
209
25
,._C.5C
.
196
11
0.SC
187
6
0.75
,188
11
0.75
,,,_,
182
1.00
256
2?
1• OC
203
2 5
1.00
13
0.50
0.75
185
6
-
271
36
3.75
77
14
1.5C
2
1.25
1.25
327
14
1.25
,
259
30
272
2
0.5 5
2
1.00
1.00
98
,
13
171
1.00
2 3
29
1.00
““
26
0.75
200
1
,
297
25
251
7
1.0 ’)
169
1.00
142
14 ‘ ‘ “‘
0.50
305
7
258
12
129
22
1.00
‘131
JO
1.00
0. 50
183
32
270
‘ “‘“
5
17
17 ‘‘ ‘“
9
7
8.55
1.50
1. S
1.25
1.25
A—494
7—18

-------
TABLE 7—4
CASE I — DEER ISLAND
SULFUR DIOXIDE (CRAMS PER CUB I C MIclER)
YEAR —1972
MAXIMUM DAILY CONCENTRATIONS
[ )AY 24—HOUR CONCENTRATION DIRECTION DIcTANCE
238 2.9479 —0S 26 0.50
244 2.7 3iL—05 31 0.50
248 2.70121—05 10 1.25
196 2.40391—05 6 1.00
220 2.39 0E—05 2 1.00
243 ?.3788E—05 31 0.50
189 2.37221—05 30 0.50
18b 2.32871—05 14 0.50
246 2.32771—05 24 1.25
235 2.24571—05 7 0.50
175 2.21? 8E—05 30 1.00
152 2.2057E—0S 2 1.0(1
260 2.1 071E—05 6 1.25
129 2.04941—05 2’4 1.50
354 2.04221—05 6 1.25
185 2.0382 1—OS 2 1.00
179 2.03351—05 9
241 2.01911—OS 9 1.00
261 2.0104E05 5 1.OU
226 1.96071—05 9 0.75
225 1. 9539E—05 5 1.00
135 1.89951-05 2 1.00
193 1.88741—05 0.50
277 1.85881—05 6 1.50
201 1 . 8 1 430 1—05 27 0.50
184 1.83161—05 7 0.75
249 1.8145E05 11 1.00
234 1.80361—05 27 0.50
213 1.7826E—0 5 6 1.25
293 1.77 5 E—05 18 1.25
io 1.77?’4E—fl5 36 1.50
181 1.77161—05 22 0.50
236 1.7303E—0 5 5 1.00
?0 1.71501—05 13 1.00
101 1.70851—05 10 1.00
229 1.68741—05 31 0.50
88 1.6859E0S 14 1.00
209 1.685 8 1—OS 31 0.50
I .679&E—flS 6 1.25
37 1.67 51 1—OS 7 1.25
1 /8 1.6695 1- 05 7 0./5
151 1.6h66E—0 5 2 1.00
223 1.66421—05 1? 1.00
79 1.66191—05 14 0.50
167 1.6’ 50E—05 5 1.00
4 ? 1. 64 271-OS 13 1.25
172 1.6372E—05 1 1.00
200 1.63621—05 27 0.50
?86 1.o 91L—05 1.25
155 1.62301—05 7 0.50
A—495
7—19

-------
TABLE 7—4
CASE I — DEER [ SLAND
SULFUR D [ OXIDE (GRAMS PER CUBIC METER)
MAXIMUM DAILY CONCENTRATIONS
DAY 24—HOUR CONCENTRATION DIPECTION DISTANCE
185 3. ?32E—C5 12 1.00
3.0 90E—05 7 1.00
211 2.9863E-05 2E 0.50
2.8884E—05 26
184 ?.7 974E —05 1 0.75
220 2.7433L—05 6 1.00
225 2.5761E—oS 14 0.50
l 7 ?.4374L-05 29 0. 0
183 2.4359E—05 1 1.00
203 2.41 9 ?E —05 30 0.75
230 2.3864E—05 26 0,50
229 ?.3?60E—05 31 0.50
250 2.2900 E—05 10 1.00
185 2.27?4E—n S 1 1.25
?18 2.21c 7E—o5 31 0.50
217 2. 1864E—05 11 1 .00
221 2.184IL—05 6 1.00
107 2.1(’t lE—flS 7 1.00
208 2.15?6E—O5 2 1.00
182 2.13 44 —n5 7 1.00
309 2.0681E—05 1) 1.25
22 ? 2.066UE—n 7 0.50
200 ?.36E—05 8 0,75
308 ?.fl 90 —05 11 1.00
198 ?.0431E—o5 22 0.50
233 2. o?71E—n5 JO 0.50
173 2.0 193E— 05 1 1.00
219 2. 01 56E—oS 1’) 0.50
187 1.9913L—o s 12 1.00
241 1.9543E—n S 13 0.15
152 1.9537E—o 7 1.00
234 1. 9 7E—o5 31 1.50
186 1. 85bE—fl5 1 0.1
248 1.84 ? OE—05 32 0.50
190 1.8381E—o5 3? 0.50
189 1.8339E—n5 d 0.75
111 1.8263E—05 30 1.00
11 1.8 019E—O5 9 1.25
355 1.7925E—o5 35 0.50
147 1.1873E—05 30 0.50
331 1.77 60E—o5 36 1.25
2/3 l.7665E—0S ii 1.00
231 1.709?E—05 27 0.50
193 1.6985E—fl5 13 1.00
286 1.6882E—05 5 1.00
159 1.8/SHE—oS 6 1.25
228 1.6744E—05 30 0.50
224 1.6 641E—0 5 0.75
182 1. 8 8? ?E—05 31 1.50
255 1. 8510E—oS 13 0.75
A—496 7—20

-------
TAOIE 7—4
( AS I — SLANI)
SULFUR DIOXLOE(RAMS PER CUBIC METER)
YEAR—1974
MAXIMUM DAILY CONCLNT .AT1ONS
C Y 24—HOU CONCENTPATION DIPECTION DISTANCE
2. 400 E—05 ‘ 1.00
156 2.J6b2 .-05 5 1.00
i1 2. 2146E—05 6 1.00
251 2.1 i —05 17 1.00
1 r 2.1?74t-—05 1 0.75
2u5 2. L-0 - 26 1.00
25 2.0 11L— 05 6 1.25
i u 2.O o3L—05 10 0.75
2.0E 67L—fl5 6 1.00
2 5 2.0357r -05 6 1.25
6? 1.Q 55E—()5 1 0.15
247 i. .,U ,L—05 1.25
266 1. 44L F—O5 Ic., 0.75
212 1.h530L—05 6 1.00
1O 1. 08 4L—05 2) 1.25
1 1.7501f .—05 7 0.50
1 /6 1 • i 53L—flb 1.00
225 1.7 6 ’ iF—05 2 1.00
I c i! 1 • 634 [ —O5 6 1 • 00
225 J.i39 E—05 31 o.5u
117 1. 75f—05 23 1 .2
352 1.71 5’ IL—Th lo 1.00
216 1 • 7031E—’)S 1.00
1 1 1 • /026E—05 1.00
210 1.6 05E—05 3) 1.00
21 1.11E— ’ 31 0.50
322 1.h7 6E—05 6 1. b
I 3 1 . 6 d5E—05 F, 1) /5
1.25
209 1.6516F.—fl 5 2 1.25
25 1.h355E—fl5 1
1’s7 i.31E- 1.25
265 1.h?0’ L—0 13 1.00
73 1.62 03L—05 13 1.00
1/2 1 .Y7F—05 6 1.00
1.5/hit—OS 6 1.00
23 1.5758E—O 5 2 1.00
211 1.5 46E—O5 27 1.00
1/3 1. S6 UYE—0 5 27 0.50
115 L. SS1 SL—O 5 5 1.00
217 1. 5 462L—OS 6 1.00
100 ).5 4 L—05 1
1.5302E05 30 0.50
10 1 • 5U5k 1—05 1.7 .50
106 1 • ‘ ‘ 9 .+f. —05 10 1 • 0u
54 1.4952E—05 12 1.00
1.4H59L-05 30 1.00
276 j.4733L- 05 14 1. OQ
191 1.46Y5105 15
A—497
7—21

-------
TABLE 7—5
CASE I — DEER ISLAND
SULFUR DIOXIDE (GRAMS PER CUBIC METER)
YEAR—197 0
AX1MUM 3—hOURLY CONCENTRATIONS
DAY 3—HOUR C0NCENI ATICN D IRECTION DISTANCE TINE PERICD
152 1.1515E—04 7 0.50 4
205 1. I IO OE—04 31 0.50 4
214 1.3221E—)4 31 0.50 5
204 9.9959E—05 31 0.50 6
174 9.8439E—O5 20 0.50 4
205 9.7323E—O5 T I? s. so
204 9. 2B1E—O5 31 0.75
j33 o.4oaoE—os 32 0.50 4
206 9.29155—05 30 0.50 4
194 9.26 5E —05 31 0.50 6
221 8.4797E—05 25 C.50 4
194 8.45505—05 31 0.75 6
142 8.41525—iS 6 0.50 5
174 B.Jo3 OE—05 31 0.50 5
189 9.27 9 1 5—05 4 0.50 4
20R 9.2406E —C5 S j 5cj 4
301 8.1770 —05 15 0.75 4
165 8.14 92 5—05 31 0.50 4
225 8.13695—05 32 0.50 4
165 8.12895—05 32 0.50 4
133 8.0 937 5— 05 26 0.75 5
221 f3.O5Q3 —05 27 0.50 4
21 8.)366E—)5 35 0.50 6
119 8.0221E—O5 5 1.00 3
206 7.9957E—05 31 0.50
161 7.988)5—iS 6 3.75 3
155 7.95745—OS 28 0.50 5
148 7.92585—05 30 0.50 5
7.84)40—35 12 ).53 4
152 7.8112E—05 7 0.75 4
152 7.69 2 9E— 05 6 0.50 4
132 7.6806E—)5 30 0.75 4
143 7.62975—05 30 0.50 5
227 7.58985—05 3 0.50 5
142 7.536 9E—05 7 0.50 5
147 7.53045—05 13 0.50 4
159 7.5084E—C5 3 1 0.50 5
15 0 7.50555—05 30 0.50 6
2)3 7.4 8865—35 31 1.00 6
205 7.48465—05 31 1.50 7
226 7.67585—05 31 0.50 4
152 7 • 3 ) )E— )5 6 3. 75 3
282 7.3324 5—05 ii 0.50
91 7.3295E—35 5 0.50 4
281 7.31815—05 33 0.5) 4
118 7.30995—05 5 0.75 3
263 7.30445—05 32 0.75
132 7.2867E:—o S 30 1.00 4
204 7.27265—05 31 o.so 5
118 7.237 5E—o5 5 1.25 3
A—498
7—22

-------
TABLE 7—5
CASE I — DEER ISLANI)
SULFUR DIOXIDE (GRAMS PER CUBIC METER)
YEAR—19/J .
X LM 3—t-iCW LY CJNCFNT ATICNS
CAY 3—HCu CO 4CENTC4TICN CI ?ECrroN DISTANCE TI E 1CC
175 1.120 3 —D’4 33 0.5C 4
183 1.02 ,I —0’4 32 0.50 6
259 1.O01 —J 3) 0.53 5
2oc 9.7 0 2 ’ )E— 05 25 0.50 5
220 . ,5 2 —C5 29 0.50 6
1 3 ).2121 —05 32 C.79 6
222 ‘ ).1 2 —)5 7 0. 00 4
213 .125cE—c5 29 0.50 5
202 ?.J3 ’ . ,F—03 .31 0.50 5
22 B.37 4. — 5 0.50 0
230 4.2991E— 05 2’.; C.5C 4
169 8.2’332 —)5 JO 0.3C S
29’ .22 3F—)5 26 0.75 5
222 5.12 5JE:_CE 4 C.5C 4
197 3.0011 —05 ‘3 0.50 5
2 2 7.Y9)6E—)5 7 0.53 ‘4
160 7.d917 — 3 .i 31 C.5C 5
1 .3f 7 . )2E—05 0. C S
204 P.04 3.4:—oS 2 ). o 3 5
175 7.7010’—05 34 0.50 4
224 7.75373.—OS 13 0.75 6
16 ’ ) 7.L ,q 3—)5 31 0.50 4
0.50 4
27 0.50 5
2)9 P. 5 64 6:—os 25 0.75
2 5 7. 5 1-—) 31 0.50 4
23 p .54Q 3.—)5 26 0.75 4
7.52 #5 —00 I 0.50 5
‘.9 —)5 1) ).5 4
234 7.4 o-7 5—05 30 C.50 5
203 7 ’ )t — p 2 ’ ) 0. SC
7. s1 ’ g —Y3 75 ‘4
16? 7•)5 —•j 5 1 ’l C . C S
242 7•3735 J 5 0.50 4
197 7.371 —00 5 0.75 5
1.69 7,35 ’4 — ’J5 2 0.50 5
7.2 .30’ —05 30 0.75 5
13
17) 7.) (2—’) ’ (J. D() S
I 7 & ‘ . ,‘() I ‘ ‘ — 1 • S C
P. 1’-i -°- — ‘.‘‘. 2 0 • 7’ F
I.,, ‘.!o, ’ l.- ‘_, , ‘) 1
.1 4fl •• ( . P S
2 - ; C.3C
“5 /— 11) — 7 . )
47 F :. ‘4 •. ,r
7 . ,v,I 0 ’_— . ‘p
1 • 7 7 0 ‘) 4 — ... 3
r — - - 1.) ., ‘.0:
1’4 ,79
A—499
7—23

-------
i -
CASE I — DEER ISLAND
SULFUR DIOXIDE (GRAMS PER CUBIC METER)
YEAR—1972
M1 X1’1uM 3—HOURLY CONCENTk4T1UN
DAY 3—HOUR CONCENTp ’ATION DIkECTION DIS1ANCE TIkIE PEPIOL )
244 1.1148E—04 31 0.50 4
189 1.0535E—04 31 0.50 4
.0 ’ 61L—fl4 27 0 .5u
238 1.01301—04 0.50
194 1. 00 2 ’ 4E—0’-. 12 0.50 4
2 4 ’ 4 1.00061—04 31 0.50
142 9.Q 05E—05 3. 0.50 5
155 9.5 .10E—O5 7 0.50 4
213 9.25551—05 35 0.50 4
17’ 9.20 67 1—05 9 0.75 3
235 9.O592E—O 7 0.50
?01 8.8155E—05 26 0.50 5
244 8.38691—05 .31 0.75 5
143 8. 2 4 80 1—05 0.50
189 8.16761-05 29 0.50
?34 8.08811-05 28 0.50 4
189 i .0334L—05 31 0.15 ‘4
194 7.92801—oS 12 0.75 4
201 7.92251—05 27 0.50 S
179 7.8L 51E 05 1.00 3
210 7.8630E—Q5 27 0.50
187 7.838 41—05 22 0.75 5
186 7.82331—05 14 0.50 5
7.72221—05 31 0.50 6
244 7.71471—05 32 0.50 ‘4
191 7.”605E—O5 32 0.50 ‘4
226 7.62701—05 6 0.50 5
187 7.58 671—05 22 1.00
238 7.56 1E—o5 27 0.50 ‘ 4
252 7. SE91E—o S .3 . 3 0.50 5
?38 7.49811-05 26 0.75
?18 7.48361—05 24 0.50
?J8 7.42381—05 25 0.50 6
23’. 7.41841—05 27 0.75 4
?78 7.40691—05 31 0.50
186 7.3970E—05 16 0.50
213 7.34 5 4E— 05 36 0.50 ‘4
7.29811—05 31 0.50
139 7.2926E-05 27 0.50
257 7.28 8 4 1—05 24 o.so ‘4
179 7.28061—05 0.50
189 7.2673 1—05 30 0.50 ‘4
243 7.25 83 1-05 32 0.50 ‘ 4
169 7.256 6 1—05 .33 0.50 6
226 7.25001-05 10 0.75
19’. 7.24731—05 13 0.50 ‘4
142 7.23461—05 32 0.75
226 7.22971-05 10 0.50
143 7.1625 1-05 29 0.75 6
127 7.13761—05 31 0.50
A— 500
7—24

-------
TABLE__7—5
CASE I — DEER ISLAND
SULFUR DIOXIDE (CUAMS PER CUBIC METER)
YEAR— 1973
MAXIMUM 3—hOUPLY CONCE:NTPATIONS
DAY 3—HOU CONCENTPATION DIRECTION DISTANCE. TIME PERIOD
230 1.3 01E-04 26 0.50 5
230 1.1 969E-04 27 0.50 5
219 1.1269E-04 10 0.50 4
174 1.09991—04 0.50 4
190 1.09061—04 33 0.50 5
1 4 1.05 oE—04 1 0.50
229 1.00511-04 31 0.50 5
211 1,0004E—04 0.50 5
216 9. 9 940 1—05 33 0.50 ‘4
191 9.87’+1E—05 26 0.50 5
174 9. 9 5901-05 8 0.50 4
11 9.71371—05 27 0.50
22 i 9.5791E— OS 3 0 0.50
163 9.57421—05 0.50 4
216 9.55191—05 33 0.75 4
1 2 9.55131-05 27 0.50
218 9.22851—05 3? 0.50 4
174 9.21741—05 33 ( ,5()
191 9,21191—05 26 0,75 5
230 9.19661—05 1 0.50
230 9. 1172E—05 0.50 4
197 9.1o12E—0 2’ 0.50
233 q . 02 17E—05 30 0.50
8.96411—05 33 0.50
? 28 8. 0E—05 30 0.75 6
244 8. 051—05 7 0.50 4
190 8.8 72E—05 32 0.50 5
197 8.84301—05 29 0.75
230 8.77&i5E—05 25 0.50 5
234 d.bS l lE—(Th ii 1.50 3
190 R.6 12E—05 31 0,75 6
197 8.61691—05 29 0.50
188 R.6u28E—05 6 0.50 5
246 8.6 0111—05 32 0.50 a
197 8.59851—05 30 0.50 5
166 8.56251—05 14 0.50 3
230 8.’+5371—05 26 0.75 5
1 9 8.44451—05 0.75 3
144 8.42201—05 30 0.50 6
217 8.3711 1—05 14 0.50 6
191 8.34871—05 27 0.75 6
203 8.30821—05 27 0.50 ‘ 4
225 8.29021—05 1’. o.so a
219 8.23911—05 9 0.50 4
189 8.23631—05 7 0.50 S
221 8.2341 1—05 7 0.50 4
216 8.22451—05 3? 0.75 4
233 8.10981—05 0.50 4
211 8,09781—05 27 0.50 5
229 8.09391—05 31 0.75 5
A—501
7—25

-------
TABLE 7—5
CASE I DEER ISLAND
SULFUR DIOXIDE (CRAMS PER CUBT.C METER)
YEAR—1974
MAXIMUM 3-HOUPLY CONCENTRATIONS
DAY 3—HO1J CUNCENTPATIUN DIRECTION DISTANCE TIME PERIUL)
244 8.bP22E—fl5 14 0.50 4
21 ’ .dS30t—05 31 0.50 4
7.9137E— 05 7 0.75 4
172 7.5’ 2YE—05 33 0.50 5
154 1.St U7E—05 12 0.75 3
224 7. SO O1E—05 31 0.50 4
219 7. L—05 32 0.50 4
i1 7.231 0t—o5 6 0.50
325 7. U”5L—05 o.7
26 7.126 L—05 6 0.15 4
11’ 7.07E36L— 05 15 0.50 4
26 b.9350E—05 7 1.00 4
325 6.8 15 —05 9 1.00 5
&,.871i1F.—05 14 0.50 4
161 6. ) 593L—05 11 0.50 5
6 . 50Yf —05 31 0.15 5
235 6.7P37ti—05 1.25 7
212 6.6i 7E—fl5 5 0.51) 5
244 6. 660i —05 1 . . ( 1•75
233 6.6303L—05 31 0.50
142 b.a lo OL—0S 31 0.50 4
115 6.6 01 5E—05 6 0.75 4
202 b.55 UE—05 12 0.75 3
b.i523L—05 IH 0.50
154 6.5 32E—fl5 12 1.Oo 3
220 6.5225E—05 12 0.50 5
11 6.49 56E—05 6 0.75 3
206 6.4470E—05 0. 5u 5
2 3 6.440 5L—05 25 0.50 4
227 6.4220E—05 31 0.50 5
254 6.4123E—05 2q 0.50 5
6.3557L—05 JO 0.50 5
&.3663E.—05 3 0 0.50 5
1 5 6.224ft—O5 32 0.50 6
6.1761E—05 31 0.50 5
155 6. lbShE—05 31 0.50
1 7 6.1515E—05 31 1.50 1
26 6.143t E—05 1.00 4
223 6.1104E—05 .31 0.50
6.104 0L—05 31 0.51) 4
35 6.U 5JL—fl5 30 1,00 7
209 6.074 5E—05 0.50 5
2J 6. 0617E—05 3? 0. Si) 4
163 6.0498E-05 35 0.50 4
26 6.0363E—05 31 1.00 5
199 6.0342E—OS 7 1.25 2
212 6.0198E 05 4 0 5Q 5
329 5.9989E-05 9 1.25 5
235 5.97321—05 30 1.50 7
220 5.92131—05 31 0.50
A—502
7—26

-------
TABLE 7—6
CASE I — DEER ISLAND
SULFUR DiOXIDE (USAMS PER CUBiC METER)
YEAR—1970
UAXIPRJM HOU L’ C0NC NT AT IONS
1—HCU Cr3NCEN ATICN D I ECTION 0ISTANC HOLP
214 1.9654E—04 35 0.50 18
79 1.b945E—0 34 1.00 Ic
191 1.b79b — ) 35 .5 ) IC
174 I. 752E—04 20 0.50 11
211 1. 6145E—04 35 0.50 IC
205 1.5 734 ) 31 3.5) IC
79 1.5 590E—04 34 0.75 IC
227 I.525 I —04 8 0.50 11
221 1.5162 —0 28 ).50 10
22b t.4911 —04 12 0.50 IC
79 1.483 I O4 34 l.2 D 1C
214 1.4822E-04 9 j . 5J 10
2J6 1.4544E 04 13 0.50 9
170 1.4502E— 04 7 0.30 17
227 l.4318E04 3 0.50 14
14) 1.4I 35E— 23 0.50 12
175 i.3 6E—04 3 6 0.50 9
210 i.Jd5JE) 35 0.50 11
174 1.3823E—) IS 0.50 12
229 1.J 6J1E—04 6 0.75 16
130 i.J5 E—0 4 32 0.50 12
13) 27 .5J 14
205 1.355 6E— 04 1 7 0.50 9
165 t.3405E0 I 31 0.50 15
222 l.33 6E—J4 29 i ).5) IC
140 1.33 E04 22 0.50 12
209 1.3316 04 5 0.50 11
210 1.3315E—04 4 3.75 IC
2)4 1.3079 E—04 22 0.50 Ic
226 1.3053E—04 31 0.75 18
206 t.3 038E34 29 0.50 IC
21 1.J)16E)’4 9 0.75 10
228 l.295’ EC4 8 1.50 5
206 1.29 15E04 13 0.75 ç
22 I.29i2E —)4 12 ‘i.7 5 10
159 1.284 1E04 6 0.50 11
210 I.2 333 04 31 0.50 12
1 o 1.2-327F 0’4 28 0.50 12
208 1.2797E—04 0 0.50 IC
208 t.2787 O’ 9 0.50 IC
174 1 .1772 —Q’ 79 9•5() 10
221 i.27P2C0 4 2 0.50 9
225 1.27ô0E 04 33 0.50 11
79 1.2798E04 3 1.50 IC
159 1.264 5E34 1 0.50 12
199 1.264 1E-04 2 0.50 Ic
240 1.2639 04 32 0.50 IC
191 1.2629E—04 2 ? 3.50 14
191 1.2629E 04 30 0.50 14
209 I.2620E04 32 0.50 12
A—503
7—27

-------
TABLE 7—6
CASE I — DEER ISLAND
SULFUR_DIOXIDE (GRAMS PER_CUBiC METER)
YEAR— 19 7 1
Y I IJM F- CUPL? CGNCENTQATIflNS
1—HCUP c :)NcsNT I:CN DI ECTtON OiS . ’JCE
25<) 1.5162E—04 3. 0.50 11
23’4 1 .46185—04 I 7 0 • 5.) C
255 1.4532E—)4 32 1.25 I I
255 1.45235—04 22 1 .5C 11
I .45 E—04 2 5 0.50
248 1.4d E—0 4 34 1.);
235 .40 —04 35 0.50 1 1
24M 1 •37<)bE—04 34 1.2t ic
1 < 4 4 1 •37 <.9F— .J’ 3 5 . 3.5 5 18
25/4 t.37’4?E—04 35 0.50 1 5
303 1.35 37 5—04 15 0.50 12
226 1. 13 — 03 35 0.50
228 1 .3559E—C4 30 0.50 I e
Ill 1.J 319E—04 75 0. 50 17
Lf O 1.350 35—04 0.50
232 1.33 0 —J4 35 ‘3.50
232 1 .i221F—C 7 0.50 I I
55 1 .3153 -—04 32 1.CC 11
159 1._ 1143—J* 3.5) 10
15<) 1 . 30M35—C4 30 0.50 13
204 1 .23920—34 23 1 • 05 1 1
163 1 • 3
-------
TABLE 7—6
CASE I — DEER ISLAND
SULFUR DIOXIDE (GRAMS PER CUBIC METER)
YEAR—1972
MAXIMUPA HOUPLY CONCENTRATIONS
DAY 1—PIOUP CONCENTRATION DIRECTION DISTANCE
194 1.6622E—04 30 0,50 13
194 1.5460E—04 12 0.50 11
156 1.5355E—04 35 0.50 10
194 1.4974E—04 9 0.75 9
226 1.4934E—04 10 0.75 12
119 1.’+718E—04 2 0.75 16
252 1.4635E—04 35 0.50 17
1. 4612E—04 12 0.50 10
239 1.453 E—04 13 0.50 11
199 1.L4405E_04 12 0.50 11
190 1.4298E—04 15 0.75 9
148 1.37 02E—0’. 35 0.50 16
204 1.3636L—04 22 0,50 10
185 1.34 1E—04 31 1.50 8
185 1.3412E—04 32 0.50 9
204 1.JJ O7E—04 26 0.50 14
238 1.3274E—04 25 o.5u
204 1.3185E—04 31 0.50 13
185 1.3178E—04 31 1.2
235 1.3168E—04 10 0.50 15
22 1.3098E—04 22 0.50 13
209 1.3069E—04 27 0.75 11
199 1.3055E—04 l i i 0.50 9
? 39 1.30OE E—04 12 0.50 11
199 1.?921E—04 30 0.75 18
142 1.2903E—0’. 34 0.50 12
199 1.2902L—04 7 0.50 10
199 1.?891L— 04 30 1.00 18
19 1.28A 4E—04 31 0.50 11
179 1.2857E—0’+ 7 0.50 15
19 ’ . 1.2 51E—fl4 12 0.75 Ii
194 1.2807 )-.—04 26 0.50 15
186 1.2M O 2E—04 14 0.50 15
194 1.2771E—04 12 1.00 A
206 1.2680E—04 21 0.75 9
244 I.2624E—04 31 0.50 12
219 1.26 09E—04 35 0.50 15
244 .2568E—04 30 1.00 19
238 1.2561E—04 26 0.50 17
237 l.2S41E —04 17 0.50 11
2J 1.25?8E—04 27 0.50 Ii
1 5 1.2’ .79E—04 33 0.51.) 9
271 1.2446L—04 JO 0.50 13
222 1.2437E—04 29 0.50 12
205 1.2421E—04 18 0.50 15
194 1.2377E—04 13 0.50 11
285 1.22 7E—04 35 0.50 11
252 l.2284E—04 35 0.50 13
194 1.2 2 82E—04 12 0,75 8
256 1.2248E—04 12 0,50 14
A—505
7—29

-------
TABLE 7—6
CASE I — DEER ISLAND
SULFUR DIOXIDE (CRAMS PER CUBIC METER)
YEAR— 19 73
OA’(
I 82
190
182
219
222
190
190
190
190
2L46
182
219
206
182
230
230
244
230
229
246
190
2.30
184
i 5
190
230
222
216
210
206
206
1 32
230
I O
190
190
17’
1
190
21
173
15
215
222
246
236
1’40
238
1-HOUR CONCENTRATION
2. 1016E—04
I .9.Th4E 4
1.9?47E—04
1 .8870E—04
1 .777E—04
1 • 8722E—04
1 • 69bE—04
1 . 481E—D’
I .83I3E—0
I .M166L 0L
1 .8035E—04
1 • 7776E—O’-’
I .7621E—04
I .7574L—04
I .7133E—O ’
I .691RE—0
1 .8849E—fl’
1 .6712E—fl4
I .6682E—fl4
1 .b635E04
1 .64121—04
1 .6’+OOE—04
1.6353E—04
1 .5 12E—04
I .9912E—0’
I .432E—04
1 .5800E—04
1 .5717E—04
1 .5618E—04
1.56 17L— 04
1 .5 00h—04
1 .9599L-04
1 .55f,2E—fl4
1 .5S5t E—O6
1 .9451E—04
1 .53 5E—
1 .92 ’9E—O’
1.5189E—0 ’
1 .5187E—04
1 .4917E -—fl4
I • 4 r ? OF — 06
I .417 IF —0’
1 .4752E-—fl4
1 .462UE —04
1.4 586 .—04
1 ,44S6E—04
1.443 E —1)L
1 .4437E—04
1 .4431E-O4
1 .4374E—04
DIRECTION
27
11
32
28
36
S
33
32
5
5
29
3?
36
6
32
27
.33
28
14
28
32
26
2
3
3-
31
2,;
7
3’
35
-7
27
32
1
30
12
32
33
1
31
-3’
10
is
3
29
16
32
14
HOUR
18
12
19
18
16
14
13
13
15
15
13
19
16
12
19
13
11
13
12
10
13
18
14
11
11
13
17
12
11
12
12
1?
16
I 9
10
19
12
19
10
17
10
14
17
12
16
13
1.
11
14
MAXWUM HOUPLY CONCENTRATIONS
0 1ST A N CE
O .50
0.50
1.00
0. ?O
0 • 50
0.50
0.50
0 • SO
O • 50
0. 75
0 • 90
1.25
(•) • 75
0.50
0 • 79
0 • SO
0. F?0
O • 50
0.50
0.50
0. 15
O • 15
o • SO
0.50
O • So
0.50
0.75
0.5 U
0.50
o • 5 u
P • So
0.50
0.50
1.50
0.50
1 • 00
0.50
0.50
0 • 50
0.50
1.00
0 .50
0 • SO
1 • 00
0.50
o • So
0 • 50
0.15
0.50
0.50
A— 506

-------
TABLE 7 6
CASE I — DEER ISLAND
SULFUR DIOXIDE (CRAMS PER CUBIC_METER)
YEAR— 1974
MAX1 4UP1 HOUPLY CuNCLNr1 AT1ONS
DAY 1—HOUN C0NCENT 4TI0N OIk CTI0N DISTANCE HOOP
26 1.7S13E—04 6 0.75 11
26 1. 518ft—04 6 1.00 11
209 1. +873E—0 4 35 0.50 12
15 1.40301—04 8 0.50 15
253 1.3Y0€ E—04 17 0.50 12
1H9 1.36001—06 27 0.50 13
203 1.34531—’)4 17 0.50 9
219 1.338h 1— 04 31 0.50 11
219 1.3308E—04 17 0.75 9
loD 1.30221—04 3 0.50 11
26 1.29371—04 7 0.75 12
1.29371—04 0.75 12
231 1.d H9E—O 4 1 0.50 11
1. 2YE—fl’ 33 0.50 13
172 1.2804E—0’+ 29 0.50 14
)13 1.275 ’L—04 2B 0.50 10
220 1.d 35L—O4 33 0.50 15
225 1.26011—04 30 0. ’ 0 16
15 1.255 4E—O’ 9 0.50
26 1.25521—04 6 1.25 Ii
1.24541—04 1 0.50 15
212 1.23951—04 34 0.50 12
214 1.23381—04 6 0.50 10
2i1 1.23021—0’ 16 0.75 9
214 1.22561—04 32 11
190 1 ,22461—06 7 0.50 12
212 1.21571—06 i O 0.50 11
212 1.21 2E—0 ’ 6 0.50 14
187 1.21731—04 15 0.50 16
26 1.215 0L—04 31 0.7D 13
202 1.213L+E_04 35 0.50 15
219 1.21211—04 3 0.50 12
112 1.20001—04 7 0.50 10
224 1.1 980t—l) 4 32 0.50 10
220 1.19251—04 29 0.50
1.1656E—04 13 0.50 14
1.1 1 21—O4 26 0.50 13
19’ 1.1 02L—04 1 0.50 11
15 1.17891—04 35 0.50 10
195 1.17461—06 2 0.50 16
26 1.11161—04 7 1.00 1.
26 1.11161—04 8 1.00 12
228 1.16991—04 35 0.50 10
2 -il 1.16151—04 21 0.50 11
1.16271—04 11 0.50 14
1/0 1.15821—04 3 0.15 9
252 1.15331—04 33 0.50 12
237 1.1465E—04 18 0.75 11
159 1.13 8E—04 0.50 10
1.13791—04 32 1.25 20
A—507
7—31

-------
TABLE 7—7
DEER ISLAND
MAXIMUM ANNUAL GROUND-LEVEL CONCENTRATION
Sulfur Dioxide
Concentration Direction Distance from
Year ( j ig/rn 3 ) from Source Source
1970 2.78 060° 10 km
1971 2.69 0600 1.0 km
1972 2.42 060° 1.0 km
1973 2.53 1200 1.0 km
1974 2.88 0600 1.0 kin
A—508
7—32

-------
TABLE__7—8
DEER ISLAND
MAXIMUM ANNUAL GROUND-LEVEL CONCENTRATION
Total Suspended Particulates
Concentration Direction from Distance frotu
Year ( ig/m - 3 ) Source ( rees) Source (krn )
1970 .80 060 1.0
1971 .77 060 1.0
1972 .69 060 1.0
1973 .72 120 1.0
1974 .82 060 1.0
A— 509
7—33

-------
TABLE 7—9
DEER ISLAND
MAXIMUM 24-HOUR
GROUND—LEVEL CONCENTRATION
Sulfur Dioxide
Concentration Direction fron Source Distance frcrn Source
( g/m 3 ) Year ( degrees) — (krn)______
34.23 1973 120 1.0
32.51 1971 060 1.0
32.07 1971 070 .75
30.49 1973 070 1.0
30.23 1970 310 .5
29.86 1973 260 .5
29.85 1971 060 1.0
29.48 1972 260 .50
28.88 1973 260 .75
27.97 1973 10 .75
27.94 1972 310 .50
A— 510
7—34

-------
TABLE 7—10
DEER ISLAND
MAXIMUM 24—HOUR GROUND-LEVEL CONCENTRATION
Total Suspended Particulates
Direct on from 0 Ls tonce from
Concentration Source Source
( pg/rn 3 ) Year ( degrees) — (kin )
9.79 1973 120 1.0
9.30 1971 060 1.0
9.17 1971 070 .75
8.72 1973 070 1.0
8.65 1970 310 .5
8.54 1973 260 .5
8.54 1971 060 1.0
8.43 1972 260 .50
8.26 1973 260 .75
8.00 1973 10 .75
7.99 1972 310 .50
A—51].
7—35

-------
TABLE 7—u
DEER ISLAND
MAXIMUM_3—HOUR
GROUND—LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS
Sulfur Dioxide
Concentration Direction from Source Distnnce From Source
( ig/m 3 ) Year ( Degrees ) (lun)
138.01 1973 260 .50
119.69 1973 270 .50
115.15 1970 070 .50
112.93 1971 330 .50
112.69 1973 100 .50
111.90 1970 310 .50
111.48 1972 310 .50
109.99 1973 090 .50
109.06 1973 330 .50
105.66 1973 10 .50
10535 1972 310 .50
A— 512
7—36

-------
TABLE 7—12
DEER ISLAND
MAXIHUM 3—hOUR
GROUND-LEVEL CONCENTRATIONS
Hydrocarbons
Concentration Direction from Source Distance From Sourro
_ juug/m ) Year ( Degree (kin) ____
9.75 1973 260 .50
8.46 1973 270 .50
8.14 1970 070 .50
7.98 1971 330 .50
7.96 1973 100 .50
7.91 1970 310 .50
7.88 1972 310 .50
7.77 1973 090 .50
7.71 1973 330 .50
7.46 1973 10 .50
7 .44 1972 310 .50
A—513
7—37

-------
TABLE 7—13
METEOROLOGICAL DATA FOR DAY 165
( June 14th, 1973)
CRSTER INPUT TEM INPUT
TEM TEM
Stability Wind Wind Mixing Ambient Stability Wind Wind Mixing Ambient
Class Direction Speed Height Temp. Class Direction Speed Height Temp .
7 320 3.1 247 291
7 302 2.6 247 291 7 310 2.6 247 18
7 305 2.1 247 290
7 305 2.6 247 290
7 297 3.1 523 290 7 300 2.8 539 17
6 299 2.6 849 290
4 299 5.6 1175 292
3 300 3.1 1501 294 3 300 4.1 1501 21
2 296 3.6 1826 295
2 296 3.6 2152 297
3 297 5.1 2478 298 3 295 4.7 2478 25
3 297 5.6 2804 299
3 299 5.6 3129 299
3 296 5.1 3455 299 305 5.3 3346 26
3 317 5.1 3455 299
4 306 6.2 3455 300
3 321 3.1 3455 300 4 305 4.9 3455 27
4 295 5.6 3455 299
4 314 4.6 3455 299
5 301 2.6 3408 298 5 320 3.8 3404 25
6 352 4.1 3351 294
5 302 3.6 3294 294
6 299 3.1 1806 293 6 295 3.9 2158 20
6 286 5.1 1374 293

-------
TABLE 7—14
METEOROLOGICAL DATA FOR DAY 246
( September 3rd, 1971)
CRSTER INPUT TEN INPUT
TEN TEN
Stability Wind Wind Mixing Ambient Stability Wind Wind MixLng Ambient
Class Direction Speed Height Temp. Class Direction Speed Height Temp .
5 250 6.7 291 18
5 240 6.2 291 18 5 245 6.4 291 18
5 240 6.2 291 18
5 240 6.2 291 17
6 240 5.1 291 17 5 240 5.1 300 17
5 240 4.1 318 17
4 240 3.6 351 17
— 4 230 5.1 383 18 4 235 4.4 383 19
3 240 4.6 416 23
3 250 5.6 448 22
4 240 6.2 481 24 4 235 6.0 481 24
4 220 6.2 514 26
3 250 4.6 546 27
4 250 5.1 579 27 3 250 4.9 568 27
3 250 5.1 579 28
4 240 5.1 579 28
4 240 6.2 579 28 4 240 5.8 579 28
4 240 6.2 579 27
5 240 6.2 601 26
5 240 6.2 428 25 5 240 5.8 459 25
5 240 5.1 347 24
6 240 5.1 265 23
5 240 5.6 184 23 5 245 5.6 184 23
5 250 6.2 103 22

-------
FiGURE__7—].
CASE I
DEER ISLAND RECEPTORS
x
x
X 4*
4*
4*
180
*
4 4.
4.
*
4
4’
4’ k 93
4,
4
4
1 kilometer
x
360
)c x
x
xX
x
.)(): X 1 .
4
x
270 . ( )c
4 .4
4
k
x
4*
4
x
4* X 4 *
x
+
4
4*
*
‘C
k
.4
A—516
7—40

-------
8. SPECIAL CASE-MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS
The procedures for estimating the special conditions which
cause potentially high concentrations of pollutants are
contained in EPA document 45O/4-77 -O0l, “Procedures for
Evaluating Air Quality Impact of New Stationary Sources.”
This method was applied to the facilities at all the sites
in a case-by-case basis. It has been shown previously
that all facilities can be considered independent even when
operating at the same time,as in Case V. This conclusion
is reinforced by the fact that the special conditions which
bring about maximum short—term concentrations are short—
lived phenomena.
The procedures set forth in the EPA document suggest calcu-
lations for these special conditions based upon stack height.
The stack height used primarily throughout the analysis has
been 110 feet (33.2 meters) * Therefore, the conditions of
(1) looping, (2) coning, (3) fanning, (4) fumigation, and
(5) downwash were investigated. The suggested calculation
procedures employ information from the EPA program Point
Maximum . This program was used for all sites for both
sulfur dioxide and particulates. The Deer Island PTMAX
estimates for all stability classes are given in Table 7-1.
In order to avoid the inclusion of numerous tables with
only limited application to the study the PTMAX results
for the other sites were not included in the text.
A—517
8—1

-------
The suggested procedures will be applied to the Deer
Island case for sulfur dioxide to illustrate the simple
calculation methods used. The calculations for the other
sites operating alone or in combination with other facilities
will be included in the summary table (Table 8-1)
1. Looping
The looping plume occurs in very unstable conditions.
(Stability A) . During this atmospheric condition the
plume is brought to ground relatively close to the
stack source • Concentrations at a fixed point on the
ground are characterized by a succession of intermittent
puffs. It is emphasized that vertical spreading of
the plume is at a maximum. Therefore, concentrations
at a point may be high for brief time periods, but the
variability in wind direction and wind speed which
usually accompanies this condition prevents “continuous”
plume—ground interception.
Using the PTMAX program results for Deer Island given
in Table 7-1, the highest concentration in Stability
Class 1 (Stability A) occurs with a wind speed of 1 meter/
second. This value of 245 pg/rn 3 is considered to depict
ground-level concentration for 1 hour during looping at
the Deer Island sites Even if the condition persisted
for three hours the resultant concentration would not
violate the ambient or PSD air quality standards. The
3—hour concentration is estimated to be 196 pg/rn 3 .
A— 518
8—2

-------
2. Coning
The coning plume normally occurs in neutral or near
neutral stability conditions (Stability C or Stability
D) . This condition is fairly common and shows less
variability between high and low ground—level concen-
trations. The PTMAX results for Stability Class (3)
(Stability C) are reviewed and the highest concentration
for all sampled wind speeds is selected as the ground—
level concentration for the coning condition. For the
Deer Island case, this value is 205 pg/rn 3 for the 1—hour
time period. If the condition persists for three hours
the concentration will be 164 pg/m 3 .
3. Fanning
This particular condition occurs in generally stable
atmospheric conditions. The plumes vertical spread is
severely restricted and the horizontal spreading is
usually reduced. It is frequently referred to as a
“ribbon” or “meandering” plume. The high concentrations
which accompany this condition normally occur at some
distance from the plume source.
Using the Point Maximum program the highest concentration
that occurred in Stability Class 5 or 6 (Stability E or F)
were selected. The concentration selected from the Deer
Island data is 91 pg/rn 3 for the 1—hour time period. This
concentration is estimated to Occur at a distance of 3 kms
from the source.
A—5 19
8—3

-------
4. Fumigation
The fumigation condition is normally associated with
a plume emitted into a stable layer which is brought
rapidly to the ground when unstable air below the
plume reaches the plume level. This condition is
usually associated with the nocturnal inversion that
forms in the last evening hours. The fumigation
condition can cause high ground-level concentrations
for periods usually less than an hour.
With the exception of the plume height information,
the Point Maximum program is not used in producing
this estimate. The steps are detailed in the EPA
document and will not be repeated in this text.
The plume rise for Stability Class 6 (Stability F) with
a wind speed of 2.5 meters/second is 60 meters. With
this plume height (H) the downwind distance to the
point of maximum ground-level fumigation is likely
to be less than 2 kilometers. (Table 4—2 on page 4—17
in EPA document 450/4—77—001.) If the distance is less
than 2 kilometers it is noted that the concentrations
can be estimated by using the data for Stability Class C
(Stability 3) with a wind speed of 2.5 meters/second
and doubling the tabular value.
A— 520
8—4

-------
As applied to the Deer Island sulfur dioxide data a
ground-level concentration of 401 pg/rn 3 for a 1—hour
concentration is obtained.
If the equation in the EPA text is followed for the
given emission rate, and plume rise, the maximum
concentration is estimated to be 251.3 pg/rn 3 for the
fumigation time period.
0 y (2 km) = 70 meters
G (2 km) = 20 meters
Xf ( / 1TT (u) (a + H/8) (H + 2G )
12.22 x i0 6
Xf - (2.51) (2.5) (70 + 7.5) (60 + 40)
Xf = 251.3 pg/rn 3
The concentrations calculated by these two methods
do not give closely related results, However, it is
quite certain that the highest concentration will not
be exceeded in a fumigation condition.
A— 521
8—5

-------
TABLE 8—i
SPECIAL CASE-SUMMARY TABLE
Sulfur Dioxide
Looping Coning Fanning Fumigation Total Suspended Particulates
Max. Max. Max. Limited Equation Looping Coning Fanning Fumigation
Conc. Conc. Conc. Mixing Est. for Xf Max. Max. Max. Limited Equation
Case ( pg/rn 3 ) ( 1 g/m 3 ) jj ) ( pglm 3 ) ( gIm 3 ) Conc. Conc. Conc. Mixing Est. Xf
I Deer Island 245 205 91 400 251 69 58 26 114 72
III Deer Island 249 206 88 398 229 70 58 25 112 64
Neponsett 281 186 67 334 129 47 31 11 56 21
Charles 267 194 72 354 169 8 6 2 11 5
IV Deer Island 134 112 51 222 146 38 32 14 62 41
Squantum 114 94 40 188 105 33 28 12 52 31
V Deer Island 134 113 51 222 145 38 32 14 62 41
Squantum 86 71 30 136 77 26 22 9 42 23
Neponsett 31 21 8 38 14 8 6 2 10 4
Charles 28 21 7 38 16 8 6 2 11 5
°‘ VII Deer Island 134 112 51 222 145 38 32 14 62 41
Squanturn 86 71 30 136 77 26 22 9 42 23
Neponsett 43 33 13 62 28 11 9 3 16 7
NOTE: “Limiting Mixing Estimate” provides concentration which will not be
significantly exceeded when downwind distance for maximum
fumigation is less than 2 kilometers.

-------
5. Downwash
The stack height used throughout the air quality study
has been 110 feet (33.5 meters). For a building 60 feet
high (18.3 meters) and 200 feet wide (61 meters), as
might be used on Deer Island, this stack height will
cause serious downwash problems unless it is raised
to approximately 150 feet (45.7 meters), (EPA-450/4-77-00l).
With this recommended height, the downwash phenomenon would
not be expected to occur at wind speeds observed routinely
in the Boston area (greater than 10 meters per second).
The stack height was determined according to Gc od Engineering
Practice (GEP) criteria. The formula is:
Hb + 1.5 (L)
Where: = Stack height
= Building height
L = Lesser of building height
maximum building width.
If the building is wider than it is tall the stack
height is determined by 2.5 times the buildings height.
Thus for the 60 foot high building the stack height is
150 feet.
At the 110 foot stack height, the 1 hour SO 2 maximum
concentration calculated was 4385 ig/m 3 , assuming a single
stack, 3m/sec. windvelocity, and a 10,000 sq. foot
8—7 A—523

-------
building. Using 0.84 and 0.25 scaling factors or any other
reasonable factor, 3 hour (3683 ug/m 3 ) and 24 hour
(1096 1 1g/m 3 ) SO 2 standards could be greatly exceeded
under persistent downwash conditions. It should be
recognized these calculations are extremely conservative
and these conditions are unlikely to occur. Similar
downwash could also occur for multiple stacks. When
downwash occurs it will normally be found within a
few building heights of the downwind edge of the
building. Particulate levels under the same meteorological
conditions and building parameters are estimated to be
314 i.tg/m 3 . This level would exceed the NAAQS.
Therefore, if a large building is necessary, stack
heights should be increased to at least 150 feet, or up
to the maximum 170 feet allowed by Massport. This will
lessen the effects of the special conditions previously
discussed. Increased stack heights would cause all
concentrations reported in this study to be reduced
significantly, and the receptors for maximum concentrations
to be farther from the source.

-------
9. ESTIMATES OF TRACE MATERIAL EMISSIONS
M iong trace materials which may be found in sewage sludge
are mercury, lead, and beryllium. Only a very limited
amount of data is available on emissions which may be
expected. Estimates have been made for these and other
materials in Table 9-1. Neither mercury nor beryllium
emissions would exceed proposed Federal standards of
3200 and 10 grams per day, respectively, even if all of
the sludge were incinerated at a single site (Deer
Island). If mercury emissions are estimated by sludge
sample analysis, credit for mercury removal by scrubbers
is not allowed. Therefore, this results in a calculated
emission of 2344 grams per day for sludge incineration at
Deer Island under the Recommended Plan.
Proposed lead regulations require additional controls if
lead emissions exceed 5 tons/yr. Assuming all the lead in
the secondary sludge is emitted due to incineration,
9.1 tons/yr. of lead would be produced. However, considering
a conservative estimate of lead removal due to scrubbers
of 85%, the resulting lead emissions per year would be
1.4 tons/yr. from secondary sludge. Primary sludge is
estimated to emit 0.3 tons/yr. Thus the total emissions
from both primary and secondary sludge incinerations would
not violate the proposed standard.
A— 525
9—1

-------
Table 9—1
Estimates of Trace Material Emissions
Be
Cu
Mn
Zn
Ni
Estimated
Concentration in
Deer Island
Sludge, ppm
ND—0 .77
1500
400
2482
497
Estimated
Quantity in
Deer Island
Sludge, lbs/day*
ND—U .66
1209
322
2000
400
% Removal in
Incinerator
(mci .. control
equip) -
97**
97**
97**
97**
97**
Emission
lbs/day
ND—0 .02
(9g/day)
36
10
60
12
Cd
44
35
97**
1
Pb
194
156
85
23
Hg
6
5
98
Cr
984
793
97**
Ag
161
130
97**
As
32
26
97**

-------
APPENDIX 4.1.4
RECOMMENDED PLAN
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
BASES OF DESIGN
A—527

-------
The conceptual design of the Recommended Plan Deer
Island Wastewater rircatment Plant of this EIS is based
on the wastewater quantities and characteristics presented
in the EMMA Study. The flows and organic loading reaching
the Deer Island plant from the northern MSD service area
were taken directly from the EMMA Study. Those which are
shown for the southern portion of the wastewater flow
represent a combination of the flows and organic loads of
the two satellite plants and the Nut Island treatment
plant recommended in the EMMA Study.
The design of the facilities for this EIS was
made to reflect current state of the art practice in the
design of wastewater treatment facilities. The “Bases of
Design” for the northern and southern portions of this
combined Deer Island plant, the Winthrop Terminal Facility
and the Nut Island Headworks are presented on the following
pages.
A—529

-------
TABLE A4.1-l
BASES OF DESIGN Fan TREATMENT FACILITIES FOR
WASTEWATER FROM TIlE SOUTHERN MSD SERVICE AREA
Design Year Desigx Year
Wastewater Quantities 2000 2050
Average Daily ‘Flow-lOOO m 3 /day 704 870.5
(mgd) (186) (230)
Peak Daily Flowl000 m 3 /day 1213.1 1457.2
(mgd) (320.5) (385)
Peak Flow—l000 m 3 /day 1714.6 1866.0
(mgd) (453) (493)
Wastewater Characteristics
Suspended Solids - SS
Daily Avg.-mg/l 236
(lbs/day) (366,100)
Daily Peak-mg/i 237
(lbs/day) (633,494)
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
Daily Avg.-mg/1 193 195
(lbs/day) (299,400) (374,000)
Daily Peak—mg/i 224 233
(lbs/day) (598,745) (748,100)
Influent Pumping Station
Number of Raw Sewage Pumps 8 9
Pump Rating (each)
Capacity—lOOfl m 3 /day 246.0 246.0
(mgd) (65) (65)
Head - meters 9.15 9.15
(feet) (40’ ) (40t
Total Installed Capacity—1000 m 3 /day 1968 2214
(mgd) (520) (585)
Firm Capacitykl000 m 3 /day 1722 1968.2
(mgd) (455) (520)
*largest unit out of service
A— 530

-------
TABLE A4.l—l (Continued)
Design Year
2000
Design Year
2050
Primary Settling Tanks
Number of Tanks
Size of Each Tanks — meters
(feet)
Average Water Depth - meters
(feet)
Total Surface Area — sq.meters
(sq.ft.)
Total Volume — cubic meters
(cubic feet)
Surface Loading Rate
Daily Avg—liters/meter 2 /day
(gals/ft 2 /day)
Peak Flow — liters/meter 2 /day
(gals/ft 2 /day)
Displacement Time - hours
Daily Avg.
Peak Flow
Aeration Tanks
Number of Tanks
Size of Each Tank — meters
(feet)
Average Water Depth - meters
(feet)
Total Volume - cubic meters
(cubic feet)
Loading Rate - BOD
Average-Kg BOD/meter 3
(lb BOD/1000 ft’ )
Daily Peak-Kg BOD/meter 3
(lb BOD/l000 ft 3 )
11 13
24.4 wide x 112.8 long
(80’ wide x 370’ long)
4.6 4.6
(15) (15)
139,267 164,588
(4,884,000) (5,772,000)
Final Settling Tanks
Number of Tanks
Size of Each Tank — meters
(feet)
Average Water Depth - meters
(feet)
Total Surface Area — sq. meters
(3q. feet)
Total Volume - cubic meters
( 0 .ibic feet)
Surface Loading Rate
Avg.- liters/me er 2 /day
(gals/feet /day)
8 10
24.4 wide x 74.7 long
(80’ wide x 245’ long)
3.05 3.05
(10’) (lOt)
14,582 18,227
(156,800) (196,000)
44,475 55,592
(1,568,000) (1,960,000)
48,280
(1,186)
117 , 584
(2,890)
47, 761
(1,173)
102, 376
(2,515)
1.51 1.53
.62 .71
.76
(47.9)
1.53
(122.5)
.80
(50.5)
1.61
(101.2)
15 16
24.4 wide x 99.1 long
(80’ wide x 325’ long)
4.3 4.3
(14’) (14’)
36,270 38,688
(390,000) (416,000)
152,880 163,072
(5,460,000) (5,824,000)
19,410
(477)
22,502
(553)
A—531

-------
TABLE A4.]-]. (Continued)
Design Year Design Year
2000 2050
Final Settling Tanks
Peak Flow—liters/meter 2 /day 47,273 48,232
(gals/feet 2 /day (1,162) (1,185)
Displacement Time — hours
Daily Avg. 5.27 4.5
Peak Flow 2.16 2.12
Chlorine Contact Tanks*
Wastewater Flow
Daily Avg.-l000 m 3 /day
- (mgd)
Daily Peak-l000 m 3 /day
- (mgd)
Peak—1000 m 3 /day
- (mgd)
Number of Channels
Size of each Channel-meters
- (feet)
Average Water Depth-meters
— (feet)
Detention Time - minutes
Average Flow
Daily Peak Flow
Peak Flow
Chlorine Dosage - mg/l
Wastewater Flow
Daily Avg. - 1000 m 3 /day
- (mgd)
Daily Peak - 1000 m 3 /day
- (mgd)
Peak - 1000 mi/day
- (mgd)
Number of Effluent Pumps
Pump Rating (Each)
Capacity - 1000 m 3 /day
- (mgd)
Head - meters
— (feet)
2218
(586)
3979.9
(1051.5)
5234.6
(1383)
5
12.2 wide x 198.
(40’ wide x 650’
4 .57
(15)
2498.1
(660)
4038.6
(1067)
5386
(1423)
5
3 long
long)
4 . 57
(15)
Effluent Pumping Station*
35.8 31.8
19.9 19.7
15.2 14.7
8 8
2218
2498.1
(586)
(660)
3979.9
4038.6
(1051.5)
(1067)
5234.6
5386
(1383)
(1423)
16
17
354.3
354.3
(93.6)
(93.6)
9.15
9.15
(30)
(30)
A— 532

-------
TABLE A4.l-l (Continued)
Design Year Design Year
2000 2050
Total Installed Capacity—bOO m 3 /day 5668.4 6022.7
—(mgd) (1497.6) (1591.2)
Firm Capacity—l000 m 3 /day 5314.1 5668.4
—(mgd) (1404) (1497.6)
*Chborine Contact Tank and Effluent Pumping Station are designed
to accommodate the total flow for both Northern and Southern
Service Areas.
A—533

-------
TABLE A4.1—2
BASES OF DESIGN FOR TREATMENT FACILITIES FOR
WASTEWATER FROM THE NORTHERN MSD SERVICE AREA
Existing Design Year Design Year
Condition 2000 2050
Wastewater Quantities
Average Daily Flow-l000 m 3 /day 1514 1627.5
(mgd) (400) (430)
Peak Daily Flow- 1000 m 3 /day 2766.8 2959.9
— (mgd) (731) (782)
Peak Flow- 1000 ni 3 /day 3520 3520
— (mgd) (930) (930)
Wastewater Characteristics
Suspended Solids - SS
Daily Avg.-mg/l 153.2
— lbs/day (511,000)
Daily Peak - mg/l 275
— (lbs/day) (1,678,000)
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD)
Daily Avg. - mg/i 166 159
— (lbs/day) (555,000) (571,000)
Daily Peak-mg/i 193 185
—(lbs/day) (1,176,000) (1,210,000)
Main Influent Pumping Station
Number of Raw Sewage Pumps 9 10 10
Pump Rating (each)
Capacity—1000 mi/day 9@340 9@340 l@283 9@340 1@283
— (mgd) (9@90) (9@90) (1875) (9890) (1875)
Head - meters 32 32 32
— (feet) (105) (105) (105)
Total Insta’led Capacity-
lOOP mi/day 3060 3343 3343
(mgd) 3 (810) (885) (885)
Firm Capacity-1000 m /day 2722 3005 3005
— (mgd) (720) (795) (795)
A— 534

-------
TABLE A4.1-2 (Continued)
Aeration Tanks
Number of Tanks
Size of Each Tank — meters
— (feet)
Average Water Depth—meters
- (feet)
Total Volume-cubic meters
—(cubic feet)
Loading Rate - BOD
Average-Kg BOD/meter 3
—(lb BOD/l000 ft 3 )
Daily Peak-Kg BOD/meter 3
—(lb BOD/l000 ft. 3 )
Final Settling Tanks
Number of Tanks
Size of Each Tank-meters
- (feet)
Average Water Depth-meters
— (feet)
30 30
24.4 wide x 99.1 long
(80’ wide x 325’ long)
4.27 4.27
(14) (14)
Design Year
2000
Design Year
2050
Additional Facilities
Primary Settling Tanks
Number of Tanks
Size of Each Tank-meters
— (feet’s
Average Water Depth-meters
— (feet)
Surface Area-sq.meters
— (sq.ft.)
Tank Volume-cubic meters
-(cubic feet)
Total Surface Area—sq.mcters
— (sq.ft.)
Total Volume-cubic meters
-(cubic feet)
Surface Loading Rate
Average- liter/meter 2 /day
- (gals/foot 2 /day
Peak Flow -liter/meter /day
- (gals/foot 2 /day)
Displacement time — hours
Daily Avg.
Peak Flow
Existing
Condition ____________
8 8
29.9 wide 24.4 wide x
x 74.7 long
(98 wide (80’ wide
x 245’long)
3.05 3.05
(10) (10)
17870 14580
(192,080) (156,800)
54500 44470
(1,920,800) (1,568,000)
98970
(348,880)
301860
(3,488,800)
46656
(1146)
108476
(2666)
1.56
.67
9
74.7 long
x 245’ long)
3.05
(10)
16400
(176,400)
50030
(1,764, 000)
104530
(368,480)
318820
(3,684,800)
47492
(1167)
102715
(2524)
1.54
.71
20 20
24.4 wide x 112.8 long
(80’ wide x 370’ long)
4.6 4.6
(15’) (15’)
12660 12660
(8,880,000) (8,880,000)
15.9
(50)
33.7
(105.9)
16. 3
(51.4)
34.6
(109)
A— 535

-------
TABLE A4.I-2 (Continued)
Design Year
2000
Design Year
2050
Total Surface Area—sq.meters
—(scj.feet)
Total Volume-cubic meters
—(cubic feet)
Surface Loading Rats
Avg. -liter s/me er /day
-(gal/foot /day
Peak Flow -liters/meter 2 /day
- (gal/foot 2 /day)
Displacement time - hours
Daily Avg.
Peak Flow
72,540
(780,000)
309,750
(10,920,000)
20, 871
(512)
183,670
(1192)
4.9
2. 11
72,540
(780,000)
309,750
(10,920,000)
•22,436
(551)
183,670
(1192)
4.3
2.11
A— 536

-------
TABLE A4.l-3
BASES OF DESIGN FOR WINTHROP TERMINAL FACILITY
Existing
Condition
Design Year
2000
Design Year
2050
Number of Chambers
Size of Each Chamber—meters
— (feet)
Average Water Depth-meters
- (feet)
Total Surface Area — sg.meters)
—(sq.feet)
Total Volume-cubic meters
-(cubic feet)
Surface Loading Rate
Average—liters/meter 2 /day
—(gals/ft 2 /day 2
Peak day - liters/meter /day
- (gals/ eet?/day)
Peak— 1iter/niete 4 /day
-(gals/feet /day)
18.9
(5)
87.1
(23)
227.1
(60)
6
4@56 .7
28227.1
(48 15)
(2860)
9.15
(30)
681.3
(180)
454.2
(120)
106.0
(28)
401.2
(106)
510.9
(135)
7
5856.7
2@227 .1
(5@15)
(2860)
9.15
(30)
738.1
(195)
510.9
(135)
106.0
(28)
401.2
(106)
510.9
(135)
7
5856.7
28227.1
(5815)
(2860)
9.15
(30)
738.1
(195)
510.2
(135)
These facilities not used
for periods of avg. flow
2,033,500 2,033,500
(21,296) (21,296)
2,589 840 2,589,840
(34,722) (34 ,722)
*Note: Winthrop Terminal Facilities adequate for flows to 60 mgd.
All designed facilities are for flows in excess of 60 mgd.
Winthrop Facility Design Flows
Average Daily Flow-l000 m 3 /day
- (mgd)
Daily Peak-l000 m 3 /day
- mgd)
Peak—l000 m /day
- (mgd)
Winthrop Facility Pumping Station
Number of Raw Sewage Pumps
Pump Rating (each
Capacity-l000 m /day
- (mgd)
Head - meters
— (feet)
Total In ta11ed Capacity—
1000 ma/day
- (mgd)
Firm Capacity-bOO m 3 /day
- (mgd)
Winthrop Facility Grit Chambers*
2
3
3
-
2.4 wide x 27.4
(8’ wide x 90’
1.53
(51)
197.3
(2,160)
301.8
(10,800)
long
long)
1.53
(5’)
197.3
(2,160)
301.8
(10,800)
A— 537

-------
TABLE A4.l-4
BASES OF DESIGN FOR HEADWORKS AT NUT ISLAND
Existing
Condition
Design Year Design Year
2000 2050
Nut Island Headworks Design Flows
6
3.2 wide
x 24.4 long
—(feet) (10.4 wide
x 80 long)
4.6
(15)
464.3
(4992)
2096.6
(74880)
6
2.4 wide
x 27.5 long
(8 wide
x 90 long)
1.53
(5)
401.8
(4320)
604.8
(21600)
812,851
(19,980)
1,400,640
(34,420)
1,979,680
(48,650)
9
2.4 wide
x 27.5 long
(8 wide
x 90 long)
1.53
(5)
602.6
(6480)
907.2
(32400)
815,960
(20048)
1,365,850
(33560)
1,150, 310
(42974)
Note: Present Nut Island Facilities Adequate for flows to 210 mgd.
Daily
Ave rage—l000
m 3 /day
704.0
870.5
Daily
— (mgd)
Peak — 1000
m 3 /day
(186)
1213.1
(230)
1457.2
— (mgd)
Peak — 1000 m 3 /day
(320.5)
1714.6
(385)
1866.0
— (mgd)
(453)
(493)
ADDITIONAL FACILITIES
Grit Chambers
Number of Chambers
Size of Each Chamber—meters
Average Water Depth-meters
— (feet)
Surface Area - sq. meters
— (sq. feet)
Total Volume-cubic meters
-(cubic feet)
Total Surface Loading ate
Average-liters/meter /day
- (gals/foot 2 /day)
Daily Peak-liters/meter 2 /day
- (gals/foot 2 /day)
Peak- liters/meter 2 /day
- (gals/foot 2 /day)
A—538

-------
APPENDIX 5.4
AIR QUALITY
A—539

-------
Appendix A5.4—1
Pollutant Emission Factor
Heavy Duty Vehicles Automobiles Barge
(g/mi) (g/mi) lbs/ lo 3 ga l
CO 28.9 48.1 110
HC 4.7 6.7 50
NO 21.3 4.8 270
SO 2.8 .13 27
TSP 1.3 .51
SOURCE: USEPA, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP—42) , and
Supplement No. 5 for Compilation of Air Pollution Emission
Factors.
A- 541

-------
FIGURE A5.4—1
PROJECTED ANNUAL SO 2 CONCENTRATIONS FROM
INCINERATING ALL SECONDARY SLUDGE AT
DEER ISLAND (x10 3 ug/m 3 )
w
U
QJC1
I
\
I
/
I
A—542

-------
FIGURE A5.4—2
PROJECTED ANNUAL TOTAL SUSPENDED PARTICULATE CONCENTRATIONS
FROM INCINERATING ALL SECONPARY SLUDGE AT DEER ISLAND
(x 1O pg/rn 3 )
*IJ . GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1978—700 -278/146
Square
•10
A—54 3

-------