Final
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
For The
French River Cleanup
Program In
Massachusetts
And Connecticut
May 1986
UJ
0
United States Region 1
Fnvironmental JFK Federal Building
Protection Agenc\ Boston, Mass. 02205
-------
Final
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
For The
French River Cleanup
Program In
Massachusetts
And Connecticut
May 1986
Michael R. Deland
Regional Administrator, USEPA
I,
Metcalf& Eddy. Inc
Engineers & Planners
Prepared For: Prepared By:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Metcalf &Eddy, Inc.
Region 1 P.O. Box 4043
JFK Federal Building Woburn, MA 01888
Boston, MA 02203
caimentS must be
received by July 14, 1986
-------
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Proposed Action: French River Cleanup Program in Massachusetts and
Connecticut
Charlton, Oxford, Dudley and Webster, Massachusetts and
Thompson, Connecticut
Date: May, 1986
Summary of Action: This Environmental Impact Statement examines several
alternatives to improve water quality in the French
River. The river is beset with extreme low flow and
several dams entrapping polluted sediments exacerbating
dissolved oxygen levels. The SEIS examines sediment
control and sources of flow augmentation and their
impacts to improve water quality in the river basin.
The following proposed activities maximize benefits to
the river: low flow augmentation from Buff’umville
Lake, sediment isolation at Perryville and Langer’s
Pond and sediment excavation at the North Grosvenordale
impoundment.
Lead Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, JFK
Building
Boston, Massachusetts
Technical Consultant: Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
Wakefield, Massachusetts
For Further Mr. Ronald G. Manfredonia
Information: Water Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region I
JFK Federal Building
Boston, MA 02203
617 223—5610
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Tables V
List of Figures viii
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
Project History & Need 1—1
Project Objectives 1—3
CHAPTER 2 - ALTERNATIVES FOR WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
General 2-1
Screening of Alternatives 2-1
Point Source Modifications 2-1
Low Flow Augmentation 2—3
- Sediment Control 2-5
Instreain Aeration 2-10
Selection of Final Alternatives 2-10
CHAPTER 3 - AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Physical Setting 3-1
Topography 3-1
Geology 3-1
Climate 3—3
Hydrology 3-3
Water Quality Classification & Designated Uses 3-7
Point Source Discharges 3-9
Leicester Wastewater Treatment Plant 3—9
Worcester Tool & Sampling 3-10
Oxford-Rochdale Wastewater Treatment Plant 3-12
Massachusetts Turnpike Authority Westbound Facility 3-12
Dudley Wastewater Treatment Plant 3-13
Webster Wastewater Treatment Plant 3-13
Sanitary Dash Manufacturing Company 3_114
Other 3-1 4
Existing Water Quality Conditions 3_1l
Temperature and pH 3-15
Dissolved Oxygen and BOD Biochemical Oxygen Demand 3-16
Nutrients 3214
Bacteria 3-31
Priority Pollutants 3-33
Water Quality at Buffumville Lake 3-35
Sediment Quality 3-36
Physical Distribution of the Sediments 3-37
Priority Pollutants 3-37
Sediment Oxygen Demand 3_145
1
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
Water Quality Model 3- 1 47
Hydrology and Hydraulics 3_149
Model Calibration 3-50
Simulation of Existing Low Flow Conditions 3-52
Biological Conditions 3-52
Phytoplankton 3-55
Vegetation 3-58
Benthic Invertebrates 3-72
Fisheries 3-77
Wildlife 3-83
Summary of Environmental Quality 3-85
Socioeconomic Conditions and Recreational Resources 3-86
Introduction 3-86
Population 3-86
Economic Resources 3-88
Land Use 3-89
Archaeological and Historic Resources 3-92
Recreational Resources and Uses of the River 3-914
Institutional and Regulatory Framework 3-101
Town Plans 3-101
Town Zoning and Land Use Bylaws 3-101
Town Wetlands and Floodplains Restrictions 3-102
Ripariari Rights 3-103
Water Quality Plans and Regulations 3-103
Massachusetts General Laws and Regulations 3-105
Connecticut General Laws and Regulations 3-108
Federal Laws 3-110
CHAPTER k - IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES
Introduction 14 _i
Impacts of the No Action Alternative 14 -1
General 4-1
Water Quality Impacts of No Action 14.. .2
Biological Impacts of No Action 14-14
Socioeconomic Impacts of No Action
Impacts of No Action on Recreational Resources and
Use Attainability
Impacts of No Action on Archaeological and Historic
Resources 14_7
Regulatory and Institutional Constraints of No Action 14 7
Impacts of Low Flow Augmentation from Buffumville Lake 14-8
General 4-8
Engineering Issues Associated with Low Flow Augmentation 4-8
Water Quality Impacts of Low Flow Augmentation 14-16
- 11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
Biological Impacts of Low Flow Augmentation ‘4-18
Socioeconomic Impacts of Low Flow Augmentation 4 2O
Impacts of Low Flow Augmentation on Recreational
Resources and Use Attainability ‘4-21
Impacts of Low Flow Augmentation on Archaeological
and Historic Resources 4 22
Regulatory and Institutional Constraints of Low
Flow Augmentation LI_23
Impacts of Sediment Control in Perryville, Langer’s Pond,
and North Grosvenordale Impoundments 14 23
General ‘4-23
Engineering Issues Associated with Sediment Control ‘4 24
Water Quality Impacts of Sediment Control 1.1 35
Biological Impacts of Sediment Control
Socioeconomic Impacts of Sediment Control 14 . .L 13
Impacts of Sediment Control on Recreational Resources
and Use Attainability
Impacts of Sediment Control on Archaeological and
Historic Resources 14_46
Regulatory and Institutional Constraints of Sediment
Control
Impacts of Instrearn Aeration in Perryville, Langer’s Pond,
and North Grosvenordale Impoundments LkL 7
General
Engineering Feasibility Associated with Instream Aeration.... 4- 48
Water Quality Impacts of Instream Aeration 4_511
Biological Impacts of Instrearn Aeration ‘4-55
Socioeconomic Impacts of Instream Aeration ‘4-55
Impacts of Instream Aeration on Recreational Resources
and Use Attainability 1457
Impacts of Instream Aeration on Archaeological and
Historic Resources 14_57
Regulatory and Institutional Constraints of Instream
Aeration ‘ 4—58
CHAPTER 5 - COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES AND SELECTION OF RECOMMENDED PLAN
General 5-1
Comparison of Alternatives 5-2
Description of the Recommended Plan 5-11
Implement Advanced Wastewater Treatment 5-11
Implement Low Flow Augmentation 5-15
Isolate Wetlands at Perryville and Langer’s Pond 5-15
111
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
Excavate Sediment in Channels at Perryville and
Langer s Pond 5-16
Excavate Dry Sediment in North Grosvenordale Pond 5-16
Impacts of the Recommended Plan 5-16
Mitigation Measures 5-17
APPENDIX A - References A-i
APPENDIX B Supplemental Biological Data B-i
APPENDIX C — Sunmiary of Meetings C-i
APPENDIX D - List of Preparers D-1
- iv
-------
LIST OF TABL S
Table Title Page
2-1 Comparison of Low Flow Augmentation Impacts at
Hodges Village and Buffumville 2-5
2-2 Summary of Existing Water Level Variation at
Buffumville 2-7
3-1 French River Dams Below Burncoat Brook Confluence 3-6
3—2 Minimum Water Quality Criteria for All Waters
Massachusetts 3-8
3—3 Water Quality Criteria for Class B Inland Waters in
Massachusetts and Connecticut 3—10
3 ...1 French River Flows During MDWPC Water Quality
Data Collection Surveys 3—15
3-5 Dissolved Oyxgen Criteria for the Protection of
Freshwater Aquatic Life 3—27
3—6 Ammonia Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life 3—31
3-7 Metals Concentrations in the Waters of the French River.... 3 3I4
3-8 U.S. EPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Metals 3-35
3—9 Sediment Quality in Perryville Pond 3- 41
3-10 Sediment Quality in Langer’s Pond 3- 42
3—11 Sediment Quality in North Grosvenordale Pond 3_)43
3-12 Sediment Quality in Grosvenordale Pond 3_14!
3-13 Metal EP Toxicity in Sediments - Connecticut
Impoundments 3_)414
3_114 SOD Rates From Various EPA Surveys of the French River 3_146
3-15 Phytoplankton Data — August 18, 1982
Perryville Impoundment, Webster, MA 3-56
3-16 Phytoplankton Data — July 9, 198 4
Perryville Impoundment, Webster, MA 3—56
3—17 French River Dominant Plankton Data — August, 19814,
Connecticut Impoundments 3—57
v
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Title Page
3-18 Taxonomic Listing of Aquatic and Wetland
Vascular Plants and Associated Habitats in
Perryville Pond, July 19814 3—61
3 -19 Macrophyte Analysis of Connecticut Impoundments 3-63
3-20 Perryville Impoundment Invertebrate Analysis,
July 9, 19814 3—73
3-21 Percent Occurrence of Dominant Macroinvertebrate Taxa
at Langer’s Pond — October, 1984 3-74
3-22 Percent Occurrence of Dominant Macroinvertebrate Taxa
at North Grosvenordale Fond - October, 19824 3-714
3—23 Percent Occurrence of Dominant Macro invertebrate Taxa
at Mechanicsville Fond - October, 19814 3 .. .75
3-24 Invertebrate Analysis, Town Meadow Brook, Leicester,
Massachusetts — October, 19814 3—76
3—25 French River Fish Data - August 19824 3-78
3—26 Perryville Tissue Metals Analysis - August 198)4 3-80
3-27 Langer’s Pond Fish Tissue Metals Analysis -
September 19824 3-81
3—28 North Grosvenordale Pond Fish Tissue Metals Analysis -
September 19814 3-82
3—29 Wildlife Likely to Occur French River Impoundment Areas.... 3-814
3-30 Population Characteristics of French River Study Area 3-87
3-31 Municipal Finance - 1984 Figures 3-90
3-32 Land Use in French River Study Area 3-91
3-33 Existing Uses of the French River and Impoundments 3-95
3—34 Factors Restricting Attainment of Desired and
Designated Uses of the French River 3-97
24—1 Webster/Dudley Advanced Wastewater Treatment Estimated
Average Annual Cost
vi
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Title Page
11 2 LFPL Storage Requirements 14 . . .13
Stage-vs-Storage for Buffumville Lake 14_114
4_Li Calculated Maximum Effluent Concentratios Based on Acute
Water Quality Criteria ‘4-18
‘ 4—5 Low Flow Augmentation Costs ‘4-21
‘4—6 Alternative Sediment Control Methods i4-2 4
Evaluation of Sediment Control Methods ‘4-25
4-8 Site—Specific Feasibility of Sediment Control
Alternatives 14...33
4-9 Costs of Sediment Control
4-1O Instream Aeration Costs 14_55
5-1 Engineering Features - Comparison of Alternatives 5-3
5-2 Water Quality Impacts - Comparison of Alternatives 5-5
5—3 Biological Impacts - Comparison of Alternatives 5-12
Socioecnomic and Recreational Impacts —
Comparison of Alternatives 5-13
5-5 Channel Dimensions 5-17
5—6 Costs of Instreani Improvements 5-18
vii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title Page
1—1 Thames River Basin 1-2
3-1 French River Basin 3-2
3-2 French River Low Flow Profile 3-5
3—3 Location of Point Source Discharges 3—11
3—4 Average pH Levels in the French River:
1982, 19811 and 1985 MDEPC Surveys 3—17
3—5 Average BODç Concentrations in the French River:
1974 and ¶976 MDWPC Surveys 3-18
3—6 Average BODç Concentrations in the Freanch River:
1982, 1984 and 1985 MDWPC Surveys 3-19
3-7 Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations in the Freanch River:
1974 and 1976 MDWPC Surveys 3-21
3—8 Range of Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations
in the Freanch River: 1982 MDWPC Surveys 3-22
3-9 Range of Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations
in the French River: 1984 and 1985 14DWPC Surveys 3-23
3-10 Average Total Phosphorus Concentrations
in the French River: 19714 and 1976 MDWPC Surveys 3-25
3—11 Average Total Phsophorus Concentrations
in the French River 1982, 1984, and 1985 MDWPC Surveys... 3-26
3—12 Average Nitrate-N Concentrations in the French River:
1982, 19811 and 1985 MDWPC Surveys 3-29
3-13 Average Ammonia-N Concentrations in the French River:
1982, 19811, and 1985 MDWPC Surveys 3-30
3—14 Fecal Coliform Concentrations in the French River:
1982, 1984, and 1985 MDWPC Surveys 3-32
3-15 Sediment Distribution in Perryville Pond 3-38
3—16 Sediment Distribution in Langer t s Pond (Wilsoriville, CT)... 3-39
3—17 Sediment Distribution in North Grosvenordale Pond 3-40
viii
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure Title Page
3-18 Sensitivity of SOD to DO in Overlying Water
at Start of In-situ Analysis, Sediment Cores
from Perryville Pond, May 1985 3—k8
3-19 1982 Calibration: Sensitivity in
Photosynthetic Oxygen Production 3-51
3-20 1982 Calibration: Sensitivity in
Measured Sediment Demand Values 3-53
3—21 Dissolved Oxygen Levels UnderLow Flow (7Q10) Conditions
(Existing Treatment) 3-5k
3-22 Aquatic and Wetland Vascular Plants in
Perryville Pond 3—6k
3-23 Aquatic and Wetland Vascular Plants in
Langer’s Pond (Wilsonville) 3-65
3-2k Aquatic and Wetland Vascular Plants in
North Grosvenordale Pond 3-66
3-25 Aquatic and Wetland Vascular Plants in
Grosvenordale Pond 3-67
3—26 Wetland Habitats at Buffumville Lake 14-69
1 4-i Sensitivity of Dissolved Oxygen in Advanced Wastewater
Treatment Under Low Flow (7Q1O) Conditions
14-2 Spillway and Outlet Works of Buffumville Dam
(Plan and Logitudinal Section) 14-10
Spiliway and Outlet Works of Buffumville Dam
(Section View) 14 il
Outlet Rating Curves for Buffumville Lake 14-12
Sensitivity of Low Flow Augmentation (From Buff’umville Lake)
Assuming Advanced Wastewater Treatment
And Low Flow (7Q10) Conditions 4-15
Sensitivity of Dissolved Oxygen to Sediment Control at
Perryville Impoundment Under Low Flow (7Q10) Conditions.... 14-37
1 4-7 Sensitivity of Dissolved Oxygen to Sediment Control at
North Grosvenordale and Langer’s Pond Under
Low Flow (7Q10) Conditions 14-38
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure Title Page
4-8 Sensitivity of Dissolved Oxygen to Sediment Control at
North Grosvenordale Impoundment Under
Low Flow (7Q10) Conditions 4—39
Sensitivity of Dissolved Oxygen to Sediment Cotnrol at
Perryville, Langer’s Pond and North Grosvenordale
Under Low Flow (7Q10) Conditions 4- 4O
k-1O Oxygen Transfer Rate Conversion Factor 4-50
4-11 Instream Aeration Model Prediction 4-53
4-12 Schematic of Instreain Aeration Diffuser System 4-56
5- i Sensitivity of Dissolved Oxygen to Advanced Wastewater
Treatment Under Low Flow (7Q10) Conditions 5-6
5-2 Sensitivity of Dissolved Oxygen to Sediment Removal at
Perryville, Langer’s and North Grosvenordale Ponds 5-7
5-3 Sensitivity to Low Flow Augmentation (from Buffuinville Lake)
Assuming Advanced Wastewater Treatment and
Low Flow (7Q10) Conditions 5—8
5-4 Sensitivity of Dissolved Oxygen to Sediment Removal at
Perryville, Langer’s and North Grosnenordale Ponds
with Low Flow Augmentation 5-9
x
-------
Chapter 1
-------
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The French River originates in southern Worcester County,
Massachusetts, and flows southward into northern Windham County,
Connecticut, where it joins the Quinebaug River and subsequently the
Thames River (Figure 1—1). The Thames River discharges into Long Island
Sound at New London, Connecticut.
Project History & Need
Over the past decade, the environmental quality of the French
River has drawn the attention of several federal, state and local
agencies. Problems have been cited, studies conducted, and a variety of
water quality improvement projects have subsequently been proposed, some
of which have been or are currently being implemented. Most of the
cleanup efforts to date have focused on individual point sources, and
particularly on upgrading the treatment of industrial and domestic
wastewater flows to the river. However, a long history of heavy
industrial development and the associated construction of numerous mill
dams along the French River have compounded the degradation of
environmental conditions in the river to the point that even the planned
treatment plant improvements will not be sufficient to achieve the Class
B water quality desired. Specifically, low dissolved oxygen
concentrations (K 5.0 mg/l), and high nutrient concentrations (total
phosphorus > 0.1 mg/l) persist in impounded stretches of the lower half
of the river, particularly during low flows. The dissolved oxygen levels
are in violation of State standards for fishable/swimmable water quality
in the river. In addition, sediment deposits behind the dams contain
high levels of heavy metals and other potentially toxic contaminants, and
are subject to noxious odors when exposed. Data indicate that the
aquatic biota in these portions of the river have been negatively
impacted by the poor water quality. Desired recreational activities In
downstream impoundments are similarly curtailed.
1—1
-------
FRENCH
RIVER
BASIN
MASS.
CONN.
— MASS .
R.I.
0
8
SCALE IN MILES
NEW
C
FIG. 1-1 THAMES RIVER BASIN
-------
In 1983, the Army Corps of Engineers’ New England Division studied
the feasibility of seasonal low flow augmentation storage at the Hodges
Village Flood Control Dam project, located in the upstream portion of the
French River basin. The study was based on using the stored water to
augment natural low flows in the river in order to alleviate downstream
water quality problems. In February 19814, the Corps of Engineers issued
the “Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Low Flow Augmentation at
Hodges Village Dam, Oxford, Massachusetts”. This project would involve
the removal of 130 acres of wetland, 36 acres of upland, 11 acres of
river and 3 acres of disturbed land. This would be replaced, in part,
with a 155 acre augmentation pool which would be seasonably drawndown to
a 113 acre permanent pool exposing 7 acres of non-vegetated shoreline and
lowering the water level in 35 acres of new wetland on the western side
of the pool (see U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 198 14 for a more detailed
description of the project). Based on the significant environmental
impacts associated with the project and the lack of’ review of other
alternatives, the decision was made by EPA to supplement the Draft Hodges
Village EIS with a comparable evaluation of other alternatives for
achieving water quality goals.
Project Objectives
The objectives of the “Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
for the French River Cleanup Program in Massachusetts and Connecticut”
are to rigorously evaluate feasible alternatives for achieving water
quality goals in the French River, as they have been identified through
agency and public input, and to identify an environmentally and
economically sound plan for implementation of the recommended
alternatives.
1—3
-------
Chapter 2
-------
CHAPTER 2
ALTERNATIVES FOR WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
General
In order to develop an appropriate list of reasonable alternatives
to be evaluated in the French River SETS, EPA held several scoping
meetings with the general public in the study area, and participating
federal and state agencies and local officials. A number of’ alternative
actions to clean up the French River were identified during this
process. Generally, the alternatives can be grouped into four basic
categories: point source modification; low flow augmentation; sediment
control; and instream aeration.
Once identified, the alternatives were given a preliminary
screening based on their potential effectiveness in meeting water quality
standards, engineering feasibility, relative cost, environmental impacts,
and institutional constraints. Alternatives which were judged
unacceptable on the basis of any of the criteria were eliminated from
further evaluation. Alternatives involving a multiplicity of viable
options (e.g. surface water sources for flow augmentation) were narrowed
down to one or two of the “best” options.
Screening of Alternatives
Point Source Modifications . As will be discussed in more detail
in the next chapter, several municipal wastewater treatment plants and
industries currently discharge wastewater to the French River. It has
been proposed that modification of’ these point source discharges, either
by further treatment of the wastewater or reduction in effluent flow to
the river (at least during critical periods), could relieve some of the
water quality problems which persist in the river.
At present, all of the treatment plants on the river perform at
least secondary treatment of wastewater flows during the summer months.
Of these, the only discharges which directly affect water quality in the
stressed segments of the river are those located in Webster and Dudley,
2-1
-------
Massachusetts. The facilities plan recommending the upgrading of these
plants to a 6.0 mgd consolidated advanced treatment facility (M&E, 198 4)
has already been approved by EPA (EPA Summary of Findings on AWT, 1985),
and its implementation is assumed as a “base case” in this evaluation of
additional actions required. The Webster-Dudley combined facilities plan
thoroughly addressed various other treatment alternatives and found them
to be unfeasible, primarily due to cost limitations and space constraints
at the sites. Any additional level of treatment at Webster-Dudley,
beyond that already proposed, could only be achieved at considerable
cost, for relatively little incremental improvement in effluent quality.
For most of the same reasons, as well as some additional ones, the
reduction of effluent flow at Webster-Dudley in order to minimize adverse
impacts on the river is also not a viable alternative for achieving
desired water quality. Options for achieving flow reduction include
restrictions to the service area or industrial discharges to limit
influent flow; seasonal land application of effluent; and detention of
discharge during critical low flow periods in the river. All of these,
however, are limited either by land availability or by institutional
factors, as discussed in the facilities plan. In addition, reducing the
effluent flow would not necessarily improve water quality conditions in
the river. Computer modelling of instream dissolved oxygen
concentrations with a 25 percent lower effluent discharge at the Webster-
Dudley advanced treatment facility reveals little to no sensitivity to
flow. This is probably due to the fact that, although BOD loads to the
river would be less with the reduced discharge, the lower effluent flow
(which represents a significant component of river discharge under low
flow conditions) would result in an increased residence time in the
impoundments downstream.
In addition to Webster—Dudley, it is possible that the level of
treatment or effluent flow for the other point source discharges to the
French River could be altered. Most of these discharges, however, are in
the upper half of the French River basin and are relatively remote from
the problem areas downstream. It is expected that the effects of higher
levels of treatment from upstream sources would be dissipated in the
2-2
-------
intervening stretches, and have relatively no impact in the stressed
areas. Data obtained in the water quality modelling effort support this
conclusion.
Low Flow Augmentation . Low flow augmentation, the release of
water from storage in order to improve downstream water quality during
low natural flow conditions, has already been shown to be a potentially
viable option for meeting water quality standards in the French River.
The Hodges Village EIS addressed one such scheme, that of maintaining a
minimum flow of 22 cfs in the river by supplementing natural low flows
with water retained at the Hodges Village flood control dam. Although
that particular project had significant environmental impacts associated
with it, including the removal of 130 acres of wetland, the study did
show that low flow augmentation could be used to improve dissolved oxygen
concentrations in the river during critical periods. Alternatives for
flow augmentation, therefore, revolve around various other locations for
flow storage in the upper basin. Both groundwater and surface water
resources (other than Hodges Village) have been recommended for
evaluation.
Depending on the hydrology of the drainage area, the use of
surface storage sources for flow augmentation can be accomplished either
by drawing down the existing pool level as needed during summer low flows
and then refilling it with fall runoff, or by storing up spring runoff
and drawing it down as needed during the summer. P. combination of the
two approaches is also feasible. In the Hodges Village EIS, the Corps of
Engineers used an augmented flow of 22 cfs, with 500 acre-feet of
additional storage (based on the flood of record), as requisite flow for
the project. Thus to use an impoundment 50 acres in area, approximately
10 feet of water level fluctuation could be required to augment low
flows.
On th basis that a potential fluctuation in water level in excess
of 6 feet would have too great an impact on the pond environment, only
the surface impoundments in the upper French River basin which are
greater than 80 acres in area were reviewed for potential use for flow
augmentation storage. Smaller ponds were not considered unless they
2—3
-------
could be grouped with other impoundments to provide sufficient area. In
all, 18 different impoundments, or combinations thereof, were
evaluated. Available hydrologic information was reviewed, and town
engineers, consultants, and industries were contacted for further
information regarding physical characteristics of the ponds and dams and
existing uses of the water.
Those ponds which are so shallow that additional storage could
potentially flood surrounding houses, or that sufficient drawdown to
provide the necessary flow would affect well levels and significant
aquatic habitat, were eliminated from further consideration. Hodges
Village was also eliminated as a viable option due to the severe
environmental impacts (see Table 2-1). Also eliminated were those
impoundments from which flow is already strictly controlled by an
existing industry, e.g. Webster Lak’e, for which Cranston Print Works owns
water rights to 2 feet above and below a specified benchmark. Finally,
hydrologic calculations were performed for each of the remaining
alternative surface water sources, to assess the capability of the
respective drainage basins to provide the additional flow without
significantly altering existing pooi levels and natural releases from the
impoundments.
As a result of the screening process described, alternatives for
flow augmentation were narrowed down to 8 feasible options: Burncoat
Pond; Cedar Meadow Pond; Burncoat and Cedar Meadow Ponds; Stiles
Reservoir; Slaters and Robinson Ponds; Buffumville Lake; Pierpoint Meadow
Pond; and Buffumville Lake and Pierpoint Meadow Pond. Of these,
Buffumville Lake is by far the most preferable option, since it is the
largest single impoundment and has the largest drainage area; its
periphery is relatively steep and undeveloped; the outlet control works
are in excellent condition; and it is federally owned and operated.
Also, the change in water level that would occur due to LFA at
Buffuinville is within the range of water level variation that currently
exists. Water level variation at Buffuinville is summarized in Table 2-
2. The existing operating pool level elevation is 92.5, and the
2 L
-------
TABLE 2-1. COMPARISON OF LOW FLOW AUGMENTATION IMPACTS AT HODGES VILLAGE AND BUFFUMVILLE
Parameters to be
impacted Hodges Village Buufumville
Substrate 265,000 cubic yards of organic and May cause some shore erosion during draw
surficial sediments removed within down although water level variation would
120 acre area of the reservoir (with be within normal operational range.
average depth of removal <1.5 feet).
Change in surface sediment quality
to 2/3 gravel size and 1/3 sand
by weight.
Suspended Cofferdam activity would intermit- No impact since water fluctuation will be
Particulate tently increase suspended solids during within normally occuring range.
Turbidity construction. Heavy sedimentation will
occur in Augultenback Pond 600 feet
downstream of the dams.
Water Quality Construction activity would increase D.0. would increase 1 mg/i over baseline
turbidity and nutrients in water conditions
column which could also result in a
decrease in D.O. levels downstream.
Normal Water Fluctuations beyond normal range Fluctuation will be within range that
Fluctuations will occur. normally occurs
Threatened No Impact No impact
and Endangered
Species
Benthos Benthic invertebrates will be buried No significant impact in lake; downstream
from sedimentation and stressed there will be slight increased diversity
by low D.0. and density.
-------
TABLE 2-1. (CONTINUED) COMPARISON OF LOW FLOW AUGMENTATION IMPACTS AT HODGES VILLAGE AND BUFFUMVILLE
11 acres of upstream riverine habitat
within 180 acre impact area would be
removed. Diversions would be created
using cofferdams. 37 habitat units
for the Il species evaluated with HEP
would be lost. Sedimentation in down-
stream areas could smother benthic plants
invertebrates and fish nests. Decrease
D.0. will stress fish.
No impact on lake. Positive impact
downstream due to Increased D.0.
WIld life
Wetlands
Construction activities would disrupt
and destroy wildlife habitat within
the 180 acre impact area as well as
disrupt the surrounding area. Wetland
associated species would be most
impacted while upland species would be
marginally impacted.
Removal of 130 acres of wetland and
11 acres of riverine habitat
No impact
6 acres of periferal wetland will
experience water level fluctuations;
however, these fluctuations are
within the normally occuring range.
Recreation
No impact on recreation at Rocky Hill
and Greenbriar Recreation Areas.
Creation of seasonal pool will offer
opportunity for development of
recreation activities
No impact downstream. Minor impact
at lake during sunmer; decreased
headroom at culvert under-road; and
minimum flooding of beach, although
these impacts currently occur due to
fluctuating water level.
No impact
No impact since water fluctuation will
be within normally occuring range.
Fisheries
Parameters to be
impacted Hodges Village
Buffumville
Archeology
-------
proposed maximum operating pool level is 1495.0, which allows for over 500
acres-ft. of additional storage. As is shown in Table 2-2, the water
level in Buffumville Lake currently frequently exceeds elevation 1495.0,
and it is not uncommon for elevations well over 500 ft. to occur.
TABLE 2-2. SUP9(ARY OF EXISTING WATER LEVEL VARIATION
AT BUFFUI4VILLE LAKE
Water Maximum Pool No. of Days No. of Days
Year Elevation Pool Elevation Pool Elevation
( NGVD) Exceeded 1495.0 Exceeded 1492.5
1980 501.0 15 205
1981 499.6 10 185
1982 506.3 31 280
1983 504.0 142 232
198 14 506.0 30 227
A review of the available hydrogeological data for the study area
indicates that the use of groundwater for flow augmentation is far less
feasible an option than some of the surface water alternatives. Most of
the aquifers in the area are hydrologically connected to the streams that
overlie them, so that groundwater removal could induce infiltration and
decrease groundwater discharge, thereby depleting streaznflow and the
amount of actual augmentation. Most known areas of high aquifer
transmissivity in the French River basin are beneath the river or its
tributaries. Also, the known permeable areas are already developed to
some extent for public water supplies. The areas that could be
considered for groundwater development for flow augmentation are thus
limited.
Sediment Control . Sediment control is a particularly important
consideration for the lower portions of the French River, where several
old mill dams impound water and extensive deposits of sediments high in
metals, nutrients, and organic content. It is in these impoundments that
2-7
-------
occasional water quality problems persist, largely due to the oxygen
demand exerted by the sediments. In the EPA review of the Webster-Dudley
facilities plan (EPA, 1985) it was estimated that, subsequent to the
initiation of advanced treatment, 50 percent of the sediment oxygen
demand (SOD) would have to be eliminated from the impoundments downstream
in order to achieve water quality standards for dissolved oxygen. In
order to address the most severely impacted areas, on the assumption that
small amounts of water quality improvements would carry over to
impoundments downstream, sediment control alternatives would be
implemented in the impoundments in Perryville, MA, Wilsonville, CT, and
North Grosvenordale, CT only. Potential approaches to sediment control
in the impoundments include sediment removal; in situ sediment
deactivation; physical and/or chemical stabilization of the sediments;
and dam removal or modification.
Although costly and time consuming, sediment removal with
subsequent dewatering and disposal is probably the most effective method
of reducing SOD and potential toxicity in the impoundments. It also
provides the added benefits of improving bathing and boating activities
and controlling macrophyte growth. The elevated levels of contaminants
in the material and total volume of sediment are, however, complicating
factors which limit disposal options. Disposal options should be fully
addressed in the Section 4014 Permit Application. Sediment removal
operations, both by dredging and by drawdown followed by excavation, have
been successfully implemented at a number of impoundments similar in size
and type to those on the French River.
Sediment deactivation, in the sense of rendering the material
chemically inactive, is not a realistic alternative for the deposits in
French River impoundments. There are presently no known chemical agents
which can be added to the sediments in situ to actually “treat t ’ the
oxygen demand and potential toxicity exerted. Metals in particular are
not degradable. In addition, any biological agents which could deplete
the oxygen demand would probably be inhibited by the more toxic
components of the sediments.
2-8
-------
Stabilization of the sediments is a more conceivable method for
dealing with at least some of the sediment deposits in the river. The
objective of stabilization would be to render the sediments and their
associated contaminants both immobile and isolated. This can
theoretically be accomplished by any one of a number of biological,
chemical, and physical methods. Not all, however, are appropriate for
use in the French River. In fact, biological stabilization through
uptake of contaminants by organisms is part of what any remedial action
would seek to avoid.
Chemical stabilizers work on the principle of bonding the
sediments to immobilize the contaminants within them. Various forms of
lime, asphalt, concrete, and polymeric resins can be used to stabilize
soils. However, their application to sediments which are submerged or
high in water content is limited. From a practical standpoint, chemical
stabilizers could only be used in situ in the French River on surface
layers of drained sediment deposits. The environmental consequences,
logistical difficulties, and economic cost of doing so generally make
this an undesirable option. The application of chemical stabilizers in
the treatment of dredged slurry is more feasible.
Physical stabilization entails the installation of a barrier
between the contaminated sediments (e.g. lining, containing, or covering
them) and the surrounding environment. For the French River, one of the
most applicable forms of physical stabilization would probably be
sediment capping. This method would be used to isolate the contaminants
from the water column and provide a clean substrate for bottom dwelling
organisms.
Depending on other alternatives implemented, slope stabilization
may also become an integral part of cleanup measures in the
impoundments. Crushed stone, clay, timber or metal sheeting, earthen
enbankments, and concrete retaining walls are all viable alternatives for
slope stabilization. The selection of one alternative over another is
dependent on a number of factors, ie. slope, flow, velocity, desired
permeability, etc. and is best done on a site-specific basis when more of
this information has been established.
2-9
-------
Due to the high buildup of sediments behind the dams, dam removal
could only be considered as a cleanup alternative in conjunction with
complete sediment removal in the impoundments. Thus, the costs
associated with this option are high. In addition to the benefits
associated with removing the sediments, the elimination or breaching of
the dams would increase the velocity of flow in the river, thus reducing
residence times in the impoundments. However, it would reduce the
reaeration which presently occurs over the dams. Most importantly,
removal of the dams would eliminate any potential uses of the
impoundments for recreational use, hydroelectric power generation, and
wildlife habitat, all of which are desired uses of the lower French
River.
Instream Aeration . Artificial stream aeration has historically
been used in many riverine systems as a partial solution to depressed
dissolved oxygen levels. It is a particularly appropriate alternative
when an increase in dissolved oxygen concentration is required for short
periods of otherwise adverse wastewater assimilative capacity, such as is
the case in the French River during low flows. The application of’ this
alternative to the present situation in the French River would entail the
installation and seasonal operation of mechanical surface aerators or
submerged air diffusers at several locations within the presently
stressed segments of the river. The aerators would disperse air
throughout the water column, increasing the rate of’ oxidation and aerobic
decomposition of sediment organies. Pure oxygen could also be used, but
would be prohibitively expensive. Based on projects conducted in similar
systems (Whipple et al., 97T), properly designed and located aerators
should be able to maintain the ambient dissolved oxygen in the river at a
concentration above the 5 mg/i standard, at reasonable cost. They would
not, however, address any other water quality problems in the river, and
could even contribute to mobilization of contaminants in the sediments.
Selection of Alternatives for Further Evaluation
As a result of the screening of alternatives described above, six
cleanup alternatives were selected for more comprehensive impact
evaluation in the SEIS. These alternatives are as follows:
2-10
-------
1. No Action. Although it will not result in the achievement of
water quality goals, the no action alternative will be evaluated
for purposes of comparison in the SEIS.
2. Low flow augmentation from Buffumville Lake to maintain a minimum
flow of 22 cfs in the French River at Webster.
3. Sediment control in the impoundments in Perryville, MA,
Wilsonville, CT and North Grosvenordale, CT. Each pond will be
evaluated separately, as will the three collectively. Alternative
methods to be evaluated for controlling sediments are:
Sediment removal by either dredging or by drawdown followed by
excavation. This method would also entail dewatering and
transport of the sediments, location of a suitable disposal
site, and treatment of the disposed sediments.
Sediment capping. Those areas capped would first be excavated
to the depth of the cap before the capping material is placed.
Sediment slope stabilization. This method would isolate the
sediment deposits from the channel areas of the impoundments.
4. Instream aeration in the impoundments in Perryville, MA,
Wilsonville, CT and North Grosvenordale, CT.
Further detailing of’ these alternatives will be presented in Chapter 1V,
together with a discussion of the consequences associated with each. A
more detailed description of the French River environment as it currently
exists is presented in Chapter 3.
2-11
-------
Chapter 3
-------
CHAPTER 3
AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Physical Setting
The French River drainage basin is approximately 112 square miles
in area, and includes portions the towns of Leicester, Auburn, Douglas,
Charlton, Dudley, Oxford, and Webster, Massachusetts and Wilsonville,
North Grosvenordale, Grosvenordale, and Mechanicsville, all within the
town of Thompson, Connecticut (Figure 3-1). The basin is approximately
miles long, (north to south) and 8 miles across at its widest point.
Topography . Topography of the basin is generally uneven, with
many small hills 100 to 200 feet high, and open, sometimes swampy,
lowlands. Numerous small ponds and wetland depressions are scattered
throughout the area. Slopes range from zero to 25 percent, with the
steeper gradients occurring in the upstream portions of the basin.
Geology . Local soils are mostly composed of glacial till, water-
sorted sand and gravels, and clay, silt and fine sands. The principal
bedrock materials underlying the region are granite, gneiss, schist,
sandstone, shale, slate, phyllite and limestone. Geologically speaking,
the soils of’ the basin are relatively young, the result of a cold New
England climate which retards the development of soil from the parent
glacial material. Some organic material has accumulated, and the soils
have derived a brown coloration, due both to the organic content and the
oxidation of iron in the soil minerals.
The well-drained upland soils in the basin are classified in the
Gloucester-Charlton-Paxton-Brookfield series. Those soils which have
developed under high moisture conditions are principally of the Sutton
and Whitman series, and those developed under deficient moisture
conditions are in the Hinckley (hills) and tierriniac (plains) series.
Soils in areas of recently deposited alluvium, e.g. along stream beds,
are grouped in the Ondawa series. In addition, small areas of mucky
soils occur throughout the basin.
3—1
-------
HT
(I’
, ‘ t
WENCER ( $
II
I
(1
HARLTOW
4--
/
I
L
(SI
DOUGLAS
LIICESTER
I
0
SCALE IN MILES
I
USGS STREAM GAGES
U JRN
V
I
MILLflURV
-
OXFORD
HODGES
VILLAGE
DAM
WTTOI4
DUDLEY
/
SOUTH
Th
FIG. 3 -1 FRENCH RIVER BASIN
-------
Climate . Typical of southern New England, the climate in the
French River basin is variable, with warm summers and cool winters. The
mean annual temperature is approximately 47 degrees F, with average daily
temperatures ranging between 10 and 80 degrees F. Mean annual
precipitation is 142 to 45 inches. Precipitation is fairly evenly
distributed throughout the year, although runoff may be retained in the
snowpack for up to four months due to subfreezing temperatures. Although
the basin lies within the prevailing westerlies, its weather is more
influenced by the occasional coastal storms, known as “northeasters”,
which move up the New England seaboard. These storms are characterized
by heavy rain, snow and fog. Some storm events, generally those of
tropical origin, have caused historic flooding in the French River basin.
Hydrology . The northernmost headwaters of the French River
consist of two small brooks which drain Elliot Hill in northern
Leicester, converge, and flow into Sargent Pond. From there, the stream
continues southward as Town Meadow Brook for approximately four miles
through several more small ponds and a marsh, picks up flow from Barton’s
Brook (draining Stiles Reservoir), and enters Rochdale Pond. Rochdale
Pond also receives flow from Grindstone Brook, which drains Henshaw Pond
and Great Cedar Swamp. The combined flow out of Rochdale Pond is the
start of the mainstem of the French River. The river continues to flow
southward into Oxford, through several palustrine forest areas, small
ponds and former impoundment areas. Several tributaries enter the river
in Oxford, including the Little River (draining 27.7 square miles which
includes Gore Pond, Granite Reservoir, Buffumville Lake, and Buffum
Pond); an unnamed brook draining several small ponds from the east; and
Mill Brook, flowing out of Webster Lake. Below Oxford, the river flows
through downtown Webster and several impoundments therein, picks up flow
from a brook draining a five pond network to the west, and continues
between southern Webster and Dudley into Perryville Pond. Within 100
yards downstream of the Perryville Dam, the river crosses the State line
into Thompson, Connecticut and, for the next 7.1 miles, passes through
impoundments at Wilsonville, North Grosvenordale, Grosvenordale, and
Mechanicsville before reaching its confluence with the Quinebaug River.
3—3
-------
In all, the length of the river from its headwaters in Leicester
to its confluence with the Quinebaug is approximately 30 miles. The
total elevational drop of the river is around 600 feet, more than
80 percent of which occurs within the first 10 miles. As shown in
Figure 3-2, the river’s gradient differs significantly between the upper
and lower portions of the basin. Above the Hodges Village dam in Oxford,
the channel is generally steep and the river fast flowing, with shallow
rocky rapids in some stretches. Downstream of Hodges Village, the
gradient flattens out and the river follows a deeper, more meandering
channel. Some exceptions exist in both sections, i.e. there are several
sluggish river segments in the upper basin, and a series of shallow
rapids do exist in the downtown Webster segment.
Several severe flood events during the 1950’s precipitated the
construction of two large U.S. Army Corps of Engineers flood control dams
in the French River basin. The Buffuinville dam on the Little River was
completed in October 1958, and two years later a second dam was completed
at Hodges Village, on the mainstem of the French River. While the
Buffuniville dam has a permanent pool (Buffumville Lake) behind it, the
Hodges Village dam only impounds flow during a flood event. Numerous
mill dams were also constructed along the French River, especially during
the heavy industrial development of the textile era. Each of these dams
had or has a small impoundment behind it. Although many of the dams have
been removed or breached in more recent years, at least fourteen are
still in existence on the French River, and remnants and sediment sills
from others remain. Table 3-1 lists all the dams which have been known
to exist on the river, and their current status. The cumulative effect
of the large number of dams has been to cause sluggish flow in many
portions of the river, contributing to high sediment deposition and poor
water quality.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maintains four flow gages in the
French River basin. The gage furthest upstream in the basin is located
on the French River just below the Hodges Village dam. It monitors flow
from a 31.0 square mile drainage area, and has been in operation since
1962. The average discharge at the gage is 147.2 cubic feet per second
3_14
-------
FIG. 3-2 FRENCH RIVER 7Q10 LOW FLOW PROFILE OF
WATER SURFACE AND CHANNEL BOTTOM
0
0
700
I—
0
-I
U)
0
>
2
0)
uJ
>
0
F-
w
w
U.
0
a
z
x
Itf
0
0
500
WATER
4
0
w
I,
-J
N
V)
2
SURFACE
I .)
z
‘U
-J
a
300
CHANNEL BOTTOM
ELEVATION
4
0
U i
-I
- I
>
z
0
0
Ui
1
4
0
0
z
Ui
>
U,
0
0
i
28 26
4
a
4
0
‘ U
-i
4
0
0
z
Ui
>
U,
0
I,
22
20
18
MILES UPSTREAM OF CONFLUENCE WITH QUINEBAUG RIVER
10 8 6 4
2
0
-------
TABLE 3-1.
FRENCH RIVER DAMS BELOW BURNCOAT
BROOK CONFLUENCE
River mile
(above
Quinebaug
Drainage
Impound-
Current
River
Location confluence)
area
(miles 2 )
ment area
(acres)
Status
6. Rochdale Mills 22.141
7. Above Cominsville
21 .79
9. Thayer Woolen 20.148
10. Lamb’s Privilege 20.06
1414 In place, recent
construct ion
? Removed
1/16 Removed, river
3 Removed, river
42 In place, mill
over dam
10 Removed
? Removed, location
unknown
1 -2 In place, reconstructed
1956
145 Breached 1955 (Texas
Pond)
3 Removed for road
relocation
2-3 Breach completed 1955
8 In place, mill race
blocked
10 Breached 1955; removed
2 Washed away 1955
Dam intact; pond drained
0 Flood control; through
flow
52 Removal completed 1955
20 In place, reconstructed
1936
15 In place, reconstructed
1939
12 East spiliway removed
1958
In place, present dam
1870
19 In place
35 In place
? In place
? In place
8. Cominsville
rerouted
rerouted
built
1.
Greenville
23.614
114.3
2.
3.
U.
5.
Below Greenville
Above Hankey Pond
Hankey Pond
Rochdale Pond
23.59
?
?
22.6 )4
?
?
15.2
18.6
19.5
.7
20.1
21.8
22.1
11.
12.
Protection Mills
Rockdale Mills
19.75
19.33
23.0
214.3
13.
114.
15.
16.
Sigourney Pond
Huguenot Mills
White Village
Hodges Village’
19.02
18.70
18.614
15.77
214.6
214.8
214.8
31.1
17.
18.
Howarth’s Mills
North Village
15.63
10.29
31.1
8)4.7
19.
South Village
9.59
85.4
20.
Chaseville
8.39
90.8
21.
Perryville
7.10
93.1
22.
23.
214.
25.
Langers Pond
N. Grosvenordale
Grosvenordale
Mechanicsville
6.00
14.17
2.60
0.20
96.14
97.9
100.5
110.7
*Hodges Village is currently used for flood control storage only.
Adopted from: Dams of Worcester County, Worcester County Engineers, County
Courthouse, Worcester, MA (As cited in Hubbard, 1979)
3—6
-------
(cfs). Another USGS gaging station is situated on the Little River,
immediately downstream of the Buffurnville dam and 0.6 miles upstream of
its confluence with the French River. The gage has been operative since
1939, however, the dam has been regulating flow since 1958. The average
flow at this station is k5.9 cfs, from a drainage area of 27.7 square
miles. A third gaging station on Brown’s Brook monitors flow into
Webster Lake from a 0.5 square mile drainage area. Many of the daily
flow records from this station, dating back to 1962, show no flow. The
fourth and final gage in the French River basin is located on the
mainstem of the river in Webster, downstream of both flood control dams
and most of the major tributaries. Its drainage area is 85.3 square
miles, or 76 percent of the total watershed. Average flow there is 159
cfs. Discharge is less than 200 cfs almost 75 percent of the time.
Average annual runoff in the French River basin upstream of’ the Webster
gage for the period from 1950 to 197’4 was 2U.89 inches (1.8k cfs/sq mi),
or approximately 52 percent of the average annual rainfall. The USGS
gage at Webster was discontinued in 1981, and is no longer active.
The two flood control dams, Hodges Village and Buffumville, do not
significantly affect either the monthly or annual mean discharges of’ the
French River, however, they do tend to dampen the peak discharges which
would otherwise occur. Both reservoir projects are regulated to attempt
to limit French River flows to 1000 cf’s, which is considered to be
nondamaging channel capacity.
Water Quality Classification & Designated Uses
The entire length of the French River in Massachusetts and
Connecticut is designated by each State as Class B, inland waters.
Waters assigned to this class are designated for use in the protection
and propagation of fish and other aquatic life and wildlife; primary and
secondary contact recreation; agriculture; certain industrial processes
and cooling; and aesthetic value. The French River is specifically
designated as a warm water fishery. Table 3—2 lists the minimum criteria
which must be met in all waters of Massachusetts, except when the
criteria specified for the designated classification are more
3—7
-------
TABLE 3-2. MINIMUM WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
FOR ALL WATERS OF MASSACHUSETTS
Parameter Criteria
1. Aesthetics All waters shall be free from pollutants in
concentrations or combinations that:
a) Settle to form objectionable deposits;
b) Float as debris, scum or other matter to form
nuisances;
c) Produce objectionable odor, color, taste or
turbidity; or
d) Result in the dominance of nuisance species
2. Radioactive Substances Shall not exceed the recommended limits of the
United States Environmental Protection Agency’s
National Drinking Water Regulations.
3. Tainting Substances Shall not be in concentrations or combinations
that produce undesirable flavors in the edible
portions of edible organisms.
14• Color, Turbidity, Total Shall not be in concentrations or
Suspended Solids combinations that would exceed the recommended
limits on the most sensitive receiving water use.
5. Oil and Grease The water surface shall be free from floating
oils, grease and petrochemicals and any
concentrations or combinations in the water
column or sediments that are aesthetically
objectionable or deleterious to the biota are
prohibited. For oil and grease of petroleum
origin the maximum allowable discharge
concentration is 15 mg/i.
6. Nutrients Shall not exceed the site specific limits
necessary to control accelerated or cultural
eutrophication.
7. Other Constituents Waters shall be free from pollutants in
concentrations or combinations that:
a) Exceed the recommended limits on the most
sensitive receiving water use;
b) Injure, are toxic to, or produce adverse
physiological or behavioral responses in
humans or aquatic life; or
c) Exceed site-specific safe exposure levels
determined by bioassay using sensitive
resident species.
3-8
-------
stringent. The criteria for Class B inland waters in both states are
presented in Table 3-3. The minimum flow to which these standards apply
is the 7Q10 flow, or the minimum average daily flow for seven consecutive
days that can be expected to occur once in ten years. For the French
River, the 7Q10 is 1)4.8 cubic feet per second (cfs) at the Webster gage
(period of record 1950 to 1980).
Point Source Discharges
A total of four wastewater treatment plants and three industries
presently hold NPDES permits allowing them to discharge to the French
River. In the past there have been other point source discharges, but
these plants have either been tied into local municipal treatment plants
or have ceased operation. The following summarizes those discharges
currently located along the French River, beginning with those located at
the upstream end of the river in Leicester MA, and ending with the
dischargers in Thompson CT. Figure 3-3 shows the locations of these
point source discharges.
Leicester Wastewater Treatment Plant . The Leicester Wastewater
Treatment Plant receives flow from the 1.k square mile sewer district in
the center of Leicester. The plant has a 0.27 mgd design capacity and
discharges into Rawson Brook and Dutton Pond. During 198)4, monthly flow
ranged from 0.11 to 0.18 mgd, with an average of 0.13 mgd. Although the
treatment plant was built in 1967 with a 20 year design life, its
effluent has been violating NPDES permit limits since 1973. The plant
regularly violates discharge limits for biochemical oxygen demand (BOD),
suspended solids, dissolved oxygen, ammonia and phosphorus. BOD is the
amount of dissolved oxygen required to stabilize the decomposable matter
present in a water body by aerobic biochemical action. BOD 5 refers to
the 5-day measurement of dissolved oxygen used by microorganisms in the
biochemical oxidation of organic matter. During 1985, BOD and suspended
solids, which have NPDES effluent limitations of 12 mg/i between April 1
and October 15, ranged from 16 to 67 mg/i and 16 to 136 mg/i,
respectively. Between October 16 and March 15, when BOD and
3—9
-------
TABLE 3-3. WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
FOR CLASS B INLAND WATERS
IN MASSACHUSETTS AND CONNECTICUT
Parameter Criteria
1. Dissolved Oxygen Shall be a minimum of 5.0 mg/i in warm water
fisheries and a minimum of 6.0 mg/i in cold water
fisheries.
2. Temperature Shall not exceed 83 deg. F (28.3 deg. C) in warm
water fisheries (85 deg. F is the standard in
Connecticut) or 68 deg. F (20 deg. C) in cold
water fisheries, nor shall the rise resulting
from artificial origin exceed k.O deg. F
(2.2 deg. C).
3. pH Shall be in the range of 6.5-8.0 standard units
and not more than 0.2 units outside of the
naturally occurring range.
J4 Fecal Coliform Shall not exceed a log mean for a set of samples
Bacteria of 200 per 100 ml, nor shall more than 10% of the
total samples exceed 1 00 per 100 ml during any
monthly sampling period.
suspended solids are restricted to 30 mg/i, actual BOD ranged between 11
and 3 mg/i while suspended solids were always less than 3 mg/i.
A facilities plan for upgrading the Leicester plant to provide
advanced wastewater treatment was submitted to EPA in May 1983 and has
recently been approved.
Worcester Tool & Stamping (formerly CWM Electroplating) . The
Worcester Tool & Stamping Company is a small tool manufacturing
industry. The plant’s effluent, which results from the industry’s
plating processes, undergoes chemical treatment and lagoon settling
before being discharged to the French River about one mile downstream of
the Leicester treatment plant. The industry’s NPDES permit limits the
concentrations of suspended solids, pH, cyanide, nickel zinc, copper, oil
and grease, and total toxic organics. With the exception of nickel and
copper, concentrations of these pollutants comply with the NPDES permit
on a fairly consistent basis. Nickel, which has an NPDES limit of
3-10
-------
____
SCALE IN MILES
USGS STREAM GAGES
)
(
I
2
(‘b
WWTP
I
CRCESTER
TOOL & STAMPING
COMPANY
I
‘4’
OXFORD-
ROCH DALE
WWTP
MASS. TPK.
AUTHORITY
FACILITY
(WESTBOUND)
HODGES
VILLAGE
DAM
I
/
NORTH
DAM
SOUTH
/
)
/
SANITARY
DASH MFG.
COMPANY
FIG. 3-3 LOCATION OF POINT SOURCE DISCHARGES
-------
3.0 mg/i, ranged from 1.65 to 3.66 mg/i and exceeded its permit
limitation in 3 of 21 samples obtained by MDWPC during the past year.
Active copper and total copper each have NPDES permit limits of
0.3 mg/l. During 1985, active copper ranged from 0.01 to 0.99 mg/i and
exceeded the permit limit of 0.3 mg/i during 7 of the 19 survey
periods. Total copper violated its NPDES permit during 15 of the
21 sampling periods during 1985. Concentrations ranged from 0.01 to 1.11
mg/i during that survey period. While Worcester Tool & Stamping has
noted copper as being especially difficult to remove from its effluent,
the industry has also pointed out that their building’s tap water
contains 0.5 mg/i of copper. Thus in order to meet the NPDES limit of’
0.3 mg/i for copper, the plant would have to treat its tap water before
discharging it into the French River.
Oxford-Rochdaie Wastewater Treatment- Plant . Located in Oxford,
the Oxford-Rochdale WWTP is a secondary treatment plant with a design
capacity of 0.18 mgd. It serves the Rochdale section of Leicester and
the northern section of Oxford. The effluent is discharged into an
unnamed tributary to the French River. Since this tributary acts in a
manner similar to a lagoon, much of the discharge never reaches the
river. The plant’s effluent is well within its NPDES discharge permit
limits of 30 mg/i for both BOD and suspended solids, usually occurring at
approximately 10 mg/i each. Actual flow through the plant is much less
than the design capacity.
Massachusetts Turnpike Authority Westbound Facility . A package
plant secondary facility with a design capacity of 0.072 mgd is operated
by the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority on the westbound side of
Interstate 90 in Chariton. The plant’s effluent is discharged into an
unnamed tributary to Pike’s Pond, which ultimately enters the French
River through the Little River. The plant operates well within its NPDES
discharge permit limits. BOD and suspended solids, which have upper
permit limits of 30 mg/i each, rarely exceed 20 mg/i. Measurements of pH
remain within the allowable range of 6.0 to 8.5, and flow is
significantly below design capacity, ranging from 0.011 to 0.031 mgd from
May 198 to April 1985.
3-12
-------
Dudley Wastewater Treatment Plant . The original Dudley Wastewater
treatment plant constructed in 19 49 was a primary treatment facility.
The plant discharges its effluent approximately 1 miles downstream of
the USGS stream gage located in Webster. This plant was designed to
remove 50 percent of suspended solids and 30 percent of BOD, and had a
design flow of 0.375 MGD. In 1973, the treatment plant was upgraded to a
secondary plant designed to remove 90 percent of suspended solids and 90
percent of BOD at a design flow of 0.7 MGD. The Dudley Wastewater
treatment plant has not been able to meet its NPDES permit limits of 15
mg/i BOD and 18 mg/i suspended solids during recent years. In the past
twelve months, BOD ranged from 16 to 57 mg/i, and suspended solids ranged
from 17 to 60 mg/i. Average flow was 0.793 MGD.
In April 19814, a facilities plan for an upgraded treatment plant
was prepared and submitted to the Massachusetts DEQE and EPA. The plan
recommended advanced wastewater treatment at a regional plant which would
serve the towns of Webster and Dudley, at the existing Webster treatment
plant site directly across the French River from Dudley’s. In addition,
it was proposed that sludge would be disposed of at a land disposal site,
thus eliminating the discharge of sludge into the French River from both
plants. It was recommended that further studies be conducted to define
specific sludge disposal site alternatives.
Webster Wastewater Treatment Plant . The original Webster
Wastewater treatment plant was constructed in 1950. Its effluent is
discharged directly across the French River from the Dudley wastewater
treatment plant. The plant provided primary treatment and was designed
to remove 50 percent of suspended solids and 30 percent of BOD at a
design flow of 3.0 MGD.
In 19714, a secondary treatment plant began operating at the
Webster site. Secondary treatment was to produce an effluent with BOD
and suspended solids concentrations of 30 mg/i each. During the past
several years, the Webster secondary treatment plant has not consistently
complied with its present NPDES effluent limitations. The NPDES limits
of maximum daily BOD and suspended solids concentrations are 15 mg/i and
18 mg/i respectively. During the past twelve months, BOD concentrations
3—13
-------
ranged from 8 to 638 mg/i and suspended solids ranged from 2 to
1276 mg/i. Average flow was 2.145 MGD.
As mentioned above, a facilities plan for a regional advanced
wastewater treatment plant for the combined flows from Webster and Dudley
has been accepted and design will be initiated in the near future. The
14.5 to 6.0 mgd treatment plant is anticipated to be completed by 1989.
Sanitary Dash Manufacturing Company . Sanitary Dash Manufacturing,
located in North Grosvenordale CT, fabricates and plates tubular brass
plumbing supplies. The plant discharges its effluent into the French
River about one mile upstream of the North Grosvenordale dam. Pollutants
which are associated with these processes include alkaline cleaners,
nickel plating wastes, and chrome plating wastes. A small plant,
Sanitary Dash has a design flow of 0.02 4 MGD and an average daily flow of
0.016 MGD. The plant’s effluent is monitored for metals concentrations,
suspended, floating and settleable solids, pH. No violations of the
NPDES permit limitations have been recorded, with the exception of an
occasionally high measurement of pH or suspended solids.
Other . In addition to the point source discharges described
above, there are also two non—contact cooling water discharges located in
the French River basin. Asoma Polymers, Inc. discharges into the Little
River, near Buffuxnville Lake and Deran Confectionary Co., Inc. discharges
into the French River in Thompson, Conn.
Existing Water ia1ity Conditions
Water quality data pertaining to the French River have been
collected on several occasions over the past decade. The Massachusetts
Division of Water Pollution Control (MDWPC) performed intensive river
water quality surveys in the river during the summer months in 1972,
19714, and twice in 1976 (MDWPC, 1973; MDWPC, 19714; MDWPC, 1976). Recent
data collected by the MDWPC has included two 3-day surveys, one in
August, 1982 and another in July, 19814 (MDWPC, 1982; MDWPC, 198 )4), and
one-day grab sampling surveys in April and June 1985. Most of the MDWPC
data, however, pertain to portions of the river in Massachusetts;
3-114
-------
riverine water quality data for Connecticut portions are more limited.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection (CT DEP) cooperatively maintain a monthly water
quality sampling station in the Mechanicsville CT impoundment, 0.7 miles
upstream of the confluence with the Quinebaug River. Additional French
River data are available from the U.S. Army Corps of’ Engineer water
quality records at their two flood control dams in the upper portion of
the basin.
River flows measured in the French River during the MDWPC surveys
are presented in Table 3-14. Three of the surveys were conducted during
relatively low flow conditions, while the others were conducted at flows
only slightly below and above average for that gaging station. No
surveys were conducted under very low flow conditions (e.g. the 7Q10 low
flow at Webster of 14.8 cfs). The-stream flow must be taken into account
when evaluating the data, as the latter can change significantly with the
flow regime in the river.
TABLE 3_It. FRENCH RIVER FLOWS DURING MDWPC
WATER QUALITY DATA COLLECTION SURVEYS
Survey
Flow at Webster gage (cfs)
July 19714
27
June 1976
30
August 1976
80
August 1982
July 19814
April 1985
35
1814 (a)
37 (a)
June 1985
46
a. Flow data at the Webster gage were not available for this period. The
flow presented here was measured at the Hodges Village Dam gage which is 6
miles upstream of the Webster gage and above where the Little River enters
the French River.
Temperature and pH . The 197 4 MDWPC survey of the French River
showed several violations of the Class B water temperature standard
(< 83°F for warm water fisheries), however, the more recent surveys
conducted by the agency (1976, 1982, 19814, 1985) have shown compliance
with this standard throughout the river. River water temperature
3-15
-------
measured in July, 198k ranged from 67 to 75°F. The April 1985
temperature measurements also show no violations, largely due to the
colder season of the year during which measurements were made.
The Class B standard for pH is a range of 6.5 to 8.0. As shown in
Figure 3 k, the 1982 MDWPC French River survey data showed compliance
with this standard. However, the observed pH at most stations surveyed
in the 198k MDWPC program was 6.2 to 6.k. Assuming that the high flows
during the latter survey resulted from a rainfall event, it is possible
that the lower pH levels were due to acidic deposition. These low values
might also have been caused by excessive organic leachate from the
wetlands, which are naturally acidic. The April 1985 data indicate no
violations of the standards.
Dissolved Oxygen and Biochemical Oxygen Demand . Dissolved oxygen
(DO), or the amount of uncombined oxygen held in solution and thereby
made available to aquatic organisms for respiration, is a critical
parameter directly affecting the health of the biological community.
Dissolved oxygen affects the release of nutrients, microbial respiration,
arid organic matter decomposition, and is frequently the determining
factor affecting species survival and competition. The amount of oxygen
required to decompose the organic material in the water is reflected in
the biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). BOD 5 concentrations in untreated
sewage typically range from 150 to 300 milligrams per liter (mg/l), while
the BOD 5 of an unpolluted water rarely exceeds 2 mg/l (MDWPC, 1982).
As shown in Figure 3-5, the 197k MDWPC survey BOD 5 concentrations
in the French River ranged between 60 and 80 mg/l. In the MDWPC study
two years later, the water quality surveys reflected a BOD 5 range of 2 to
7 mgll. The primary reason for this dramatic decrease in BOD 5 was the
conversion of the Webster and Dudley wastewater treatment plants to
secondary treatment and the removal of several industrial discharges from
the river by connecting them to the treatment plants. PLS shown in
Figure 3-6, the 1982 MDWPC water quality survey reflected BOD 5 levels of
2 to 7 mg/i as well, and the 198k and 1985 MDWPC surveys showed BOD 5 no
greater than 3 mg/i. The highest 80D 5 levels occurred downstream of the
Leicester wastewater treatment plant and the Webster and Dudley treatment
3—16
-------
MILES UPSTREAM OF CONFLUENCE WITH QUINEBAUG RIVER
FIG. 3-4 AVERAGE pH LEVELS IN THE FRENCH RIVER
1982, 1984 AND 1985 MDWPC SURVEYS
I
.z
-------
It 1k.
:C c - 2 N1 ii:: x /’
28 24 20
/16
12
8
I
0
E
>
.
I
.
;_J
0,
0
z
.
—
c -
1
v
.0
E
(5
a
.
L.
Q
I
E
(5
0
‘
=
g
:
- ?
(5
E
0
E
0
-
2
E
(5
a
0 )
.;
E
0
0
E
(5
a
0)
E
>
‘I ,
.Y
C
u 1 Z
u)$z
<.0
MILES UPSTREAM OF CONFLUENCE WITH QUINEBAUG RIVER
FIG. 3-5 AVERAGE BOD 5 CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FRENCH RIVER
1974 & 1976 MDWPC SURVEYS
80
70
6/76
8/76
1974
t 65
10
y
5
0
-------
MILES UPSTREAM OF CONFLUENCE WITH QUINEBAUG RIVER
FIG. 3-6 AVERAGE BOD 5 CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FRENCH RIVER
1982,1984 AND 1985 MDWPC SURVEYS
8-
— — — 1982 SURVEY
1984 SURVEY
— - — 1985 SURVEY
E
Lt)
0
I
4
I ’
I’
I’
- I
I
‘I ’
Ii
t %
I
I
- L
—
I
I
I
‘1
J •
1
‘
I
I
‘.u.-.
. -.
,
I
2
0-1-
30
25
20
I I
5
15
15
Il l
V
V
0
I
T]15
I
i.. 15
0
i
1 -
10 >
. 15
0
:!
i
/0
.! . E
15 15 15
V
E
V
E 0
o 0 .
( c j
6
t V
;
z
-------
plants. Thus, in terms of biochemical oxygen demand, a major improvement
in water quality was achieved between 197 4 and 1976 and again between
1982 and 19814. Since then, water quality has remained relatively
unchanged.
Dissolved oxygen concentrations in the French River also improved
dramatically between 19714 and 1976, and have exhibited less change
since. As seen in Figure 3-7, average DO concentrations measured by the
MDWPC in June 19714 were as low as 1.0 mgll. Overall averages in 1976
were higher. Figures 3—8 and 3-9 show the range of DO’s measured during
the 1982, and the 19814 and 1985 MDWPC surveys, respectively. In 1982,
the lowest average DO measured (for each station) was 5.3 mg/i, and in
19814 it was 5.9 mg/i. The lowest DO level measured in 1982 was 3.2 mg/i,
which occurred above the dam in North Grosvenordale Pond. In 19814, the
minimum DO measured was 14.9 mg/i at Webster. The April 1985 data all
reveal high DO levels, due largely to the colder water temperatures.
However, in June 1985, concentrations as low as 2.0 mg/i were measured in
the Perryville impoundment.
Diel variations in DO were very strong in the 1982 MDWPC survey
and less pronounced in the 19814 survey, most likely due to the higher
streamflow. The diel variations in the 1982 survey reflected super-
saturated DO levels in the upper reaches of the river above Greenville
Pond and again downstream of the Webster and Dudley treatment plant
discharges. The super-saturated DO’s indicate that photosynthetic
activity was significantly contributing to DO concentration in certain
reaches of the river. The lower DO measurements were probably due in
part to plant respiration at night, and in part to sediment oxygen demand
in the impoundments. The USGS water quality records for Mechanicsville
CT, indicate consistently high DO concentrations at that station, even
though the sampling station is in an impoundment. These measurements,
however, are all made during the day and would not reflect the effects of
plant respiration.
Many aquatic organisms can withstand DO concentrations as low as
2 mg/i for at least short periods of time. However, water quality
standards are set much higher (5.0 mg/i for Class B) to account for:
3-20
-------
MILtS uPSTREAM OF CONFLUENCE WtTH QUINEBAUG RIVER
FIG. 3.7 DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FRENCH RIVER
1974 & 1976 MDWPC SURVEYS
E
z
LU
>-
0
0
LU
>
-j
0
C l ,
U)
0
E
15
0
a,
15
>
a,
-C
In
E
15
0
a,
0
In
a,
15
0
C
a,
In
.C
0
z
E
15
0
a,
>
a,
0 .
cn Z
CniZ
<0
E E
15 15
0 0
a, a,
15
-C
In
o U
C E
a, 15
-C
2
-------
14.0
12.0
10.0
E
z
w
0
>-
o 8.0
0
w
>
6.0
4.0
2.0
0
.L
E
(5
E
‘5
0
5I
C
9
(5
0
C
0
‘ 5
(5
0
0
C
4
-0
0
z
E
(5
0
5,
U,
U
C
(5
-C
U
5
-------
1984 SURVEY
14.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
MILES UPSTREAM OF CONFLUENCE WITH QUINEBAUG RIVER
FIG. 3-9 RANGE OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FRENCH RIVER
1984 AND 1985 MDWPC SURVEYS
z
lo
0
E
,-
z
LU
( 1
>-
x
0
LU
>
-J
0
U)
U)
0
/
APRIL 1985 SURVEY
JUNE, 1985 SURVEY
I
MAXIMUM
MEAN
MINIMUM
30
20
15
10
a,
a,
(5
(5
a,
a,
0
I
E
‘-(5
a >
-J%.-
> E
(5
0
E
(5
a,
C
0
In
a,
(5
0
C
0
a,
15
V
0
C
a,
-C
0
z
E
(5
0
a,
In
U
C
(5
U
a,
-------
organism’s long-term exposure to depressed oxygen levels; critically
sensitive periods in organisms’ life stages, such as egg development;
vertical variation in the water column; and a margin of safety to protect
against any unexpected short-term reduction of DO. As is evidenced by
the data presented above, dissolved oxygen concentrations in the
downstream sections of the French River sometimes violate the Class B
standards for warmwater fisheries, even during average flows. It is
likely that during periods of extreme low flow (e.g. at the 7Q10 of
114.8 cfs), or during nocturnal plant respiration, DO concentrations in
the river drop to significantly lower levels. According to EPA dissolved
oxygen criteria for freshwater life (Table 3—5), the DO levels in the
French River can cause moderate to severe production impairment to the
non—salmonid (warmwater) fishery in the river. Although no sampling has
been conducted during extreme low flows (e.g., 7Q10), it may be deduced
that DO concentrations in the impoundments occasionally sink low enough
(e.g., below EPA’s “absolute minimum” criterion of 3 mg/i DO) to cause
fish kills and mortality in all but the most pollution-tolerant
organisms.
Nutrients . As discussed previously, there is evidence that a
significant amount of photosynthetic activity is occurring in the French
River, which is probably attributable to the presence of excess
nutrients. Extensive macrophyte growth occurs in several of the
impoundments, and some algal activity is also expected.
Typically in freshwater systems, phosphorus is the nutrient in
shortest supply, and thus, is the factor limiting plant growth. In most
lakes, total phosphorus concentrations of 0.01 to 0.02 mg/i are
sufficient to support normal plant growth, while concentrations above
0.10 mg/i are considered characteristic of’ lakes exhibiting excessive
plant growth (Wetzel, 1975) and thus are termed eutrophic.
The 19714 and 1976 MDWPC survey data for total phosphorus
concentrations (Figure 3-10) show that since 19714, total phosphorus
concentrations have decreased significantly in most segments of the
river. However, wastewater treatment plant effluents still impact the
instreain phosphorus concentrations in some reaches. Figure 3-11 shows
3-214
-------
MILES UPSTREAM OF CONFLUENCE WITH QUINEBAUG RIVER
FIG. 3-10 AVERAGE TOTAL PHOSPHOROUS CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FRENCH RIVER
1974 & 1976 MDWPC SURVEYS
1.00
E
U)
0
0 .
U)
0
I
3-
-J
4:
I —
0
E
S
>
I
0 )
op
P
E
0)
C
0 )
-c
0
C
0)
>
0
z
E
>.
I8
E E
0 0
0 ) 0)
=
o
C C
01
-C
o
-------
MILES UPSTREAM OF CONFLUENCE WITH QUINEBAUG RIVER
FIG. 3-11 AVERAGE TOTAL PHOSPHOROUS CONCENTRATIONS IN THE FRENCH RIVER
1982, 1984 AND 1985 MDWPC SURVEYS
E
U)
0
I
0
U)
0
I
A-
-J
0
-------
TABLE 3-5. DISSOLVED OXYGEN CRITERIA FOR THE
PROTECTION OF FRESHI4ATER AQUATIC LIFE (mg/i)
Salmonid
Criteria
Non-Salmonid
Criteria
Embryo
Embryo
and
Other
and
Other
Larval
Life
Larval
Life
Criterion Effect Stages
Stages
Stages
Stages
No Productioç
Impairment 11 8 7 6
Slight Produ9t4 on
Impairmentkb) 9 6 6 5
Moderate Pro uçt ion
Impairment 1 8 5 5
Severe Produ9t on
Impairrnent ’ 7 14 4.5 3.5
Absolute Minimum 6 3 14 3
a. No Production Impairment . Representing nearly maximum protection of’
fishery resources.
b. Slight Production Impairment . Representing a high level of protection of
important fishery resources, risking only slight impairment of’ production
in most cases.
c. Moderate Production Impairment . Protecting the persistence of existing
fish populations but causing considerable loss of production.
d. Severe Production Impairment . For low level protection of fisheries of
some value but whose protection in comparison with other water uses cannot
be a major objective of pollution control.
SOURCE: U.S. EPA, Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen.
Draft, August 1983.
total phosphorus data for the 1982, 19814 and April 1985 MDWPC surveys.
In the 1982 survey, the phosphorus concentration rose to 0.5 mg/i in the
ponds downstream of the Leicester, Webster and Dudley wastewater
treatment plant discharges. These reaches also had the highest diel DO
variation during this survey, which again suggests significant instream
photosynthetic activity. Phosphorus concentrations measured in the 19814
survey were less than 0.2 mg/l, probably due to the higher river flows
during this sampling program. The 1985 data are very similar to the 1982
3-27
-------
data. Since measured levels have consistently exceeded 0.1 mg/i in the
French River, it is likely that phosphorus levels in the water are at
least in part responsible for excessive plant growth and occasional algal
blooms in the river.
Nitrogen, in the form of nitrate, is also an essential nutrient to
aquatic plants. Nitrate-N concentrations in the French River decreased
from a maximum of 1.8 mg/i in 19714 to 1.0 mg/i in 1976, once secondary
treatment was implemented at the Webster and Dudley treatment plants and
some industrial discharges were diverted to nearby treatment
plants.Figure 3—12 presents the average nitrate-N concentrations in the
river for the 1982, 19814, and April 1985 MDWPC surveys. In these more
recent studies, nitrate—N levels averaged less than 0.5 mg/I in the river
upstream of the Webster and Dudley plant effluent discharges. Below
these discharges, however, average low flow concentrations are closer to
1.5 mg/i nitrate-N.
Nitrogen in the form of ammonia exerts a high oxygen demand on the
environment due to processes of nitrification, and above certain levels
can be toxic to aquatic organisms. As with other parameters, ammonia-N
concentrations in the French River decreased significantly between 197 4
and 1976 and have decreased further since, with occasional exceptions.
During the 19714 MDWPC survey, ammonia-N concentrations were as high as
3.0 mg/i and dropped to a minimum of 0.8 mg/i in the 1976 MDWPC
surveys. Figure 3—13 presents average ammonia—N concentrations measured
during the 1982, 19814 and April 1985 MDWPC surveys. In the 1982 survey,
concentrations varied from 0.01 to 0.41 mg/i and in 1984 the highest
measured concentration was 0.15 mg/i. Concentrations in the April 1985
survey were considerably higher downstream of the treatment plants,
probably because they were not yet following their summer treatment
regime. Based on the EPA Ammonia Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic
Life (Table 3-6), measured concentrations of ammonia in the French River
are not indicative of toxic conditions.
During the 1982 survey, the most significant diel DO variations
observed, in the impoundments downstream of the Webster and Dudley plant
discharges, coincided with the highest observed ammonia levels of 0.3 to
3-28
-------
2.5
2:
E
(5
(I )
a,
V
0
E
a,>
_j ‘
> E
- (5
V
E
(5
a
a,
>
C
0
(I ,
a,
(5
-C
0
cE
a , (5
0
w
a,
(5
0
C
a,
-c
0
z
E
(5
a
a,
>
C-,
C
(5
-c
C.,
a,
-------
1.501 —
—— 1982SURVEY
1984 SURVEY
— 1985 SURVEY
1.oo —- -
z
z
0 . 75—
0.50
I
1
r
I \
I
A
!i
I’
I’
I’.
— I
I
‘S
I
I
z
E
(5
.0
E
(5
5,
>
C
w
(5
0
C
0
5)
(5
0
C
5)
.C
0
z
E
(5
5 )
>
U
C
(5
U
5)
-------
TABLE 3-6. AMMONIA CRITERIA FOR PROTECTION
OF AQUATIC LIFE a)
One-Hour Average
Four
Day Average
Allowed Concentrations
Allowed Concentrations
pH
(mg/i Total NH 3 —N)
Temp (°C)
(mg/i
Total NF 1 3 —N)
Temp (°C)
15 20 25
15
20 25
6.50
30 29 29
2.2
2.1 1. 46
6.75
27 27 26
2.2
2.1 1. 47
7.00
214 23 23
2.2
2.1 1.147
7.25
19.7 19.2 19.0
2.2
2.1 1.148
7.50
114.9 114.6 1’4.5
2.2
2.1 1. 49
a. The criteria values presented here represent conditions typical of’
critical summer conditions. A more complete list of criteria is available
in the criteria document.
Source: U.S. EPA, Federal Register: Water Quality Criteria for the Protection
of Aquatic Life and its uses - ammonia, Vol. 50, No. 1 45, July 29,
1985.
0.14 mg/i. These data further indicate that a significant amount of
photosynthetic activity is occurring in these ponds.
Bacteria . Bacterial levels in receiving waters are frequently
quantified in terms of coliform bacteria. While they are not a health
hazard themselves, fecal coliform bacteria are a good indicator of the
presence of other sewage-associated organisms. As shown in Figure 3-114,
fecal coliform concentrations in the 1982 MDWPC water quality survey of’
the French River generally met the State standard of 200 mpn/100 ml, with
the exception of reaches downstream of the Leicester (220 mpn/100 ml) and
Webster and Dudley (1,000 mpn/100 ml) wastewater treatment plant
discharges. The highest fecal coliform count observed in the 19814 MDWPC
survey was 2 40 mpn/10 0 ml at Webster. Again, compliance with the
standards in these reaches is typical during average or higher river
flows, as was the case during these surveys, or during colder weather as
occurred during the April 1985 survey. It is anticipated that the
upgraded wastewater treatment being planned for these reaches will
eliminate violations altogether. Fecal coliform concentrations measured
3—31
-------
YMU
,-s .
-
SIU4.U SITU
kpts .r
lflS
1.pt. sr
51$
, , iurI - .... 4 O0 T.
‘ y ISIS
mo( ) bets,.
I .. 2 ui/I
i .iti.i oo(b)
th. . I u iu I
I...
l.se.tl.s SOD ( / 2/4)
lid.
error
100
( 1. 1 .2 14)
$td. error
(
1.1.2,4) lid. error 100 (p/u 2 1d) lid. error
100 ( , /• l/ 4)
led.
T.sae P0 .4,
04(0r4 0.51 *0.07
Up.er. of
Norwe.d P0.
Srld., Nolord 0.76 *0.05
Nowmutrs of
USGS G.$s,
Webster 1.21 50.2*
Purryrill. P.sd
North Nod 2. 13 50.44 1.52 *1.1’ 1.36 t O.I3 0.41 j O.O 4
Middle 3.57 *I. 10.2) *1.04 3.30 50.53 1.04 50.42
South 1.4 0.52 50.0* I.4 *0.30 10.11 *2.24 — - 1.12 50.36
Lou.r. Peed
(W ll s..v l$ I o)
Cast r• 2.4* *0. 72
North 1.4 2.13 *0.74
South lad I. *0.37 *1.36
U. Cros,e..rd.1e Po.d
North 1.4 3.25 50.52 3.10
Middle 3.04 *1.13 3.23 *1.12
South lad 1.51 *0.21 3.44 *0.01 1.54 *0.1*
Gr..,e..rdal. Peed
*0. spit ,... .1
liii. U. 3.35 *1.30
3004 spur... of
11. 1. N. 2.71 50.45
a. 1.—situ reselt. it river t..psrstsre were corracted to ,.luss it 20’C, u.ia the Arh.veia, Eq.. with the th .r.al coefficient of I.ô47 propo.ed by Ph.f
(*544).
b. Dissolved . sys.. level I. overly iM wet., at start of 1.—situ incubat Ion for streesod 00 test..
-------
at Mechanicsville revealed high (> 200 organisms/ 100 ml) levels for ten
months of water year 1982, although previous data do not reflect such
problems. It is possible that there is a local sewage source to this
reach of the river.
Priority Pollutants . Metals and certain other priority pollutants
have been detected in the French River, both in the water column and in
the bottom sediments. Metals concentrations in the water were measured
at three locations along the river during the t4DWPC 198 4 summer survey;
at the headwaters in Leicester, in downtown Webster, and in
theimpoundment in Perryville. These stations, in addition to those in
Wilsonville, North Grosvenordale, and Thompson CT were sampled by MDWPC
again in April 1985. The monthly water samples collected by USGS in the
Mechanicsville impoundment are also analyzed for certain metals. The
most recent published records for this station are for water year 1982.
Metals data from all three sources are summarized in Table 3 — i.
No measurable concentrations of copper, mercury, nickel, lead,
chromium, or cadmium were detected in the upstream reaches of the
river. However, the detection limits were in some cases higher than the
levels of chronic toxicity (Table 3-8) for these metals. There are no
published criteria documents for the metals that were detected in these
reaches, (including zinc, iron and manganese,) but EPA “Red Book” (1976)
values indicate that the zinc concentrations measured are sufficient to
cause chronic toxicity in brook trout.
Water column samples for metals analysis collected by the USGS in
Mechanicsviile were analyzed using lower detection limits. The results
indicate that levels of copper, lead, and cadmium in the river do exceed
levels of’ chronic toxicity and may occasionally even be acutely toxic to
freshwater life.
3-33
-------
TABLI 3-7. METALS CONCENTRATIONS IN THE MATENS or THE YRENCH RIVEN (ugh)
Leicester(a)
1984 1985
Webster(m)
1984 1985
Perryville(a)
1984 1985
Wilaonville(b)
1985
N. Grosvenordale(b)
1985
Mechanicsville(b)
1982 1982
Thompson (b)
1985
Copper <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 <10 2 13 <10
Zinc 10 <10 60 <10 20 10 30 40 <10 20 <10
Iron 170 60 550 140 640 250 290 440 110 370 410
Manganese 10 — 70 — 70 18 36
Nickel <30 <30 <30 <30 <30 <30 <30 <30 <1 7 <30
Mercury <0.5 — <0.5 — <0.5 — — — — — —
Lead <40 <40 <40 <40 <40 <40 <40 <40 <1 6 <40
Chromium <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <1 8 <20
Aluminum <100 120 <100 <100 130 <100 <100 <100 — <100
Cadmium <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <20 <1 1 <20
Source: (a) MASS DWPC, 1984, 1985
(b) CONN DEP, 1982, 1985
-------
TABLE 3-8. US EPA AMBIENT WATER QUALITY
CRITERIA FOR METALS (ugh)
Metal
Continuous Concentration
(14 Day Average/3 Years
Maximum Concentration
(1 Hour Average/3 Years)
As
190
360
Cd(a)
e ( 7 8 52 in h - 3.149)
e(1 12 8 in h - 3.828)
Cr
11 (hexavalent)
16 (hexavalent)
Cu t
Pb
e(0 8 5 14 5 in h - 1.1465)
e(12 66 in h - 14.661)
e 09 4 22 in h - 1.14611)
e 2 66 in h - 1.1416)
Hg
0.012
2. 4
Source:
U.S. EPA Ambient Water Quality Criteria Documents for
Arsenic; Cadmium; Chromium; Copper; Lead and Mercury, Final. Federal
Register Vol. 50, No. 1 45, July 29, 1985.
a. Based on hardness values measured in the French River 1985 DWPC survey
(average 21 mg/i), corresponds to 0.33 ug/i Cd, for continuous exposure
and 0.67 ug/i Cd for maximum exposure.
b. For French River, corresponds to 3.1 ugh Cu for continuous exposure and
14.1 ugh Cu for maximum exposure.
c. For French River corresponds to 0.145 ugh Pb for continuous exposure, and
11.5 ugh Pb for maximum exposure.
Water Quality at Buffunivilie Lake . The results of a 1983 water
quality program by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers indicate the waters
of Buffumviiie Lake were of good quality in 1983 and met the requirements
of Class B standards. The water quality standards for a Class B warm
water fishery were fuiiy met at all sampling stations for dissolved
oxygen, temperature and fecal coliform bacteria. The pH levels ranged
from 6.1 to 8.2 which is slightly outside the desirable range of 6.5 to
8.0 for a Class B water; however, because pH values were due to naturally
occurring conditions in the watershed they did not constitute violations
of Class B standards. (U.S. Army Corps of’ Engineers, 19814).
Nutrient levels at Buffumviiie Lake in 1983 showed a decline in
inorganic nitrogen and phosphorus levels. Total inorganic nitrogen
(NH 3 -N plus N0 2 -N plus N0 3 -N) was always less than 0.30 mg/i which is the
generally accepted threshold limit for algae blooms to occur. The
3-35
-------
highest inorganic nitrogen level was in the South Fork which had a mean
concentration of 0.12 mg/l N. Biological uptake by plants in the lake
reduced the mean total inorganic nitrogen level at the discharge station
to 0.07 mg/i as N (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 19814).
Total phosphorus levels averaged 0.0214 mg/i at the inflow stations
in 1983. Uptake by aquatic plants reduced the effluent phosphorus levels
to an average of 0.0114 mg/i. The highest phosphorus level measured was
0.06 mg/i. The threshold level for algae blooms to occur in an
impoundment (as cited in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 19814) is 0.01 to
0.015 mg/l. Although the mean phosphorus level at the inflow station was
above this, the median phosphorus measurement was about 0.01 mg/i.
Sediment Quality
Due to historical discharges, impoundment of the river in several
locations, and naturally occurring low flows, significant deposition of
contaminated sediments has taken place upstream of the numerous dams in
the river. Some of the most significant deposition has occurred in the
impoundments at Perryville MA and Wilsonville, North Grosvenordaie,
Grosvenordale, and Mechanicsville CT, all of which are downstream of the
Webster and Dudley discharges.
Several studies of the sediment deposits in the lower French River
basin have been conducted in the past decade. In 1972, the U.S. rmy
Corps of Engineers (U.S. ACE) investigated the physical distribution of
sediments in Wilsonville (Langer’s Pond) and North Grosvenordale CT, and
in 1977, they examined sediment metals concentrations (U.S. ACE, 1972 and
1977). In 1975, 1978, and 1985, EPA conducted sediment oxygen demand
(SOD) studies in the impoundments (EPA, 1975; EPA, 1978; EPA, 1985). The
1978 EPA study also included analysis of metals concentrations. In
August 19814, CT DEP conducted EP (extraction procedure) toxicity analysis
for metals in surface samples from Langer’s Pond and North Grosvenordale
Pond, in conjunction with biological sampling there (CT DEP, 19814). In
November of 19814, Metcalf & Eddy, under contract to EPA, collected
additional data on the location, depth, and physical and chemical quality
of sediments in Perryville, Langer’s Pond, and North Grosvenordale (M&E,
19814).
3—36
-------
Physical Distribution of the Sediments . Figures 3—15 through 3-17
show the extent of sediment deposition in the three impoundments just
downstream of the Webster and Dudley treatment plant discharges. The
average depth of sediment deposition in the three ponds ranges from 3 to
8 feet. According to the 19814 M&E study, the material is mostly dark
brown to black organic silt and humus, approximately 50 percent water,
and contains approximately 50 percent silt and clay in the solid
fraction. The total volume of sediments in the three impoundment areas
is estimated to be approximately 357,000 cubic yards with 63,000 cubic
yards in Perryville, 514,000 cubic yards in Wilsonville, and 2 40,000 cubic
yards in North Grosvenordale.
Priority Pollutants . Tables 3-9 through 3-12 present the
concentrations of priority pollutants measured in the sediments during
the 1978 EPA and 19814 M&E studies of the downstream impoundments. Some
of the most significant contaminants in the sediments are the metals,
specifically arsenic, chromium, mercury, copper, lead and zinc, and
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH’s). Generally, the highest
concentrations of metals occur in North Grosvenordale, where in some
cases, concentrations are one order of magnitude greater than in other
impoundments. The impoundment in Perryville also has consistently high
metals concentrations in the sediments, both in the vegetated areas and
in the open water areas. Metals concentrations in Langer’s Pond and
Grosvenordale Pond are lower than the other two impoundments, but are
still contaminated, particularly with arsenic, chromium, lead and
mercury. Extraction procedure (EP) metals toxicity tests conducted by
CT DEP (19814) on surface sediments from Langer’s Pond and North
Grosvenordale (using procedures described in U.S. EPA, 1982, Table 3—13)
indicate that these samples “pass” the EP Toxicity test and thus the
metals would nob leach out of the sediments at reduced pH. Under normal
pH conditions the sediments are not presently a major contributor of
metals to the water column. Disturbance of the sediments, or a more
significant chemical change in the overlying water such as very low
dissolved oxygen or anoxic conditions, would be necessary to alter this
situation.
3-37
-------
SEDIMENT
DEPTH
0-1.9’
2’ - 3.9’
LI II 4’ - 5.9’
6 79’
8’ - 9.9’
200 0 200
SCALE IN FEET
FIG. 3-15 SEDIMENT DISTRIBUTION IN PERRYVILLE POND
-------
- J
SCALE IN FEET
FIG. 3-16 SEDIMENT DISTRIBUTION
IN LANGER’S POND (WILSONVILLE, CT.)
SEDIMENT
DEPTH
LI
7-3.9 ’
EJ ‘ -
9’ . 7.9’
8’-9.W
DAM
A
-------
SEDIMENT
DEPTH
LI
2’. 3.9’
[ 1] 4’ - 5.9’
6’ - 7.9’
8’ - 9.9’
250 9
250
SCALE IN FEET
FiG. 3-17 SEDIMENT DISTRIBUTION IN NuitTh bItOSVENORDALE POND
-------
TABLE 3-9. SEDIMENT QUALITY IN PERRYVILLE POND
Vege-
South
North
tated
open
end
Middle
end
area
water
Source
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
Parameter of Data:
1978
1978
1978
19814
19814
Inorganics (ppm dry wt)
Arsenic 114 14 2 23
Beryllium (a) ND j ND
Cadmium 214 12 12 1.7 3.6
Chromium 600 14140 6140 220 630
Copper 1470 220 500 83 350
Mercury 1.14 2.9
Nickel 108 160 108 8.9 11
Lead 1400 130 350 81 220
Zinc 6140 270 500 180 14140
Total Cyanide 3.9 6.7
Pesticides ND ND
Acid Compounds ND ND
Base/Neutral Compounds (ppb)
Acenaphthene 2,300 TR(c)
Fluoranthene 14,700 15,000
Napthalene 1,000 TR
Benzo (a) anthracene 2,300 12,000
Benzo (a) pyrene 1,200 9,000
Benzofluoranthene 1,1400 10,000
Chrysene 2,000 10,000
Anthracene 3,1400 11,000
Benzo (ghi) perylene 530 TR
Phenanthrene 8,000 22,000
Pyrene 8,100 23,000
Volatile Organics (ppb)
Acetone 160 ND
Toluene 10 130
Chlorobenzene ND 49
Ethylbenzene ND 12
Total xylene 10 15
a. Blank = not analyzed for
b. ND not detected
c. TR present only at trace levels
3_141
-------
ThBLE 3-10. SEDIMENT QUALITY IN LANGER’S POND
East
North
South
East
West
side
end
end
side
side
Source
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
Parameter of Data:
1978
1978
1978
19814
19814
Inorganics (ppm dry wt)
Arsenic 24 27 4 214 21
Beryllium (a) 0.58 0.57
Cadmium 12 12 12 1.1 1.2
Chromium 280 220 1,160 230 330
Copper 160 650 950 73 110
Mercury 0.82 0.97
Nickel 72 60 80 9.1 7.7
Lead 100 550 550 120 93
Zinc 250 1,050 1,020 3149 160
Total Phenolics ND b) 0.28
Pesticides ND ND
Acid Compounds ND ND
Base/Neutral Compounds (ppb)
Acenaphthene ND TR °
Fluoranthene TR 700
Napthalene ND TB
Benzo (a) anthracene TR 5140
Benzo (a) pyrene TR 390
Benzofluoranthene TR 500
Chrysene TR 580
Anthracene TR 4 140
Benzo (ghi) perylene TB TB
Phenanthrene TR 730
Pyrene TR 1,200
Volatile Organics (ppb)
Acetone 180 ND
a. Blank not analyzed for
b. ND not detected
c. TB present only at trace levels
3-142
-------
TABLE 3-11. SEDIMENT QUALITY IN NORTH GROSVENORDALE PONIJ(a)
North
South
end
Middle
end
Composite
Source
EPA,
EPA,
EPA,
M&E,
Parameter of Data:
1978
1978
1978
198 4
Inorganics (ppm dry wt)
Arsenic 7 30 10 145
Cadmium 12 12 12 7.7
Chromium 2,560 1,6140 1,520 1,900
Copper 1,980 1,260 610 600
Mercury (b) 1 1.9
Nickel 24 140 70 21
Lead 630 500 14 11Q 1470
Zinc 1,680 1,680 1,190 1,000
Total Cyanide 3.9
Pesticides ND ND
Acid Compounds ND MD
Base/Neutral Compounds (ppb)
Acenaphthene TR c)
Fluoranthene 890
Napthalene TR
Benzo (a) anthracene 500
Benzo (a) pyrene TR
Benzofluoranthene 530
Chrysene 510
Anthracene 650
Benzo (ghi) perylene TR
Phenanthrene 1 , 300
Pyrene 1,500
Volatile Organics (ppb)
Toluene 10
Chlorobenzene 26
a. All sediments were analyzed according to EPA methods in SW_8146
b. Blank not analyzed for
c. TR present only at trace levels
3_143
-------
TABLE 3-12. SEDIMENT QUALITY IN GROSVENORDALE POND
Parameter
South End North End
EPA, 1978 EPA, 1978
Inorganics
(ppm dry wt)
Arsenic
10 20
Cadmium
12 12
Chromium
360 1,14140
Copper
190 810
Nickel
108 550
Lead
80 200
Zinc
180 560
TABLE 3-13.
CONNECTICUT
METALS EP TOXICITY IN SEDIHE)11S
IMPOUNDMENTS (mg/i ieachate)
Metal
Langers Langers
Pond Pond
West West
Location
Maximum
Concen-
N. Grosvenor- N. Grosvenor- r tion
dale South dale North
Arsenic
0.01 0.00
0.06 0.00 5.0
Cadmium
0.00 0.00
000 0.00 1.0
Chromium
0.02 0.00
0.00 0.01 5.0
Copper
0.05 0.014
-— - - --
Lead
0.17 0.19
0.16 0.09 5.0
Mercury
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.2
Nickel
0.05 0.014
-- -- --
Silver
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.01 5.0
Zinc
2.3 1.8
-- -- --
Source: CT DEP, 19814
a. Analyzed according to EPA methods in SW-8146
b. Maximum concentration of contaminants for characteristic EP
Toxicity, 140 CFR 267.24
No pesticides, PCBs, or acid-extractable compounds from EPA’s
Priority Pollutant list were found at other than trace concentrations in
the 19824 M&E sediment samples. Elevated levels of certain volatile
organics were detected, but there are no standards for sediment with
which these concentrations can be compared. These compounds generally
degrade or are dissipated readily in the aquatic environment, thus the
original concentrations of the volatiles may have been much higher.
3_1424
-------
Several PAH (polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon) compounds (priority
pollutant base/neutral organics) were present in elevated concentrations
in the sediments in the 1981 M&E study, particularly in the samples from
the Perryville impoundment. Lower concentrations were found in the
western portion of Langer’s Pond and in North Grosvenordale, while the
eastern side of Langer’s Pond revealed no measurable concentrations.
According to the literature, sources of PAH compounds in water sediments
include oil spills, coke-oven effluents, road runoff and, air transport
from combustion engines (Black et al., 1981; Biorseth, 1980) and any
other combustion sources including wood stoves. Thus, the historic
operation of a coal gasification plant in Webster may be the cause of the
high PAM concentrations in Perryville Black (1983) determined
correlations in the Buffalo River between sediment polycyclic
hydrocarbons, neoplasms in feral fish and induction of rieoplasms in
bullheads, from exposure to extracts of sediment polluted with 76. 1 1 ug/g
wet weight PAH. Concentrations of PAM’s in the French River impoundments
are within the range that correspond with fish neoplasms in Black’s 1983
study.
Sediment Oxygen Demand . Sediment deoxygenation rate surveys have
been conducted previously in the French River by the EPA during 1975,
1978 and 1985. An in situ technique developed by the U.S. EPA Region I,
Surveillance & Analysis Division, was used exclusively in these
surveys. The results of these surveys are given in Table 3 114 for
various locations along the French River in Massachusetts and
Connecticut.
The SOD rates have increased by factors ranging from 2 to 7 in
Perryville Pond during the period between 1975 and 1985. The rates
estimated using samples from the downstream (southern) part of Langers
Pond were more than three times higher in 1985 than in 1978. The rates
in North Grosvenordale Pond also have increased slightly, although rates
estimated for the southern end of this impoundment appear to have reached
a maximum during the 1978 survey.
-------
E
Co
U,
a,
a,
V
0
I
E
a,>
> E
2
V
E
a,
>
C
0
I , ,
Co
•0
0
WCo
0
a,
Co
V
0
C
“Co
i -0
0
z
E
Co
0
a,
>
U,
C.,
C
(0
-c
U
a,
-------
Stressed SOD analyses (those taken under very low dissolved oxygen
concentrations) were also conducted during the 1985 survey. Research has
shown a direct dependence of SOD on the dissolved oxygen concentration in
the water column overlying the sediments. Lower water column dissolved
oxygen concentrations suppress both the biological and chemical SOD
pathways due to physical, as well as biochemical effects. For a
comprehensive review of key works in the SOD literature, the reader is
referred to Bowman and Delf’ino (1980), Belanger (1979) and Walker and
Snodgrass (1983).
Results for both the stressed and non-stressed SOD analysis
conducted on sediment cores taken from Perryville Pond in 1985 are
plotted in Figure 3-18. The suppression indicated in the literature for
SOD rates at lower water dissolved oxygen levels was verified. The
implication of this SOD suppression in the French River sediments is that
the extremely high SOD rates measured in 1985 under non—stressed
conditions would likely be suppressed to much lower rates under actual
summertime low flow conditions, when ambient overlying water dissolved
oxygen levels would be relatively low.
The water quality model used in this study for assessing the in-
stream dissolved oxygen impacts of the various alternatives was tested
for its sensitivity to the range of SOD rates measured during the 1975,
1978 and 1985 EPA surveys. The results of this sensitivity analysis are
discussed in the water quality modeling section of this chapter.
Water Quality Model
Numerical modeling of water quality in the French River from
Sargent Pond to the confluence of the Quinebaug River was conducted as a
part of preparation of this SEIS using the steady-state, one-dimensional
stream water quality model, STREAM7B. The model was calibrated to
wastewater discharge and instream water quality data obtained by the
Massachusetts DWPC and used to approximate existing and predict future
concentrations of dissolved oxygen under 7Q1O low flow conditions in the
French River.
3...L 7
-------
LOCATION WITHIN
PERRYVILLE POND
lOS SOUTH END
20-
uS MIDDLE
15-
10
IT
12SNORTH END
+1 STD. DEV.
MEAN
-1 STD. DEV.
1
1’
I
2 3 4
INITIAL DO IN OVERLYING WATER (mg/I)
FIG. 318 SENSITIVITY OF SOD TO DO 1N OVERLYING WATEK Al
START OF IN SITU ANALYSIS, SEDIMENT CORES FROM
PERRY VILLE POND, MAY 1985
>-
( ‘4
E
E
LU
I —
0
(I )
5
6
-------
Earlier modeling of water quality in the French River was
conducted by the Massachusetts DWPC using the STREAM7A model calibrated
to instream water quality and wastewater discharge data for June, 1976.
STREAM7A has since been modified to create the STREAM7B version used in
this study. Also, many wastewater discharges to the French River have
either been altered significantly or eliminated since 1976, as reflected
in the higher dissolved oxygen concentrations measured during more recent
summer surveys. The August 1982 water quality data, collected by the
Mass DWPC, were used to calibrate the model in this study.
In addition, previous model applications for the French River
relied on approximate methods for estimating time. of travel and water
depths in the various river reaches. Since river hydraulics play an
important role in determining in stream DO levels, a more accurate
definition of depth and time of travel values input to the model was
derived for use in this study.
Hydrology and Hydraulics . The major in-stream processes which are
simulated using the STREAM7B model are BOD decay (nitrogenous and
carbonaceous); atmospheric reaeration; sediment oxygen demand; and net
photosynthetic oxygen production. The model treats the river as a one-
dimensional series of zero-dimensional, fully-stirred tank reactors
(FSTR’s), with a model reach consisting of one or more FSTR’s. The
dissolved oxygen concentration within an FSTR is thus dependent on the
time of travel and reaeration within that section of the river.
Reaeration is a function of the mean stream velocity and water depth
within each FSTR.
Hydrologic input data for the model were updated using flow and
drainage area measurements for the Hodges Village and Webster gages, and
individual reach drainage areas digitized from USGS topographical maps.
With the exception of the calibration runs, 7Q10 low flow conditions were
used as input to the modeling of the French River.
The hydraulics of the French River were studied in detail during
recent Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) Flood Insurance
Studies of Leicester, Oxford, and Webster, Massachusetts and Thompson,
3— 9
-------
Connecticut. Over 1400 stream cross-sections at natural valley areas
(between dams, cuiverts, etc.) and significant hydraulic control
structures along the French River were surveyed and input to the step-
backwater numerical model, HEC-Il (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers).
The same input data sets used for the FEMA studies to define river
and control structure geometries were used for the low flow HEC—Il runs
made in this water quality study. However, the river discharges were
modified to reflect a range of summer low flow conditions in the French
River. As a result of the HEC-.II modeling of low flow conditions, more
accurate estimates of time of travel, current velocity and mean water
depths within each river reach were determined as a function of low flow
river discharge. This portion of the modeling resulted in 7Q10 profiles
as well as the stream bottom profiles for the French River between
Sargent’s Pond in Massachusetts and Mechanicsville, Connecticut. The
7Q10 profile was presented previously as Figure 3-2.
Results from the HEC—Il modeling of low flow conditions were
subsequently input to a simple computer program to calculate river flow
power function coefficients and exponents for time of travel and mean
depths of each reach, for input to the STREAM7B model.
Model Calibration . Using wastewater BOD and DO loads measured in
September 1982; time of travel and depth parameters generated by HEC-Il
and stream discharge data obtained during the P ugust 1982 survey;
STREAM7B was first calibrated to the minimum dissolved oxygen values
measured during the August 1982 survey, assuming no photosynthetic oxygen
production. This first calibration was achieved by adjusting the
sediment oxygen demands within ranges of values which were measured in
the French River in 1978. The model was then calibrated to the average
dissolved oxygen values measured during the August 1982 survey. In this
calibration, net photosynthetic oxygen production was included and
adjusted within reasonable limits. Results of the August 1982
calibrations both with and without algal oxygen production are presented
in Figure 3—19, which demonstrates that photosynthetic activity is an
important contributor to dissolved oxygen levels in the river.
Conversely, DO levels may be somewhat depressed during periods of
nocturnal respiration, or when plant growth is otherwise suppressed.
3-50
-------
MASSACHUSETTS
CONNECTICUT
Is
14
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
$
7
S
5
4
3
2
I
0
-a
C,
z
‘U
C,
x
0
0
‘ U
-a
0
•1
0
‘U
-I
0
‘U
‘U>
I- )
C l )
‘U M l
13
12
II
10
WWI 02 Pro&ctêon
1
— — Without 02 Production
0
STANDARDS
Av.r.gs DO Valu
2$ 24 20 IS
RIVER MILE
12
I
4
0
FIG. 3-19 1982 CALIBRATION: SENSITIVITY TO PHOTOSYNTHETIC OXYGEN PRODUCTION
-------
Subsequent model runs predicting future water quality impacts of the
various alternatives exclude photosynthetic oxygen production as a
conservative assumption.
The sensitivity of the model to the high SOD values measured in
1985 was subsequently evaluated, and compared to the calibration run with
the 1978 SOD data (in the lower portion of the river only).
Photosynthetic oxygen production was included in both runs. Results of
the comparison are presented in Figure 3—20. The 1985 SOD data collected
in Perryville, MA and Wilsonville and North Grosvenordale, CT, were
substantially higher than those collected in 1978 at each of the three
locations. Consequently, the model run using the more recent data shows
a severe depression of DO in the ponds. As discussed previously, the
actual “stressed” SODs, are likely much lower, and would have less impact
on overlying DO than is shown. Subsequent model runs projecting water
quality with various alternatives utilized the 1978 SOD data.
Simulation of Existing Low Flow Conditions . Once calibrated, the
model was used to simulate DO levels in the French River during a 1Q10
low flow event with a flow of 1 1 L8 cfs at the USGS Webster Gage. As
shown in Figure 3—21, extreme low flow conditions in the river, with
existing levels of’ wastewater treatment and rio photosynthetic oxygen
production, would cause a severe depression of DO levels in the
downstream impoundments. DO concentrations in Perryville Pond and
Langers Pond are estimated to be between 1 and 2 mg/l, and reach a
minimum in North Grosvenordale. Levels in the Grosvenordale impoundment
are also depressed, although not as severely. One major reason for these
extreme conditions is the increase in residence time during low flows,
which reduces reaeration and increases the influence of SOD and BOD
decay. Low flow residence times range from 19 hours in Perryville Pond
to almost 8 days in North Grosvenordale.
Biological Conditions
The following sunmiary of the biological conditions is based, to
the maximum extent possible, on site specific data. The review focuses
on the plants (phytoplankton and wetlands) as well as the benthic
invertebrates, fish and wildlife in the study area.
3-52
-------
15
15
14
13
12
11
10
MASSACHUSETTS
CONNECTICUT
14
13
z
SM
C,
x
0
a
SM
>
0
(I )
U)
a
S
$
7
6
5
4
12
11
10
S
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS.
3
0
2
1
7
1978 SOD Values (1982 Calibration)
3
28 24 20 16 12 8 4 0
2
RIVER MILE
I
FIG. 3-20 1982 CALIBRATION: SENSITIVITY TO MEASURED SEDIMENT OXfl EN DEMAND VALIJE
-------
Subsequent model runs predicting future water quality impacts of the
various alternatives exclude photosynthetic oxygen production as a
conservative assumption.
The sensitivity of the model to the high SOD values measured in
1985 was subsequently evaluated, and compared to the calibration run with
the 1978 SOD data (in the lower portion of the river only).
Photosynthetic oxygen production was included in both runs. Results of
the comparison are presented in Figure 3—20. The 1985 SOD data collected
in Perryville, MA and Wilsonville and North Grosvenordale, CT, were
substantially higher than those collected in 1978 at each of the three
locations. Consequently, the model run using the more recent data shows
a severe depression of DO in the ponds. As discussed previously, the
actual “stressed” SODs, are likely much lower, and would have less impact
on overlying DO than is shown. Subsequent model runs projecting water
quality with various alternatives utilized the 1978 SOD data.
Simulation of Existing Low Flow Conditions . Once calibrated, the
model was used to simulate DO levels in the French River during a 7Q10
low flow event with a flow of 1 1 L8 cfs at the USGS Webster Gage. As
shown in Figure 3-21, extreme low flow conditions in the river, with
existing levels of wastewater treatment and no photosynthetic oxygen
production, would cause a severe depression of DO levels in the
downstream impoundments. DO concentrations in Perryville Pond and
Langers Pond are estimated to be between 1 and 2 mg/l, and reach a
minimum in North Grosvenordale. Levels in the Grosvenordale impoundment
are also depressed, although not as severely. One major reason for these
extreme conditions is the increase in residence time during low flows,
which reduces reaeration and increases the influence of SOD and BOD
decay. Low flow residence times range from 19 hours in Perryville Pond
to almost 8 days in North Grosvenordale.
Biological Conditions
The following summary of the biological conditions is based, to
the maximum extent possible, on site specific data. The review focuses
on the plants (phytoplankton and wetlands) as well as the benthic
invertebrates, fish and wildlife in the study area.
3-52
-------
15
14
13
12
11
MASSACHUSETTS
CONNECTICUT
14
-I
C,
z
w
C,
0
0
‘U
>
-a
0
‘I )
U)
a
13
10
V
S
7
S
5
4
3
12
11
10
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS.
2
1
7
S
0
S
3
28 24 20 16 12 8 4 0
2
RIVER MILE
1
FIG. 3-20 1982 CALIBRATION: SENSITIVITY TO MEASURED SEDIMENT OXYGEN DEMAND VALUES
-------
M I MI M I
-a
0 0 w g. -a
E
M I
III 147
FIG. 3.21 DISSOLVED OXYGEN LEVELS UNDER
LOW FLOW (7Q10) CONDITIONS (EXISTING TREATMENT)
15
14
13
12
11
10
MASSACHUSETTS
cONNECTIcUT
U,
14
$
0
0
0
0
MI
>
-a
0
U,
0
13
7
1*
S
5
11
1 0
4
3
I.
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
2
7
I
0
S
5
4
3
2
2$ 24 20 10 12 8 4 0
RIVER MILE
I
0
-------
Phytoplankton . Phytoplankton communities are a good indicator of
the current health of a body of water in that they are affected fairly
rapidly by changes in water quality. They are, however, vulnerable to
transport by river flows and thus limited in site specificity.
Phytoplankton samples were taken at the Perryville impoundment by
MDWPC in August 1982 and July 1984. Summaries of the data may be found
in Tables 3-15 and 3-16. The total phytoplankton density in the 1982
survey was 946,800 cells/i as compared to 210,000 cells/i in 1984. The
lower value in 198)4 may be due to the high flow (more than 14 times
greater than in 1982), which could have washed the community
downstream. In both studies, green algae (Chiorophyceae) dominated. In
1982 they made up 58 percent of the sample and in 19824 they made up 46
percent. Blue—green algae (Cyanophyceae) accounted for 3 percent of the
sample in 1982 and 13 percent in 19814. No diatoms were recorded in 19814,
however, they comprised 39 percent of the community in 1982, In 19824,
golden-brown algae (Crysophyceae) made up 33 percent of the sample while
they were not present in 1982. Due to the high variation in density and
non—dominant species composition between the two sampling periods, it is
difficult to characterize the nature of the community in other than
qualitative terms.
The domination of green algae, along with some blue-greens, is
typical of nutrient enriched temperate lakes during warmer periods of the
year. Lakes of this nature are typified by diatom blooms in spring,
smaller irregular summer peaks of various flagellates, and large fall
blooms of diatoms, blue-green algae and dinoflagellates (Goldman and
Home, 1983). The difference in species composition between the two
sampling periods may be due to the natural variability of the community.
In August-September 19814, the CT DEP conducted phytoplankton
studies in the southern portion of the French River at Langer’s Pond,
North Grosvenordale, Grosvenordale and Mechanicsville (Table 3-17).
Diatoms, including Cyclotella sp. and Melosira sp., were the most
abundant organisms at all four sites. The blue-green alga Oscillatoria
was common in trawl samples at North Grosvenordaie, however, blue—greens
were not observed at the other three areas. The green alga spirogyra was
3-55
-------
TABLE 3-15 PHYTOPLANKTOH DATA - AUGUST 18,
PERRYVILLE IMPOUNDMENT, WEBSTER, MASS
1982
TAXA Cell/I Percent of total
Diatoms 39
Centric 105200
Pennate 263000
Blue-Green 3
Coccoid 26300
Filainentous 0
Green 58
Coccoid 526000
Desmids 26300
Filanientous 0
Flagellates 0
Green 0
Other 0
Total Live Algae 9 146800
SOURCE: MDWPC, 1982
TABLE 3—16. PHYTOPLANXTO i DATA — JULY 9, 1981$
PERRYVILLE IMPOUNDMENT, WEBSTER, MASS
Percent of
TAXA Cell/i Total
Blue-Green 13
Aphanocapsa sp. 114000
Anabaena sp. 114000
Green 47
Panadorina sp. 142000
Scenedesmus sp. 1 4000
Unidentified flagellate i 12000
Golden-Brown 33
Synura sp. 114000
Unidentified flagellate 56000
Euglenophyceae 7
Euglena sp. 114000
TOTAL 210000 cells/i 100
Chlorophyll a value 0.648 mg/rn 3
* Grab sample 0,5 m below surface
SOURCE: MDWPC, 19814
3-56
-------
TASLE 3—17. PUNCH RIVSR DONINANT PLANITON DATA — AUGUST, 1984
CONNECTICUT INPOUNDNNNTS
CT DIP, 1984
E. Langera V. Langera
Taxa Pond lower end
Pond
N. Grosvenordale
Groavenorda [ e
Mechanicevilte
upper end
lower end
upper end
I) t tomø
Cyclotella ap. 93Z(a)
100 (a)
792(c)
872 (a),a(t)
1001(a)
1002(a),
c(t)
NavicuRa ap. 72(a)
N.io.Ara ap. MA(t)
MA(t)
141(c)
MA(t)
N&(t)
Mk(t)
C—k
Fragilar a ap. A( t)
Goa pbospbaerza iacu.tri C—A(G)
C(t)
C—A(t)
C(t)
Frag 1aria ap.
Blue—Creen Algae
O,ciljatoria
C(t)
Green Algae
Spiroq ira ap. A(t)
C(t)
Scenedesmus quadricauda
13Z(s),va(t)
Vol vox sp.
MA(t)
tJntdentt(ted ftlamentous
Pediastrum duplex
C—A(t)
82(s),c(t)
C(t)
Zooplankton
Boaraina ap. A(t)
MA(t)
BrachLonus coidenta
MA(t)
Ketatella sp.
MA
Total Oeoai ty (celia/I) 1,05) ,000
211 ,000
3,650 ,000
562,000
211 ,000
211,000
(a) — concentration in aurtace grab sample
(t) — relative concentration in trawl sample
MA — moat abundant
A — abundant
C—A — common to abundant
C common
vs — very sparse
S = Sparse
-------
abundant in East Langer’s Pond and common in North Grosvenordale.
Pediastrum duplex was common in West Langer’s Pond, North Grosvenordale,
and Mechanicsville. Virtually all the species collected in this study at
all four locations (with the exception of Vol vox) are described as
pollution tolerant by Palmer (1969).
Plankton densities at the lower end of West Langer’s Pond, North
Grosvenordale, Grosvenordale and Mechanicsville ranged from essentially
zero at Mechanicsville to 3,650,000 cells per liter in Langer’s Pond.
These densities may be lower than usual due to high water flow during the
sampling period. The relatively higher plankton densities at upper west
Langer’s Pond and east Langer’s Pond are in backwater areas with less
flow. These areas are organically enriched, tepid waters, especially
conducive to algal growth. PLppendix B contains the complete
phytoplankton species list for the downstream impoundments.
Along the French River the peripheral wetlands are mainly
palustririe deciduous forested wetlands and palustrine emergent
wetlands. This is the case from Rochdale south to Oxford. The
vegetation in Oxford was studied in depth by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers in 19814 for their Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Low
Flow Augmentation at Hodges Village Dam. Four wetland cover types
present in the area are: palustrine deciduous forested wetlands;
palustrine needle leaved evergreen forested wetlands; palustrine scrub-
shrub wetlands; and palustrine emergent wetlands. Upland cover types
represented in the area include upland deciduous forest; upland needle-
leaved evergreen forest; upland scrub-shrub and upland forb/grassland.
Red maples predominate in the wetlands and are usually accompanied by
meadowsweet, black alder, speckled alder and other shrubs. Black willow,
red maple, gray birch and red osier dogwood are the common woody plants
along the river and stream banks. Major marsh species include the
rushes, spike rush, wool-grass, cattail and tussock sedge. Red osier
dominate the shrub swamps.
Vegetation . The French River basin was originally covered with
mixed forests of white pine, oak, chestnut, poplar, maple, and white and
gray birches, however, industrial and agricultural development of the
3-58
-------
basin virtually eliminated all of the virgin forest. It has been
estimated that at one point in history, 80 to 85 percent of Worcester
County was cleared for agricultural use. Much of the land has since
returned to natural cover, and the vegetated portions of the basin are
now comprised of secondary-growth hardwood forests interspersed with
agricultural and oldfield vegetation.
The vegetation of a wetland influences the hydraulic regime,
contributes to nutrient cycling and provides ecologically valuable
wildlife habitats. The type of vegetation depends on several factors,
such as hydroperiod, soils and water chemistry. Aquatic plants produce
oxygen through photosynthesis, shade and cool sediments, diminish water
currents and provide habitat for benthic organisms, fish and wildlife.
Submerged macrophytes serve as food, nest sites and shelter from
predators for aquatic insects and fish.
Subrnergent vegetation in the wetlands behind the Hodges Village
dam generally consist of water celery (Vallisneria), cooritail
(Ceratophyllum sp.), watermilfoil (Myriophyllum sp.) and pond weed
(Potamogetan sp.), which are generally covered with a periphyton
community (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 19814).
The peripheral wetlands of the section of the French River which
flows from Hodges Village south to Oxford are classified as palustrine
deciduous forests with some palustrine shrub-scrub and emergents. The
peripheral wetlands from Oxford south to Dudley are classified mainly as
palustrine emergents with some palustrine deciduous forest into
Perryville.
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s wetlands
inventory mapping, the series of small impoundments in the lower half of
the French River basin are classified as lacustrine, open water, limnetic
habitat. The surrounding areas are palustrine deciduous forest and the
connecting stretches are open water riverine. Lacustrine habitats are
wetlands and deepwater habitats with all of the following
characteristics: situated in a topographic depression or a dammed river
channel; lacking trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, emergent mosses or
3—59
-------
lichens with greater than 30 percent areal coverage; and total area
exceeds 8 hectares (20 acres). Similar wetland and deepwater habitats
totaling less than 9 hectares are also included in the lacustrine system
if an active wave-formed or bedrock shoreline feature makes up all or
part of the boundary, or if the water depth in the deepest part of the
basin exceeds 2m (6.6 feet) at low water. The lacustrine system is
bounded by upland or by wetland dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent
emergents, emergent mosses or lichens. Systems formed by daniming a river
channel are bounded by a contour approximating the normal spiliway
elevation or normal pool elevation, except where palustrine wetlands
extend lakeward of that boundary (Cowardin et al., 1979). Limnetic
habitat refers to all deepwater habitats within the lacustrine system.
Aquatic macrophytes observed by MDWPC personnel in the Perryville
impoundment on 9 July 19814 are listed in Table 3—18 and mapped in
Figure 3-22. Connecticut DEl’ data for impoundments downstream of
Perryville are listed in Table 3-19 and shown in Figures 3-23 through
3-25. Canadian pondweed, grasses, soft rush, smaller duck weed, water
milfoil, pickerelweed and burreed are all littoral herbaceous plants
requiring permanent standing or slow-flowing water. Common cattail and
water willow are herbaceous plants whose root system extends into the
water table or in a semi-saturated layer just above the water table.
Availability of “free” water is a requirement for growth. Buttonbush and
red osier dogwood are woody shrubs that tolerate saturated conditions for
limited periods of time during the growing season (US EPA, 1981).
Emergent macrophyte cattail marshes support insects, which are
essential food organisms for fish and avifauna, and serve as spawning
ground for sunfish and shelter for young fish (Fronne, 1938; Hubbs and
Eschmeyer, 1938). U.S. EPA (1981) described the value of some of the
other plants native to the impoundments. The pickerelweed, which is
abundant at Perryville, Langer’s Pond and Grosvenordale, provides
wildlife cover and food; its leaves are eaten by Canada geese and its
roots and seeds are food for muskrat and waterfowl. The smaller duckweed
(abundant at Perryville and east Langer’s Pond) often mats together and
forms a solid mantle of green on a ponded area; waterfowl and some fish
3-60
-------
TABLE 3-18. TAXONOI4IC LISTING OF AQUATIC AND
WETLAND VASCULAR PLANTS AND ASSOCIATED
HABITATS IN PERRYVILLE POND
July, 19811
Relative
Plant Taxa Habitat Abundance
1. Typha latifolia littoral, abundant
(Common Cattail) shoreline
2. Sparganium sp. littoral common
(Burreed)
3. Potamogetan natans littoral uncommon
(Floating—leaf Pondweed)
14• sagittaria sp. littoral, abundant
(Arrowhead) shoreline
5. E1odea canadensis coves, littoral common
(Canadian Pondweed)
6. Gramineae littoral, common
(various grass genera shoreline
and species unidentified)
7. Dulichium arundinaceum littoral, uncommon
(Three-way Sedge) shoreline
8. Eleocharis sp. littoral uncommon
(Spikerush)
9. Carex stricta shoreline common
(Niggerhead)
10. Peltandra virginica littoral, common
(Arrow Aruin) shoreline
11. Lemna minor open water, abundant
(Smaller Duckweed) coves, littoral
12. wolff ia sp. open water, abundant
(Water-meal) coves, littoral
13. Pontederia cordata littoral, abundant
(Pickereiweed) shoreline
1 4. Juncus effusus littoral uncommon
(Soft Rush)
3—61
-------
TABLE 3-18 (Continued). TAXONOMIC LISTING OF AQUATIC AND
WETLAND VASCULAR PLANTS AND ASSOCIATED
HABITATS IN PERRYVILLE POND
July, 1981
Relative
Plant Taxa Habitat Abundance
15. Decodon verticillatus littoral, common
(Water-willow) shoreline
16. Lythrwn salicaria shoreline uncommon
(Spiked or Purple
Loosestrife)
17. Myriophyllurn sp. littoral common
(Water Milf’oil)
18. Cornus stolonjfera shoreline common
(Red osier Dogwood)
19. Myosotis scorpiodes littoral, uncommon
(Forget-me-nots) shoreline
20. Solanum dulcamara shoreline uncommon
(Bittersweet Nightshade)
21. Gratiola sp. littoral uncommon
(Hedge Hyssop)
22. Cephalanthus occidentalis shoreline uncommon
(But tonbush)
Source: HDWPC, 198L
3—62
-------
TABLE 3—19. MACROPHYTE ANALYSIS IN CONNECTICUT IMPOUNDMENTS — AUGUST, 1984
Specteg
E. Langers Pond
N. Langers Pond
N. Crosvenordale
Crosvenordale
Mechanicsvtlle
Myriophyllumsp. (Water nilfoil)
MA(p)
A(p)
S
Anachar s canadersis (Water Weed)
MA(p)
C(p)
Typha latifola (common cattail)
A
C—A(e)
S(e)
A(e)
A(e)
Pontederia cordata (Pickerel Weed)
A(e)
C—A(e)
S(e)
A(e)
A(e)
L3mna minor (smaller duckweed)
A
C(p)
Sagittaria an. (arrowhead)
A(e)
C—ACe)
S(e)
POtamoqeton ap. (Pond weed)
A(p)
S
Scirpua spp. (bu lrushes)
A(e)
NOTE: North (‘rosvenordale Pond had been dewatered, prior to survey.
MA — Most abundant
A Abundant
C—A — Common to abundant
S — Sparce
(p) In pond
(e) Around edges
Source: CT DIP, 1964
-------
2. Lemnaceae (Duckwmed)
4. nte*r cordara (Picker&weed)
7. Sagitarria sp. (Arrowhead)
letifolia (Common Cattail)
11. Wolffi . (Water-meal)
A abundant
C • common
$ • Spans
2C.
2$
2C. uS
2C. 7C, 95, uS
2A,4C, iiS
2A ,7A. hA
SOURCE: MD C
a
200 ? 20
SCALE IN FEET
2C, 4C ,7C, 9C, his
25
his
4S
•4C, iS, 9C
4S, 7C, 9C
7c
9A, 4S, iS
9A
7S
2C. 11C
FIG. 3 -22 AQUATIC AND WETLAND VASCULAR PLANTS IN PERRYVILLE POND
-------
SOURCE: CTDEP
FIG. 3-23 AQUATIC AND WETLAND VASCULAR PLANTS
IN LANGER’S POND (WILSONVILLE)
1. Anacharis canadensis (Waterweed)
2. Lemnaceae (Duckweed)
3. Myriophylum sp. (Water Mslf oil)
4. Pontederia cordara (Pickereiweed)
5. Poramogeton epihydrus (Leafy Pondweed)
7. Sagittaria sp. (Arrowhead)
8. Scirpus (Torreyi) ((Torrey s) Three Square Bulrush)
9. Typha /atifolia (Common Cattail)
12. filamentousalgae
A = abundant
C = common
S Sparse
7C,4C
3C
9A
7A. 4A
7A
4A
9A
7A, 4k
9A
7c
4C
8C
5S
11
9A
3S
1A
3C
9A
2C-A
7A, 4A
200
9A 12A
0
9A
200
SCALE IN FEET
-------
4. Pontederie cordata (Pickereiweed)
9. Typha latifolia (Common Cattail)
A = abundant
C = common
S = Sparse
1.000
0
1,000
I-- - I _ I
SCALE IN FEET
(approx.)
SOURCE: CTDEP
NOTE: Pond had been dewatered prior to survey
FIG. 3-24 AQUATIC AND WETLAND VASCULAR PLANTS
IN NORTh GROSVENORDALE POND
4C
9C
4C
9C
-------
SOURCE: CTDEP
1. Anacharis canadensis (Waterweed)
3. Myriophylum sp. (Water Milfoil)
4. Pontederiacordata (Pickerelweed)
6. Potamogeton (natans) (Ftoatinq-leaf Pondweed)
9. Typha Latifolia (Common Cattail)
10. (Vallisneria americana) (Tai e Grass)
A = abundant
C = common
S = Sparse
3C
4C
1 C-A
6 C-A
10 C-A
3A
ic
los
9A
4A
WEBSTE
J fiii Bk.
DUDLEY
MA ____ ___
cr -- __-
Grosvenordale THOMPSON
Dam—
4A
1A
3S
4A
4A
1C
9C
is
300
4C
9A
300
SCALE IN FEET
(approx.)
FIG. 3-25 AQUATIC AND WETLAND VASCULAR PLANTS IN GROSVENORDALE POND
-------
feed on it. Arrow arum, which is common at Perryville, is an excellent
habitat cover type for waterfowl, marsh birds and muskrat. Buttonbush,
classified as uncommon in Perryville, is an important waterfowl food; its
stems are eaten by muskrats and it provides stabilization for mud at
pond edges. Spiked loosestrife, also uncommon in Perryville, is
considered to be low in value for wildlife.
Although Perryville is a relatively small wetland (< 10 acres), it
is made up of a diverse community of valuable plants that may provide
food and cover for many marsh inhabitants. It does not, however, have
the large open water habitat of the downstream impoundments. The open
water areas downstream provide a different type of habitat and would,
therefore, support a different type of’ community.
Buffumville Lake is located on the Little River, a tributary
flowing east into the Upper French River just south of Hodges Village.
The wetlands of the Little River consist mainly of palustrine deciduous
forest (see Figure 3-26). The lake was created as a flood control
project by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and completed in 1958. Due
to the steep slope of the surrounding lands, there is a minimal area of
wetlands surrounding the edges of Buffumville Lake. The Little River
(the watershed on which this lake has been based) is extremely narrow at
the point of entry and supports a very limited area of wetlands due to
the steep elevational gradient of the surrounding lands. The existing
wetlands surrounding the lake comprise approximately six acres. This
includes all areas of emergent macrophytes as well as areas of palustrine
scrub shrub. Based on the existing operational strategy of water level
control within the reservoir over the past five years (see Table 2-1),
these wetlands have become established as zones that are spatially static
in terms of relative areal extent, when compared with the temporal
dynamic changes in water levels within the reservoir. There is
approximately one acre of emergent macrophyte wetlands near the
headwaters and then the land rises rapidly perhaps 3 to 1 feet in
elevation into a beech-birch forest, and then into higher ground with
conifers and mixed deciduous hardwoods. The water depth drops off
rapidly from shore, and there is a very small band of submerged
3-68
-------
PALUSTRINE FORESTED
WETLAND AND UPLAND
PALUSTRINE SCRUB SHRUB
AND EMERGENT MACROPHYTES
LACUSTRINE LITTORAL
UNCONSOLIDATED SHORE
LACUSTRINE LITTORAL
UNCONSOLI DATED
BOTTOM AND SHORE
>10’ - LACUSTRINE LIMNETIC
UNCONSOLIDATED BOTTOM
A
A’
FIG. 3-26. WETLAND HABITATS AT BUFFUM%ILLE LAKE
-------
A’
A ______ ___
*
•1
;c ,
4’
— A
.-‘- .
BUFFUMVI LLE
POND
.t! * J PALUSTRINE FORESTED
L - . -: 1 WETLAND AND UPLAND
PALUSTRINE SCRUB SHRUB
______ AND EMERGENT MACROPHYTES
LACUSTRINE LITTORAL
UNCONSOLIDATED SHORE
p LACUSTRINE LITTORAL
UNCONSOLI DATED
BOTTOM AND SHORE
>10’ - LACUSTRINE LIMNETIC
L i UNCONSOLIDATED BOTTOM
B’
C.— ‘ ,,
...
*
PC ) “
B
FIG. 3.26. (Cont.) WETLAND HABITATS AT BUFFUMVILLE LAKE
-------
B
,-“ - PALUSTRINE SCRUB SHRUB
‘, ‘.
AND EMERGENT MACROPHYTES
LACUSTRINE LITTORAL
& \\‘ 1 UNCONSOLIDATED SHORE
P It:1 LACUSTRINE LITTORAL
______ UNCONSOLI DATED
BOTTOM AND SHORE
] >10=LACUSTRINELIMNETIC
L I UNCONSOLIDATED BOTTOM
B’
SAND AND GRAVEL
OPERATION
PALUSTRINE FORESTED
SANDANOGRAVEL ‘ .‘ . • - WETLANDANDUPLAND
OPERATION
FIG. 3.26. (Cont.) WETLAND HABITATS AT BUFFUMVILLE LAKE
-------
macrophytes, Myriophyllum sp. (watermilfoil) in clear water. Fringe
vegetation in the wetlands of Buffuxnville Lake consist of pickerel weed
(Pontederia) and arrowheads (sagittaria) as well as black willows, etc.
The area of open water is approximately 95 percent while the wetlands
account for less than 5 percent of the area.
Benthic Invertebrates . The benthic community of any water body is
indicative of the long-term environmental conditions. The benthos is
primarily made up of slow moving organisms which must be capable of
adapting to changes in water quality as they cannot easily escape
stressful conditions. Thus they are generally a good indicator of the
typical conditions at that sampling point.
Excessive suspended sediment levels and silt deposition (as has
historically occurred in the French River impoundments) may influence
macroinvertebrates by causing avoidance of adverse conditions by
migration and drift; increased mortality due to physiological effects,
burial, and physical destruction; reduced reproduction rates because of
physiological effects, substrate changes and loss of early life stages;
and modified growth rates because of habitat modifications and changes in
food type and availability (Farnworth et al., 1979).
Tables 3—20 is a summary of the benthic community sampled in the
Perryville impoundment on 9 July 198L by KDWPC personnel. The community
is made up of oligochaetes and chironomids, both of which are considered
to be taxa capable of tolerating low DO conditions (U.S. EPA, 1981 1).
During the May 1985 SOD sampling survey conducted in the impoundments,
EPA biologists observed populations of’ organisms to be far more dense in
Perryville than in Wilsonville or North Grosvenordale and than ever
observed in previous surveys. Predominant organisms in Perryville Pond
included tubificid worms, chironomid larvae, leeches, physid snails and
midges. The midges were present in such abundance that the river bottom
near the dam was red as a result of the organisms’ hemoglobin.
Tables 3—21 through 3-23 summarize the benthic data collected by
CT DEP in October 19811 at the impoundments in the southern portions of
the French River. One of the most common benthic taxa at all five
sampling locations was the pollution tolerant midge (chironomids).
3-72
-------
a.
TABLE 3-20. PERRYVILLE IMPOUNDMENT
INVERTEBRATE ANALYSISt )
JULY 9, 19814
Taxon
station(b)
A
B
C
D
Oligochaeta (aquatic earthworm)
.. ._(c)
Insecta
Chironomidae (midges)
Procladius sp.
Chironomus sp.
Cryptochironomus sp.
Endochironomus nigricans
Glyptotendipes sp.
Phaenopsectra sp.
Polypedilum nr scalaenum
Rheotanytarsus sp.
Tanytarsus/Microspectra sp.
0
14
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
17
1
1
1
22
3
0
1
0
6
0
0
0
114
0
1
0
1
13
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
Total number of organisms counted
6
147
21
21
each bank and
Samples were obtained with a Petite Ponar grab sampler off
at quarter points along one transect of the impoundment.
b. Station locations:
A - Right bank
B - Right quarter-point
C - Left quarter-point
D - Left bank
c. Abundant
SOURCE: MDWPC, 1984
3-73
-------
TABLE 3-21. PERCENT OCCURRENCE OF DOMINANT
MACROINVERTEBRATE TAXA AT LANGERS POND
October, 19811
East West
Taxa Langers Pond Langers Pond
01 igochaeta
Limnodrilus (hoffmeisteri) 85% 91%
Insecta (chironomids)
Procladius subletti 5%
Chironomus spp. 1% 6%
Chauborus spp. 1%
Aniphipoda
Hyalella azetca 3%
Source: Ct CEP, 198 4
TABLE 3-22. PERCENT OCCURRENCE OF DOMINANT
MACROINVERTEBRATE TAXA AT NORTH
GROSVENORDALE POND - OCTOBER, 19814
Taxa North End South End
01 igochaeta
Limnodrilus (hoffmeisteri) 50% 33%
Tubifex tubifex 3%
Insecta (chironomids)
Chironomus spp. 144% 1 10%
Bezzia group 3%
Chaobarus spp. 7%
Procladius subletti 13%
Odona ta
Perithomis spp. 7%
Source: CT DEP, 1984
3_71 1
-------
TABLE 3-23. PERCENT OCCURRENCE OF DOMINANT
MACROINVERTEBRATE TAXA AT
MECHANICSV1LLE POND - OCTOBER, 19811
Taxa
East Side
1est Side
01 igochaeta
Lirrinodrillus (hoffrneisteri)
19%
L I0%
Insecta (chironornids)
Procladius subletti
Cryptochironomus fuirs
Chironomus spp.
Chaoborus spp.
19%
19%
10%
20%
20%
20%
Insecta (mayfly)
Caenis spp.
19%
Source: CT DEP, 198 4
Midges typically increase in numbers with increasing degrees of
eutrophication (U.S. EPA, 198 4). The oligochaete Limnodrilus
hoffmeisteri, known to predominate in areas receiving heavy sewage
pollution (Aston, 1973), was also present at all five locations. The
mayfly Ceenis sp. was found in relatively large numbers at Mechanics-
ville. Unlike most mayflies, which are relatively pollution sensitive,
this genus has been found to exist at dissolved oxygen concentrations
less than LI mg/i (Roback, 197)1). The bivalve Sphaeriidae was found in
the western portion of Langer’s Pond, and the gastropod Amnicola limnosa
at Grosvenordale. Both are indicative of eutrophication (U.S. EPA,
198)1). Appendix B contains the complete benthic data set for the
downstream impoundments.
The benthic communities at all of the downstream impoundments were
dominated by organisms capable of existing in eutrophic conditions with
low DO concentrations.
In contrast to the downstream impoundments, MDWPC also conducted
benthic analyses in Town Meadow Brook (in Leicester), an upstream
tributary of the French River, during October 198)1 (Table 3—2 )4). This
area supports over twice as many taxa as the Perryville impoundment and
3—75
-------
TABLE 3-2k
INVERTEBRATE ANALYSIS
TOWN MEADOW BROOK, LEICESTER MA
OCTOBER, 198k
Repi icates
Taxon A B
Turbellaria (flat worms) 1 0
Oligochaeta (aquatic earthworms)
Tubificidae (immature without capilliform 0 1
chaetae)
Hydracarina (water mites) 1 1
Insecta
Ephemeroptera (mayflies)
Baetis sp. 2 0
Stenonema sp. 56 9
Habrophiebia vibrans 0 2
Paraleptophlebia sp. 114 7
Eurylophella Sp. 10 9
Serratella sp. 13 1
Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies)
Argia sp. 14 14
Calopteryx sp. 2 0
Hemiptera (true bugs)
Rhagovelia sp. 0 2
Megaloptera (dobsonfl ies)
Nigronia sp. 5
Trichoptera (cadisflies)
Chuematopsyche Sp. 2 1
Chimarra sp. 3 0
Mystacides sp. 0 1
Polycentropus Sp. 9 21
Coleoptera (beetles)
Psephenus herricki 7 8
Stenelmis sp. 2 3
Diptera (true flies)
Antocha sp. 0 1
Thienema.nnimyia group 3 1
Orthocladiinae sp. 1 0
Pelecypoda (clams)
Pisidiidae sp. 1 33
Total number of organisms 136 92
NOTE:
a. Two replicate samples were obtained using a Surber 1.0 ft. 2 sampler.
Numbers refer to number of organisms per replicate.
SOURCE: MDWPC, 19814
3—76
-------
over four times as many individuals, assuming comparable sample sizes.
Species observed at Leicester include pollution sensitive organisms such
as the mayflies, as well as more tolerant organisms such as oligochaetes
and damseiflies. Pollution sensitive organisms were more abundant than
the more tolerant organisms. The benthic community in this area was
characteristic of a healthy water body. The benthic community structures
in the downstream impoundments appear to be the result of significant
anthropogenic influences, since the number of species and density of
individuals are low compared to an ecologically healthy benthic
community.
Fisheries . Although no site specific quantitative studies have
been made of the fish populations in the French River and its
impoundments (other than data site-specific to the flood control
reservoirs), fish collections for tissue analysis (MDWPC, 198 4; CT DEP,
198k; US F&WS, 1985) document some of the species inhabiting the ponds.
Fish species known to occur at Perryville, Langer’s Pond and North
Grosvenordale are listed in Table 3—25. Bullheads, shiners, perch,
suckers, sunfish and black crappie are typical warmwater species.
Bullheads, yellow perch and largemouth bass prefer areas with sluggish
currents or slack water (less than 5 cm/second). Some species of
bullhead can withstand DO levels as low as 3 mg/i. Concentrations of 5
mg/i DO cause physiological stress in largemouth bass, and concentrations
less than 1.0 mg/i are lethal (U.S. EPA, 1981 ).
Fisheries management is performed by the Massachusetts Division of
Fisheries and Wildlife (MDFW) at Buffuniville Lake. The reservoir
supports a warm water fishery. The MDFW stocks trout in the South Fork,
Little River as well as in other tributary streams on private property on
a put and take basis. Fish are stocked in the spring in numbers which
vary each year according to availability from the hatchery. Trout are
stocked at one point on Corps property on the South Fork, Little River.
In recent years about 300 eastern book trout (salvelinus fontinalis) are
stocked in the 6 to 9 inch class depending on availability (U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, 1981).
3—77
-------
TABLE 3-25. FRENCH RIVER FISH DATA
AUGUST 19811
Scientific Name
Common Name
Perry-
yule
Langers
Pond
Grosven-
ordale
Catastomus cominersoni
White sucker
X
X
Perca flavescens
Yellow perch
X
X
Lepomis sp.
Sunfish
X
X
Micropterus salmoides
Largemouth bass
X
X
Ictalurus sp.
Bullhead
X
X
X
Morone americana
White perch
X
Esox niger
Chain pickerel
X
X
Pornoxis nigromaculatus
Black crappie
X
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Golden shiner
X
X Observed
SOURCE: CT DEP & MDWPC, 19814
Tiger muskies (Esox lucius x . masquinongy) were stocked in
Buffumville Lake by MDFW in September 1980 on an experimental basis in
hopes that the sterile fish would control the pan fish populations and
provide a trophey-size fish for the recreational sport angler (U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, 1981). Eight hundred fifty tiger muskies were also
stocked in June 1982 and 700 Northern pike were stocked in December 1985.
The MDFW sampled the fish population of Buffumville Lake in June
1978 using gill nets and electroshocking. A total of ten species were
found including a single brown trout (Salmo trutta), chain pickerel (Esox
niger), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), yellow perch (Perca
flavescents) white perch (Marone americana), puinpkinseed (Lepomis
gibbosus), bluegills (L. macrochirus), yellow bullheads (Ictalarus
natalis), brown bull head (I. nebulosus), and white suckers (Catostomous
com.mersoni).
The fish community in the Hodges Village backwater was sampled
during the summer of 1983 with an electroshocker by the Massachusetts
Division of Fisheries and Wildlife and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. The community in the upper reservoir was made up of warmwater
species, dominated by white sucker, followed by golden shiner,
pumpkinseed, largemouth bass and some chain pickerel, falluish and brown
3-78
-------
and yellow bullheads. The community in the river downstream of the dam
generally consisted of the same species and was dominated by pumpkinseed,
golden shiner, largemouth bass, sucker and pickerel.
In May 1985, the fish populations at North Village and Perryville
Ponds were sampled using gilinets by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. The fish community at North Village Pond, the control site, was
predominantly golden shiners and brown bullhead with some white suckers,
puinpkinseeds and yellow perch and few creek chubsuckers and largemouth
bass. The fish community at Perryville consisted of mostly golden
shiners, pumpkinseeds and brown bullheads with a few sunfish, bluegills
and chain pickerel also present.
Scientists noted that the fish sampled from North Village Pond
appeared to be healthy both externally and internally with the exception
of parasites (black-spot). Livers of the fish caught at North Village
Pond appeared to be normal. Fish collected in Perryville, however,
appeared to be stressed. Speciments caught in gilinets at Perryville
were less lively than those fish caught at North Village Pond. The gall
bladders of fish caught at Perryville were either empty or contained less
bill than the fish caught upstream. One brown bullhead had tumerous
growth on its skin and head and about 50 percent of’ the bullheads had
barble erosion.
Heavy metals were found in the tissues of fish caught in the
Perryville impoundment in 198)4 (Table 3—26). Specifically, copper, iron,
mercury, zinc and aluminum were detected in yellow bullhead, golden
shiner and large mouth bass. All of these metals were also present in
the water column and/or the sediment. Cadmium, chromium, copper, lead,
nickel, zinc, iron and mercury were found in varying concentrations in
fish sampled from Langer’s Pond and North Grosvenordale (Tables 3-27 and
3—28). In both of these ponds, the metals most highly concentrated in
fish tissue were copper, zinc and iron. Cadmium and nickel were present
in fish tissues from Langer’s Pond and North Grosvenordale but were not
found at Perryville. However, they were present in the sediment at all
three areas. Heavy metal concentrations in fish tissue may cause
3-79
-------
TAILK 3—26. PEIRIVILLE P1 5 11 TISSUE METALS AIALYSIS (KG/% G WET WEIGHT)
AUGUST, 1984
Scientific Name
Common Name
Type of Sample
Cd
Cr
Cu
Ni
Pb
Fe
Hg
Zn
Ictalaru , natalis
Yellow bullhead
single left filet
0.00
0.00
1.1
0.00
0.00
4.8
0.02
5.7
<0.1
Not..igonu , crysoleuca.
Golden ahiner
left filets
composite of 5
0.00
0.00
0.75
0.00
0.00
3.3
0.01
5.0
<0.1
Nicroptero. ,almoLd.i
Largemouth bass
single left filet
0.00
0.00
0.75
0.00
0.00
1.8
0.02
5.0
<0.1
SOURCE: NDWPC , 1984
-------
TABLE 3-27. LANGER’S POND
Common Length Weight Cadmium
Name Age In. g. mg/kg cg tugi Kg
White Sucker 11.0 17.00 970 0.05 0.00 1.50 0.01 0.25 14.0 6.8 0.27
White Sucker 14.0 18.00 1255 0.05 0.25 1.80 0.08 0.00 5.3 12.0 0.16
White Sucker 14.0 16.00 852 0.05 0.00 1.50 0.09 0.00 14.0 5.8 0.13
White Sucker 14.0 16.00 869 0.10 0.00 1.50 0.01 0.00 14.8 7.8 0.114
Yellow Perth 5.0 10.75 270 0.05 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.75 41.3 5.8 0.06
Yellow Perch 5.0 10.75 306 0.03 0.00 1.00 0.02 0.50 4.8 7.3 0.15
Yellow Perch 6.5 10.00 228 0.03 0.00 1.30 0.014 0.50 4.0 5.8 0.15
Yellow Perch 6.0 9.75 239 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.06 0.25 14.0 5.5 0.11
Yellow Perch 5.5 9.75 239 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.00 0.00 3.3 6.8 0.09
Yellow Perch 6.0 9.50 218 0.03 0.00 1.00 0.09 0.50 5.3 7.8 0.09
Sunfish 5.5 7.00 167 0.18 0.00 0.75 0.09 0.50 14.3 8.8 0.07
Sunfish 6.5 8.00 159 0.10 0.25 1.30 0.00 0.25 14.8 8.0 0.18
Sunfish 11.5 7.50 168 0.08 0.00 0.75 0.02 0.00 5.3 6.3 0.111
SunfIsh 14.5 7.50 172 0.08 0.00 0.75 0.03 0.50 11.3 5.5 0. 1414
Sunfish 3.5 6.50 115 0.08 0.00 1.30 0.05 0.50 5.5 12.0 0.07
Largemouth Bass 3.0 9.00 1611 0.00 0.00 1.30 0.01 0.75 8.0 4.5 0.18
Largemouth Bass 3.0 10.00 254 0.13 0.00 2.00 0.09 1.30 4.5 22.0 0.18
Bullhead - 12.00 337 0.03 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 2.8 4.8 0.06
Bullhead - 12.75 561 0.05 0.00 1.30 0.00 0.75 14.0 6.0 0.05
Bullhead - 12.00 3514 0.05 0.00 1.50 0.00 0.50 5.0 9.0 0.011
Bullhead - 11.50 320 0.03 0.00 1.30 0.03 0.50 5.5 10.0 0.014
Bullhead - 11.00 391 0.10 0.00 1.30 0.00 0.75 11.5 9.0 0.05
Bullhead - 11.50 332 0.05 0.00 1.80 0.07 0.75 14.3 8.0 0.06
White Perch 2.5 9.00 222 0.05 0.00 1.50 0.02 0.00 4.5 16.0 0.07
White Perch 2.5 9.50 269 0.05 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 3.8 12.0 0.06
White Perch 2.5 9.50 2611 0.05 0.00 1.30 0.01 0.50 3.3 24.0 0.03
White Perch 2.5 9.25 235 0.05 0.00 1.00 0.03 0.50 3.8 9.8 0.011
White Perch 2.5 9.50 242 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.01 0.25 5.5 9.5 0.05
Chain Pickerel 3.0 18.00 576 0.08 0.00 1.30 0.00 0.50 5.3 4.3 0.28
Chain Pickerel 2.0 114.75 316 0.15 0.00 1.80 0.01 0.50 5.8 4.8 0.18
Chain Pickerel 3.0 17.00 536 0.10 0.00 1.80 0.00 0.75 6.5 8.3 0.26
Edible portions analyzed only.
—Age not able to be determined.
SOURCE: CT DEP, 19811
-------
TABLE 3-28.
Edible portions analyzed except as noted.
*Whole portion analyzed.
-Age not able to be determined.
NORTH GROSVENORDALE POND FISH TISSUE METALS ANALYSIS (WET WEIGHT)
SEPTEMBER, 198 )1
Common
Length
Weight
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Zinc
Iron
Mercury
Name
Age in.
g.
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
mg/kg
White Sucker*
14.5
18.25
1203
0.10
0.00
1.50
0.12
0.25
5.0
7.8
0.13
Yellow Perch
14.5
8.75
132
0.08
0.00
0.75
0.00
0.25
3.8
5.0
0.10
Yellow Perch
5.5
9.25
166
0.13
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.25
4.3
5.8
0.15
Yellow Perch
14.5
9.75
203
0.10
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.25
4.8
6.0
0.10
Yellow Perch
14•5
8.75
116
0.13
0.00
0.75
0.00
0.00
3.5
14.5
0.07
Yellow Perch
5.5
9.25
177
0.13
0.00
1.00
0.03
0.25
5.0
15.0
0.13
Yellow Perch
14.5
8.50
113
0.10
0.00
1.00
0.01
0.25
4.0
5.3
0.11
Sunfish
3.5
5.75
75
0.08
1.80
1.00
0.014
0.25
6.3
3.8
0.05
Sunfish
14.5
5.75
73
0.13
0.00
1.00
0.07
0.50
9.3
24.0
0.09
Sunfish
4.5
5.25
58
0.15
0.00
1.00
0.05
0.00
6.3
3.8
0.10
Sunfish
3.5
5.50
73
0.10
0.00
1.00
0.06
0.00
6.5
14.0
0.05
Sunfish*
3.5
6.75
105
0.08
0.00
1.50
0.01
0.50
7.5
9.3
0.11
Sunfish*
3.5
5.25
69
0.10
0.00
1.50
0.07
0.25
7.3
11.3
0.07
Sunfish*
3.5
7.00
1314
0.13
0.00
1.00
0.21
0.25
14.8
16.0
0.12
Bullhead
-
12.80
422
0.20
0.00
1.50
10.00
0.25
6.3
140.0
0.05
Bullhead
-
11.80
329
0.08
0.00
1.80
0.114
0.00
5.5
11.0
0.04
Bullhead
-
11.80
382
0.08
0.00
1.00
0.214
0.25
2.8
5.5
0.05
Bullhead
11.50
276
0.10
0.00
1.00
0.02
0.25
3.0
5.0
0.06
Bullhead
-
11.75
367
0.18
0.00
1.00
0.07
0.50
14.0
7.0
0.08
Bullhead
-
12.50
1456
0.13
0.00
1.00
0.0 4
0.00
3.0
14.3
0.06
Bullhead
-
12.00
367
0.140
1.00
1.30
0.07
28.00
4.8
19.0
0.05
Chain Pickerel*
2.5
17.00
519
0.13
0.00
1.00
0.05
0.00
5.0
7.3
0.15
Black Crappie
3.5
8.00
1 145
0.05
0.00
1.30
0.07
0.25
5.5
3.3
0.10
SOURCE: CT DEP, 1984
-------
impaired reproduction and in some cases can be lethal. Effects on the
fish population in Perryville are indicated by one U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service biologist’s recent observations that the population was skewed
towards smaller, younger fish and that the condition of the fish
indicates environmental stress.
In Hay 1985, poly-aromatic hydrodarbons (PAH’ s) iè re detéctéd in
the bile of brown bullheads sampled in the French River by EPA and
F&WS. Fish caught in Perryville Pond had one order of magnitude higher
concentrations of PAH’s than did fish caught in North Village Pond. PAH
concentrations were also measured in the root masses and new growth of
cattails (Typha latifolia) at both Perryville and Langer’s (Wilsonville)
Ponds. Root masses were found to contain much higher concentrations of
PAH’s than did the new growth. New growth collected at Langer’s Pond had
the lowest overall concentrations of PAM’s while root masses collected at
the same location had much higher concentrations than the sample
collected in Perryville. Appendix D presents the PP 1 H data from the
Spring 1985 survey in further detail.
Wildlife . While no site specific data have been collected on the
waterfowl and aquatic wildlife of impoundments in the downstream portion
of the study area, a list of non-game species typical of New England
inland wetlands and uplands is presented in Table 3-29. The river also
supports populations of freshwater mussels, snails, and crayfish which
are often prey for mammals such as mink, muskrat and otter. Not all of
the species listed may actually occur in the study area due to habitat
limitations such as space, food and cover.
No threatened or endangered species have been observed in the
vicinity of the French River (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1981).
Threatened or endangered species are generally associated with rare
habitat types or have exacting requirements with respect to a host of
environmental factors. The habitat types around the French River are not
uncommon and no rare or endangered species have been found.
3—83
-------
TABLE 3-2g. WILDLIPB LIKELY TO OCCUR IN VRENCH RIVER
ZNPOUN Et1T AREAS
Avifauna
green heron least flycatcher black and white warbler
Canada goose eastern wood pewee yellow warbler
mallard tree swallow chestnut—gided warbler
black duck bank swallow prairie warbler
wood duck rough—winged swallow ovenbird
red—tailed hawk barn swallow common yellow throat
American kestrel blue jay American redstart
rut fed grouse common crow house sparrow
ring—necked pheasant black—capped chickadee redwinged black bird
spotted sandpiper tufted titmouse northern oriole
rock dover white—breasted nuthatch common grackle
mourning dove house wren brown—headed cowbird
yellow—billed cuckoo mockingbird scarlet tanager
black—billed cuckoo gray catbird cardinal
great horned owl brown thrasher rose—br. grosbeak
belted kingfisher American robin indigo bunting
common flicker wood thrush purple finch
hairy woodpecker veery American goldfinch
downy woodpecker cedar waxwing rufous sided tawh•e
eastern kingbird starling field sparrow
eastern phoebe red—eyed vireo swamp sparrow
song sparrow
Amphibians
newt spring peeper
spotted salamander grey tree frog
dusky salamander pickerel frog
red—backed salamander leopard frog
two—lined salamander wood frog
American toad green frog
Towler’s toad bull frog
Reptiles
snapping turtle garter snake
wood turtle ribbon snake
spotted turtle hognose snake
musk turtle ringneck snake
painted turtle black racer
red—bellied snake green snake
Delay’s snake king snake
water snake
SOURCE: Adapted from letter to New England Corps of Engineers from Fish and Wildlife
Ser. Ecological Service, Concord, NH, April 10, 1978.
-------
Snnin iry of Environmental Quality
The downstream segments of the French River have historically
received a large volume of industrial and domestic wastewater
discharges. These discharges have resulted in deteriorated water quality
with regard to DO and nutrient levels, and the accumulation of polluted
sediments downstream. Biological conditions in the downstream stretches
of the river are consequently stressed. A variety of actions have been
ta [ en in the last 10 years to reduce the impact of wastewater discharges
on water quality, particularly with regard to eliminating industrial
discharges and upgrading the treatment at the municipal treatment
plants. More point source cleanup is planned for the next few years.
The sediment deposits, however, still remain, continuing to significantly
degrade environmental quality.
Recent water quality surveys conducted in 1982, 19814 and 1985 by
MDWPC indicate that the water quality in the French River is generally in
compliance with Class B standards during average or above-average river
flows. Some water quality problems still persist, particularly during
very low flows. Downstream of the wastewater treatment plant discharges
in Leicester, Webster and Dudley, in—stream nutrient levels rise,
stimulating the growth of’ aquatic plants. DO and fecal coliform
standards are also violated. Significant diel variations of DO have been
observed in these reaches, indicating the impact of significant plant
photosynthesis and respiration. Violations of the dissolved oxygen 5.0
mg/i Class B standard also occur consistently behind the dam at
Perryville MA; and less frequently at Wilsoriville CT; North Grosvenordale
CT; and Grosvenordale CT. Accumulated sediments and sluggish flow in
these locations result in a high sediment oxygen demand. These factors
are a primary contributor to the low DO levels. In addition, the
sediments in the impoundments are significantly polluted with heavy
metals and PAR compounds.
As a result of the degraded water quality and contaminated
sediments, the aquatic biota in the downstream impoundments are stressed
and dominated by pollution tolerant organisms. Several of the
impoundments have evolved into significant wetlands habitats.
3-85
-------
Socioecono.ic Conditions and Recreational Resources
Introduction . The settlements in the French River Basin are
primarily in or adjacent to the river valley and are concentrated in
Dudley, Oxford and Webster. The towns or portions thereof in the basin
are Auburn, Charlton, Douglas, Dudley, Leicester, Millbury, Oxford,
Spencer, Sutton, and Webster, Massachusetts; and the Town of Thompson,
Connecticut.
Socioeconomic data is presented here for the Towns of Leicester,
Chariton, Oxford, Dudley, and Thompson. Socioeconomic data for the
remaining coumainities in the basin are not relevant to this study and are
not included in the baseline data. The land area of Auburn, Douglas,
Mlllbury, Sutton and Spencer is all upland, undeveloped, and distant and
unrelated to the river or its major tributaries, the Little River and
Mill Brook. Moreover, the land area of Auburn, Milibury, Douglas and
Sutton included in the basin is minimal.
Eighty-five percent of the basin is in Worcester County,
Massachusetts, with the southern part being in Thompson, Connecticut.
The geography, circulation pattern, topography and economy of Thompson is
similar to the basin of which it is part. Therefore, for clarity and
ease of comparison, socioeconomic data for Thompson will be compared
herein to that of Worcester County, Massachusetts and thus to the rest
of the basin, rather than to Windham County, Connecticut.
Population . As is seen in Table 3-30, the population of the river
basin has increased steadily over the post-war period and is projected to
continue to grow, although not dramatically. (Less than two percent in
two decades.) Likewise, with the exception of Webster, the individual
conmiunities have grown and all are projected to continue to do so,
although not all at an even rate.
The persons residing in the basin are generally younger than the
Worcester Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) or the County and
generally less well educated. The indications are that the basin as a
whole has a young, growing, increasingly exurban population. However
Webster, a notable exception, has been aging. Incomes in the French
3-86
-------
TABLE 3-30 • POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS OF FRENCH RIVER STUDY AREA
Age Charlton Dudley Leicester Oxford Thompson Webster
Median family income
Per capita
% under 5
8.2
59
6.5
8.2
6.6
5.8
% under 18
32.5
30.6
28.8
32.2
29.4
26.5
65 and over
9.4
10.6
9.5
8.6
11.7
16.4
Education
% completed
high
school only
42.6
35.2
39.8
39.8
32.4
306
% completed
college
12.3
14.2
13.8
11.0
10.4
8.5
Income
$19,864
$20,668
$21,446
$19,798
$19,170
$17,740
5,966
6,529
6,389
6,190
6,601
6,291
Race/Ancestry
%
White
99.6
98.6
98.8
99.2
99.2
98.6
%
Polish
8.8
34.6
8.7
7.1
5.6
34.9
%
French
32.1
19.9
17.7
32.1
20.]
22.5
%
English
19.5
10.4
22.5
16.9
7.7
6.4
%
Irish
9.4
9.5
17.9
14.5
3.6
8.2
SOURCE: U.S.Census, 1980.
-------
River basin are also low, reflecting the limited educational levels and
types of occupations. Median 1980 family incomes ranged from $17,7140 in
Webster to $21 ,1146 in Leicester.
The population is not distributed evenly throughout the basin.
The major concentrations are in Dudley, Oxford and Webster. Oxford is
essentially a residential community today with small manufacturing
establishments. Webster is highly industrialized with several very large
firms. Leicester is a bedroom and college community with major
concentrations outside of the basin. The other communities have a few
small concentrations in the basin around public facilities and small
existing or defunct mills. The overall population density is low because
of the large amount of undeveloped land in each community, Webster again
being the notable exception.
Economic Resources . Agriculture is still the economic base of
Charlton and some agriculture, primarily orchards, continues in Dudley
and Oxford. However, the economic base of most of the basin is
predominately manufacturing. This is especially so in Dudley and Webster
in the river valley itself. Supporting the industries are trucking
enterprises and small retail uses such as pubs and used car sales. There
are also a number of active and abandoned sand and gravel operations in
the area.
Although agriculture has been the historical base of all towns in
the basin at one time, and although Charlton and Leicester have had mills
in the past and continue to have some manufacturing, only Dudley and
Webster are now manufacturing communities. Charlton, Oxford and
Leicester are considered residential communities in the Worcester area.
Almost half of the labor force in Thompson is employed in
manufacturing while Dudley and Webster have forty percent of employment
in manufacturing; Oxford has thirty percent in government and thirty-four
percent in manufacturing. Charlton has thirty-seven percent in retail
trade and only five percent in manufacturing. The older manufacturing
employment is primarily on the French River, affected by historical
dependence on water power. Newer plants are nearer Route 52 and its
3-88
-------
interchanges. The older establishments are textile or textile related.
Newer plants are in machinery, plastics, chemicals and materials.
Unemployment in the area is low.
In Massachusetts, the Towns are limited financially by the
constraints of Proposition 2 1/2 which imposes a limit on local taxes on
real and personal property equal to two and one half percent of the fair
cash value of the property being assessed. These local receipts are
supplemented by state aid and some grant programs. Debt incurred by the
Towns is primarily for schools and utilities, as seen in Table 3-31.
Land Use . The area along the French River in Dudley, Oxford and
Webster is urbanized, as is the center of’ Webster and the area along Lake
Webster. There are a few large public areas, such as the Buffurnville Darn
recreation area. The area is characterized by a great deal of vacant
land, ranging from seventy-four percent (including the Lake) in Webster,
to ninety percent in Chariton. Housing in the basin outside of Dudley,
Oxford and Webster is predominantly single-family, although there are a
limited number of apartment complexes. Table 3-32, derived from figures
from the Central Massachusetts Regional Planning Agency and the
Northeastern Connecticut Planning Agency, presents existing and projected
land use.
Leicester is increasingly becoming a bedroom community to
Worcester and most of its new development is expected in areas outside of
the basin. However, within the basin there are few constraints to
residential development.
Charitori remains an agricultural community, but is experiencing a
slow growth in low density residential land use. Such growth is
anticipated to increase. In the basin there is little opportunity for
any other type of urban development because of soil and topographic
constraints and the lack of sewer and water utilities.
Oxford has had a substantial increase in multi—family housing as
well as an increase in single family development, including subdivisions
near the Hodges Village Dam. It is anticipated that Route 52 will
3-89
-------
TABLE 3-31. MUNICIPAL FINANCE
198l FIGURES
Charlton Dudley Leicester Oxford Thompson Webster
Tax rate $12.82 $13.20 $18.75 $22.29 $27.140 $16.79
Per Capita tax levy $214 .0O $216.00 $259.00 $310.00 $328.00 $285.00
Net debt - per capita -- $28.00(1) $25.00 $ 145.00 $3145.00 $555.00
Debt purpose - percent
Schools -— -— -— 79.2 79.3 83.7
Sewer -- 143 -— -- 26.7 10.14
Water -- -- 100 - - -- --
Department Equipment -- 57 -- -— -- 2.14
Other -- -- - - 20.8 -- 3.5
(1) 1983 Figure
SOURCE: Massachusetts Department of Commerce, 19814, except Thompson, Annual Report , 19814.
-------
TABLE 3-32. LAND USE IN FRENCH RIVER STUDY AREA
1980 FIGURES
Chariton Dudley Leicester Oxford Thompson Webster
Area in Square Miles 42.8 21.07 22.70 26.71 46.5 12.53
Land 1.10 0.90 1.82 0.68 1.1 1.97
Total 43.96 21.57 2 4.52 27.39 47.6 14.50
Approximate % in Basin 30 60 60 100 - 100
Density Per Square Mile 157 14114 1437 128 1,156
1975 Land Use:
Residential 677 797 1,183 ,o85 1,805 1,163
Industrial 3145 93 376 360 2148 1614
Commercial 143 146 1414 83 160 96
Industrial 1414 90 75 91 796 64
Streets 1,043 518 5143 709 1,099 639
Other 25,982 12,517 13,472 15,202 3,429 7,154
TOTAL 28,1311 114,061 15,693 17,530 29,760 9,280
1995 Projected Land Use:
Residential 880 1,076 1,420 1,356 1,337
Industrial )483 177 4114 630 199
Commercial 52 53 148 95 101
Industrial 1414 90 75 91 614
Streets 1,130 611 593 1,000 693
Other 25,5 45 12,054 13,1143 114,358 6,886
TOTAL 28,134 114,061 15,693 17,530 9,280
% urbanized 10 16 19 22 26
% vacant 90 8 4 81 78 714
1. Thompson figures are for 1969.
Massachusetts Department of Commerce, 19814
SOURCE: Brown & Donald, 1969
-------
stimulate industrial development. However, there are limitations to
development of much of the vacant land: wetlands, aquifer areas to be
protected or severe topography.
Dudley also is growing as a residential community. Industrial
growth is anticipated in the present industrial area along the French
River. This area is well served with utilities and, except for wetlands
along the river, has little constraint to development.
Webster, the most urbanized community in the basin, has little
potential for development because of severe limitations on vacant land
due to topography and soils. However, developed areas which are served
with utilities can be intensified as facilities are being planning which
will adequately handle such growth. Areas adjacent to the Lake require
careful monitoring because of traffic, intensification of sewage, erosion
and sedimentation. -
Thompson’s urban development is concentrated along both the French
and Quinebaug Rivers. Future residential development is anticipated to
be in subdivisions. There is very little suitable land for urbanization
and for the most part it is outside the basin and outside the area served
by utilities.
Dudley, Oxford and Webster have municipal water systems dependent
on ground water sources. The Water Districts in Leicester and individual
wells in Charlton are similarly dependent.
Archaeological and Historic Resources . A walkover reconnaisance
survey of archeological resources was conducted in the study area in
July, 1985 by the Environmental Archaeology Group. The purpose of the
walkover was to observe the remains of prehistoric or historic sites that
might be visible on the surface and to refine the topographic and
geological information that was initially obtained from maps. This
information is necessary in order to assess the likelyhood that sites
exist on a parcel which are not recorded in the files of the Historical
Coninissions, and to identify and assess the extent of cultural
disturbances of the land surface that ovbiate the need for future
archaeological subsurface testing, should a subsequent stage of
investigation be required.
3—92
-------
All surface observations made during the walkover, including site
location, surface disturbance and modification of the landscape were
recorded in field notes and field maps. Also, soil types were identified
in the field with the aid of soil conservation maps of the region. The
field work also involved close examination of eroded shorelines,
footpaths and roadcuts for exposed subsurface artifacts; examination of
rodent burrows backdirt; examination of the bases of standing trees for
the presence of artifacts cast up to the surface by root growth; and
examination of the root-mat earth of fallen trees that might expose
subsurface artifacts. In addition, numerous suspect surfaces were
lightly scraped with trowels to expose artifacts that might be buried at
shallow depths. The following is a summary of archeological resources in
the study area.
The Buffumville Reservoir area contains a limited variety of
cultural resources. There are 16 stone walls that were constructed along
the shores of the north and south lakes during the nineteenth century.
Other historic resources consist of a possible Federal Period (A.D. 1775
to 1830) mill pond levee or breakwater, a possible Contact Period (A.D.
1500 to 1630) road, and an early twentieth century town boundary marker.
One prehistoric site is known and another is reported on the
shores of the north lake; their surface remains, however, are not evident
at present. Also, there are 33 potential locations of buried prehistoric
sites on the shores of both north and south lakes of Buffumville
Reservoir.
The Perryville Pond area contains a wider variety of historic
cultural resources. These consist of a nineteenth-century stone wall; an
Early Industrial Period (A.D. 1830 to 1870) railroad bed; the ruins of a
late industrial period (A.D. 1870 + 1915) mill and millpond, a late
nineteenth-century bridgehead or breakwater; and a twentieth-century
railroad storage crib. Also, there are nine potential locations of
buried prehistoric sites on the banks of this river impoundment.
The Langer’s Pond study area contains several historic cultural
resources. These consist of another segment of the Industrial Period
3—93
-------
railroad bed; a Late Industrial Period railroad bridge; a mill and
millpond of the same era; a mill flow levee of similar age; and an early
nineteenth century house lot with standing privy. No potential locations
of buried prehistoric sites exist in this sector of the project area.
The North Grosvenordale Pond study area contains a number of
historic cultural resources. Preeminent among these is the early
Industrial Period Textile Mill No. 2 with its millpond dam. This mill
may be eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic
Places. The foundation of a demolished railroad station from the same
period also exists here as does another segment of the railroad bed and a
levee by the railroad embankment. Ten stone walls of the same era are
located in the vicinity. More recent historic resources include a turn.-
of-the-century domestic trash dump and the ruins of an early twentieth-
century Boy Scout Camp. Although no prehistoric sites are evident on the
banks of North Grosvenordale Pond, a 1.5 kilometer length of’ shoreline
contains several potential locations of buried aboriginal sites.
Based on the reconnaissance, the Massachusetts Historical
Commission has requested that prior to initiation of the proposed
remedial activities, “an intensive survey (950 CMR 70) be conducted in
order to locate and identify archaeological properties within the areas
of project impact.” Such an intensive survey would be conducted
concurrent with preparation of’ a Section L O 4 permit application.
Recreational Resources and Uses of the River . The French River
study area has several forest reserves and multi—use recreation areas in
addition to the parks and playgrounds maintained by the individual
communities and the private facilities on Lake Webster. Buffumville Lake
has facilities for boating, fishing, swimming, and picnicking. Hodges
Village Darn has a picnic area, athletic fields and snowmobile trails.
Table 3-33 presents the existing uses of the French River and its
adjacent lands. Use of the River in Leicester is primarily limited to
wildlife habitat. In Oxford/Charlton, there are large areas of privately
held and public open space, especially around Hodges Village Darn and
Buffuinville Lake. These impoundments, designed as flood control
structures, provide ample opportunity for recreational use of the river,
3_914
-------
TABLE 3-33. EXISTING USES OF THE
FRENCH RIVER AND IMPOUNDMENTS
River Segment Use
Leicester wildlife habitat
Oxford/Charlton industrial processing
boating
picnicking
hiking
hydro-electric power
water skiing
wildlife habitat
Dudley/Webster industrial processing
boating
hydroelectric power
wildlife habitat
Thompson industrial cooling
boating
wildlife habitat
with picnicking, fishing, and hiking trails at both facilities as well as
boating, water skiing, swimming and fishing at Buffumville and hunting,
snowmobile trails and athletic fields at Hodges Village. The Buffumville site
attracts over 6,OOO visitors a year. Trends show that the park is becoming
attractive more for its passive recreational opportunities than its active
recreation.
There is some recreational use of the river for canoeing in Oxford and
Dudley/Webster, however, it is limited due to the river’s water quality, the
barriers presented by the dams, and the presence of the wastewater treatment
plants. There is use of the river for industrial processing and hydroelectric
power in this area.
In Thompson, land adjacent to the river is primarily vacant. This
portion of the river is little used for recreation due to problems of access
and water quality. Rail lines encroach upon two of’ the impoundments and
adjacent land is primarily in private ownership. The dams act as barriers to
free use of the river for boating. Moreover, wastewater treatment plants
approximately one mile upstream in Dudley and Webster act to deter intense
3—95
-------
recreational use of the river. There is some use for industrial cooling
and hydroelectric power. Table 3—3k presents, in matrix form, the desired and
designated uses for the French River and factors restricting implementation of
these uses. The desired uses for the river as it flows through Thompson were
derived from the Thompson Plan of development, Northern Connecticut Regional
Planning Agency reports, the French River/Oxoboro River Impoundments Study,
Connecticut State Water Quality Standards, and discussions with local
officials. The desired uses for the remaining segments were derived from
Massachusetts State Water Quality Standards, reports of the Central
Massachusetts Regional Planning Commission, Town plans, and discussion with
local officials.
State water quality standards call for the River to meet Class B water
quality in both States. A Class B quality level would permit the use of the
river for fish, aquatic life and wildlife habitat; primary contract recreation
(e.g., swimming, water skiing); secondary contact recreation (e.g., boating,
fishing); agricultural uses; certain industrial processes and cooling; and
aesthetic enjoyment.
Local and regional plans stress use of the French river for
recreational purposes. The 1969 Charlton Master Plan called for setting aside
areas around the Buffumville reservoir and along the Little River for open
space and recreation. The Thompson plan of development, 1970, called for
expansion of open space along the River and upgrading of swimming
opportunities at North Grosvenordale.
The Central Massachusetts Regional Planning Commission (CMRPC) report,
Regional Open Space and Recreation Plan (1972), assessed regional open space
and recreation needs. The Plan recommended a series of regional recreational
areas serving more than one community and gave high priority to preservation
of land along the river through Leicester and Oxford and into Webster. The
Plan also gave high priority to preservation of open space along the
Buffumville Reservoir. A recommendation for the acquisition of, or the
purchase of, easements to land along the river was included along with plans
for establishment of walking trails.
3—96
-------
TAIL.I 3-34 • F TOSS IIIICTLJC £TTA1Ii 1 OP SIUD
- — — SZONA1 U OP 1 ? “ I IflR
Factor
k.trlcting Mtainsent
Availability
!ii.ting Alternative
Water ual1ty Cost Parking Facilities
of
Nearby
UtiIttles/
Facilities
Physical
Factors
River Seg..nt Use k cesa
Leicester bikini o .
svi in$ 0 0 S
boatIng 0 o
fishing o S
agricultural mis o
industrial pro-
cessing/cool log o
habitat
aesthetic value S
Oil ord/chari to. hIking 0 0
.vio.ifl$ 0 0
bosting o o • 0
fishing 0 0 S
agricultural uu.5 0
industrial pro-
cess laglcool lug 0
habitat
aesthetic value
Dudley/ bster hiking
svi lng S S •
boating S . S •
fishing
agricultural usia
industrial pro-
cess ing/cool log
habitat
aesthetic lu. S
Tho.pson hikIng 5 5 S S S
•vi iflg S
boating S
fishing S S
agricultural uaei S S
industrial pro-
cess Ing/cool ing
habitat S
aesthtic value S
S. severely restricts attainment of desired/designated use
o — say restrict attaiint of desired/designated use
-------
The Northern Connecticut Regional Planning Agency (NCRPA) report, Open
Space and Recreation , studied the regional open space and recreation needs for
northeastern Connecticut. The Plan recommended that each town in the region
provide balifields, tennis courts, municipal swimming pools, public golf
courses, and other recreational opportunities for their residents. Further,
it noted that the Town of Thompson required a 39.5 percent expansion in open
space.
The NCRPA also studied the recreational potential of North
Grosvenordale Pond and Langer’s Pond. The 1980 study analyzed existing
recreation needs for the areas surrounding the ponds and assessed the
potential of the pond to meet these needs. The study determined that public
access to the ponds was almost non-existent: the land surrounding Langer’s
Pond was divided into several privately owned parcels and road access was
restricted to one entrance point (NCRPA, -1980). Land around North
Grosvenordale Pond was also in private ownership; however, most of the land on
the western side was in the hands of a single owner and road access was not as
restricted as that to Langer’s Pond. (RPA, 1982). The study recommended a
three phase plan to improve recreation at North Grosvenordale Pond. Phase
one would involve low cost actions (installation of picnic tables, hiking
trails) while phase two would involve improving access and installing higher
cost facilities: the final phase would involve improving water quality
(dredging sludges) and installing additional facilities (NCRPA, 1980).
A Master Plan for Recreation Resources Development was produced by the
Army Corps of Engineers for Hodges Village Dam in 1980. The plan notes that
the Dam, originally conceived solely for flood control purposes, has evolved
from an undeveloped natural habitat surrounded by a rural town into a multi-
use recreation and flood control facility and suburban community park
providing numerous recreation opportunities as well as flood protection. The
plan recommended the construction of two multiuse courts, a softball field, a
soccer field, a basketball court, 10 picnic sites, access road relocation,
paved parking areas, a utility building, playground and landscaping as well as
the development of trails between the Greenbriar Recreation area and Hodges
Village Dam.
3-98
-------
The Army Corps of Engineers developed a Master Plan for Recreation
Resources Development at Buffumville Reservoir in 1976. The plan recommended
construction of foot trails, upgrading and expansion of picnicking facilities,
regrading of the beach bottom, improvement of boat ramps, and the restriction
of access to certain environmentally sensitive areas. The plan also noted a
shift from use of the reservoirs for active recreational opportunities
(swimming, boating, and fishing) to its passive recreation opportunities
(picnicking and sightseeing).
At present, the significant factors limiting attainment of desired or
designated uses in the French River are access problems, existing water
quality, parking, and availability of nearby alternative facilities. Also
important are cost and physical factors.
Access to the river is limited because much of the land is in private
ownership or committed to use. This may not pose a serious problem in
Leicester, Chariton and Oxford where there is considerable open space along
the river, but much of the land along the river in Dudley and Webster has been
committed to urban uses. In Thompson, much of the land along the river is
held in small, privately owned parcels and there are few points of entry; a
rail line encroachs on frontage along two impoundments and road access is
poor.
Parking as a limiting factor is related to the issue of access. To
permit enjoyment of the river, parking must be provided. However, with much
of the land in private ownership or committed to use, it is difficult to
provide adequate parking facilities.
The existing water quality does not significantly impact use of the
river in Leicester, Oxford or Chariton. Water quality does, however, limit
use of the river for swimming, boating and fishing in Dudley, Webster, and
Thompson. It also impacts the ability of that portion of the river to support
fish and aquatic wildlife, as well as the river’s aesthetic appeal.
Cost as a limiting factor relates to acquisition and development costs
for enjoyment of the desired or designated use. Trails would have to be
cleared for hikers and launching ramps constructed for boaters. Presently,
there are limited facilities for boaters.
3-99
-------
The availability of nearby alternative facilities also affects use of
the river for desired or designated uses. There are alternative facilities
available in both States. In Massachusetts, Lake Webster provides swimming,
picnicking and fishing opportunities. In Connecticut, the Quinebaug River
provides an alternative to the French River. In addition, there are numerous
lakes and ponds in the region.
Physical factors limiting the use of the river are water depth, river
width, and the dams. The depth and width of the river as it flows through
Leicester and north Oxford does not easily permit its use for swimming and
boating. The shallow depth and mucky bottom of the impoundments in Dudley,
Webster and Thompson limit the recreational use of this portion of the river,
and its ability to support fish and wildlife. The darns, to some extent, act
as barriers to boating.
The Army Corps of Engineers has granted a license to the Massachusetts
Division of Fisheries and Game to manage the Hodges Village Darn and Reservoir
site for fish and wildlife purposes through October, 1987. The license does
not exclude use of the site for the desired recreation listed above, but
it does stipulate that the water and land use at the site must be approved by
the Department of the Interior, the Corps of Engineers and the state wetlands
agency. The license permits the State to construct necessary facilities, but
does not permit it to charge the public for use of the reservoir for swimming,
bathing, fishing and “other recreational purposes”.
The Corps has also licensed management of Buffurnville Reservoir to the
Department of Environmental Management for a public park, recreation, fish and
wildlife management, and forest management. The license runs through June
of 1989. As with the Hodges Village license, the license does not exclude use
of the site for the desired recreation listed above, but it does stipulate
that use of the site must be approved by the Department of the Interior, the
Corps of Engineers and the state wetlands agency. All uses must be developed
in accordance with the Master Plan for the site (see above) and cannot
adversely impact on resources in the site.
3-100
-------
Institutional and Regulatory Framework
Any alternative implemented for cleanup of the French River must be in
conformance with applicable local, regional, state and federal plans, laws and
regulations. A brief discussion of applicable regulatory constraints is
presented below.
Town Plans . Except for the Town of Oxford, local master plans are
either non-existent or outdated. The Leicester Master Plan was prepared in
1971 and recommended maintenance of the Town’s suburban residential
character. The future land use and development plan called for the Town to
predominantly rural and low density residential with a generous amount of
recreation and open space, predominantly in the northern part of the Town.
The Plan has not been revised.
The Charlton Comprehensive Plan, prepared in 1969, was never officially
adopted or presented to the Town by the Planning Board. The Plan called for,
among other items, the adoption of strict development standards and
preservation of natural resources. The future land use plan called for public
open space and recreation along Pikes Pond, the Little River and the
Buffuinville Reservoir. The Plan has not been updated.
The Oxford Land Use and Development Plan, 1985, the only up-to-date
plan in effect, suggests that the Town contains much environmentally sensitive
land which requires protection from poorly designed development. The plan
recommends adoption of land use controls to protect the aquifer beneath the
French River along with Scarappa Pond for sources of freshwater. The future
land use plan recommends a conservation district in flood control areas.
The Thompson Plan of Development, prepared in 1970, recommended
expansion of the open space along the French River and upgrading of the
swimming area in North Grosvenordale. Master plans for the remaining towns
were not available.
Town Zoning and Land Use Bylaws . Town land use bylaws will be relevant
to the extent that they regulate development along the river and its
impoundments and to the degree that they control the potential dredging and
deposition of materials from the impoundments. Each community in the study
has adopted zoning to varying extents, however, local zoning will not affect
implementation of alternatives under consideration.
3—101
-------
In addition to zoning bylaws, municipalities within the basin have
adopted other land use control bylaws. Thompson has adopted an Aquifer
Protection Program to protect present or potential sources of municipal water
supply and primary and secondary recharge areas. The Program prohibits the
large scale use and/or storage of hazardous materials and the disposal of
industrial or commercial effluent into surface or ground water without the
necessary permits from the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP). Once the necessary DEP permits are issued, the applicant must apply
for a special permit and submit a site plan and report to the Town Planning
and Zoning Commission detailing the amount and composition of industrial or
commercial wastes and proposed method of disposal and/or the amount and
composition of hazardous materials to be handled, transported, stored or
discharged to the air or to the ground at the site. The Commission has sixty-
five days in which to approve, modify or deny the site plan.
Thompson has also adopted the State law requiring a sediment and
erosion control plan for all projects disturbing more than one-half acre of
land, except for single family dwellings not within a subdivision.
Town Wetlands and Floodplains Restrictions . Leicester has adopted a
wetlands bylaw similar to the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act. It
regulates by permit the removal, filling, dredging or alteration of any area
within one-hundred feet from any stream, pond or land under said waters, or
any land subject to flooding. The bylaw is administered by the Conservation
Commission, which is empowered, by a 2/3 vote, to deny any permit.
Thompson has adopted regulations to administer the Connecticut wetlands
law. The regulations, administered by the Conservation Commission, permit
among other uses grazing; farming; nurseries; residences; boat
anchorages/moorings; dams and impoundments operated by water companies and
municipal water supply systems; soil and wildlife conservation; and
recreation. Other uses which involve the removal and/or deposition of
material, and construction within, or the alteration and pollution of inland
wetlands and water courses require a permit from the Commission. Persons
proposing any use within a wetlands or water course must submit information on
the type and location of activity and its purpose. The Commission then
determines if it is permitted or regulated; if the action is a permitted use,
3-102
-------
it may proceed. If the action is a regulated use with no significant impact,
a public hearing may be held and the Commission may permit it to proceed with
conditions. If the regulated use will have a significant impact, the
Commission must request additional information including a site plan and
biological evaluation; a public hearing is held between thirty and sixty-five
days of submittal of the application and a permit is either approved with
conditions or denied. Appeals may be brought before the Court of Common Pleas
for Windham County. The State Commissioner of Environmental Protection
retains regulating jurisdiction over the construction and modification of
dams, the construction or placement of any obstruction within navigable
waters, and discharges into waters of the State, among other activities.
All municipalities along the river have adopted floodplain zoning to
varying degrees. Some communities have enacted separate ordinances, other
have merely included floodplain protection in their zoning by reference to the
Federal Flood Insurance Studies. The floodplain extends to varying widths
along both sides of the entire length of the river. Local floodplain
ordinances restrict development within the flood plain primarily to uses that
will not call for sustained human occupancy and require permitted development
to be constructed to flood proof standards.
Riparian Rights . Important at the local level is the doctrine of
riparian rights which relates to the water rights of land owners abutting a
body of water. Each owner (riparian) has a co-equal right to reasonable use
of an indefinite quantity of water, even if such use results in alteration of
quantity or quality (MacGregor, 1981); riparians do not have ownership rights
to the water (Beuscher, 1967). The concept of “reasonable use” depends on
many factors, (e.g., size of the river, water velocity, importance of use)
(MacGregor, 1981). Riparian issues are important locally in regard to
hydroelectric power plants along the river and to the landowners abutting the
proposed cleanup areas.
Water Quality Plans and Regulations . The Areawide Water Quality
Management Plan , prepared by the Central Massachusetts Regional Planning
Commission (CMRPC) in 1979, addressed water quality issues and provided
recommendations for improving water quality in those French River Basin
communities in Massachusetts. In general, the Plan recommended that
3-103
-------
communities revise their subdivision bylaws to control stormwater runoff and
implement sewer maintenance programs. The Plan also recommended that there be
a study to determine if dredging and/or removal of sediments in Perryville
Pond is warranted.
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 and
subsequent amendments of 1977, (also known as the Clean Water Act) set a
national goal of elimination of discharge of pollutants into navigable waters
by 1985. An interim goal of water quality which provides for the protection
and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation
in and on the water was to be achieved by July 1, 1983. In order to achieve
these goals, the act stipulated that “publicly owned treatment works” were to
achieve secondary treatment, as defined by the Administrator of’ the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), by July 1, 1977. It was further
stipulated that such works were to achieve “best practicable waste treatment
technology,” as defined by the EPA, by July 1, 1983.
In addition to the above “effluent guideline” limitations, the Clean
Water Act recognizes a need for more stringent effluent limitations on
discharges into some bodies of water in order to preserve or improve their
quality. These “water quality” limitations are set by the states for
individual stream segments, based on careful study of the stream segment
affected, and are subject to public review and approval by the EPA.
The MDWPC, in conjunction with the EPA, has established that the French
River is water quality limited. That is, advanced wastewater treatment must
be provided to wastewaters discharged to the river.
Accordingly, the wastewaters which are discharged from Webster and
Dudley must conform to the effluent limitations set by MDWPC and approved by
the EPA for the French River. These limitations have been established in the
form of NPDES permits issued to the two towns. The effluent limitations in
the Webster permit and the Dudley permit, as discussed in the point source
discharges section of this report, are identical. Each permit assumes that
joint advanced secondary treatment, in conjunction with low flow augmentation,
will be implemented, resulting in a discharge at only one of the existing
plant sites.
3—1O’
-------
Massachusetts Laws and Regulations . The Massachusetts General laws
relating to potential water quality improvement alternatives under
investigation are lengthy and involve complicated administrative procedures.
The Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), Chapter 30, Section
61, MGL, is administered by the MEPA Unit in the Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs (EOEA). The Act requires the examination of
environmental impacts of State actions, broadly defined to include permits,
approvals and funding, in the form of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Proponents of projects requiring State action submit an Environmental
Notification Form (ENF) to the MEPA Unit for publishing in the Environmental
Monitor which is circulated to a number of State agencies and-,- upon request,
to the public. A twenty dày comment period is observed. Within thirty days
of publishing, the Commissioner of EOEA reviews the proposal and site plans
and determines if an EIR i-s required. If an EIR is required, the Commissioner
will issue a scope, identifying issues to be addressed in the EIR. A Draft
EIR is prepared and circulated for comments. These comments are addressed in
a Final EIR. Where a Federal Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is
required, the EIS may be substituted for the EIR.
Not all State actions require the preparation of an EIR; some actions
are categorically excluded. Projects involving any of the following aspects
will require the preparation of an EIR: dredging or disposal of more than
10,000 cubic yards of material; licenses for the structural alteration of dams
to effect; more than a 20 percent increase/decrease in impoundment capacity;
filling, dredging, constructing, rip-rapping or direct alteration of more than
500 feet of waterway bank; any landfill within a half-mile of a public ground
water supply or within the watershed of a public surface water supply; any new
nonresidential construction project entailing direct alteration of more than
fifty acres of land; any project requiring of alteration of ten or more acres
of land subject to Ch. 131, Sect. 40, (The Wetlands Protection Act; see
below); stream channelization or relocation of two-thousand feet or more; new
impoundments of one billion gallons or more; sites for disposal of hazardous
wastes.
The Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, Chapter 131, Section 110,
MGL, regulates any activity, including draining, dredging, dumping, damming,
3-105
-------
discharging, excavating, filling or grading in or within one hundred feet (the
buffer zone) of an inland or coastal wetland. The Act is administered locally
by the municipal conservation commission, and at the State level by the
Division of Wetlands Protection in the Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering (DEQE). Project proponents must file for all local permits before
submitting a Notice of Intent (NOl) with the Conservation Commission. An
abbreviated NOl is available if the project is within the buffer zone or land
subject to flooding, will disturb less than one thousand square feet of
surface area, and will not require U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or DEQE
Division of Waterways permits. A public hearing is held within twenty-one
days of submittal, after which, the Conservation Commission has an additional
twenty-one days in which to issue, issue with an Order of Conditions (Order),
or deny a permit. The Conservation Commission may issue an order for a
project resulting in a loss of up to five thousand square feet of bordering
vegetated wetlands if the wetlands is replaced. Appeals from a Conservation
Commission action are brought to DEQE.
For projects involving an overriding community need and for which there
are no reasonable conditions or alternatives that would allow the project to
proceed, and which include mitigating measures, the Commissioner of DEQE may
issue a variance after an adjudicatory hearing. The request for variance must
be sent by certified mail to the Commissioner along with information
describing the project and alternatives, a description of’ mitigating measures,
and evidence of overriding public interest. The Commissioner must act within
twenty—one days of receipt of the request.
The Massachusetts Clean Water-Act, Chapter 21, Sections 26-53 MGL, is
administered by the Division of Water Pollution Control in DEQE. The Act
regulates water quality through a multi-faceted regulatory process of water
quality standards, effluent limitations, and permits. The French River has
been classified as Class B and designated for use for propogation of fish and
wildlife and primary and secondary recreation. To achieve! maintain this
standard, the Act establishes effluent limitations and requires a National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for discharge of’
pollutants into waters of the Commonwealth. Both “discharge” and “pollutants”
are defined broadly enough to cover almost all type of activity and material,
3—106
-------
however, discharges of dredged or fill material otherwise regulated under
Section LIO1 of’ the Federal Clean Water Act are exempt. Project proponents
must file with the State and EPA. The approval process is lengthy and
complicated.
The Waterways License and Permit Program, Chapter 91, Section 12-23
MGL, regulates construction, dredging and filling in rivers and streams for
which public funds have been expended. The Program is administered by the
Division of Waterways within DEQE. Project proponents submit an
application and a plan stamped and signed by a professional engineer or land
surveyor registered in Massachusetts after obtaining an Order of Conditions in
relation to the Wetlands Protection Act. Public notice must be given and a
hearing may be held at the discretion of DEQE. The license must be recorded
in the Registry of Deeds and a license from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
is required before -construction may begin. After construction is complete, a
Certificate of Compliance is issued.
The collection, transportation, storage, treatment, use or disposal of’
hazardous waste requires a license from the Division of Hazardous Waste in
DEQE (Chapter 2lc MGL). Project proponents seeking to transport hazardous
waste material must file for a temporary generator permit and transportation
of the materials must be handled by a State licensed transporter. Disposal
plans must be approved by the Division engineers and site assignment must be
approved by the local board of health (Chapter 11, Section 150B). However, if
the material is moved around •on the same site (broadly defined in the State
Law to include the same community), the State hazardous waste regulations do
not apply. If the material is found not to contain designated hazardous
material, but does contain potentially hazardous material, the wastes must be
dewatered and a plan of disposal submitted for approval. Detailed records
must be kept.
Chapter 111, Section 150A regulates the disposal of wastes in sanitary
landfills and gives local boards of health site designation authority for
privately owned/operated facilities; DEQE is given site designation authority
for facilities owned/operated by an agency of the landfill facilities cannot
be located in wetlands, floodplains or areas subject to flooding, unless the
facility will not significantly affect the flood storage capacity of the area,
3-107
-------
there is no other site available, and the use of wetlands is insignificant.
Owners of landfills must pay a disposal fee to the municipality in which the
facility is located at a rate of fifty cents per ton of waste from outside the
municipality in which it is located. Facility plans and designs are subject
to approval by DEQE after a public hearing. Disposal areas must be covered
daily and debris and fire hazards controlled.
Connecticut General Laws and Regulations . Connecticut laws relating to
the water quality improvement alternatives under investigation are found
primarily in Title 22A of the Connecticut General Statutes.
Section 207 of Title 22A regulates the construction and operation of
solid waste disposal areas. Facility plans and designs must be filed with and
approved by the Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP) before a permit to construct or a permit to operate can be issued.
Notice of an application for such a permit is published in a local newspaper
and a public comment period of thirty days is observed, after which a public
hearing may be held. A closure plan must be filed and approved. There must
be a 60 inch clearance between the base of the disposal area and the maximum
high groundwater level or bedrock. A groundwater monitoring system must be
installed and water quality cannot be impaired. Hazardous wastes cannot be
disposed of in a solid waste disposal area.
Under the authority of Section 31 2 of Title 22A, the Commissioner of
DEP is empowered to establish stream encroachment lines along inland waterways
and flood prone areas considered for stream clearance, channel improvement or
any form of flood control/flood alleviation measure. No encroachment or
obstruction is permitted beyond these lines without a permit from the Water
Resources Division of DEP. Permits are issued only after review of the
project’s effect on the flood carrying and water storage capacity of the
waterway and flood plains, hazards to life and property, and the protection
and preservation of the natural resources and ecosystems of the area. Stream
encroachment lines have been set for the French River in Thompson south of the
North Grosvenordale improvement between Sunset Hill Brook and the Cluett
Peabody Dam.
3—108
-------
Section 361 of Title 22A regulates the erection of structures and
incidental work within navigable waters of the State. The law prohibits the
erection of structures, the placement of encroachments, and dredging without a
permit from DEP. The DEP may place conditions upon said permit.
The Connecticut Water Pollution Control Act, Section 14l6 k7l of Title
22A, is administered by the Water Compliance Unit in DEP and regulates water
quality in the waters of the State. It establishes water quality standards
and criteria. The French River, as in Massachusetts, is classified as Class B
and designated for bathing and other recreation, agricultural uses, industrial
processes, fish and wildlife habitat, and is expected to provide good
aesthetic value. The Act requires a permit for new discharges of water,
substance or material into the waters of the State. Notice of applications
for such a permits is published in a local newspaper and a thirty day comment
period is observed before the Commissioner of DEP may act. A permit may be
approved, disapproved with conditions, or denied.
Chapter ‘440 (Section 36) of Title 22A regulates development in or near
wetlands. This section is administered at the State level by DEE ’ and locally
by municipal conservation commissions, and is discussed above.
The State has received authority to administer the Federal hazardous
waste laws and has delegated that authority to DEE’. The State Hazardous Waste
Management Regulations, Title 25—54cc(c), establishes a manifest system with
detailed record keeping requirements and requires compliance with hazardous
waste facility standards and permit requirements by generators who treat,
dispose of, or store wastes on-site for 90 days or more. Hazardous wastes
must be treated at a facility with a valid permit. No permit is required for
onsite accumulation of wastes for 90 calendar days or less, but packaging,
storage and inspection requirements must be met. Transportation of hazardous
wastes must be by licensed transporters. Owners or operators of new
facilities must file a groundwater monitoring plan with the permit application
and a closure plan must be prepared for approval by the Commissioner of DEP.
Section l4la of Title 26 of the Connecticut General Statutes relate to
minimum flow standards for certain rivers and streams and is administered by
DEP.
3-109
-------
A bill has been filed in the Connecticut legislature to provide for the
dredging of the North Grosvenordale and Wilsonville impoundments in
Thompson. The work is contingent upon completion of wastewater treatment
facilities in Dudley and Webster.
Federal Laws . At the Federal level, laws relevant to the alternatives
under investigation are administered primarily by the Army Corps of Engineers
(ACE) and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Under the authority of Section
4O 4 of the Clean Water Act, ACE issues permits that control the discharge of
dredged and fill material into waters of the United States and their adjacent
wetlands. Under Section 014, the impact of dredge and fill projects must be
evaluated in terms of the public interest, including such factors as flood
control, navigation, recreation, water supply and environmental and
socioeconomic concerns.
Executive Order 11988 and Executive Order 11990 signed by President
Carter in 1977 control development in floodplains and wetlands, respectively,
by requiring a written justification for all Federal projects including a
s7atement that the action conforms to applicable state/local flood plain and
wetland standards. All avoidable and significant impacts must be addressed
through mitigation measures; only unavoidable and insignificant impacts are
permitted. Executive Orders are directives issued by the President to Federal
agencies.
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act gives the F&WS review status
when the waters of any stream or other body of water are proposed or
authorized to be impounded, diverted, deepened or otherwise controlled or
modified. Under the Act, any person may request a public hearing.
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) protects and maintains
buildings, sites, districts, structures and objects of local, state or
national significance in American history, architecture, archaeology and
culture. In order to be protected by this act, the site or structure must be
registered in the National Register of historic places. Under Section 106 of
the NHPA, a federal agency is responsible for identifying National Register
properties and for assessing the impact of any federal action on them.
3—110
-------
The Archaeological Resources Protection Act protects archeological
resources and sites which are on public lands and indian lands. Under this
act an individual must apply to the Federal land manager for a permit to
excavate or remove any archeological resource located on public lands or
Indians lands and to carry out activities associated with such excavation or
removal.
The ‘Endangered Species Act provides a means of conserving species of
fish, wildlife and plants which are threatened with extinction and the
ecosystems upon which these species depend. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service has jurisdiction and responsibility for terrestial and fresh water
species. Section 7(a) of the Act requires Federal agencies such as EPA to
ensure that actions they authorize, fund or carry out are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of endangered or threatened species.
3—ill
-------
Chapter 4
-------
CHAPTER 14
IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES
Introduction
After an initial screening of proposed water quality improvement
alternatives for the French River, four of these options were selected
and studied in further detail (see Chapter 2). These alternatives, all
of which assume advanced wastewater treatment at the proposed Webster-
Dudley treatment facility, are: 1) no action; 2) low flow augmentation at
Buffuinville Lake; 3) sediment control at Perryville, Wilsonville and
North Grosvenordale impoundments; and 14) inatream aeration at Perryville,
Wilsonville, and North Grosvenordale impoundments.
Various impacts of these improvement alternatives were examined
during the conduct of this supplemental EIS. Each of these alternatives
is expected to have a long-term positive impact on dissolved oxygen
concentrations in the French River. Some alternatives may not
significantly improve overall water quality, however, and others may
exert a short-term negative impact on water quality during the
introductory stages of implementation. While decreased toxics and
sediment oxygen demand would impact biological communities positively,
the implementation of these improvement alternatives may also exert
negative biological impacts such as loss of habitat due to excavation or,
in some cases, continued poor water quality. Other areas of impact
include socioeconomic, historic and archaeological, and recreational
resources.
Impacts of the No Action Alternative
General . At the time of preparation of this supplemental EIS, a
facilities plan for advanced wastewater treatment at a consolidated
Webster-Dudley treatment plant has been accepted by the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts and EPA. The towns of Webster and Dudley will regionalize
their treatment facilities, as this was determined to be the most cost-
effective means to provide advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) to both
14—1
-------
towns. Thus, the water quality improvement alternative of No Action
assumes implementation of advanced wastewater treatment at Webster-
Dudley. The NPDES permit for the Webster-Dudley WWTP will set limits of
145 to 6 mgd for monthly average flow, 10 mg/l for average BOD 5 , 2 mg/l
for average NH 3 —N and 6 mg/i for dissolved oxygen. While it is expected
to substantially improve water quality in the river, the No Action
improvement alternative of advanced wastewater treatment will not be
sufficient for dissolved oxygen levels in certain portions of the river
to comply with the Class B water quality criterion of 5.0 mg/l during
conditions of 7Q10 low flow and zero net photosynthetic oxygen
production.
Water Quality Impacts of No Action . The same base condition was
used in the analysis of each improvement alternative. Assumptions used
in establishing this base case include advanced wastewater treatment at
Webster-Dudley, and the conservative scenario of zero net photosynthetic
oxygen production occurring during 7QTO low flow in the French River of
114.8 cfs. Although oxygen produced during photosynthesis is usually a
net positive result, the base case assumes that there will only be enough
sunlight available for oxygen production to offset oxygen depletion due
to respiration at night.
For evaluation of the No Action alternative, the conditions of
advanced wastewater treatment, zero photosynthetic oxygen production and
1Q10 low flow were compared to the same situation but with existing
treatment rather than advanced wastewater treatment. The existing
treatment conditions are based on the 1982 MDWPC monitoring survey, and
do not include the sludge discharge (currently being eliminated at
Webster). As presented in Figure 14-1, during 1Q10 low flow and zero
photosynthetic oxygen production, existing treatment is not sufficient to
maintain the dissolved oxygen concentration above the water quality
criterion of 5.0 mg/i. Dissolved oxygen concentrations decrease to less
than 2.0 mg/i upstream of the Perryville impoundment. The river water is
then reaerated as it falls over the impoundment. Dissolved oxygen
consequently increases to 14.0 mg/i and remains constant for about one
mile. Upstream of the Wilsonville dam at Langer’s Pond, dissolved oxygen
-------
I
28 24
20
FIG. 4-1 SENSITIVITY OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN TO ADVANCED WASTEWATER
TREATMENT UNDER LOW FLOW (7Q10) CONDITIONS
MASSACHUSETTS
CONNECTICUT
16
14
-I
z
C,
0
0
w
>
-
0
0
14
13
12
11
10
9
$
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
S
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
7
— — — — — — WITH AWT (BASE CASE)
S
5
EXISTING TREATMENT
4
3
RIVER MILE
16
12
2
S
1
4
0
0
-------
sharply decreases again to 1.0 mg/i. Once more, it is reaerated as the
water travels over the dam but then drops to zero mg/i in North
Grosvenordale Pond. No dissolved oxygen is present in the water until it
falls over the North Grosvenordale dam and again becomes aerated.
Advanced wastewater treatment at the Webster-Dudley treatment
facility would increase the dissolved oxygen concentration downstream of
the plant by approximately 0.75 to 2.5 mg/i. Average improvement would
be an increase of about 1.0 mg/i in dissolved oxygen. Despite these
improvements, dissolved oxygen levels during low flow would still violate
state water quality standards (5.0 mg/i) in the downstream portions of
the river except at the Perryville and Wilsonville dams and for about one
mile downstream of the Perryville dam. Violations of the dissolved
oxygen óriteria occur at Perryville and Langer’s Ponds, where dissolved
oxygen is 3.5 mg/i (up from 4.5 to 2.0 mg/l without advanced wastewater
treatment), and at North Grosvenordale Pond which has dissolved oxygen at
1.0 mg/i, (up from zero oxygen dissolved in the water without advanced
wastewater treatment).
An overall improvement in water quality would be expected with the
introduction of advanced wastewater treatment at the Webster-Dudley
treatment facility. Nutrient and BOD concentrations would be lower as a
result of decreased wastewater impacts on the French River. Solids loads
to the river will be substantially reduced with the elimination of’ sludge
discharges in the ininediate future, and overall aesthetics of the river
will be enhanced.
Biological Impacts of No Action . Following the assumptions stated
above in the water quality impacts section, the evaluation of biological
impacts of the No Action alternative focuses on the ex isting conditions
as more fully described in Chapter 3.
Phytoplankton populations in the French River are not expected to
be significantly altered by the No Action Alternative. Although the
nutrient input from the treatment plants will be substantially reduced,
the impounded sediments probably would act as a continuing source of
excess nutrients.
-------
Wetlands, especially the emergent macrophyte wetlands, would also
remain generally unchanged as a result of the No Action alternative. The
growth in areal extent of wetlands, due to increased sedimentation, is
part of the natural ecological successional process. The rate at which
the process occurs is controlled by a variety of factors. While
historical data document problems associated with increased siltation and
sediment transport, the existing conditions are relatively stable.
Consequently, the areal extent of wetlands in the river would not be
expected to change drastically.
Under the No Action alternative, the opportunity exists for
continued bioconcentration of contaminants from the impounded sediments
into the wetland plants. The predominant growth of the root/rhyzome mat
of the emergent macrophytes, including Typha latifolia, provides an
opportunity for the uptake and bioconcentration of the contaminants in
the sediments (previously described in Chapter 3). Through seasonal
production and ultimate transport of the resultant detritus, the
opportunity exists for continued trophic magnification of the
contaminants through the wetlands food webs.
The benthic macroinvertebrate population downstream of the
Webster-Dudley discharges would benefit, to a minor extent, by the No
Action alternative. Water quality improvements associated with AWT and
elimination of sludge discharges could enhance the diversity of’ the
benthic community, as organisms less tolerant of extremely low DO
concentrations would be better able to survive and reproduce. However,
the sediments which they inhabit would continue to exert a high oxygen
demand. Density of’ the organisms could actually decrease, as a result of
reduced organic “food” input to the riverine system. Also, the potential
for bioaccumulation from contaminated sediments would remain.
Since most of the fish of the area are dependent not only on the
quality of the habitat cover type but also on other food (invertebrates,
vertebrates, and detritus) available, similar impacts would be expected
in the impoverished fisheries stocks that exist along the lower part of
the river. Improved water quality would enhance the diversity of the
fish, but the continued presence of contaminated sediments would impair
the health of the organisms.
)4_5
-------
Wildlife and waterfowl use of the downstream impoundments would
probably remain unchanged with the No Action alternative, as their
wetland habitat would not be altered. The existing limitations in the
quality of the water and sediment would limit the ecological health and
diversity of the resident fauna in the waters of the river, and would
also continue to potentially impair the diverse migratory waterfowl use
of the areas.
Socioeconomic Impacts of No Action . Significant economic impacts
on both the residents and the industries in the service area would occur
as a result of No Action alternative, as associated with the construction
and operation of the advanced treatment facility at Webster-Dudley.
These costs are summarized in Table l _1. As discussed in the Facilities
Plan, the financing of the upgraded plant would come from the local
residents and industries, and State and Federal Construction Grants.
Other socioeconomic impacts associated with AWT were also addressed in
the Facilities Plan.
Impacts of Mo Action on Recreational Resources and Use
Attainability . The No Action alternative would have no impact on
existing recreational activities or other uses of the river upstream of
the Webster/Dudley Treatment Plant. Further, there would be no
significant impacts on existing uses downstream of the plant. Over the
long term, water quality downstream would improve as a result of upgraded
treatment. Sedimentation from discharges previously made directly to the
river would be discontinued in the preliminary stages of’ upgrading,
although sediments already deposited would remain and continue to degrade
water quality.
Consequently, the ability of the river to provide habitat for fish
and wildlife and to permit boating use would continue to be limited.
Swinnning and fishing opportunities would not improve because of the
deposited sediments, the poor image for recreation at Perryville and
Langer’s Pond, and the limited fishing stock. Hiking along the river
would continue to be restricted by lack of access.
-------
TABLE 14 1. WEBSTER/DUDLEY ADVANCED WASTEWATER TREATMENT
ESTIMATED AVERAGE A JN1JAL COST
(DOLLARS/YR) a)
Webster Dudley
Residential Industrial Residential Industrial
Added Debt Service 50,900 61,1400 27,000 10,500
for the recommended
Plan
Current Debt Service 20,700 25,000 11,000 4,300
Total Debt Service 71,600 86,400 38,000 114,800
O&M 3142,500 642,000 138,500 122,000
Total Cost 4114,100 728, 400 176,500 136,800
Estimated Cost
Per Household
Sewered 91 92
Unsewered 21 17
a. All costs are in 19814 dollars. All costs are average costs over the 20 year
planning period.
b. Based on 20 year bond at 9 1/2% interest.
c. Based on the average number of households served during the 20 year planning
period — 14,8714 households in Webster and 1,845 households in Dudley
Source: Metcalf & Eddy, 1984.
Impacts of No Action on Archaeological and Historic Resources .
The No Action alternative consists of implementation of Advanced
Wastewater Treatment at the existing Webster treatment plant site, where
no significant historical or archaeological resources have been
identified. Thus, there would be no impacts on the resources in the area
associated with the alternative.
Regulatory and Institutional Constraints of No Action . With the
No Action alternative, water quality standards would still not be met in
downstream impoundments during extreme low flow events. The plant, as
designed, would also not meet its NPDES permit limitations unless low
flow augmentation is implemented as well (an assumption in the Facilities
4—7
-------
Plan). The State of Connecticut would not be prevented from dredging at
Wilsonville and North Grosvenordale, as proposed in the bill currently
before the State legislature (see Legal/Institutional Framework), however
the impetus to do so might be limited as long as uncontrolled sediment
deposits remain upstream in Perryvilie.
Impacts of Low Flow Augmentation From Buffumviile Lake
General . Results of previous EPA and MDWPC water quality studies
of the French River, which were conducted using the STREAM7P 1 river
dissolved oxygen (DO) model, suggest that maintenance of a minimum flow
of 22 cfs at the USGS gaging station in Webster would be required, in
addition to advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) at Webster-Dudley, to
meet State instream dissolved oxygen standards of 5.0 mg/i during periods
of critical low flow. This augmented minimum flow was assumed in the
facilities planning for AWT at Webster-Dudley.
Results of the STREAM7B water quality modeling conducted during
preparation of this SEIS also suggest that low flow augmentation (LFA) to
22 cfs and AWT would be required to meet the dissolved oxygen standard.
However, DO levels in portions of the French River within Thompson,
Connecticut would likely still drop below 5.0 mg/i during periods of
critical low flow. As a result, LFA to 22 cfs would not insure
compliance with DO standards in Massachusetts and Connecticut unless it
was implemented in conjunction with one or more of the other alternatives
discussed in this SEIS. Its implementation could constitute one phase in
a multi-phase approach to improvement of water quality within the French
River.
Engineering Issues Associated with Low Flow Augmentation . As
stated previously, the most appropriate source of storage for low flow
augmentation in the basin is the existing lake behind the Corps of
Engineers’ flood control dam at Buffumville.
Buffumville Dam, which was completed in 1958 by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, New England Division, is located on the Little River,
1.3 miles upstream of its confluence with the French River. The dam
-------
consists of a rolled earthfill embankment, concrete ogee spillway, outlet
works and storage capacity for recreation and flood control.
At the presently maintained permanent recreational pool elevation
of 492.5 feet above NGVD MSL, the surface area and capacity of
Buffutnville Lake are 200 acres and 1 440 acre-ft, respectively. The lake
extends up the Little River approximately 1.7 miles and up the South Fork
Little River for 1.9 miles. The lake drainage area of’ 26.5 square miles
is predominantly rural with a few small hamlets nearby.
The outlet works (see Figures 4-2 and 4-3), which are located in
the center of the emergency spiliway, consist of three 3’-O” wide by
4’-6” high gated rectangular conduits, with inverts at 481.5 feet above
MSL. Flow through each of these conduits is controlled by electrically
c erated slide gates, which can open or close partially or completely
within J4 5 minutes. The piers between gate passages are elongated in the
. stream direction and the channel thus formed is spanned by a weir,
which is used to maintain the lake at the permanent recreational pool
elevation. The control weir does not regulate flow through the conduits
on either side of the center conduit. Since October 1980, the normal
opening of’ the center gate has been lowered from 24.5 ft. to 2.0 ft., and
since 197 4 during the summer months, one of the side gates has been
raised to an opening of 0.1 ft. The reduced center gate opening ensures
that significant reservoir releases will not occur during unexpected
storms. The raising of’ the outside gate by 0.1 ft. helps to create a
better mixing of impoundment waters during the warm weather months.
Details of the control weir and the outlet conduit and weir rating
curves are shown in Figure 24-4. The three weir stoplogs can be removed
separately, providing stepped variation in vertical control from a
maximum elevation of 492.5 feet to a minimum of 489.0 feet. In addition,
discharge at lake elevations below the normal weir setting of 492.5 feet
can be continuously varied by opening or closing either one or both of
the side conduit slide gate controls. Discharge at lake elevations above
the normal weir setting can be continuously varied by opening or closing
one or more of the three conduit slide gate controls.Figure 24-2
4-9
-------
STA. 5 + 59
AT EL. 483.0
20 0 20
I l _ JLJ
SCALE IN FEET
FIG. 4-2 SPILLWAY AND OUTLET WORKS OF BUFFUMYILLE DAM
ç 3’ .O” x 4’-6’ CONDUITS
30 BLACK STEEL
PIPE TO FOOT WELL
LONGITUDINAL SECTION
THRU GALLERY CENTERLINE
(PLAN AND LONGITUDINAL SECTION)
-------
5+00 6+00
0 60
I I
60
SCALE IN FEET
FIG. 4• SPILLWAY AINI) OUTLET WOKKS OF BUFFUMVILLE LPAM
(SECTION VIEW)
8
+
PERMANENT POOL EL.
0
LLWAY CREST LINE
TOP OF DAM
CONTROL HOUSE
e
APPROXIMATE
ROCK LINE
1+00 4+00
I
OUTLET STRUCTURE .
.1
7+00
8+00
-------
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
DISCHARGE (100 CFS)
THREE 3’ WIDE x 4’-6” HIGH GATES
40
35
30
25
20
15
I-
w
w
U-
2
w
( 1
U,
0
>
w
U,
w
PERMANENT POOL WEIR
(U/S Center Gate Only)
Permanent Pool Weir consists
of three stoplog openings, each
6’ wide.
Top of Stoplogs: EIev. 492.5
10
5
0
FIG. 4-4 OUTLET RATING CURVES FOR BUFFUMYILLE LAKE
-------
The Hodges Village EIS (ACE, 1 9 8L ), using the Hodges Village Flood
Control Reservoir as a source for flow augmentation, indicated that
approximately 500 acre-feet of seasonal storage would he required to
augment French River flows to a minimum of 22 cfs, during the June 1
through October 31 low flow period. This storage volume was based on
records from the U.S.G.S. Webster gage. Daily average flows were
examined for the period from 1959 (Buffumville Lake was constructed in
1958) to 1981, in order to determine maximum storage requirements for LFA
to 22 cfs. It was found that during most years very little, if’ any, LFA
storage would have been required. However, during 1965, 1970, 1977 and
1981 significant LFA would have been required. The periods of critical
low flow and resultant storage requirements for LFA during each of’ these
four years are given in Table 14-2.
TABLE 1 2. LFA STORAGE REQUIREMENTS
Year
LFP t Period
Required
Storage
(Acre ft)
1965
August - September
513
1970
July - August
1014
1977
August - September
256
1981
September - October
82
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers estimate of the maximum LFA
storage requirement was based on the 1965 critical low flow period. This
period also corresponds to the most critical 7-day duration low flow
event contained in the gage records. However, these records also suggest
that substantial flow diversion and/or storage occurred in the French
River, between its confluence with the Little River and the Webster gage,
during a portion of the 1965 critical low flow period. Upstream
diversion and/or storage, such as that suggested by the 1965 gage data,
appears to have occurred continuously, over one to seven day periods,
during the years between 1959 and 1967. However, gage data from later
14... 13
-------
years suggest that significant upstream diversion and/or storage did not
occur subsequent to 1967. The lack of significant upstream diversion
and/or storage during more recent years is likely the result of stricter
government regulations for operation of run—of-the-river hydropower
facilities and use of’ river water by factories and
municipal watertreatment plants. These regulations are meant to keep
the above users from diverting and/or storing water required to maintain
adequate downstream river flows during periods of low flow.
As a result of the above considerations, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers’ storage volume estimate of 500 acre—feet (based on the flood
of record) appears to be conservative and actually less would be required
during future low flow periods. In this report, however, the 500 acre ft
estimate was retained as an extreme condition for use in initial
screening of LFA sources and in assessing the engineering feasibility and
worst possible impacts of the recommended LFA alternative.
The impact of the withdrawal of 500 acre-ft volume of water on the
level of Buffuinville Lake is determined using the Stage-Storage data
given in Table 14_3. This information is presented graphically in Figure
14—5.
TABLE 11.3. STAGE_VS_STORAGEa FOR BUFFUNVILLE LAKE
(ft.
Stage
above
MSL)
Area
(acres)
Volume
(acre-feet)
1481.5
51
0
1482.5
60
55
1483.5
68
120
14814.5
76
190
1485.5
85
210
1486.5
150
390
1487.5
158
5140
1488.5
167
700
1489.5
176
880
1490.5
1814
1060
1491.5
192
12 40
492.5
200
114140
a.
Regulatable storage below control weir elevation
lI 111
-------
20
FIG. 4.5 SENSITIVITY TO LOW FLOW AUGMENTATION
(FROM BUFFUMVILLE LAKE) ASSUMING ADVANCED WASTEWATER
TREATMENT AND LOW FLOW (7Q10) CONDITIONS
MASSACHUSETTS
CONNECTICUT
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
S
7
S
S
4
3
2
1
0
1
C,
2
w
C,
x
0
0
w
>
-J
0
‘I )
0
13
12
10
$
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
7
— — — — — —WITH LOW FLOW
AUGMENTATION
S
S
25 24
4
RIVER MILE
16
12
3
2
1
8
4
0
0
-------
From these data, it is seen that a discharge of 500 acre-feet of’
LFA storage would drop the water surface elevation in Buffumville Lake by
2i feet.
Drawdown impacts could be decreased significantly if lake levels
were initially increased above the normal pool elevation of 1 92.5 during
April and May of each year. This water would subsequently be released
during periods of required LFA discharge. There are a variety of’ options
available for controlling the storage in Buffumville Lake to accomplish
the objectives of low flow augmentation in the French River. Two of
these include increasing the elevation 1.5 ft. above normal pool in the
spring, and releasing water as needed to a maximum of one foot below the
normal elevation; another option is to raise the level 2.5 ft. above
normal pool elevation, and draw the reservoir back down to normal pool
again. There is some concern regarding impacts associated with drawing
the pool level below the existing operating level. Due to the shallow
nature of the lake and the presence of submerged stumps, there may be
negative impacts during drawdown related to recreational uses, aesthetic
uses, wildlife and wetlands. Due to these potential negative impacts,
the alternative of drawing the lake level down significantly below
elevation 1492.5 has been precluded from further consideration. Thus, an
increase in the normal operating pool elevation of 2.5 ft. will provide
for the 500 acre-ft. of storage needed for LFA during worst case
conditions. If that low flow augmentation is implemented, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, which owns and operates the Buffumville facilities,
would develop the operating procedures of the low flow augmentation
plan. Design and construction associated with the project would be
conducted by the Corps (or by another agency in accordance with Corps
criteria and review). The low flow augmentation plan would need to be
coordinated with the Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control
and EPA.
Water Quality Impacts of Low Flow Augmentation . By augmenting low
flow in the French River with water stored in Buffuinville Lake, dissolved
oxygen concentrations would increase approximately 1.0 mg/i over base
case conditions (see Figure 4-5). As previously mentioned, the base case
14-16
-------
assumes advanced wastewater treatment at Webster—Dudley, no photo-
synthetic oxygen production and 7Q10 low flow conditions. With low flow
augmentation, dissolved oxygen ranges from 5.0 to 6.5 mg/i in the segment
from upstream of Perryville dam to Wilsonville dam, thus complying with
water quality standards. However, once the water reaches North Gros-
venordale Pond, the dissolved oxygen concentrations yield to the high
sediment oxygen demand and drop to 2.8 mg/i.
iuthough low flow augmentation from Buffuniville Lake would not
achieve Class B water quality in all portions of the French River during
extreme low flow, it would have a positive impact on water quality
downstream of the Little River’s confluence with French River.
Hydraulics during low flow would be enhanced, minimizing residence times
in the downstream impoundments. In addition, flow from Buffuniville Lake
would dilute the concentration of BOD and other pollutants which are
discharged from the various treatment plants located along the river, and
would lessen the negative impacts which the treatment plants have on the
river’s water quality. This benefit is particularly significant with
respect to the Webster-Dudley AWT facility, where metals effluent
limitations might otherwise require far more costly polishing processes.
Low flow augmentation will result in a significant increase in
dilution of the Webster-Dudley effluent during periods of low flow. The
dilution factor (defined as the ratio of total flows downstream of the
treament plant to treatment plant flows) is 2.6 for the revised 7Q10
flows of 1LL8 cfs, compared to a factor of 3.38 for an augmented river
flow of 22 cfs. Thus, LFA results in a 30 percent increase in effluent
dilution during low flow periods. This is particularly important in
terms of dilution of metals. Table L _4 below presents the maximum
effluent concentrations that will not violate EPA acute water quality
criteria for various metals.
4 . .17
-------
TABLE U_li. CALCULATED MAXIMUM EFFLUENT CONCENTRATIONS
BASED ON ACUTE WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
Parameter
River
Flow
114.8 CFs
22 CFs
(7Q10)
(LF )
Copper* (ugh)
10.7
13.8
Lead* (ugh)
29.8
37.9
Chromium (Hex)
(ugh)
141.6
514.1
Zinc (ugh)
375.0
487.0
Chorline (ugh)
149.14
614.2
* Based on hardness of 21 ugh
Biological Impacts of Low Flow Augmentation . The available
information on the biota indigenous to Buffumville Lake and the
downstream impoundments were summarized in Chapter 3. Using the above
described scenario relative to the implementation of the low flow
augmentation (LFA) using Buffumville Lake, the biological impacts are
evaluated. Since the increased water level elevation necessary for
adequate low flow augmentation is completely within the operational level
fluctuation (as based on the past five year operational records), there
will be no effect on the biota of Buffuinville Lake.
While this alternative would not alter the phytoplankton in
Buffumville Lake, LFA would improve water quality in limited reaches of
the French River during certain critical periods of the year. As defined
above, the release of this water would be during the low flow periods
(generally from June 1 through October 31). While the slight increase in
dissolved oxygen concentration would not affect phytoplankton growth in
the river, the elimination of periodic nearly stagnant conditions in some
downstream segments could deter the occurrence of’ occasional algal blooms
in these areas.
Similarly, the LFA alternative would have little or no impact on
wetlands since the proposed action would not alter water levels beyond
what normally occurs in the lake. Only those emergent macr ’ophytes
located along the central western edge of the reservoir, might be subject
to habitat/cover type change should water levels be operated as suggested
- 14-18
-------
for LFA. If seasonal levels of water were significantly greater than two
feet higher in elevation than water levels as recorded over the past five
years, during the active growing season (April to September), then less
than two acres of palustrine scrub shrub habitat might undergo ecological
succession and be transformed by seasonally high water levels into
emergent macrophyte habitat cover type (such as cattails, sedges,
etc.). Pdl the areas surrounding the reservoir where there exist large
expanses of deciduous and coniferous trees, are of reasonably steep
grades with slopes of 2:1 to 5:1. These areas are presently, to a large
extent, devoid of standing trees within 20 horizontal feet of existing
water levels (based on site evaluations when the water level was 1.6 feet
above the normal pool elevation of 492.5 feet MSL). Thus, water levels
would have to be increased by over 5 to 6 feet above normal pool
elevation before operational problems would exist as a result of trees
being inundated, killed and falling into the reservoir. The increased
water level necessary for adequate low flow augmentation is completely
within the existing operational level fluctuation (Table 2-1) and thus
there also would not be any significant leaching of nutrients from soils
that may be periodically inundated. This conclusion is reached since
these same soils have been subject to such inundation and leaching
activities during the past five or more years of reservoir operation.
The LFA alternative at Buff’umville Lake would also not be expected
to change the benthic macroinvertebrate populations within the lake. The
resultant increase in dissolved oxygen downstream of the release would
result in some increase in opportunity for survival and reproduction of
benthic invertebrates in downstream sections of the French River.
Benthic communities in the downstream impoundments would have the
opportunity for slightly increased density and diversity, and thus a
limited improvement in the ecological health as a result of low flow
augmentation. These changes are viewed as beneficial but minor, and
limited in scope due to the fact that the sediments would continue to
limit the availability of oxygen in the benthos and provide a potentially
toxic environment.
4—19
-------
LFA from Buffumville Lake would also not be expected to have any
impact on the fisheries of the lake nor the French River. The temporary
2.5 foot change in depth of the lake would nob make a significant change
in either the quality or the quantity of the habitat. Impacts on the
fisheries downstream in the French River would be positively impacted by
improved DO and enhancement of benthic communities, which provide food
for fish. The fisheries would, however, continue to be limited by the
shallow depth of the river and its impoundments, and by water quality
impacts of the sediments.
The existing waterfowl and wildlife use of the French River
environment would also not be expected to change as a result of
implementation of this alternative. Since the areal extent of the water
surface at Buffumville Lake would not significantly change (over existing
operational patterns associated with the lake’s use as a flood control
structure), nor will new areas downstream be inundated, no significant
areas of submerged or floating mat vegetation, nor emergent macrophytes
is anticipated. Thus, there is no reason to expect significant positive
nor negative impacts on waterfowl or wildlife associated with the LFA
alternative.
Socioeconomic Impacts of Low Flow Augmentation . Implementation of
the low flow augmentation alternative would have little or no impact on
the socioeconomic resources of the communities in the French River Basin,
beyond those associated with implementing Advanced Treatment at Webster-
Dudley, as described under the No Action alternative.
Estimated costs associated with low flow augmentation are
minimal. Since the proposed increase in pool elevation is within the
range of elevations currently experienced at the lake, no new impacts
will be experienced and no significant mitigating measures are
required. The LFA project will require more control over outflow during
low flow periods, which could be accomplished by manual or automated
control. It is assumed that automated controls would be used. Costs for
a microprocessor and controls for this purpose would be approximately
$25,000 with annual operating costs of $30,000 during periods of
operation. Also, there is a possibility that the beach would benefit
from widening.
4-20
-------
There is an existing culvert connecting Colicum Reservoir to
Buffumville Lake which is 13 ft. in diameter with 8 ft. of clearance
during the existing operating pool level (Buffurnville Lake Master Plan,
1976). Under existing operating conditions the clearance at this culvert
is significantly reduced and sometimes completely submerged during
periods of high water. Thus, problems related to clearance at this
culvert already occur due to existing variation in water level. But,
since the proposed LFA plan will reduce clearance at this culvert during
the peak boating season, costs for replacing this culvert are included.
Costs are summarized in Table i4_5
TABLE 1$_5. LOW FLOW AUGMENTATION COSTS
A) Microprocessor & Controls $ 25,000
Operating Costs 8 Months 30,000
55,000
B) Widen Beach 3,000
3,000
C) Replace 100’ of 13’O Pipe Culvert
with 15’O
Remove 13’O” Culvert 50,000 50,000
New $800/LF 80,000
Jacking 25,000
Mob/Demob 25,000
Elevate 15,000
Caisons (2) 50,000
60x20x$20 $195,000
10% Engineering X 1.10
25% Contingency X 1.25
TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS $ 431,000
4-2 1
-------
Impacts of Low Flow Auguxnentat ion on Recreational Resources and
Use Attainability . The low flow augmentation alternative would have no
impact on existing uses of the French River upstream of its confluence
with the Little River. Downstream of the confluence, flow augmentation
could improve the generation of hydroelectric power by supplying slightly
improved flow during what would normally be low flow situations and would
improve flow for use in industrial processing and cooling. The ability
of the river to support fish and wildlife also would also be somewhat
improved, as discussed in the preceding section. Since there is little
use of the river at present for boating, and the dams and sediments would
remain as barriers, low flow augmentation would not significantly impact
this use. General aesthetics would, however, be improved.
At Buffumville Lake, recreational use has declined such that flow
augmentation would have only a minor impact on visitation. Since low
flow augmentation would be required during the summer months, the peak
boating season, headroom at the culvert under the road at the north end
of the reservoir, already tight, would be decreased. The enlargement of
the culvert has already been taken into account in the costing of the
alternative. Boating in the reservoir for water skiing has decreased
because the lake is shallow, making it hazardous for fast boats and
skiers. Raising the pool elevation may have a positive effect on boating
depending on the degree of fluctuation.
Impacts on recreational use of the lake for swimming and fishing
should not be significant since trends show such use of the reservoir has
declined from a high of 60,000 swimmers in 1965 and 9,000 anglers in 1970
in favor of sightseeing (23,000 in 1975). Fluctuation of the water level
would be minimal during the summer season due to LFA, occuring approx-
imately once in 10 years. There will, however, be an annual fluctuation
for LFA storage purposes. All fluctuations in water level would be
within the normally occurring range. The beach, which extends 6 feet
into the water, would be minimally flooded when the reservoir is
filled. It may be necessary to widen the beach to minimize impacts,
depending on the storage scheme implemented.
-------
Impacts of Low Flow Augmentation on Archaeological and Historic
Resources . Since the fluctuation in water level due to LFA is less than
the level due to the normally occurring operating range, no impacts will
occur to the archaeological resources of the area beyond impacts that may
already be occurring due to water level fluctuations. Potentially
significant historical resources that may be affected by increased pooi
elevations include the Mill Pond breakwater and a segment of the Old
Oxford Road. The relatively recent ages and limited research value of
all other historic resources in this area render them ineligible for
nomination at either the Federal or the State Register. Although no
surface remains of either the known or the reported prehistoric sites at
the reservoir are evident, both locations may be affected by increased
pool elevations.
Regulatory and Institutional Constraints- of Low Flow Augmentation .
A number of State and Federal permits would be required for implement-
ation of the flow augmentation alternative. A Wetlands Protection Act
permit from the Chariton Conservation Commission may be required,
however, since the project is entirely within Federal land this permit
may not be necessary. If the devegetation (if required) is beyond the
parameters set by the Act, a variance would be required from the
Commissioner of DEQE. In accordance with the management license for fish
and wildlife for the reservoir, the project would require the concurrence
of the Department of the Interior and the Massachusetts Division of
Wetlands and Waterways. Also, a Section L 0LI permit for dredge and fill
activities would be required. Further, compliance with Executive Orders
11988 and 11990 would be required. For a detailed description of permit
requirements, see the Legal/Institutional Framework section, Chapter 3.
Impacts of Sediment Control in Perryville, Langer’s and North
Grosvenordale Impoundments
General . Beyond those discussed in the preliminary screening
described in Chapter 2, several alternative methods that could be used to
provide sediment control have been identified. The selection of
alternative methods was based on consultation with experts in the field
of impoundment sediment control, and recent findings of science and
4-23
-------
technology with respect to sediment control within impoundments. The
alternative methods selected for further evaluation are listed in
Table —6.
TABLE 1l_6. ALTERNATIVE SEDIMENT CONTROL METHODS
ALTERNATIVE
TYPE
METHOD
Excavation
Dredging
Hydraulic
Excavation
Dredging
Mechanical
Excavation
Dry
Mechanical
Capping
Concrete
In Place Application
Capping
Sand
In Place Application
Capping
Sand and Flexible
Impermeable Liner
In Place Application
Capping
Sand and Flexible
Permeable Liner
In Place Application
Wetlands Isolation
Sheet Piling
In Place Application
Engineering Issues Associated with Sediment Control . The
advantages and disadvantages of each method, based on engineering and
water quality criteria, are summarized in Table 4—7.
Based on this evaluation, the mechanical dredging alternative, one
of the excavation methods, was eliminated from further consideration.
This was because mechanical dredging could cause high re-suspension and
re-settlement of sediments during the dredging operation, causing
possible attendant adverse impacts on water quality and characteristics
of sediments in the impoundments.
Four alternative technologies for capping the sediments were
considered: capping with concrete; capping with sand; capping with sand
and an impermeable liner; and capping with sand and a permeable liner.
However, the disadvantages of’ each are such that all the capping alterna-
tives were eliminated from further consideration. Concrete was excluded
because of the potential of the concrete to develop cracks due to
differential settlement, and its adverse impacts on the existing sediment
4 214
-------
TABLE 4-7. EVALUATION OF SEDIMENT CONTROL METHODS
Action Type Method Advantages Disadvantages
Excavation
Removes sediment which
may be contributing
oxygen demand, toxics
and nutrients to the
water column.
Can be selectively
undertaken to preserve
wetlands, to develop
swimming areas or to
improve pond hydraulics.
Resuspension of sediments may
increase the oxygen demand and
nutrient levels in the water
column, and release toxics.
May reduce velocities in the pond
channel system increasing rate of
deposition of incoming sediments.
Depending on method of excava-
tion, a large percentage of
excavated material may be
redeposited in the pond.
Due to redeposition or increased
rate of deposition of incoming
sediments may have short
effective life.
Nature of sediments and
availability of river and/or land
access critical in selecting
appropriate methodology.
May create “Cat Clays”.
Dredging
Hydraulic
Low resuspension of
sediment during dredging
oxygen operations,
limiting demand and
nutrient transfer to
the water column.
Effluent quality from dewatering
and flocculation systems may
adversely impact receiving water
body.
Productivity rate extremely
variable, depending on operator
-------
TABLE 4-7 (Continued). EVALUATION OF SEDIMENT CONTROL METHODS
Action Type Method Advantages Disadvantages
Excavation Dredging Hydraulic Compact portable performance, nature of sediments
(Continued) equipment available, and under water obstacles.
access not critical.
Extensive gravity settling and
flocculation facilities required.
Chemicals required to flocculate
and settle fines in sediment.
Sediment must be pumped from pond
to dewatering facilities,
resulting in high maintenance
cost.
Limited availability of portable
dredging equipment from
construction industry.
May release toxics and nutrients.
May result in toxic sediments
that require special handling and
disposal sites.
Dredging Mechanical Clamshell and dragline High resuspension of sediments
excavation equipment during dredging operation.
readily available from
construction industry. High resuspension of sediments
may increase the oxygen demand
Excavated material may and nutrient levels in the water
be hauled away by truck column.
to disposal site.
-------
TABLE 4-7 (Continued). EVALUATION OF SEDIMENT CONTROL METHODS
Action Type Method Advantages Disadvantages
Excavation Dredging Mechanical Normal size cranes will not
(Continued) support booms much greater than
100 feet in length, which limits
the working area, from any
particular shore location to 100
foot radius.
May cause slumping of adjacent
wetlands.
Dry Mechanical Mechanical excavation Requires pond dewatering either
equipment readily avail— by channelizing or by passing low
able from construction flows.
industry.
Dewatering by channelizing low
Excavated material may flows requires low level outlet
be hauled away by truck at dam structure or pumping.
to disposal site.
Rate and depth of dessication of
sediments uncertain. Sediments
may not have sufficient strength
to support mechanical excavation
equipment.
Pond dewatering may adversely
impact quality of water
downstream from pond.
Dewatering may adversely effect
regrowth of plants in areas not
excavated.
-------
TABLE 4-7 (Continued). EVALUATION OF SEDIMENT CONTROL METHODS
Action
Type
Met hod
Advantages
Disadvantages
Capping
May reduce the rate of
oxygen demand and nutrient
transfer at sediment water
column interface.
May completely or
partially isolate the
sediment interface from
the water column.
Complete isolation of the sedi-
ment interface from the water
column may destroy biological
life in the upper layer of the
sediment.
Decomposition of capped sediments
may generate gases.
Control of thickness of capping
material may be difficult.
In stream velocities may be
sufficient to scour out capping
materials.
Concrete
In Place
May completely isolate
the oxygen demand in the
sediments from the water
column.
In place application
techniques used in con-
struction industry.
Complete isolation of the
sediment interface from the water
column may destroy aerobic biolo-
gical life in the upper layers of
the sediment.
Control of thickness of capping
material may be difficult.
Concrete capping material
not easily scoured from
the bottom.
Capping material readily
available.
Capping material may crack due to
differential settlement.
Capping material may settle into
sediments or crack due to differ-
ences in densities.
-------
TABLE 4-7 (Continued). EVALUATION OF SEDIMENT CONTROL METHODS
Action
Type
Method
Advantages
Disadvantages
Capping
(Continued)
Gases may be generated under
capping material.
Capping material may have a
short—term life.
Sand
In Place
Application
Permeability of sand may
permit sustaining
biological life in the
upper layers of the
sediment.
May reduce the impact of
oxygen demand in the sed-
iments on the water column
May reduce the transfer
of nutrients from the
sediments to the water
column.
In place application
that techniques widely
used in construction
industry.
Capping material may be scoured
by stream flows.
Capping material may settle into
sediments due to differences in
density.
Capping material may become
.contaminated with underlying
sediments increasing the oxygen
demand on and nutrient transfer
to the water column.
Capping material may become
contaminated by transport of
toxicants from lower layers by
wetland plants.
Would raise water elevation so
that area would no longer support
wetland plants.
-------
TABLE 4-7 (Continued). EVALUATION OF SEDIMENT CONTROL METHODS
Action
Type
Method
Advantages
Disadvantages
Capping
(Continued)
Sand
Sand and
Flexible
Impermeable
Liner
In Place
Application
In Place
Application
Any gases generated under
the capping material
should be dispersed in
the water column.
May completely isolate
the oxygen demand and
nutrient transfer from
the sediments to the
water column.
Provides a sediment which
should have a low oxygen
demand and low nutrient
transfer to the water
column.
Complete isolation of the
sediment interface from the water
column may destroy aerobic
biological life in the upper
layers of the sediment.
Requires cover material to
prevent floating.
Gases may be generated under
liner.
Underground materials may
puncture liner.
May require gravel base and
piping to disperse accumulated
gases.
Construction may require
innovation procedures.
Sand may be scoured out at high
stream flows.
Unless sufficient depth, new
wetland plants would grow in the
sand.
-------
TABLE 4-7 (Continued). EVALUATION OF SEDIMENT CONTROL METHODS
Action
Type
Method
Advantages
Disadvantages
Capping
(Continued)
Sand and
Flexible
Permeable
Liner
May completely or
partially isolate the
oxygen demand and nu-
trient transfer from the
water column.
Complete isolation of the
sediment interface from the water
column may destroy bacterial
life in the upper layers of the
sediment.
Provided a sediment which
should have a low oxygen
demand and low nutrient
transfer to the water
column.
Gases that are generated
under the liner should
be dispersed in water
column.
Permeability of sand and
liner may permit sustain-
ing aerobic biological
life in the upper layers
of the sediment.
Maintains wetlands.
Minimizes sediment move-
ment from wetlands to
pond area.
Minimizes sediment oxygen
demand, toxic and nutrient
transfer from wetlands to
pond area.
Gases may be generated under
liner.
Underground materials may
puncture liner.
Construction may require
innovative procedures.
Sand may be scoured by stream
flows.
Unless sufficient depth, new
wetland plants would grow jn
sand.
During construction period
turbidity in pond area may
increase.
Wetlands
Sheet
In
Place
Isolation
Piling
Application
-------
TABLE 4-7 (Continued). EVALUATION OF SEDIMENT CONTROL METHODS
Action Type Method Advantages Disadvantages
Wetlands Sheet In Place Minimizes both short—
Isolation Piling Application term and long—term
(Continued) impact to existing
adjacent wetlands.
Facilitates continued
biological succession
of wetlands.
Minimizes adverse
impacts of existing
toxics in sediments
in wetlands.
Provides continued
balance of open water
and wetland habitat.
-------
layer within the impoundments. Capping with sand and capping with both
sand and an impermeable liner were also not considered acceptable. With
the former, the sand could settle into the existing sediment due to
differences in sediment density. With the latter method, although the
impermeable liner would tend to support the sand, the adverse impact
of the liner on the bottom sediment layer (i.e., the development of an
anaerobic sediment layer with possible gas generation) was considered
sufficient to eliminate this alternative.
Capping with sand and a permeable liner was eliminated from
further consideration because there is no evidence that this arrangement
will eliminate the transfer of oxygen demand, toxins, or nutrients from
the sediment layer to the water column.
The feasibility of using any of the remaining alternative methods
at each of the three impoundments, Perryville, Langer’s Pond and North
Grosvenordale, was evaluated by considering the technical applicability
of the alternative and the impact of the alternative on the primary
intended use of each impoundment. The findings of this analysis are
shown in Table L _8.
TABLE 14 8. SITE-SPECIFIC FEASIBILITY OF
SEDIMENT CONTROL ALTERNATIVES
Alternative Sediment Control
Method
Wetlands
Isolation
and
Sediment
Wetlands
Channel
Impoundment
Primary Use
Excavation
Isolation
Excavation
Perryville
Wetland Habitat
*
*
Langer’s Pond
Wetland Habitat
*
*
North
Grosvenordale
Recreation
*
*Feasjble alternative for this site
L -33
-------
Due to the physical and chemical characteristics of the sediments,
the analysis is predicated on two major assumptions: that normal
landfill disposal of the excavated sediments would be possible, and that
resuspended sediments would not have long-term adverse impacts on the
quality of water in the water column or on plant life in wetlands.
The State and Federal regulatory agencies involved in this SEIS
effort recognize the importance of wetlands as habitat for fish and
wildlife, and have expressed an interest in maintaining the wetlands that
exist in the Perryville and Langer’s Pond impoundments and, to the extent
they exist there, in North Grosvenordale. If these wetlands are to be
protected, then sediment control through the excavation of the entire
sediment bed, either mechanically or by dredging, is not possible since
it would destroy the ecosystem which supports the wetlands in these
impoundments. The destruction and subsequent replacement of the wetlands
has also been deemed unacceptable. Therefore, in order to both preserve
the wetlands and prevent migration of sediment, nutrients and
contaminants from the wetlands to the pond area, the wetlands at
Perryville and Langer’s Pond would be isolated by placing a physical
barrier (steel sheeting) between them and the open water area. The steel
sheeting would have openings at sufficient intervals to permit the
exchange of some water between the pond area and the wetlands. At North
Grosvenordale, such a method is not necessary, as the wetlands are
minimal and can simply be avoided.
In the event that additional corrective action needs to be
undertaken to ensure adequate dissolved oxygen levels within Perryville
and Langer’s Ponds or impoundments downstream, then the sediments within
the channel sections of these impoundments could be subsequently be
removed. Since these impoundments are not presently equipped with low
level outlets, there is no feasible way to drain them for excavation
during the low flow summer months. (Such an approach would also not be
desirable from a wetland protection standpoint either.) For this reason,
channel sediment excavation would be undertaken by hydraulic dredging in
Perryville and/or Langer’s Ponds as required.
As was indicated in Table L _8, one alternative method of sediment
control has been identified as most feasible for the North Grosvenordale
14_314
-------
impoundment: excavation under either wet or dry conditions. Since this
impoundment can be dewatered through a sluice way at the dam, and there
are not extensive wetlands that would be impacted during dewatering,
excavation could be undertaken during the dry season with low flow
channelization as well as by hydraulic dredging.
Water Quality Impacts of Sediment Control . In order to evaluate
the long—term impacts of sediment control measures on water quality,
several different combinations of sediment control in the three
downstream impoundments were modelled with STREAM7B with a 7Q10 of 1 L.8
cfs. This initial evaluation was undertaken to determine the effects
that sediment control in each of the impoundments would have on the
system as a whole and, consequently, where sediment control should be
implemented. In this evaluation, the actual method of sediment control
was not considered. All measures were assumed to remove all of the
existing SOD, and not significantly alter the hydraulics within the
impoundments.
The first alternative evaluated was to conduct sediment control at
Perryville only. This would significantly improve water quality in
Perryville Pond, increasing the dissolved oxygen levels from a range of
3.0 to 5.5 mg/l with No Action to & range of 6.5 to 7.0 mg/l
(Figure lt_6). However, the improvement in water quality proves to be a
local effect as dissolved oxygen sharply decreases again in Langer’s
Pond. The dissolved oxygen concentrations at Langer’s Pond and
downstream closely follow the dissolved oxygen concentrations of the base
case No Action alternative.
Another alternative would be to implement sediment control at
Langer’s Pond and North Grosvenordaie, but not at Perryville.
Improvements in dissolved oxygen of 2.0 mg/i in Wilsonville and up to
4.0 mg/i in North Grosvenordale would be obtained as a result of this
option (Figure 4-7). Langer’s Pond would still violate dissolved oxygen
limits, with a concentration of 14.9 mg/l at low flow. No improvement
would be seen at Perryville, as this area is upstream of’ both the
Langer’s Pond and North Grosvenordale impoundments.
Sediment control in just the North Grosvenordale impoundment would
only have a minor impact on water quality. Even with a 1.0 to 3.5 mg/i
4—35
-------
increase in dissolved oxygen concentrations in North Grosvenordale Pond
would only be 14.5 mg/i (Figure 14-8). Again, no improvements in water
quality would occur at Perryville or Langer’s Pond, which would be
upstream of the sediment control.
Another alternative involves the implementation of sediment
control measures at all three impoundments; Perryvilie, Langer’s Pond
(Wilsonvilie) and North Grosvenordale. Dissolved oxygen in the ponds as
a result of’ this alternative would range from 5.14 to 7.0 mg/i at low
flow. These projections are presented in Figure 14_9. The lowest
dissolved oxygen concentrations would occur upstream of the North
Grosvenordale impoundment, and in the Grosvenordale impoundment
downstream of there. Figure 14—9 does not take into account hydraulic
changes due to dredging.
Although this analysis indicates that the implementation of
sediment control at the three impoundments, in addition to Advanced
Wastewater Treatment at Webster-Dudley, would result in DO levels above
5.0 mg/i in the river, the assumptions made were hypothetical and not
realistic. These assumptions were made for purposes of making relative
comparisons between sediment control at different locations. First,
total SOD removal is probably impossible to achieve; even a “clean”
substrate would have some SOD. This residual demand in excavated areas,
however, would be minimal relative to that which is currently exerted in
the impoundments. The isolated wetlands would still have high SODs and
probably low DOs, as is natural in a productive wetland, but their impact
on the riverine water should be minimal as there is very little mixing in
the ponds.
The assumption that the hydraulics of the impoundments would not
be altered by sediment control is probably reasonable for Perryville and
Langer’s Ponds, where wetlands isolation (possibly with some channel
excavation) is the most feasible method of sediment control. Even though
the wetlands/open water interface would be sheeted, hydraulic equilibrium
would still be maintained. However, if sedimenb excavation is conducted
at North Grosvenordale, the increased volume of the impoundment would
alter the rate of flow, BOD decay, and reaeration through it.
14—36
-------
15
14
13
12
11
10
o
!
.
z
LU
8
‘,
).
*
7
0
0
LU
S
>
-I
0
.,
5
0
4
3
2
I
0
FIG. 4-6 SENSITIVITY OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN TO SEDIMENT CONTROL AT
PERRY VILLE POND UNDER LOW FLOW (7Q10) CONDITIONS
LU
0
z
LU
MASSACHUSETTS
0
CONNECTICUT
LU
-J
-J
>
-J
U-
z
0
0.
LU
>.
WE
-J’
14
0
LU
-J
0
C l)
LU
0
0
I
> -
0 w
W -J
— >
— z
>-0
U)
LU -
13
0
LU
-J
0
0
z
LU
>
Cl)
0
12
w
-J
-J
>
C’)
0
z
I
0
W
11
10
9
8
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
7
— — — — — — SEDIMENT CONTROL AT
PERRYVILLE POND
6
5
28
24
4
20
3
RIVER MILE
16
12
2
1
$
4
0
0
-------
15
MASSACHUSETTS
CONNECTICUT
24
20
16
FIG. 4-7 SENSITIVITY OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN TO SEDIMENT CONTROL AT NORTH
GROSVENORDALE AND LANGER’S PONDS UNDER LOW FLOW (7Q10) CONDITIONS
14
13
12
11
10
$
-I
I
w
K
0
0
>
-j
0
0
7
14
13
12
11
10
9
B
5
4
3
2
WATER QUALIJ r StANDARDS
7
1
— — — — —SEDIMENT CONTROL AT LANGER’S
(WILSONVILLE) AND NORTH
GROSVENOR DALE POND
0
6
5
2$
4
RIVER MILE
3
2
12
B
1
4
0
0
-------
15
MASSACHUSETTS
CONNECTICUT
24 20
FIG. 4-8 SENSITIVITY OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN TO SEDIMENT CONTROL AT
NORTH GROSVENORDALE POND UNDER LOW FLOW (7Q10) CONDITIONS
14
13
12
11
10
z
w
x
0
0
>
-j
0
0
S
$
7
S
5
4
3
2
14
13
12
11
10
9
S
7
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
1
6
— — — — — — SEDIMENT CONTROL AT
NORTH GROSVENOADALE POND
0
BASE CASE (NO ACTION)
5
2$
4
3
RIVER MILE
16
12
2
$
1
4
0
0
-------
24
20
is
FIG. 4-9 SENSITIVITY OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN TO SEDIMENT CONTROL AT PERRY VILLE,
LANGER’S AND NORTH GROSVENORDALE PONDS UNDER LOW FLOW (7Q10) CONDITIONS
15
14
13
12
11
MASSACHUSETTS
0
10
CONNECTICUT
W
-J
-J
>
LU
C-)
z
LU
-J
U-
z
0
0.
LU
>.
WE
I-
15
$
U)
LU
0
0
I
-l
z
w
C,
K
0
0
>
-j
0
0
13
7
12
S
ii
5
10
4
9
3
8
2
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
7
1
6
0
— — — — — — SEDIMENT CONTROL AT PERRYVILLE,
LANGER’S POND AND NORTH
GROSVENORDALE POND
BASE CASE (NO ACTION)
5
2$
4
3
RIVER MILE
12
2
8
1
4
0
0
-------
Calculations from the HEC2 backwater analyses indicate that the
residence time in the North Grosveriordale impoundment would go from
approximately 186 hours to 2 45 hours as a result of sediment removal.
Sensitivity analyses using STREAM7B with the actual altered hydraulics
reveal that dissolved oxygen concentrations in the impoundment could be
approximately 0.3 mg/l lower than was indicated in Figure 14 9
Sediment control by either wetlands isolation or wet excavation
would have some short-term negative impacts on water quality, by
disturbing the river bottom and thus resuspending the solids materials.
Suspended solids concentrations and turbidity would likely increase. It
is also possible that some of the contaminants in the sediments could be
mobilized, although this could be minimized by mitigation techniques.
After the initial implementation of sediment control, however, overall
water quality can be expected to be significantly improved.
Biological Impacts of Sediment Control . The sediment control
alternatives discussed in preceding sections afford the opportunity for
several significant changes in the biological community inhabiting the
French River.
The improvements in water quality associated with sediment control
would have little, if any, effect on the phytoplankton beyond that
associated with AWT.
In those areas excavated, i.e. in North Grosveriordale and possibly
the channel areas of Perryville and Langer’s Pond, the existing benthic
community would be destroyed and a new type of community would
subsequently colonize the new bottom substrate. A few opportunistic
species may dominate at first, but within a relatively short time frame a
more diverse, stable community would become established. The character
of the new benthic community would be primarily dependent on the type of
substrate which remains, but it would probably closely resemble the
communities sampled in cleaner upstream areas of the French River. Due
to the longer-term positive impacts on overlying DO and the removal of
potentially toxic material, the benthic organisms which recolonize the
excavated area would be less stressed than those which presently inhabit
the ponds. As discussed with respect to the No Action alternative, they
would also be receiving less organic “food” input than has historically
L ..1fl
-------
been the case, as a result of upgraded solids handling at Webster-
Dudley. The benthic invertebrate community in the wetlands areas would
not be significantly impacted by sediment control, as the substrate,
detrital production, and overlying water quality would remain
undisturbed.
Sediment control in the three impoundments would incur both
positive and negative impacts on the warmwater fishery of the river.
Actual implementation of the sediment control measures would have
adverse, but temporary effects on the fish. These effects would occur as
a result of increased suspended solids concentrations (causing DO
depletion and turbidity), mobilization of contaminants and, where
sediments are removed, the elimination of benthic organisms which provide
food for many fish. The dry excavation alternative for North
Grosvenordale, whereby the impoundment would be drained for at least one
summer while sediment removal took place, would obviously preclude the
survival of fish populations in the pond until it is refilled and
restocked.
Longer—term impacts of sediment control on the warmwater fishery
would be significantly more positive. The maintenance of higher DO
concentrations would eliminate the occasional fish kills and avoidance of
stressed areas which presently occur and which would continue to occur,
with less frequency, after AWT is implemented. It should also enhance
the diversity of the fish community, as those species which can not
tolerate low DO would be able to survive and reproduce. In excavated
areas, greater depths would increase the fish habitat and would enhance
survival during winter freezes. The removal of contaminants from these
areas would also benefit the health of the fish population and would
reduce the potential for trophic magnification of the contaminants.
The wetland areas, which would be physically isolated with
sheeting, would retain their sediments and associated SOD and
contaminants. The fish habitat in these areas would therefore continue
to be stressed. However, the cover and food which the wetlands provide
for fish and other aquatic organisms would be preserved. The top
elevation of the sheeting will be equal to that of the existing
wetland. Consequently, with seasonal high flows of water, the sheeting
-------
between the vegetated wetlands and the channel areas will permit the
normal passage of fish and other fauna, (as currently exists) between
habitat-types. In addition, some of the sheeting will be perforated,
creating the opportunity for limited horizontal groundwater movement
similar to that which currently exists.
Due to the fact that the feasibility of the various methods of
sediment control was evaluated with wetlands protection as one of the
criteria, the implementation of the measures selected should not have a
significant adverse impact on wetlands in the impoundments. The
extensive areas of rooted vegetation in Perryville and Langer’s Pond
would be retained, but isolated from the channel areas to prevent
sediment transport. As mentioned previously, hydraulic exchange would be
maintained such that natural water level fluctuations and seasonal
overflows could continue to sustain these ecologically important areas.
This alternative would also continue to facilitate the release of
detritus from the wetlands to the surrounding waters, and would maintain
a valuable and productive habitat for wildlife and waterfowl. The
opportunity would, however, continue to exist for the biomagnification of
contaminants from the underlying sediments, and thus the transport (and
potential trophic magnification) of these contaminants into other parts
of the ecosystem.
Socioeconomic Impacts of Sediment Control . The costs of the
applicable alternative sediment control methods are shown in Table
These costs provide for all labor, materials, contractors’ overhead, and
profit and include a 10 percent allowance for engineering and 25 percent
for contingencies. Although state aid may be available through
legislative appropriations (i.e. in Connecticut) and lake restoration or
related programs, it is expected that the costs of sediment control in
the impoundments would be the responsibility of the towns involved.
Costs for wet excavation (dredging) provide for: purchase of
dredging and auxiliary equipment; development of gravity settling
facilities consisting of settling and flocculation basins; and the
present worth of operating costs covering labor, fuel and chemicals. The
4_L 3
-------
costs for the excavation alternatives assume a twenty mile round trip
haul distance to dispose of excavated sediments.
Since a larger proportion of the costs of the wet excavation
alternatives are incurred by providing gravity settling facilities, and
by hauling the excavated sediments to a final disposal site, a second
approach was also assessed. Under this approach, the excavated materials
would be pumped directly to a final disposal site located approximately
3 miles from the excavation area (assuming a suitable site could be
located). With this arrangement, the costs for development of gravity
settling facilities as well as the cost of a twenty mile round trip haul
distance could be eliminated. As indicated in Table the estimated
costs for this arrangement are considerably less than for settling and
hauling.
Dredging of the sediments and isolation of the wetlands at the
impoundments would result in short term impacts while work is in
progress. The duration of the wetlands isolation work would be short-
lived and the impacts during this phase would be minimal. Sediment
excavation would be a longer process. There would be an increase in
traffic on local roads by heavy equipment, but local roads are such that
the traffic would easily be absorbed. There are a few residences near
the impoundments that could be impacted by noise, dust and odors from the
dredging and diking, but for the most part, the area is buffered by
natural vegetation. Some new road accesses to the ponds may be required,
and there would have to be clearing of vegetated areas to provide access
for heavy equipment as well as temporary storage of machinery.
With the settling and hauling approach to sediment removal, there
would be a need to transport the dredged sediments to a local disposal
site; a new landfill site would have to be designated if existing
landfills are not able to receive the dredge material. The designation
of a new landfill would require state permits.
Impacts of Sediment Control on Recreational Resources and Use
Attainability . There would be little impact on recreational use of the
impoundments at Perryville and Wilsonville (Langer’s Pond) as a result of
sediment control, as there is presently little use of these sites for
14_LILt
-------
TABLE 4-9 COSTS OF SEDIMENT CONTROL
Perryville
Langer’s Pond
North
Grosvenordale $5,887,000
WETLAND ISOLATION
AND
CHANNEL EXCAVATION
Wet
With
Pumping
$689,000
$600,000
IMPOUNDMENT EXCAVATION
ISOLATION
Wet
Wet
With
Wet
With
Settling
With
Settling
& Hauling
Pumping
Dry
& Hauling
$334,000
$334,000
$2,011,000 $3,699,000
$1,760,000
$1,361,000
-------
swimming, fishing or boating. Removal of the sediments at Nort
Grosvenordale would improve water quality, provide deeper water an
improve access, permitting enjoyment of the site for swimming, fishin
and boating. Some facilities may need to be provided (e.g. bath houses,
beach) to fully realize this recreational potential. Improving access
would permit use of the pond areas for hiking and other passive
recreational activities. The warmwater fishery and aquatic habitat would
also be enhanced. Thus, this alternative would result in the attainment
of desired uses in the river.
Impacts of Sediment Control on Archaeological and Historic
Resources . As described in Chapter 3, there has been a potentially
important historical and archaeological resource identified in the
vicinity of the village of North Grosvenordale. This consists primarily
of •-an old mill site. The sediment control alternatives would have no
impacts on this resource, particularly since it is visible and easily
avoided. For those alternatives requiring improvement of access roads
and the storage of heavy equipment or other material near the site(s), an
intensive survey will be required to satisfy the requirements of 950 CMR
70 prior to implementation of the alternative to avoid impacting any as
yet undiscovered historical or archaeological resources.
Regulatory and Institutional Constraints of Sediment Control . At
Perryville, sediment removal work must comply with the Webster floodplain
regulations which require compensation for any loss in the flood carrying
capacity of the French River. A Massachusetts Wetlands Protection permit
would be required for both the dredge work and the wetlands isolation. A
Section J401 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would be re-
quired if dredged sediment is deposited below the ordinary highwater mark
or bulldozed within the riverbed. The issue of sediment disposal
location would be addressed in the 1 0l1 permit application. A Mass-
achusetts Waterways License and Permit (Ch.91) from the Division of
Waterways in DEQE would also be required.
A landfill permit from DEQE and site designation for disposal from
the local board of health would be necessary if material is excavated
from the pond. The Webster landfill probably does not have enough
L _I46
-------
capacity. Further, if the material in the sediments is determined to
contain hazardous wastes, a temporary generator permit would be required
and the spoils would have to be trucked to a licensed disposal site by a
licensed transporter.
At the two impoundments in Connecticut, work would have to be done
in compliance with the Thompson floodplain regulations, which requires
compensation for the loss in flood carrying capacity of the river.
Sediment removal and wetlands isolation would require a wetlands permit
from the Thompson Conservation Commission and a Section 404 permit from
the Army Corps of Engineers. A permit from the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) would be required under the authority of
Section 361 of the Connecticut General Statutes.
The wet excavation alternative for North Grosvenordale would
require the designation of a nearby site for dewatering, this site would
require approximately 8 acres of land. The wet excavation alternative,
which entails hauling of sediment to a landfill, would generate 100,000
cubic yards of spoil, 3 times per year over 3 year period. (The pumped
volume would be similar). The dry excavation alternative would generate
240,000 cubic yards of material over an 8 month period. All of these
alternatives would require the designation of a disposal site in the
study area, as local landfills do not have the capacity. Some of the
material could be distributed as landfill cover. During dry excavation,
the impoundment would be drained, thus there could be adverse impacts
from odors and aesthetic impacts from the exposed sediments. Improved
road access would be required for the wet excavation alternative only.
Instream Aeration in Perryville, Wilsonville and North Grosvenordale
Impoundments
General . Artificial stream aeration has been considered as a
partial solution to river DO problems for over 50 years (Usage et al.,
1966). With the more recent emphasis on higher river DO standards,
instream aeration has received increased consideration, particularly when
DO improvements are required for short periods of adverse riverine
assimilative capacity.
-------
Artificial aeration could be used, in conjunction with advanced
wastewater treatment, during low flow periods within specific problem
areas along the French River.
Engineering Feasibility Associated with Instream Aeration . In
this section, the engineering feasibility of instream aeration is
assessed, based on the state ambient DO standard of 5.0 mg/i for the
French River; STREAM7B model predicted river DO levels under 7Q10 low
flow conditions with AWT and no algal photosynthetic oxygen production;
and an analysis of the performance of previous laboratory and river
installations for both mechanical surface aerators and submerged air
diffusers.
As indicated in the water quality modeling presented in Chapter 3,
the minimum DO standard of 5.0 mg/l would likely be violated under the
above critical low flow conditions within the Perryville, Wilsonville
(Langer’s Pond), North Grosvenordale and Grosveriordale impoundments.
Accordingly, the objective of instreain aeration would be to increase DO
levels within these relatively sluggish backwater areas above 5.0 mg/i,
during periods of summertime low flow.
Instreain and/or laboratory studies have been conducted previously
by Kaplovsky et al., (196l ), Kalinske (1965), Usage et al. (1966), Conway
and Kumke (1966), Whipple et al. (1969) and Whipple and Coughlan (1970),
using mechanical surface aerators and/or submerged air diffusers. In
addition, oxygen transfer rates of commercially available treatment plant
aeration systems are published by their manufacturers. However, aeration
system transfer rates are typically specified for standard conditions,
i.e., 20° C ambient water temperature, 760 mm Hg atmospheric pressure,
zero mg/i ambient DO concentration at aeration unit, and clean ambient
water quality. Therefore, for use in this analysis, the published
transfer rates (efficiencies) were converted to ambient low flow
conditions for the French River before the assessment of engineering
feasibility was made.
-------
Usage et al. (1966) and Yu (1970) developed methods for converting
aeration unit oxygen transfer rates determined under field test
conditions to corresponding values under standard conditions. These
conversions were made by Yu (1970) using the following expression:
Rt (Cs)20/ [ (Cs)T b_Cml (TF) (a) (1)
where; R 5 oxygen transfer rate under standard conditions
(C 5 ) 20 saturation DO concentration under standard
conditions (9.02 mg/i)
saturation DO concentration under field test
conditions
TF temperature correction factor 1.025 (t-20)
b specific DO soiubility (1.0)
a specific oxygen transfer rate (0.85)
Rt oxygen transfer rate under field test conditions
Cm = DO concentration at the aeration unit
Substituting the above values for (Ce) 20’ TF, b and a into
equation (1) yields the following expression:
R Rt F Rt (9•0 2 )I(Cs_Cm) (1.025) t-20 (0.85)
The conversion factor, F, is plotted in Figure 14-10 as a function
of’ the test water temperature and DO deficit at the aeration unit. It is
seen that oxygen transfer rates (lb 02 per hp—hr) determined at low
ambient water temperatures and small ambient DO deficits at the aeration
unit convert to much higher rates under standard conditions. This is due
to the fact that the rate of oxygen transfer across air-water interfaces
is greater at higher water temperatures and larger water DO deficits.
Conversely, when published standard condition transfer rates are
converted using equation (1) in order to project the transfer rates of an
in-stream installation on the French River, the higher water temperatures
-------
/CSAT - CUNIT = 1.6 MG/L
(FRENCH RIVER)
17-
16
15’
14
13-
12
11-
10•
9’
8
7
6
5.
4,
3,
2
CSAT - CUNIT = 1 MG/L
2 mg/I
0 5 10 15
WATER TEMP.
FRENCH RIVER
LOW FLOW
20
25
TEMP °C
FIG. 4-10 OXYGEN TRANSFER RATE CONVERSION FACTOR
-------
(23°C) and smaller DO deficits estimated for the aeration unit locations
on the river (compared to standard conditions of 20°C and a maximum DO
deficit) would result in much lower transfer rates than those reported,
for the same aeration unit, under standard conditions.
Figure t 11 shows the locations and extent of DO problem areas
within the downstream impoundments of the French River and the locations
and probable impacts of in-stream aeration units required to maintain
ambient DO levels above the 5.0 mg/i standard. One aeration unit would
be required in each of the Perryville and Grosvenordale impoundments and
Langer’s Pond, and two units would be required in the North Grosvenordale
impoundment. The DO profile shown between aeration units (dotted line)
was developed using slopes of the 7Q1O DO profile corresponding to each
location, without artificial instream aeration.
A 2.0 mg/i increase in ambient DO levels is specified across the
aeration units, based on the consideration that any additional increase
above 7.0 mg/i (ambient saturation level is approximately 8.0 mg/i) would
be extremely inefficient. As was seen in Figure 4-10, the efficiency
(oxygen transfer rate) of an in-stream aeration unit is much lower than
under standard conditions, when the ambient DO deficit at the unit is
small. For example, a decrease in the ambient DO deficit (at the
aeration unit) from 2.0 mg/i to 1.0 mg/i would result in a 50 percent
decrease in the corresponding unit efficiency. This large decrease in
efficiency is due to the rapid percent decrease in DO deficit at ambient
DO levels near saturation and the fact that a DO deficit, and hence a DO
gradient, is the force which drives DO transfer across air/water
interfaces.
Instream aeration units can be sized using the following
relationship proposed by Jhipple et al. (1969):
0.22146 Q (C -C )
d n (2)
where; Rt same as defined previously
Q river volumetric discharge rate (7Q10 20 cfs)
Cd z DO level downstream of aeration unit (mg/i)
14—51
-------
DO level upstream of aeration unit (mg/i)
P power developed by aeration unit (shaft-hp)
0.2246 units conversion factor
In the present study, values of Rt were determined using equation
(1) to convert oxygen transfer rates reported by Yu (1970) for standard
conditions (R 5 ) to field rates corresponding to low-flow conditions in
the French River. Rates reported by Yu (1970) were determined from a
field study of mechanical surface aerators and submerged air diffusers in
a highly polluted reach of the Passaic River in New Jersey. This reach
of the Passaic was also similar, in width and depth, to the downstream
impoundments on the French River.
lu (1970) reported average standard condition oxygen transfer
rates of 2.1 lb 02 per hp—hr for a mechanical aerator and 1.2 lb 02 per
hp-hr for a submerged coarse bubble diffuser. Whipple and Coughian
(1970) have shown that fine bubble diffusers can perform much better than
coarse bubble diffusers. Accordingly, use of Yu’s rates for a submerged
diffuser is conservative. Installation of fine bubble diffusers would
likely result in transfer rates similar to those determined by Yu for a
mechanical surface aerator.
Values of Rt were determined for the French River downstream
impoundment aeration units using Figure 4-1O and oxygen transfer rates
reported by Yu (1970). The value of the DO deficit at the aeration unit,
(CSAT —Cufljt) was calculated as 1.6 mg/i, assuming a logarithmic increase
in the DO level from 5.0 mg/i approximately 50 feet upstream of the
aeration unit to 7.0 mg/I approximately 50 downstream of the unit. In
laboratory tests, Usage et al. (1966) found that use of the above
logarithmic increase, which is based on the aeration equation, yielded
values very close to the DO deficit measured at their test aeration unit.
The values of Rt found using Yu’s data and Figure 14 1O are 0.30 lb
02 per hp-hr for a mechanical surface aerator and 0.17 lb 02 per hp-hr
for a submerged coarse bubble diffuser.
4-52
-------
15
15
-a
0
z
Ma
0
x
0
0
Ma
>
0
0
0
0
14
13
12
11
10
$
$
5
4
3
1
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
0
1
MASSACHUSETTS
7
cONNECTICUT
w
-J
0
z
w
>
U,
0
I
I-
0
z
2
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
0
2$
24
20 16 12 $ 4 0
RIVER MILE
FIG. 4-11 INSTREAM AERATION MODEL PREDICTION
-------
Substituting the above values of Rt into equation (2) and solving
for the shaft horsepower required by the aeration unit, F, yields values
of 30 shp and 53 shp, for a mechanical surface aerator and submerged
coarse bubble diffuser, respectively.
As a worst case scenario, if submerged coarse bubble diffusers
were used at the 5 locations shown in Figure 4-11, then assuming an
85 percent system efficiency, a total of 312 blower shp (241 kw) would be
required. Thus, each unit would require a minimum power source of 62-hp
(46 kw) during operation.
A schematic of a typical instream aerator installation to be used
in this alternative is shown in Figure 4-12. Each of the five required
aerators would consist of a fine-bubble diffuser mounted approximately 3
feet off the bottom, in the middle of a 10 foot deep, 50 foot top-width
dredged and lined trench. The trench would extend across each
impoundment, except in the vegetated wetland areas.
Each diffuser would be supplied compressed air by a 50 shaf t-
horsepower centrifugal blower driven by diesel engine. The air supply
system would be enclosed in a small brick and block building located near
to the pond shoreline at the diffuser site.
Water Quality Impacts of Instream Aeration . Instream aeration in
the ponds of the French River would increase base case (No Action)
dissolved oxygen concentrations anywhere from 1.0 to 6.0 mg/i. As
previously described, the base case assumes advanced wastewater
treatment, no photosynthetic oxygen production and 7Q10 low flow
conditions. Dissolved oxygen concentrations in the impoundments would
improve from concentrations of 1.0 to 5.5 mg/i under base case conditions
to a range of 5.0 to 7.5 mg/i with instream aeration.
Localized dissolved oxygen concentrations would increase with the
introduction of instream aeration, bringing water quality in the
impoundments up to standards. It would not, however, address any other
water quality parameters, the sources of degradation, or the contaminants
in the sediments. During installation of the aerators, sediment would be
disturbed, thus increasing the impoundments’ turbidity and suspended
14_54
-------
solids concentrations. These negative impacts would, however, be
temporary.
Biological Impacts of Instream Aeration . The biological impacts
of instreain aeration are both short and long term, and are similar to
Figure 4-11 those associated with sediment control. Construction related
activity would have a adverse impact on the phytoplankton, benthic
macroinvertebrates and fish in the impoundments, due to sediment
excavation, resuspension, and general disturbance. The resultant long
term impacts, however, would be beneficial in that the improved water
quality would result in increased diversity of organisms in the sediment
and water column. Occasional low DO conditions would be eliminated,
preventing fish kills. Instream aeration would not have any impact on
the adjacent wetlands, nor on wildlife and waterfowl.
Socioeconomic Impacts of Instreani Aeration . The estimated total
capital and operation and maintenance costs associated with the instreain
aeration alternative are given in Table l 10. These costs are for all
five aeration units as described in this section. In all likelihood, the
high costs of instream aeration would be borne by local residents, as no
state or Federal funding would be available for such a measure.
TABLE 1I 1O. INSTREPM AERATION COSTS
Diffusers
Pipe 1000 X $50 50,000
Anchors 100’ X 200 20,000
Excavate 10,000 cy X O,O0O
Backfill 1 O,0OO
Equipment
Blower 30,000
Diesel 25,000
Bldg. 25,000
Roadway, Chain Link 10,000
Fence
Property (allow) 100,000
O&M 6 mos. 30,000
370,000
Subtotal Engineering 10% 37,000
Contingency € 25%
L _55
-------
8-B
/ POND SURFACE
—i— T
VARIES .— CURRENT
LINED
OIFFX _/
LINE
_______ I
50 - (
POND FLOP/
UMITS OF
DREDGED
— B
F
B
D l
A-A
EXHAUST STACK
IF DIESEL
POND SURFACE
SUPPLY LINE
FIG. 4-12 SCHEMATIC OF IN-STREAM AERATION DIFFUSER SYSTEM
-------
Most of the other socioeconomic impacts associated with this
alternative would be short term ones, during construction. These impacts
would be similar at all three impoundments. There would be some noise
and traffic generated, but as discussed previously, these impacts are
minor. Access would have to be improved at each site and some clearing
of vegetated areas would be required. Some sediment removal would be
necessary, but nothing approaching the quantity required by the sediment
removal alternative. The dredged materials would have to be trucked to
an off-site landfill. The volume may be low enough that it could be used
as cover in an existing landfill.
During operation, there would be noise from the pumps, however,
the pumps would run infrequently, and would depend on the duration of
depressed DO conditions. The noise should be muffled by the enclosure
and buffered by the natural vegetation and distance to adjacent land
uses. If necessary, the pumps could be enclosed below ground to provide
further muffling. Access to the facilities would have to be maintained
for inspection and operation of the pumps. This would improve access for
recreational use of’ the ponds.
Impacts of Instream Aeration on Recreational Resources and Use
Attainability . Instream aeration in the impoundments would not
significantly affect the existing recreational value of these areas.
Although water quality (-with respect to DO) and biological habitat would
be improved during low flow conditions, the use of the ponds for swimming
and boating would still be constrained by the limited depth and presence
of mucky sediments on the pond bottom. Although access roads provided
for construction and maintenance of the aeration facilities would improve
access for passive recreation, the aesthetic appeal of the sites may
suffer due to the addition of pump house structures and odors. Selective
planting or locating the structures below ground could mitigate this
impact.
Impacts of Instream Aeration on Archaeological and Historic
Resources . The instream aeration alternatives would have no impact on
historical and archaeological resources that have been identified in the
area, as these resources are structures which are located in Wilsonville,
L ..57
-------
Perryville, and North Grosvenordale, and not in the impoundments
themselves.
Regulatory and Institutional Constraints of Instreani Aeration . At
Perryville, a Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act permit from the
Webster Conservation Commission would be required along with Section O 4
and Section 10 permits from the Army Corps of Engineers for instream
aeration. A Waterways License and Permit would also be required from the
State. At Wilsonville and North Grosvenordale, wetlands permits would
have to be sought from the Thompson Conservation Commission and
Section 1IO 4 and Section 10 permits from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. A Section 361 permit would be required from the Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection.
14 58
-------
Chapter 5
-------
CHAPTER 5
COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES AND SELECTION OF RECOMMENDED PLAN
General
The French River in Massachusetts and Connecticut is designated
for Class B inland water uses, and as a warmwater fishery. To protect
these uses, a dissolved oxygen concentration of 5 mg/i at minimum (7Q10)
flows is required.
This report specifically addresses the identified dissolved oxygen
deficiency in that portion of the river between Webster-Dudley,
Massachusetts and North Grosvenordale, Connecticut. Three impoundments,
Perryville, Wilsonville (-Langer’s Pond) and North Grosvenordale are
located within this stretch of the river.
State and Federal environmental regulatory agencies have expressed
a desire to maintain the wetlands that exist in the Perryville and
Langer’s Pond impoundments. Present planning indicates that the North
Grosvenordale impoundment will be used for recreational purposes, once
suitable water quality is attained.
The inability of the river at present to meet Class B dissolved
oxygen standards during low flows can be greatly attributed to the
characteristics of the treated wastewater and solids discharged to the
river by the Webster and Dudley wastewater treatment plants and to the
oxygen demand of the sediments that have accumulated in the Perryville,
Langer’s Pond and North Grosvenordale impoundments located in this
stretch of the river.
Present planning is that the Webster and Dudley wastewater
treatment plants will be combined and upgraded to advanced treatment
levels. Elimination of the sludge discharge at Webster has already been
initiated. Both of these measures will appreciably improve the dissolved
oxygen characteristics of the French River during the critical low flow
summer months. However, this analysis and that of the EPA advanced
treatment review process indicate that, even with the upgrading of the
Webster-Dudley wastewater treatment facilities, a minimum dissolved
5-1
-------
oxygen concentration of 5.0 mg/i cannot be maintained at critical low
flow conditions within the three downstream impoundments. This
deficiency is attributed to the proportion of wastewater flow in the
river under low flow conditions, and to the oxygen demand that is exerted
by the sediments which have accumulated within these impoundments.
Comparison of Alternatives
A detailed description of each of the alternatives that have been
identified to improve water quality conditions in the French River basin
has been presented in Chapter k. Along with the principal engineering
features and technical feasibility, the anticipated impacts, both
positive and negative, in terms of water quality, biology, socioeconomic
and recreational resources and historical/archaeological features have
been identified. This chapter describes how the various alternatives
were analyzed and compared to develop a plan that will meet the principal
objective of this project, which is compliance with water quality
standards in the French River and its impoundments downstream of the
Webster—Dudley wastewater treatment plant, while minimizing impacts on
valuable resources. The principal engineering features of each of the
alternatives are summarized in Table 5-1. Table 5-2 presents the changes
in dissolved oxygen concentrations, as predicted by the water quality
modeling, that would occur throughout the French River as a result of
each of the final alternatives. The modeling results are presented
graphically in Figures 5-1 through 5- 1 L Figure 5-1 shows the water
quality conditions as a result of the No Action alternative, which
assumes implementation of Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT) at Webster-
Dudley. While the water quality standard of 5.0 mg/i of dissolved oxygen
would be met immediately downstream of the future plant, dissolved oxygen
in Perryville, Langer’s Pond and North Grosvenordale would range from
1.0 to 5.5 mg/i. Poor water and sediment quality would continue to
adversely affect organisms in or near the French River, thus posing the
threat of fish kills or bioaccumulation.
Figure 5-2 illustrates dissolved oxygen concentrations in the
river as a result of sediment control in the Perryville, Wilsonville
5-2
-------
TA&E 5—I
BGlNEBhIl FEATIJ 1I3
r ’ARISGI OF ALT TIVE5
QUANTITY
.
DEfEGETAIION
ALTERNATIVE 1*01 .8401841 R UIR8)
N4O&R (T OF PROJECT
SHOFaIME NO. OF FEET CONSTRLC-
EXPOSE) ERAS 4 TION TIME
QUANTITY
MATERIAL
EXCAVATE)
(TO 3 )
BOgRCW
MAT IAL
R UIRB)
(YD 3 )
CXAISTRLA T ION
ACXESS
(FT I 1AVEL
ROfl))
HAUL
OISTA$CE
(ORB)GE
MATOIIAL)
CONSTR(X TION
IMPACTS
ORBGE
MATERIAL
DISTIRBANCE O8 ATERIP4G
OF SEI)IMO4TS SITE
TOTAL
PROJECT
COSTS 0111k))
NOISE
00011
OUST
L01 FLON jffupviIte minimal No nam No 2 - 4 moe. NA NA NA NA Minor constructIon NA NA $431,000
AUGIOITATIG4 ak. around shor .lIns drdoma Impact associated with
perlph.ry axpowur. proposed culv.rl modIfIcation —
of Lake construction duratIon
sIll be brief.
SE) IN 841 sam. NA NA small amount $334,000
CONTROL durIng durIng
W.VI.nde P.rryvIll. MA NA MA I No. HA constru— drI lng of
Isolation Pond ctlon sh. .t pIling
Wetlands minImal NA NA 4—8 moe. 22,000 50,000 2,000 24,000 same NA Son, son, to be 8.0 acr.s $1,760,000
Isolation for access Cu yds durIng minImized
& Oannal roed at end const— by hydrau—
ExcavatIon of 8 mom. ructlon Ic dr.dglnq
(w/setti lag &
haul lag)
Wetlands NA NA NA 4—8 moe. 22.000 12,000 none; ptump mom. NA Some some to ha 4.5 acres $689,000
Isoletion 3 ml to durlnq mInimized
& ONenn.l dwaterlng coast— by hydrau—
Excavation sits ructlon lIc dr.dgInq
iw/pamp lag)
W.t lends Langers Pond NA NA NA I me. NA some NA NA anal 1 omount — 1334.000
Ioletlon during during driving
const— of shait pilIng
ruct Ion
Wetland dales) NA NA 1—3 moe. 10,000 45,000 2,000 11,000 some NA Some some; to be 3 acres $1,361,000
Isolation for access Cu ‘ds at during elnImizsd by
& Channel road ,nd of coast— hydraulic
Ex cevatlon 2 eec. ruction dredging
(s/settling &
haul lag)
-------
T .E 5—I (Comtlnu.d)
BiGl$E ING FEATLI1ES
WU’ARISON OF A&TBIIATIVES
QUANT ITt
QUANTITY
BORROf
CONSTRIET IOR
HAUL
DREDGE
Pf401J4t OF
PROJEDE
MATmIAL
MATGRIAL
ACOESS
DISTANCE
MATU (IAL
TOTAL
DEVEOETATIGR
ALTBfNAIIVE IMPOUND4eT R UIRED
SIGRaINE
EXPOSED
NO. OF FEEl CONSTRUC-
DRA ( EXfM TION TIME
EXCAVATED
(Y0 3 )
R UIRB)
(tO 3 )
(FT GRAVEL
ROAD)
(DREDGE
MAT IAL)
CONSTRUCTION
IMPACTS
DISTIJfBN (CE D IATG (ING
OF SWIMEXTS SITE
PROJECT
COSTS OTHG (
NOISE
ODOR
DUST
W.tI.nds
hole? Ion
$ Channel
b c e uvat Ion
(s/pumpIng)
North minimal
Orosvnoedel . for
mecs,s r eed
N., WA
8 .cmvet Ion
(s/pump log)
NA MA biti..
pond
drained
non.;
pump 3 .1,
to d.water—
ing sItm
sore NA
during
con tr-
ruct ion
100.000 mInimal NA minimal
i
/yr cv..
3—6 years
none; pump minImal NA minImal
S mII.m to
d.watiring/
di spose
$ It.
coma; to b. 8.2 acr.$
mm mel z.d
by using
hydraulic
dredging
sums; to be 3.7 acres
ml cc is I 2nd
by usIng
hydraul I C
dredging
minimal wh.n None
pond is
rat Ii I.d ;
much I.e.
than w.t
. cccavat ion
lN—STREM Perryvill• minimal for NA
AB (AIIEX4 Pond construction
of pmp
housing on—
sher.
NA
NA NA
NA
NA NA No NA
55O9.000 smcil —permanent
placement of
of dIffuser
pipes In pond
Lang.rs Pond minimal for MA
COnStruct ion
of pump
housing
onshore
minimal NA NA
construction
of pump
housIng
onshors.
NA semI—permanent
placement of
dIffuser pipes
in pond
NA semi—permanent
placement of
diffuser pipes
in pond
L.ng.rs
Pond
NA NA NA I—S moa. 10,000 20.000 —
Wit
Excavation
(w/s.ttilflq $
h su Ilng)
NA some; to be 2 acres
inlniecizad by
hydraul ic
dredging
NA MA 3—6 yrs 240.000 2 16.000 3000
NA MA 3—6 yra. 240,000 25,000 -
6 moe. 240,000 NA -
Dry
ExcavatIon
$600,000
$5,887,000
$2.01 1.000
$3,699,000
240,000 mod.rat. Y.s mInImal
yd 3 ovsr short short
8 me period tire t.rm
NA
North
Grosvanordel. for
NA NA NA
NA NA NA
NA NA No
NA NA No
Notes: MA • Not Applicable
* • Costs for all units to be used in the 3 Impoundments
-------
,_ t ,_,
q.ma. rn rocTs
OF MTI tIl S
LOCATION
ALTERNATIVE
lEACH DCUE(S
FRENDI RIVER
NORTH
ANT AT W€BSTER/
S(FFW ILLE
BE1WEN BI$FIJIVILLE
PE YVILLE
I.ANGER’s
OROSVtICPE L E
DtIOLET WWTPI
L*E
PE YVILL E
PONO
Po l o
POlo
DO rang. -3.3
to 3.3 .gII
DO r.aq. .3.3 to
3.3 mg/I
Lo. FIri * Ch .Nq. In DO ring. • 3.3 to $ . a g , 5 ,
Au nt.tls. 00 ii. ottor .Iqn lfIcrit
cling. In .a?r u.lIty
00 rang. • 3.3 to 5.3 ag/I .
NO t% sIgnilic. .?
clung. I.u ..t.r g.el lty
00 range • 3 to 6.3 ag/I,
0 Otlisi ,IgNItIcSlit
chsng. IN aster Uui&Ity
00 ring. .5 to 6 3 ag/I
no ellis ’ sIgnIfIcant
change In int.r qualIty
V.t I rids
hoIstS.. . 04
3.4 Saint R,.iI
In clunwu.Is of
PerrpvI I Is,
Longer’s Ps.
• .d l t
In s .tI ,
N Orsevanerdel.
Food
00 ring. • 3.7 to S .3 ag/I
00 rang. • 6 to 7 mg/I
InitIal Incr.sss
(sbsrt—tsc.P IN OsIpw I1
oIIds and turbIdity
foP I by Iong-t.rr
4 OOFasS S
00 rang. • 3.2 t. 7 ag/I
InItI.I I.asso
(abort—tsr.) IN sueps-idid
soIldi rid t .rbidlty
foP I l by lo ng-tsr.
d.crseso•
DO ring. • 3 to P mg/I
InIti.I I ,icr.m
(sbort.tr.) In su. dsd
solids rid turbIdity
fol, by loNg-two
dscr.rn.
W.t ls ndi
Isolation sod
3.4 Saint Ika _ .ot
Ii ito i . Of
F. rryvIlIs,
Longer’s Puu ,ds
s.d 3.dIarit
iL __ I Pa nutira
N. Orusosasrdsl.
Prude .i$N Lu.
Flu. t pi.u.t.tiri
00 range • 3.2 to 6.3 1,/I
no Oftusr sigelilaist
cfurigs In ustur quslity
00 ring. • 3.3 to S.? ag/I
Initial tacrassi
(s Nort—tsr.) in sau l-ltd
solids and turbIdity
•slid by lang-tsr.
DO range • 6.2 to 7.2 ugfl
l.itl.i 1as.. .
(sNort—tsr.) I. SIN 115d
solIds i .d Pr ’bldIiy
follanod by long-tsar
4 5c r . . ..
DO ring. • 7 to 7J ag/i
InItial iacrsss
(sNort—t sr . ) In s.spand . 4
soS 545 s.d t rbI4Ity
1.1 Isasd Np long-tsr.
1 .Ør. s .
Norst lsa
S. Prr ,,itIs,
I...gsr’. Foad
d SIrt l u
Oroa,.nordsi.
Dorang. .3.PtsS.Sag/I DOrsn,e.3tu7ag/I ,
se stow IN
ritur qusi Sty
DO range s3 to 7 mg/I,
NO otI C. _ . I.
vets’ q..llty
00 rump • 3 to 7 ag/I,
so .tluw cnig . I.
vets’ s..lSty
5 ?ctlo ,i NA
00 rang. • 3.1 $
S., ag/I
00 rang. •I to 5.5 up,,
s. I t pIIcabi.
-------
FIG. 5-1 SENSITIVITY OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN TO ADVANCED WASTEWATER
TREATMENT AND LOW FLOW (7Q10) CONDiTIONS
MASSACHUSETTS
0
-I
C,
w
0
z
LU
-j
U-
z
0 .
0.
- ‘
LU—i
>
CONNECTICUT
Ui
w
-j
-j
>
14
0
U)
LU
w
0
0
I
a-
I.-
>-
LU
-J
0
D
0
Uj
U)
LU
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
$
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
13
0
LU
-J
-J
>
>-
LU
a-
z
w
C,
x
0
0
LU
>
-l
0
0
0
LU
-J
0
0
z
LU
>
U)
0
w
z
0
LU
-J
0
0
z
LU
>
U)
0
0
12
0
LU
-J
-j
>
U,
0
z
I
0
LU
11
10
9
8
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
7
6
5
4
28 24 20 16 12
RIVER MILE
3
2
1
8
4
0
0
-------
5
24 20 16
FIG. 5.2 SENSITIVITY OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN TO SEDIMENT CONTROL AT PERRY VILLE,
LANGER’S AND NORTH GROSVENORDALE PONDS UNDER LOW FLOW (7Q10) CONDITIONS
14
13
F .A A’ SACH USE TTS
0
CONNECTICUT
LU
w
-J
-J
>
3 -
0
z
LU
1
U-
z
0 .
0.
uJ
> .
WE
—J
I_ -
I— ,
0
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
$
7
$
5
4
3
2
1
0
-a
C,
z
w
C,
>.
0
a
w
>
-a
0
10 )
a
0
LU
-j
-J
>
>-
LU
a.
0
LU
-J
-J
>
z
0
U)
-J.
0
U i
-J
0
0
z
LU
>
U)
0
12
0
w
-J
-J
>
‘I)
0
z
I
0
w
11
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
— SEDIMENT CONTROL AT PERRY VILLE,
LANGERS POND AND NORTH
GROSVENORDALE POND
BASE CASE (NO ACTION)
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
28
RIVER MILE
12
8
4
0
-------
28 24
20
FIG. 5-3 SENSITIVITY TO LOW FLOW AUGMENTATION
(FROM BUFFUMYILLE LAKE) ASSUMING ADVANCED WASTEWATER
15
14
13
12
MASSACHUSETTS
11
- CONNECTICUT
10
I
=
U1
U
z
w
-j
II .
z
II
0
(
a
‘U
I,
i (
-J
-J
>
‘I)
14
0
$
C,
z
‘U
C,
K
0
0
‘U
>
-J
0
l#1
I ,
0
7
0
‘U
-j
-J
>
z
-j
a
‘U
-j
0
0
z
‘U
>
U)
0
12
$
11
5
10
4
3
8
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
2
7
1
— — — — — —WITH LOW FLOW
AUGMENTATION
0
S
4
RIVER MILE
16
3
2
12
1
8
4
0
0
TREATMENT UNDER LOW FLOW (7Q10) CON D1TIONS
-------
15
lb
24
20
16
FIG. 5-4 SENSITIVITY OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN TO SEDIMENT CONTROL AT PERRY VILLE,
LANGER’S AND NORTH GROSVE ORDALE PONDS WITH LOW FLOW AUGMENTATION
14
13
12
11
10
MASSACHUSETTS
1
0
CONNECTICUT
w
-J
-J
>
S
7
z
w
K
0
0
w
>
-J
0
0
S
4
3
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
2
1
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0
— SEDIMENTCONTROLATPERRYVILLE.
LANGERS AND NORTH GROS VENOR DALE PONDS
WITH LOW FLOW AUGMENTATION
28
RIVER MILE
12
I
4
0
-------
(Langer’s Pond), and North Grosvenordale impoundments, in addition to the
AWT “base case”. As was discussed previously in Chapter 4, sediment
control is necessary at all three impoundments in order to achieve the
minimum DO criterion of 5.0 mg/i. The model run presented in Figure 5-2
takes into account the effect of sediment excavation on hydraulics. It
can be seen that, as a result of the increased residence time in the
North Grosvenordale impoundment, DO concentrations in Grosvenordale (the
next impoundment downstream) would still violate the 5.0 mg/i criterion
on occasion.
Figure 5-3 shows the improvement in water quality due to low flow
augmentation from Buffumville Lake, in addition to AWT. These data
indicate that the water quality standards would still be violated at
locations just upstream of the Langer’s Pond, and then again in North
Grosvenordale and Grosvenordale Ponds. Thus, LFA by itself would not
increase the dissolved oxygen concentration levels sufficiently
downstream to meet standards.
Instream aeration in Perryville, Wilsonville, and North
Grosvenordale has been eliminated from further consideration, as this
alternative is costly, would not permit the primary use of recreation in
North Grosvenordale, requires continued operation and maintenance, and is
a “bandaid” measure only.
Figure 5..14 illustrates the dissolved oxygen concentrations that
would occur in the river (at low flow) with sediment control at the three
impoundments and low flow augmentation from Buffumville Lake, in addition
to the implementation of AWT. This plot indicates that the water quality
will be substantially improved over the base case throughout the French
River downstream of the combined Webster-Dudley treatment plant, with
dissolved oxygen concentrations of at least 5.5 mg/i. Based on these
modeling results, there would be no violations of the DO standard
downstream of the Webster—Dudley advanced wastewater treatment plant with
the implementation of sediment control in the Perryville, Wilsonville,
and North Grosvenordale impoundments and low flow augmentation in
Buffuznville Lake.
5-10
-------
Tables 5—3 and 5_14 summarize the impact of each of the
alternatives on biological and socioeconomic/recreational resources
respectively.
Description of the Recomended Plan
The recommended plan, in conjunction with an upgraded Webster-
Dudley wastewater treatment plant, has been selected to provide adequate
dissolved oxygen levels in the French River downstream of the Webster-
Dudley facility and to preserve/achieve the desired uses of the three
impoundments. In developing the recommended plan, various alternatives
were first considered with respect to their ability to provide proper
levels of dissolved oxygen concentrations within the reach of the French
River under consideration. Since analysis indicated that no one
alternative would achieve the desired objective, the recommended plan
suggests that several applicable alternatives should be combined and
implemented in a sequence which will maximize the efficacy of the
alternatives while minimizing the time elapsed before improvements are
realized. The recommended sequence of alternatives has been developed in
consultation with the regulatory agencies and other interested parties.
In addition to the implementation of AWT at the Webster—Dudley
Wastewater Treatment Plant, the recommended plan consists of the
following:
• Implement Low flow augmentation from Buffumville Lake.
• Isolate wetlands at Perryville and Langer’s (Wilsonville)
Ponds.
• Excavate (dredge) sediment in channels at Perryville and
Langer’s Ponds.
Excavate dried sediment in North Grosvenordale Pond.
Implement P 1 dvanced Wastewater Treatment . Advanced wastewater
treatment at the upgraded Webster—Dudley wastewater treatment plant will
provide a nitrified effluent which will result in the reduction of the
effluent’s oxygen demand. Sludge processing with belt filter presses and
5—il
-------
T _( —)
•saorncM. SW,CTS
g r MTEN flVI%
LOCATSIJI
ALTIquAV I VI
((AOl
INCLUDES
FRENCH RIVER
N TH
AWl AT
W(IST(R/
IIØFIJWILLE
Ø(T EN BIFFII(VILLE
PERRYVULE
LANDER’S
( OSVIN DALE
DUDLEY
*TPI
LANE
P IAWYVIUE
P0 i0
Po ø
PotR
org. I .is.. in •sd
along rivur . 1 11
co. .tI Iws t bs
sngstlveiy iupsctsd
01 lit01$ Iii •,id
siolig rivar will
co i?ilw to bs
n .gst i v , I!
l i.ctsd
org...Is.s I . s.d
•long rlv.i• will
eo.i?I,ws to bs
s.gst ivs$y
I .ct. d
orginIs.. I n s.d
aio.ig rlv.r will
Cdl tlIw. to ba
l ag.? (why
i ac?sd
(on lion Ii. signifies.,
Pugn tat Ion l sct
$ i.ltsd i rovant
I. swrviv.l s .d
r.prod.Ct loll of
hsat*ic I ivsrts0r atss
halted I rov. it
is survival 5 .4
ragroduetion of
sqi.stlc orginians
hi.ited i rovnt
is sgrvlvsi slid
rugroducthon of
ssu .tlc org.nion$
ii.itsd i rov qit
In survivsi slid
rs roduct ion of
aquatic orysslans
W.t Is.4$
Isolation s.d
S.dii.t iii
chs.n.I of
Perryvill. s.d
i.uig.r’s P n
5 .4 S.dI.s.it
lb.ovai 111 .ntlrs
N. Grosvsiiordah.
Pond
eO signifies.? l set
on ustlinds, slg. iIflcs .t
iv,rov nt Is honItli
siid diversity of aquatic
01g.I il
as signiflcs .t i sct
or. wstis.du, aigi iiflcsnt
l rov d Is,
* i..Itl . sad diversity
*0 aquatiC CIgSlIlIs.
significant & l revs..nts
In Mslth and div.rsIty of
.qu.tic s.iion •hI.lsiat.
of pohsiblilty of trapAic
.59. 10 catIon •f contlnsnt.
Wstisndu
isolation and
5.41...? vai
In cAsns.is of
Psrryvlii•,
.S nQsl 5 Pond. and
Sail.. .? lb.ov.l
is Intl.. M
Gros,snoldals Pond
with (on lion
A u ntstlo n
NA
I$.it.d i ro s .it
is swrvivsl s.d
rapro iet Ion
aquatic orga.ii,
no significant iagsct
on s.tlsnds . significant
i ro uit* in hasi?h
s.d div.r.Ity of aquatic
organ Is..
no signiflcsiit lapact
on wst lsnda . signifies.?
i ro ats is
Maul, slid dlvsrstty
of squat Ic orga.ians
sigilif I cant & lasr .ts
in health and diversity of
aquatic oIganis.t . •ii.inat.
of possibility of trapsic
gnlflcation of cOntualnant .
lI.Itsd i.pr .,nt
in survival
and rapioduct ion of
aquatic organ I
11.1 ted l.pro nt
I. anrviv.i
and ragroduction of
aquatic organison
11.1 tsd laprova..nt
in survlvsl
and r.p o h,cticn of
squstic organ us.
lb Oct10. NA
U i
NA NA
NA
NA
*,t Aaplicsbis
-------
Ta&E —4
SOCiO fQIiC MU) RR 5EATII*AL PIU’ACTS
ARIScII OF ALT fNATIVES
Adverse
l , act on
Webster S
Dudley, See
Table 4—I
no use at
present, may
improve
Sane no adverse
lmprovecent Impact
no significant localized
adverse in acts;
none recreational
use in roved
sane, but none
cell ubsorbed
Wetlands IsolatIon
& thann.l Excavation
c/han 11mg
Increase access possIble clear— None
for hIkIng 50cm problmn be-
neath culvert; to
be mItIgated
mae. 2000 ft. of no use at present, some So—
road required may Improve pronanent
no use at present, some in—
may Improve provement
beach nay no sIgnIfIcant short tern
require adverse Impacts; and local Ized
expansIon some recreatIonal
use Improved
no adverse Im— SIghtly Improve mInor Impact
pact, lIttle fishIng, 5dm— due to short
recreatlonel mlng construction tIme
use
short term, none
ccl I absorbed
minImal and short— none
term
pump 3 sIlas to de-
eaterlng/disposai
sIte (need sltel
Wetlands isolatIon Lingers Pond Some adverse no
impect on
Thompson.
State amp
wetlands isolation
& thann.l ExcavatIon
c/haul Img
Som, advers, no
Impact on
Thompson.
State icy
fund.
2000 ft. of no use at present,
road required no Increased
use mapect.d
mama Im— no adverse Im-
provement pact, lIttle
recreational
use
no Increased mInor Impact
use expected due to short
construction time
some, but well haul ID ml Ins to
absorbed exIstIng or
nan landfIll
Wetlemd Isolation
$ channel Encanat ion
w/p ul fp 1mg
Soc. adoers. no
Impact on
Thompson.
Stat. may
fund,
NsF ExcavatIon
n/haul 1mg
North Some adverse
IOro,n .nordmls lapact on
Thompson.
Stat. amy
Some adverse no
Impact on
Thompson,
Stat. may
fund.
3000 ft. road non. ml sting
r.guIr.d
long t. ’rm no adverse Is-.
ln roae.ment pact; little
recreational
use
non, exIstIng long term no adverse In—
Impronefnent pact; little
recreational
use
Improve fishing, noise and other
boatIng, swine— constructIon in,—
log pacts over 3—b
yrs.; sIte wall
So f fermd
improve fishing, noise end other
boating, sclmm— construction im—
Ing pacts over 3—b
prs,; site well
bul fared
NO ACTION (AWl)
no
FINANCIA l.
D EGETP ,TIOR
WATER
EXISTING
0ESIRD) AND
CONSt IIItTION
INCRFASEI)
DRES)UG)
IMPACT C IA
MAD
BOATING
QUA l .ITY/
REEREATIOIIAL
DESIUAATB)
(IIOISE, ODOR
TRAFFIC ON
MATERIALS
ALTERNATIVE IMPO1AIDAUVTS Cl0*4UNITT(AI
DI OSA (. ACCESS USE
AESTV4ET ICS
USES
USES
OUST, ETCI
LOCAL ROADS
DISPOSAL
LON FLBA AUIS4ØAIAT1ON Bufftmnliie lake Non. None
S H) IN BAT CONTROL
Wetlands isolation
no
none required;
done from a
bargm
P.rryvllI. Pond Adverse
Impact
on Webst.r
Ad verse
imp act
on Webster
Adverse
impact
on Webster
to use at present, some im-
may improve provement
Wetlands isolation
S channel ExcavatIon
c/pump log
no
fund,
no Adverse In- slightly improve minor Impact sane, but well
pact; little fishing, swim— due to short absorbed
recreatIonal mlng. boating construction time
use
no adverse in,— slightly Improve minor impact some. but neil
pact; untie fishIng, salman — due to short absorbed
recreational ing, boatIng construction time
Use
haul ID ml Ins,
existing or
nan landf I Ii
none
requIred;
no usn. at present,
some
In—
no adverse in—
no
Increased
mInor
Impact
minimal end short
done
tram a
no increased
pvovmnnent
pact; little
use
expected
doe to
short
term
barge
use expected
recreational
constructIon
time
use
none
some for road access
Wet ExcavatIon
w/p uxap log
fund,
use
no use at present,
sane
im—
no adverse in—
no
increased
mInor
impact
same,
but cell
pomp
3 miles to de-
mo Increased
pron.nent
pact, little
use
mxp.ctmd
due to
short
absorbed
waterIng/disposal
usa enp.ct.d
recreational
construction
tIm,
sIte
(need sital
non.
some, longer term
than other alter-
natIves, but well
absorbed
Sane; long term
than other alter—
net ives but well
absor bad
dewater near site;
haul 112 mIles for
dIsposal. Need nec
landfill
dewater end dispose
appron. 0 miles from
site, Need vow
landi ill
-------
T E 1-4 ( stI s ou
loIc . w t. s
OF MT TIflI
A it. tn.tIvS
FI .cl&i
l sot on
l onn nis sl$y(A )
O.v,gStstIos
and
Disposil
Accsss
listing
(iso
Ust.r
Quit ity/
duith.tics
st ls
Nscr.atiosoI
1*.s
0.1 lr.d
D.stgnsted
Us.,
nstiuct ion
(noisi. odor
dust, Stc)
incr.. 5.d
Traffic on
Local No.ds
0i 4g .4
Mnt.ri.i
Oispo si
Dry liuiivat ion
North sd,ers.
ion.
non.
sons s l it Inn
short t,t.
no dusrsi I a—
isprovs I I ill Isp.
pot.nt Iii odor
sin tail Short—tsr.;
hiul ID ii si for
Osodsi. 1.cP on
lns.c?s
psot; sitti.
b t lag. •wlso
FroSt diis to
wit I .bsorb.d
dl apono I
Th sc i,
during I
rucr*.tlon.i
ing
p*s .d ,idlonots
saw mliii
ltst• soy
. 0 5t h pr0
was
1 u sd.
J.ct ti..;
long tic. is—
ptov s s o nt
iN$TRE APAT1DI
P.rryviils Pond Tais would
sinioni at ond,
lnsrovas.nt
so IIOICt or
itoit.rs soy
.isim.i • iSt-
isprov.d soc. ..
short t.ts; ion.
sin 1.51
sin l..i soaKs?;
l.ang.rs Pond pip (0
sit.
it isiS •it
I.provso,nP
d.tr.ct
fing us. In
n sy provide
soil. fro. puspi,
dispoa.d in oil sting
North osvonordii. too)
slightly
Iron a ii m.—
tic .pp..l
any of tI ,.
ponds
Siting iccses
5.5*1 .. f S.
s.f.ty linus for
SKiailng, boating.
priscipoily at
North Groic.ndor-
d ii.
but Infriquint
usd 1 1 11
NOTES.
A Puisibi. funding sources for this. .itsrn.tiv.. at. not Mono .t th• pr.sant tins. At to. tins of ipoian.ntution of my .Itsrnativ s, funding sourcss will b. id.ntifisd and no.. local funding m.y S. r.qulrid, r.sultlng In son.
fln.ncl.i Insact on Ii i. cononnitiss.
-------
landfill disposal is presently being implemented. Both of these actions
should lower the oxygen demand on the French River and correspondingly
improve the dissolved oxygen concentrations in the river under low flow
conditions. The upgraded plant is anticipated to go on line by 1990 is
an integral part of the no action alternative since it is already
required by the clean water act.
Implement Low Flow Augmentation . Low flow augmentation would be
implemented as the initial activity in the recommended plan, by providing
up to 500 acre—feet of storage at Buffumville Lake. This quantity of
storage would permit the release of supplemental flow to maintain a
minimum flow of 22 cfs (measured at the Webster Gage) in the river at all
times. To achieve the 500 acre-feet of storage would require raising the
pooi elevation approximately 2.5 feet in the spring, with a subsequent
maximum drawdown to normal pool elevation during a severe low flow
event. LFA will have a minor impact on approximately two acres of
wetlands along the central western portion of the lake. In this region
with low elevational relief, where emergent macrophytes are now bordered
by palustrine scrub shrub, the slightly increased duration of seasonally
elevated water levels may result in some of the scrub shrub areas
transformation to emergent macrophyte wetlands.
In conformance with the Clean Water Act, flow augmentation may be
used as a supplement to wastewater treatment but not as a substitute for
adequate treatment. Since low flow augmentation can be implemented
relatively quickly, some water quality benefits would be realized in
stressed sections of the French River within the first year of
implementation. The augmentation of low flows to 22 cfs would improve DO
concentrations in the downstream impoundments and lessen the impact of
point source discharges to the river during low flows. If following
implementation of AWT, LFA and the proposed sediment control measures it
is found via the monitoring program some years later that low flow
augmentation is not needed to achieve water quality standards, then LFA
would be phased out of the program or if it is determined that low flow
of 22 cfs can be reduced, a lower flow will be implemented.
5—15
-------
Isolate Wetlands at Perryville and Langer’s Ponds . The wetlands
in both Perryville and Langer’s Ponds would be isolated by placing a
barrier between them and the pond area. While permitting water transfer,
the barrier would minimize sediment movement from the wetlands to the
pond areas, decreasing sediment oxygen demand and thereby improving
dissolved oxygen concentrations in these impoundments. The type of
material(s) to be used as barriers would be determined at the time of
implementation.
Excavate Sediment in Channels at Perryville and Langer’s Ponds . The
excavation of the sediments in the channels in both Perryville and Langer’s
(Wilsonville) Ponds would be conducted using a hydraulic dredge. Once this
action, as well as that of isolating the wetlands in these impoundments is
complete, the impact of the existing sediment oxygen demand should be
substantially reduced, and the dissolved oxygen levels in these impoundments
should meet Class B standards under low flow conditions. The dimensions of
the channels to be excavated in the Perryville and Wilsonville impoundments
are presented in Table 5—5.
Excavate Dry Sediment in North Grosvenordale Pond . Dry excavation of
the entire sediment deposition in the North Grosvenordale impoundment (except
the small fringe of emergent macrophytes) is recommended in lieu of dredging,
as it would be substantially quicker and less costly. Analysis indicates that
once this action is implemented, the dissolved oxygen level in all of the
downstream impoundments would meet Class B standards under low flow
conditions. Since the flow of the French River will be diverted from the
excavation areas during removal, this action could be conducted concurrently
with sediment control activities upstream, with no adverse impacts.
Impacts of’ the Reconinended Plan
The impacts of each of the alternatives comprising the recommended plan
have been presented in Chapter 14, and siin nirized in Tables 5-1 through 5_I4
In siin n ry, a number of benefits would be realized by implementation of the
recommended plan. The elimination of’ stressed DO conditions and the dilution
of point source discharges during low flow occurrences in the river would
enhance the health and diversity of benthic macroinvertebrates, fish, and
5-16
-------
other aquatic organisms. The potential for bioaccumulation and trophic
magnification of contaminants contained in the sediments would be reduced in
those areas excavated, while valuable wetlands habitat would be preserved.
EPA intends to monitor river water quality following implementation of the
recommended plan to document improvements from the proposed action.
In addition, access to the impoundments for recreational use would be
somewhat improved, as would the aesthetic appeal. Excavation of the sediments
in North Grosvenordale in particular would greatly improve the impoundment’s
recreational potential by deepening the pond, improving bottom conditions,
limiting macrophyte growth, enhancing the fishery, and
TABLE 5-5. CHANNEL DIMENSIONS
Pond
Average
Width
Ft.
Average
Depth
Ft.
Length
Ft.
Langer’s Pond
Perryville
95
85
9.5
7.0
1800
1700
eliminating the potential for nutrient and contaminant transfer from the
sediments to the water column.
Some short—term, adverse impacts would necessarily be incurred during
implementation of the project activities. These impacts, and recommended
measures to mitigate them, are described in the following section.
The costs of providing the recommended instream improvements
(supplemental to AWT) are listed in Table 5-6. Although precise funding
sources have not yet been identified, it is anticipated that the low flow
augmentation alternative would be federally funded, while costs of’ the
remaining activities would be shared by the respective states and towns.
Mitigation Measures
Although the recommended improvement alternatives were selected based
upon their impacts on water quality, specifically dissolved oxygen
5—17
-------
concentrations, another important criterion in choosing alternatives was avoid
negative impacts, either short-term or long—term, to the maximum extent
possible. This is evident in the selection of wetlands isolation, which would
have no negative impact and perhaps even have a positive impact on wetlands,
as opposed to dredging the entire impoundments at Perryville and Wilsonville,
thus eliminating wetlands from these ponds.
Channel excavation at Perryville and Langer’s Ponds is expected to take
between 14 and 8 months to complete. Sediment excavation at North
Grosvenordale is expected to last approximately 8 months. To mitigate the
disturbance effects of excavation, these processes could be regulated by
controlling hours of operation and minimizing adverse impacts of traffic and
noise. Other measures which may help to alleviate the
TABLE 5-6. COST OF INSTREAM IMPROVEMENTS
Item Cost - Dollars
Low flow augmentation from
Buffuniville Lake $1431,000
Isolate wetlands at Perryville
and Langer’s impoundments $668,000
Excavate sediment in channels
at Perryville and Langer’s
impoundments $2, 453,000
Excavate sediment in North
Grosvenordale impoundment $3, 699,000
Total $7,251,000
impacts felt at North Grosvenordale during excavation include odor control,
perhaps by covering the sediments with a sheet-like material or with a
material which could absorb the offensive odor, and dust control, which would
involve lightly sprinkling the exposed sediments with water. Mitigation of
sediment disturbance during hydraulic dredging could include the use of silt
curtains.
5-18
-------
Negative impacts at Buffuniville Lake would include noise and dust
during the installation of the larger culvert. Since the park at Buffuniville
Lake has many visitors during summer days, by conducting any work at
Buffumville during off-season periods or off-peak hours, most of the adverse
effects would be mitigated. Mitigation of impacts on recreational activities
have been incorporated in the project outlines and cost estimates.
5—19
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES
Belanger, T.V. 1979. Benthic Oxygen Demand in Selected Florida Aquatic
Systems, Ph. D. Dissertation, U. of Florida, Gainsville, Fl, 210 pp.
Beuscher, J.H., 1967. Water Rights , College Printing & Typing Co., Inc.
Black, J., 1983. Field and Laboratory Studies of Environmental Carcinogenesis
in Niagara River Fish. J. Great Lakes Res. 9 (2 ) : 326-334
Bowman, G.T., and J.J. Delfino. 1980. Sediment Oxygen Demand Techniques: A
Review of Laboratory and In-Situ Systems, Water Research, Vol. 14, 491-
499.
Brown, Donald and Donald, Town of Thompson, Plan of Development , 1969.
Bruce Campbell and Associates, 1971, Master Plan, Town of Leicester .
Charlton, town of, no date, Zoning Bylaws
Dudley, town of, no date, Zoning Bylaws
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CT DEP), 1984. Letter
from Guy Hoffman (CT DEP) to Sue Cobler (M&E), re: CT DEP 1984 summer
sampling data.
Central Massachusetts Regional Planning Commission, 1979, Areawide Water
Quality Management Plan .
Central Massachusetts Regional Planning Commission, 1985, Land Use Development
Plan 1985-90, Oxford, Massachusetts .
Central Massachusetts Regional Planning Commission, 1972, Recreation and Open
Space Plan .
Environmental Archaeology Group, 1985. Archaeological Reconnaissance of the
French River Quality Improvement District Buffumville, Massachusetts to
North Grosvenor Dale, Connecticut.
Farnworth, E.G. et al., 1979. Impact of Sediment and Nutrients on Biota in
Surface Water of the United States EPA-600/3 .-79-1O5, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Athens, GA.
Frohne, W., 1938. Limnological of Higher Aquatic Plants. Trans. Amer.
Micros. Soc . 57 (3) 256—262.
Goldman, C. and A. Home, 1983. Limnology McGraw-Hill Book Company, New
York. 464 p.
A—i
-------
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES (CONTINUED)
Governor’s Development Office, 1980, State Construction Permits Handbook ,
Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Hubbard, Edwin L., 1979. The Effects of Numerous Old Mill Dams on Lower Basin
Stream Development: 250 Years of Industrial Use of the French River and
its Tributaries, Southern Worcester County, Massachusetts. Clark
University Ph D. dissertation.
Hubbs, C. and R. Eschmeyer, 1938. Improvement of Lakes for Fishing. Michigan
Dept. Conserve., Institute for Fisheries Research, Bulletin 2.
Leicester, town of, no date, Zoning Bylaws
Massachusetts Association of Conservation Commission, 1982, Environmental
Handbook for Conservation Commissioners .
Massachusetts Department of Commerce, 19814, Monographs , Towns of Charlton,
Dudley, L.eicester, Oxford, Webster.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering, 19814,
Massachusetts Wetlands and Waterways: A General Guide to the
Massachusetts Regulatory Programs , Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control (MDWPC), November 1973.
French and Quinebaug Rivers; Part A, Water Quality Data, 1972.
Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control (MDWPC), November 1973.
French and Quinebaug Rivers; Part B, Wastewater Discharges, 1972.
Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control (MDWPC), March 1975. French
and Quinbaug Rivers, 1974 Water Quality Analysis.
Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control (MDWPC), September 1975.
French and Quinebaug River Basin Water Quality Management Plan.
Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control (MDWPC), December 1976. The
French and Quinenbaug Rivers; Part A, Water Quality Data, 1976.
Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control (MDWPC), December 1976. The
French and Quinebaug Rivers; Part B, Wastewater Discharge Data, 1976.
A-2
-------
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES (CONTINUED)
Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control (MDWPC), March 1978. The
French and Quinebaug Rivers; Part B, Wastewater Discharge Data, 1977.
Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control (MDWPC), September 1978.
The French and Quinebaug Rivers; Part C, Water Quality Analysis, 19714 and
1976.
Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control (MDWPC), January 1981. The
French and Quinebaug Rivers; Part B, Wastewater Discharge Data, 1978-80.
Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control (MDWPC), March 1982. The
French and Quinebaug River Basin Water Quality Management Plan, 1981.
Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control (MDWPC), November 1983.
French and Quinebaug River Basin; French River Basin Survey 1982, Part A-
B, Water Quality and Wastewater Discharge Data. -
Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control (MDWPC), 1984. Letter from
Mary Wheeler (MDWPC) to Richard Moore (M&E) re: MDWPC Summer 19814 French
River Sampling Data.
Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control (MDWPC), 1985. Letter from
Margo Webber (MDWPC) to Lisa Eggleston (M&E) re: MDWPC April 1985 French
River Sampling Data.
McGregor, Gregor I., Esq., 1981, Environmental Law , Massachusetts Continuing
Legal Education - New England Law Institute.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 1969, Comprehensive Plan, Charlton, Massachusetts .
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 19814, Facilities Plan for Wastewater Treatment, Towns of
Webster and Dudley, Massachusetts .
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. (M&E), 19814. French River EIS; Field Report of
Impoundment Studies.
Northeastern Connecticut Regional Planning Agency, 1972, Open Space and
Recreation
Northeastern Connecticut Regional Planning Agency, 1980, Potential for
Recreational Development, North Grosvenordale Pond/Langers Pond, Thompson,
Connecticut .
Oxford, town of, no date, Zoning Bylaws
-------
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES (CONTINUED)
Palmer C. 1969. A Composite Rating of Algae Tolerating Organic Pollution. J.
of Phycology 5 : 78-82.
Roback, S. 197 14. Insects (Arthropoda: Insecta). In: Pollution Ecology of
Freshwater Invertebrates , C.W. Hart and S.C. Fuller, eds. Academic Press,
New York, pp. 313-376.
Thompson, town of, no date, Zoning Bylaws
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE), June 1967 (revised July 1980). Thames
River Basin; Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island Master Water
Control Manual; Mansfield Hollow Lake, Buffumville Lake, Hodges Village
Dam, East Brimfield Lake, Westville Lake, West Thompson Lake.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE), 1972 and 1977. Section 22 Studies
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE), 1972 and 1977. Section 22 Studies:
French River, CT Report.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division, March, 1976, Master Plan
for Recreation Resources Development, Buffumville, Lake, Chariton, Mass .
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE), February 19814. Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for Low Flow Augmentation at Hodges Village Dam, Oxford,
Massachusetts. With Technical Appendices A, B & C, plus addendum to
Appendix A.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1927. Soil Survey of Worcester County,
Massachusetts.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (EPA) 1975. Memorandum from Peter Nolan
and Allen J. Ikalairten (EPA) to Dr. T.M. Spittler (EPA), re: sediment
oxygen demand (SOD) data for the French River.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (EPA) 1976. “Red Book”, Quality
Criteria for Water. Office of Water and Hazardous Materials, 256 p.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (EPA) 1978 (P.M. Nolan, A.F. Johnson,
and H.S. Davis, authors). Sediment Oxygen Demand - French River,
Massachusetts and Connecticut, September 1978.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (EPA) 1981. New England Wetlands Plant
Identification and Protective Laws. Dredge and Fill (14014) Program.
-------
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES (CONTINUED)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (EPA) 1983. Water Quality Criteria for
the Protection of Aquatic Life and its Uses - Ammonia (Final Draft).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (EPA) 1983. Ambient Water Quality
Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen (Draft).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (EPA) 198 )4. Technical Support Manual:
Water Body Surveys and Assessments for Conducting Use Attainability
Analyses. Volume III: Lake Systems. Office of Water Regulations and
Standards Criteria.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), January 1985. Draft, Summary of
Findings, Advanced Wastewater Treatment Facilities Proposed for Webster
and Dudley, Massachusetts.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), June 1985. Report by Michael D.
Bilger and Peter M. Nolan on: Sediment Oxygen Demand, French River,
Massachusetts and Connecticut, May 1985.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Ecological Services Branch, 1978. Letter from
Vernon Lang (F&WS) to New England Army Corps of Engineers, 10 April 1978.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 1982. Water Resources Data; Connecticut, Water
Year 1982.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 1983. Water Resources Data; Massachusetts and
Rhode Island, Water Year 1983.
Walker, R.W., and W.J. Snodgrass. Modeling Sediment Oxygen Demand in Hamilton
Harbour, presented at WPCF 56th Annual Conf., October 2-7, 1983.
Wetzel, R.G., 1975. Limnology . W.B. Saunders Co. Philadelphia, PA.
A-5
-------
MPUDIX B
-------
U lT1D FT11tc
23, b’
0
;-‘ ‘ Lc rj — MI Lj ( j
Jc .in aic ’e” — C. . t1and e1i
cu’ :t:cv: Fr h I v r S; ir J S
-I-
TO. Ken Carr, ‘Warn Lang — Ccu ovd Fie14 OLfi e
Arnie Julin, HE, Nei i.o. Co ne , MA
mernorancJ:u n
This n .io s to i ro;i 3e an updite on the status of the sa’ p1es taicen fran
the French R.i r;ex durinq May 1985. We are currently iting fo the first s1ide .
to b retLn 3 frar thc histology lab at RPVII. bw that the axperative
açre nt bet’ eri R shel1 ar FvS is in piac they should he ready s n. Bile
sarçles are c . rrent1y heing rwi on the RPLC and the enc1cs 3 data are frcri
a: iysis uf bile frc,i ili tne brc ’i bullheads co.lecte durir the sa pling
tr±p. I hope to finish thc. other bile sarples fran shiners and 4 ite suckers
durir,u the next rx, nth.
The r F.1lts frcr the bile analysis suggest that the bro biilheads in the
Perryvil e Reservoir a -e heing ex sed to a wide spectrum of p 1ynuciear
arc t ic hydr arLor s (PA I ard that ‘ they are rnctabol I zing these ccxrpxzr s. The
le ,e1s of three PM, n phtr 1cne, phenanthrene, and oonzo [ a)pyrene, fot d in the
bile f b& iheads i.n the Pe rr 1 v! lie R servofr were, on the average, an order of
i cnitude h .gher than the levels fciz d in bullheads fran the brth Valley Pond
(Ta le 1). have not at the preser-: at:er pt to identify irdividual ca our 5s
an the sig ificanc this fir.ding in ter r .z of tuzrv r iziciden in the fish is
as yet determined.
TaLle 1. The sun areil of raçhtha)ene, - a. tthr .ne,
ir bile takcrt f r ’ rr brown b . 11 heads.
and benzo [ a]pyrene
Site
N p .thalene
Ph rianthrer.e
Benzo( a
]p ene
Per yvil1e Reservoir
‘tr - h ViIia e Pond
3.4±2.3
. l
x0 8
xlfl
3.0:2.0
1.5±1.1
x10 8
x10 7
4.2±3.0
2.1±1.4
x10 7
x10 6
a- 3.1T area is the tctai ar .a of all pe ks with retention times of 7
rre. Valuc are nc ns plus, i nu st3ndard & viaticn.
rr.ir 1 utes cr
t;.: . ISc ’ . 1 I ry — .i.’ •inç Ph n
• 7
G * .
“I
-------
Os
L I
I , ..
A
b’ ’ ‘(
crA
i •
Ir, :cor .(4#1
Z
.i. e
3-2
WL 1 , 1’
i k
f:’ .
I
.1’
I,
-------
FRENCH RIVER BIOLOGICAL SURVEY
PLANKTON DATA
Fall 1984
STATION NUMBER ---> B2 B3(a) B3(b) 34 B5 B7 BlO
Phytopl anktori
CYANOPHYCEAE (Blue-Green Algae)
Non-f i larnentous
Anacystis cyanae X . . .
Gomphosphaeria lacustris X X X X X X X
Fi laznentous
Oscillatoria app. X X X
HLOROPHYCEAE (Green Algae)
Non-filamentous
Ankistrodesrnus app. . . . x
Closteriurn app. X X X X X X
Cosmariwn app. . x
Pediastrun duplex. X 4 X X X X X
Scenedesmus app. . . . X
Scenedesmus dimorphus-like . . . X
Scenedesmus quadricauda-like . X X . 1 X
Staurastrum paradoxum X . . .
Volvox app. X . X . X X
Filarnentous
(Chaetophora app.) . x
Spirogyra app. X X X X X
unidentified . . X
CILLARIOPHYCEAE (Diatoms)
Centric diatoms
Cyclotella app. 14 41 3 3 7 3 X
Melosira app. X 7 X X X X X
Melosira varians X . . x x x x
Pennate diatoms
Cymbella app. . . . X
Cymbella (ventricosa) . . . x
Diatoxna anceps . • . . x
Fragilaria app. X X X x x x x
Fragilaria crotoneflSis . . . x x
Gomphonerna app. X . . .
Navicula app. 1 X X x
Neidium dubiuzn . . . . x
Nitzchiaspp. X X X X X X
Pinnularia app. . . . X X
Stauroneis phoenicefltrOfl X X X x x
B-3
-------
Surirella ovalis . X
Surirel]a ovata X
Synedra acus . . x
Synedra acus var. radians . . X X
Tabellaria flocculosa X X X
CHRYSOPHYCEAE
Flagellated algae
Dinobryon sertularia X X X
Dinobryon stipitatum . X
DINOPHYCEAE (Dinoflage]lates)
Ceratium hirundinella X X X X X
Zoopi ankton
Roti fera
Brachionus (bidentata) . . . X X . X
1(eratella app. X X X X X X
Polyarthra (vuigaris) . . . X
Trichocerca app. X
Cladocera
Bosrninaspp. X X X X X
Copepoda
Cyclopsspp. X X X . X
Nauplius larvae . X X X X X
Protozoa
Difflugia app. X X
3—4
-------
FRENCH RIVER BIOLOGICAL SURVEY
MACTROINVERTEBRATE TAXA LIST
OCTOBER 1984
STATION NUMBER---> 32 B3 B4 35 B7 B9 BlO Bi 36 BB
PLATYHELM I NTHES
TURBELLARIA
TRICLADIDA (Planarians)
PLANAR I I DAE
UNIDENTIFIED
ARTHROPODA
CRUSTACEA
CLADOCERA (Water Fleas)
ISOPODA (Sow Bugs)
ASELLIDAE
Asellus cominunis
AMPHIPODA (Scuds)
HYALELLIDAE
Hyalella Azteca
GAMMARI DAE
Garnmarus lacustris
BYDRACARINA (Water Mites)
SPERCHONIDAE
Sperchonopsis verrucosa
• S • • • S S S •
• S S S S S
• S S S S S •
• S S S S S • • S S
• • S S S S • X X
. • • • 2 •
• • • . S S S
• S S 5 7 10 •
• S • S S • S S • S
• S S • S • • S S
• . . . . • . • .
: : . : • 47 100 2
• S S • • . S • S
• S 5 5 S S
• S • • • •
• S • • • .
: : : : : : : : : i.
• . S S S S
• I • S • S
• S S S
• I •
? NNELIDA
OLIGOCHAETA (Aquatic Earthworms)
UNIDENTIFIED
HAPLOTAXIDA
TUBIFICIDAE
Limnodrilus (Hoffmeisteri) 177 158 16
(Tubifex tubifex) • •
unidentified
HIRUDINEA (Leeches)
RBYNCHOBDELLIDA
GLOSSIPHONIIDAE
G]ossiphonia complanata
PHARYNGOBDELLIDA
ERPOBDELLIDAE
Erpobdella p. punctata
5 32 4
• 2 x
• . S
2 . •
x
. 6
• I S S S S
• I I S S S •
• . S S S X •
S • • S S S
9 5 S 0 2
INSECTA
EPHEMEROPTERA (Mayflies)
SIPHLONURIDAE
Isonychia spp.
• S • •
• 1 • •
• • • •
• x 2
• I •
• S S I S S S S S S
• S S I • • I S
x
-------
BAET IDAE
Baetia intercalaris
Pseudoc].oeon app.
HEPTAGENI IDAE
Stenonema rnodestum
LEPTOPHLEBI IDAE
Leptophiebia app.
EPHEMERELLIDAE
Ephemerella dorothea
Ephemere]. la rotunda
CAEN I DAE
Caenis app.
ODONATA (Dragonflies,Damself] .ies).
ANISOPTERA (Dragonflies)
MACROMI IDAE
Macrornia illinoiensis
L1BELLTJDIDAE
Perithemis app.
ZYGOPTERA(Damselflies)
COENAGRIONID!tE
(Argia app.)
lschnura app.
PLECOPTERA (Storieflies)
TAENIOPIERYGIDAE
Taeniopteryx burksi group
LEUCTRIDAE / CAPNIIDAE
unidentified
PERLIDAE
Paragnetina media
HEMIPTERA (True Bugs)
CORIXIDAE
Trichocorixa spp.
COLEOPTERA (Beetles)
HYDROPHILIDAE (Scav. Beetles)
Berosus app.
PSEPHENIDAE (Water Pennies)
Psephenus herricki
ELMIDAE (Riffle Beetles)
Dubiraphia app.
idacronychus app.
MEGALOPTERA (Dobsonf lies)
CORYDALIDAE (Dobsonflies)
Corydalus cornutue
TRICHOPTERA (Caddisflies)
PHILOPOTAMIDAE
Chiinarra obscura
HYDROPSYCHIDAE
Cheuinatopsyche app.
Hydropsyche betteni
Macronema app.
Syrnphitopsyche bifida gr.
Symphitopsyche sparna
HYDROPTILIDAE
. . . . . . . . x
• . . . . . 1 x x
x . . 48 24 203
x . 1
• . . . . . . . . 1
• . . . . . . . . 3
17 4 .
• . . . . . 1 3
7 . . x x
1 419
. . . . . 1
5
. . . . . . . 2
x5
• . . • . .
• . • S •
. . . . . . . . 3
1001 362 720
• • 243 123 140
153
• . . . 95
2 . 27
x
: i. : i. i :
. . S S • X
1
. .
1
24
1 .
x
• . S •
• . . S
B—6
-------
Oxyethira app.
PHRYGANE I DAE
Phryganea spp.
BRACHYCENTR I DAE
M crasema app.
LEPTOCER I DAE
Oecetis app.
DIPTER.A (True flies)
TIPULIDAE (Crane Flies)
Antocha app.
Tipula app.
CHAOBORIDAE (PHANTOM MIDGES)
Chaoborus app.
CERATOPOGONIDAE (Biting Midges)
Bezzia group
SIMULIIDAE (Blackflies)
Sirnuliwn app.
Simulluin vittatum
CHIRONOMIDAE (Midges)
(TANYPODINAE)
Clinotanypus app.
Procladius sublettei 10
Thienen annimyia group
(CHIRONOMINAE)
Chironoxnus app. 6
Cryptochironornus fulvus gr. 1
Dicrotenclipes nervosus (I)
Dicrotendipes nervosus (II)
Endochironomus nigricans
G].yptotendipes lobiferus
Microtendipes caelum
Paratanytarsus app.
Polypedilum illinoense
Polypedilwn nr. scalaenuin
R1ieotanytarsus exiguus gr.
(ORTHOCLADIINAE)
Bri].lia f].avifrons?
Cricotopus bicinctus
Eukiefferiella discoloripes
Nanocladius spiniplenus
Orthocladius obumbratus
Rheocricotopus (robacki)
Syriorthocladius sernivirens
EMPIDIDAE
Hemerodroinia app.
MOLLUSCA
GASTROPODA (Snails & Lirnpets)
PROSOBRANCHIA
HYDROBI IDAE
knnicola lixnosa
PULMONATA
PHYSIDAE
Physella heterostropha
PLAZ4ORB I DAE
Gyraulus circuinstriattis
ANCYLIDAE (Limpets)
• S • S S • • . S
• S S • S S S S •
• S • • S • . . 1
• S S S S S X X 1
• • S S • • . S S
2 • 1 • • 1 . •
• S S S S S .
• 1 • . S S S S S
: : : : : : : x
• S S • S S • 33 •
• . S • S • S S S
S
i.
•
S
:
.
•
22
3
4
1
:
•
:
33
:
38
2
S
•
•
37
•
2
4
1
;
.
:
.
S
S
•
S
•
•
1
S
•
•
•
•
S
.
S
•
S
•
•
.
•
.
•
S
•
S
S
•
•
•
•
•
S
•
S
24
•
35
1
S
.
9
.
.
S
•
S
S
•
S
S
S
•
S
•
•
S
•
.
S
3
•
S
.
•
S
•
•
X
1
62
.
1
10
.
.
24
.
S
•
•
.
S
•
S
S
S
S
.
S
.
S
•
S
S
.
S
•
S
S
•
S
•
U
5
.
S
.
•
5
•
•
•
S
5
•
S
6
S
•
5
•
1
S
5
2
.
18
3
1
S
S
S
•
•
S
S
X
.
U
S
•
•
S
S
•
•
S
.
S
•
S
.
S
.
S
.
•
•
•
3
•
1
S
8
• S • • . . S S • S
• S S S S • • • S •
• S S U S • • S • •
: : : ,i : : :
• S • S U S S S S S
• S S U • S S S
• S • S S U S z 1
• • S S S • S • S
• S S • • . . .
• S • • S • S • S
.
S
S
S
•
1
•
.
S
S
S
•
•
S
S
S
•
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
X
.
•
U
S
•
S
S
S
S
S
S
U
S
S
•
S
•
S
S
S
•
S
•
•
1
S
S
•
S
S
S
S
S
•
S
x
S
3—7
-------
Ferrissia (walkeri)
PELECYPODA (Bivalves)
NETERODONTA
PISIDIIDAE (Fingernail Clams)
unidentified
7 ID tentative in reference used
( ) Species determination tentative
Bezzia group
s_a_a_s
Bezzia app.
Palpomyia app.
Probezzia app.
Thieneniannirnyis group
s__s_a__se ne aeesss a en a
Arctopelopia app.
Conch ape 1 opi a app.
Telopelopia okoboji
Thienemannimyia app.
Xenopelopi a tincta
Syrnphitopsyche bifida group
anon.
S. bifida
S. bronta
S. morosa
S. walkeri
Taeniopteryx burksi group
T. burksi
T. maura
. . . . . . 2 . 2
• . . . . . . . . .
• . • • • . • . . .
. . . . . . . .
3 1 . . • . . 18 5 1
B—8
-------
APPENDIX C
-------
APPENDIX C
SUMMARY OF MEETINGS
IN PREPARATION FOR THE EIS
DATE LOCATION TYPE OF MEETING
8/16/814 Town of Dudley Scoping
8/22/814 EPA Scoping
9/11/814 US Army Corps of Engineers Review
12/18/814 EPA TAG
2/2/85 US Fish & Wildlife Service Review
14/9/85 DEQE/Westboro TAG
6/27/85 Conn DEP Review
7/2/85 DEQE/Westboro TAG
7/25/85 US Army Corps of Engineers Review
8/16/85 DEQE/Westboro TAG
10/30/85 Webster Town Hall Public Meeting
12/18/85 EPA Review
12/18/85 Us army Corps of’ Engineers Review
C—i
-------
APPENDIX D
-------
List of Preparers
The following individuals were primarily responsible for the preparation
of the Environmental Impact Statement.
Individual Responsibility
J. Lawrence MacMillan scoping, technical review
M.S. Environmental Planning
13 years experience in
environmental analysis
Eric P. Hall scoping, technical review
M.S. Environmental Engineering
15 years experience in
environmental engineering
Robert J. Reimold scoping, technical review
Ph.D. Biology
18 years experience in
environmental analysis
Daniel W. Donahue scoping, technical review
B.S. Civil Engineering
13 years experience in
environmental engineering
Lisa D. Eggleston scoping, technical review
M.S. Civil Engineering EIS preparation
years experience in
environmental engineering
and analysis
Richard M. Baker computer modeling,
M.S. Civil Engineering technical review
6 years experience in water
quality analysis
Other contritxitin Metcalf ar i Eddy staff include Melanie Byrne, Kathleen
Baskin, and Sue Cobbler
Contritutin Consultants include
F.J.E. Gorman, Ph.D. — Archaeology
Carol J. Thanas — land use planniog
D— 1
-------
The follcwirij organizations re responsible for coáicting erwirormental and
engineering investigations related to the applicants proposal.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.
10 Harvard Mill Square
Wakefield, Massachusetts 01880
Environmental Archaeology Grc ip
104 Charles Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02114
Tt imas Planning Associates
46 Church Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02116
Contributing Agencies
Catmonwealth of Massachusetts
Department cC Erwironnental Quality Engineering, Division of Water
Pollution Control: Alan Cooperman, Margo Wabber, Ho rd Bacon,
Heidi Davis
Fisheries aid Wildlife: Chris Thurlc i, Lei4h McLauglin
Wetlanth and Waterways: Jessica Lacy, 1 bert Kimball
Connect ioit Department of Envirorn ntal Protection, Water Ccmpliance Unit:
Charles Fredette, bert nith
U.S. Amy Corps CC Engineers, New England Division:
Joseph Finegan, Thi se11 Bel1mer David Taney
*U-S GOVERI tn N3 OFflct 1 9 8 6 6 0 1 t 8 7 —3 0 0 1 6
D-2
------- |