U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
WORKING PAPER SERIES
REPORT
ON
MATFIELD IMTOUNHW
PLYMOUTH COUMY
MASSACHUSETTS
EPA REGION I
WORKING PAPER No, 221
PACIFIC NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
An Associate Laboratory of the
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER • CORVALLIS, OREGON
and
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER - LAS VEGAS, NEVADA
•itOPO— 697.032
-------
REPORT
ON
IWFIELD
PLYMOUTH COUNTY
MASSACHUSETTS
EPA REGION I
WORKING PAPER No, 221
WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE
MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
AND THE
MASSACHUSETTS NATIONAL GUARD
APRIL, 1975
-------
1
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword ii
List of Massachusetts Study Lakes iv
Lake and Drainage Area Map v
Sections
I. Conclusions 1
II. Lake and Drainage Basin Characteristics 4
III. Lake Water Quality Summary 5
IV. Nutrient Loadings 9
V. Literature Reviewed 14
VI. Appendices 15
-------
11
FOREWORD
The National Eutrophication Survey was initiated in 1972 in
response to an Administration commitment to investigate the nation-
wide threat of accelerated eutrophication to fresh water lakes and
reservoirs.
OBJECTIVES
The Survey was designed to develop, in conjunction with state
environmental agencies, information on nutrient sources, concentrations,
and impact on selected freshwater lakes as a basis for formulating
comprehensive and coordinated national, regional, and state management
practices relating to point-source discharge reduction and non-point
source pollution abatement in lake watersheds.
ANALYTIC APPROACH
The mathematical and statistical procedures selected for the
Survey’s eutrophication analysis are based on related concepts that:
a. A generalized representation or model relating
sources, concentrations, and impacts can be constructed.
b. By applying measurements of relevant parameters
associated with lake degradation, the generalized model
can be transformed into an operational representation of
a lake, its drainage basin, and related nutrients.
c. With such a transformation, an assessment of the
potential for eutrophication control can be made.
LAKE ANALYSIS
In this report, the first stage of evaluation of lake and water-
shed data collected from the study lake and its drainage basin is
documented. The report is formatted to provide state environmental
agencies with specific information for basin planning [ 3O3(e)], water
quality criteria/standards review [ 3O3(c)], clean lakes [ 3l4(a,b)],
and water quality monitoring [ lO6 and §305(b)] activities mandated
by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.
-------
111
Beyond the single lake analysis, broader based correlations
between nutrient concentrations (and loading) and trophic condi-
tion are being made to advance the rationale and data base for
refinement of nutrient water quality criteria for the Nation’s
fresh water lakes. Likewise, multivariate evaluations for the
relationships between land use, nutrient export, and trophic
condition, by lake class or use, are being developed to assist
in the formulation of planning guidelines and policies by EPA
and to augment plans implementation by the states.
ACKNOWLE DGMENT
The staff of the National Eutrophication Survey (Office of
Research & Development, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency)
expresses sincere appreciation to the Massachusetts Division of
Water Pollution Control for professional involvement and to the
Massachusetts National Guard for conducting the tributary sampling
phase of the Survey.
Thomas C. McMahon, Director, John R. Elwood, Supervisory
Sanitary Engineer, Eben Chesebrough, Senior Chemist, and Peter A.
Tennant, Senior Sanitary Engineer of the Massachusetts Division
of Water Pollution Control provided invaluable lake documentation
and counsel during the course of the Survey.
Major General Vahan Vartanian, the Adjutant General of Massa-
chusett , and Project Officer Major William Flaherty, who directed
the volunteer efforts of the Massachusetts National Guardsmen, are
also gratefully acknowledged for their assistance to the Survey.
-------
iv
NATIONAL EUTROPHICATION SURVEY
STUDY LAKES
STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
LAKE NAME COUNTY
Assabet-Concord River Impoundments
Northboro Worcester
Hudson Middlesex
Maynard Middlesex
Billerica Middlesex
Hager Pond Middlesex
Matfield Impoundment Plymouth
Rochdale Pond Worcester
Woods Pond Berkshire
-------
MATFIELD
IMPOUNDMENT
® Tributary San 11r g Site
X Lake Samp1ir Site..
Sewage Treatment Fa ciii ty
,‘ Direct Drainage Area Limits
/
-------
MATFIELD IMPOUNDMENT
STORET NO 2508
I. CONCLUSIONS
A. Trophic Condition:
Survey data indicate that Matfield Impoundment is highly
eutrophic. When the 205 Survey lakes on which sampling was
completed in 1972 were arranged from best to worst trophic
condition on the basis of six biological, chemical, and
physical parameters, Matfield Impoundment ranked as extremely
eutrophic. Algal data lend support to this classification;
blue-green algae were abundant during the August sampling
period.
B. Rate—Limiting Nutrient:
Algal assays indicate that Matfield Impoundment was nitro-
gen limited at the time the sample was collected (10/08/72).
The lake data indicate nitrogen limitation at the other samp-
ling times as well.
C. Nutrient Controllability:
1. Point sources—-During the sampling year, Matfield
Impoundment received a total phosphorus load at a rate more
than 100 times that proposed by Vollenweider (in press) as
“dangerous”; i.e., a eutrophic rate (see page 13). Now,
Vollenweider’s model probably does not apply to water bodies
-------
2
with short hydraulic retention times, and the mean hydraulic
retention time of Matfield Impoundment is a very short six
hours. Nonetheless, the existing trophic condition of the
reservoir is evidence of excessive nutrient loads.
It is calculated that the cities of Brockton and Bridge—
water collectively contributed nearly 65% of the total phos-
phorus load to the reservoir during the sampling year. How-
ever, even complete removal of phosphorus at these two sources
would still leave a loading rate in excess of 2,500 lbs P/acre!
year (289 g/m 2 /yr); and, regardless of the applicability of
Vollenweider’s model, it is not likely that phosphorus control
at the two known point sources would result in substantial
improvement in the trophic condition of the reservoir unless
other sources of phosphorus can be controlled as well (see
below).
It is noted that the Matfield River basin plan of the
Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control includes a
regional wastewater treatment plant to be located below
Matfield Impoundment which will treat the wastes from Bridge-
water and thus eliminate the phosphorus load to the reservoir
from that source (Chesebrough, 1975).
-------
3
2. Non-point sources--During the sampling year, the
phosphorus export rate of the Matfield River was a very high
1,040 lbs/mi 2 (see page 12). This export rate was over four
times that of the Satucket River and over three times that
of the Town River; it appears likely that unidentified point
sources contributed significantly to the phosphorus export
of the Matfield River.
Until a more-detailed study of the unknown phosphorus
sources is completed and controllability is known, the effec-
tiveness of point-source phosphorus control cannot be evaluated.
However, because of the very high drainage area to reservoir
area ratio of 2,295 to 1, it appears that a substantial degree
of control of phosphorus from all sources will be needed to
appreciably improve the trophic condition of the reservoir.
Note that the non-point phosphorus contribution of the
Satucket River alone would result in an impoundment phosphorus
loading of 208 lbs/acre/yr or over 23 g/m 2 /yr.
-------
4
II. LAKE AND DRAINAGE BASIN CHARACTERISTICS
A. Lake Morphometry:
1. Surface area: 38 acres.
2. Mean depth: 3 feet.
3. Maximum depth: 7 feet.
4. Volume: 114 acre-feet.
5. Mean hydraulic retention time: 6 hours.
B. Tributary and Outlet:
(See Appendix A.for flow data)
1. Tributaries -
Name Drainage area Mean flowt
Matfield River 76.4 mi 133.0 cfs
(Salisbury Plain River 38.6 mi 2 67.1 cfs)*
(Satucket River 34.9 m1 2 60.7 cfs)*
Town River 60.2 mi 104.7 cfs
Minor tributaries & 2
immediate drainage - 1.1 mi 2.1 cfs
Totals 137.7 mi 2 239.8 cfs
2. Outlet -
Taunton River 137.8 rni 2 ’ 239.8 cfs
C. Precipitation***:
1. Year of sampling: 61.22 inches.
2. Mean annual: 44.57 inches.
t Drainage areas are accurate within ±1%; gaged mean daily, monthly, and
normalized monthly flows are accurate within ±15%; and ungaged mean
daily, monthly, and normalized flows are accurate within ±20%.
* Included in Matfield River drainage area and flow.
** Includes area of lake.
*** See Working Paper No. 1 , “Survey Methods, 1972”.
-------
5
III. LAKE WATER QUALITY SUMMARY
Matfield Impoundment was sampled three times during the open-water
season of 1972 by means of a pontoon-equipped Huey helicopter. Each
time, samples for physical and chemical parameters were collected from
two stations on the lake and from one or two depths at each station
(see map, page v). During the last two visits, a single depth-integrated
(near bottom to surface) sample was composited from the stations for
phytoplankton identification and enumeration; and during the last visit,
a single five—gallon depth-integrated sample was composited for algal
assays. Also each time, a depth-integrated sample was collected from
each of the stations for chlorophyll a analysis. The maximum depth
sampled at each station was three feet.
The results obtained are presented in full in Appendix B, and the
data for the fall sampling period, when the lake essentially was well—
mixed, are summarized below. Note, however, the Secchi disc summary
is based on all values.
For differences in the various parameters at the other sampling
times, refer to Appendix B.
-------
6
A. Physical and chemical characteristics:
FALL VALUES
(10/08/72)
Parameter Minimum Mean Median Maximum
Temperature (Cent.) 16.6 16.6 16.6 16.6
Dissolved oxygen (mg/i) 2.3 4.2 4.2 6.0
Conductivity (pmhos) 150 175 175 200
pH (units) 6.3 6.5 6.5 6.6
Alkalinity (mg/i) <10 18 10 38
Total P (mg/i) 0.203 0.641 0.641 1.080
Dissoived P (mg/i) 0.108 0.429 0.429 0.750
NO + NO (mg/i) 0.350 0.395 0.395 0.440
Am onia mg/l) 0.420 2.640 2.640 4.860
ALL VALUES
Secchi disc (inches) 6 15 i5 26
B. Biological characteristics:
1. Phytopiankton* -
Sampling Dominant Number
Date Genera per ml
08/01/72 1. Anabaena 3,840
2. Microcystis 2,500
3. Dinobryon i,i59
4. Flageilates 761
5. Synedra 435
Other genera 725
Totai 9,420
10/08/72 1. Flageilates 502
2. Cryptomonas 141
3. Navicula 90
4. Nitzcshia 80
5. Achnanthes 80
Other genera 448
Total 1 ,34i
* Only two samples collected.
-------
7
01
02
01
02
5.0
2.4
1 .3
1.3
Maximum yield
( mg/i—dry wt. )
61 .4
59.7
60.9
57.5
59.4
286.5
259.1
2. Chlorophyll a -
(Because of instrumentation problems during the 1972 sampling,
the following values may be in error by plus or minus 20 percent.)
Sampling Station Chlorophyll a
Date Number ( p gJl )
06/04/72 01 2.1
02 1.6
08/01/72
10/08/72
C. Limiting Nutrient Study:
1. Autoclaved, filtered, and nutrient spiked -
Ortho P Inorganic N
Spike (mg/i) Conc. (mg/i) Conc. (mg/l ) _____________
Control 0.370 1 .950
0.006 P 0.376 1.950
0.012 P 0.382 1.950.
0.024 P 0.394 1.950
0.060 P 0.430 1.950
0.060 P + 10.0 N 0.430 11.950
10.0 N 0.370 11.950
2. Discussion —
The control yield of the assay alga, Selenastrum capri-
cornutum , indicates that the potential primary productivity
of Matfield Impoundment was very high (only two lakes sur-
veyed during 1972 had greater control yields). The algal
assay indicated that the sample was nitrogen limited at the
-------
8
time of analysis as addition of phosphorus alone did not
produce a response, but nitrogen spikes increased the yield
more than four-fold. These results are supported by field
and laboratory data which revealed nitrogen/phosphorus
ratios ranging from 4/1 to 8.5/1.
-------
9
IV. NUTRIENT LOADINGS
(See Appendix C for data)
For the determination of nutrient loadings, the Massachusetts
National Guard collected monthly near-surface grab samples from each
of the tributary sites indicated on the map (page v), except for the
high runoff months of March and April when two samples were collected.
Sampling was begun in September, 1972, and was completed in July, 1973.
Through an interagency agreement, stream flow estimates for the
year of sampling and a “normalized” or average year were provided by
the New England District Office of the U.S. Geological Survey for the
tributary sites nearest the lake.
In this report, nutrient loads for sampled tributaries were deter-
mined by using a modification of a U.S. Geological Survey computer
program for calculating stream loadings*. The tributary loads shown
are those measured minus point sources, if any. However, note that
the non-point nutrient loads given for the Town River include the
unmeasured non—point loads of South Brook (see map, page v).
Nutrient loadings for unsanipled “minor tributaries and immediate
drainage” (“ZZ” of U.S.G.S.) were estimated using the nutrient loads,
in lbs/mi 2 /year, in the Satucket River at station C-i and multiplying
by the ZZ area in m1 2 .
* See Working Paper No. 1.
-------
10
2. Industrial - Unknown
The operators of the Brockton and Bridgewater wastewater treatment
plants provided monthly effluent samples and corresponding flow data.
A. Waste Sources:
1. Known muncipal -
Name
Pop.
Served*
Treatment
Mean Flow
(mgd)
Receiving
Water
Bridgewater
4,500
trickling
filter
0.495
Town River
Brockton
83,500
act. sludge
12.119
Salisbury Plain
* Estimated.
-------
11
B. Annual Total Phosphorus Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs —
lbs P/ % of
Source yr total
a. Tributaries (non-point load) -
Matfield River 79,470 28.7
(Satucket River 7,920)* -
Town River 18,180 6.6
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non-point load) — 250 <0.1
c. Known municipal STP’s -
Bridgewater 13,850 5.0
Brockton 165,510 59.7
d. Septic tanks - Unknown ?
e. Industrial — Unknown ?
f. Direct precipitation** - 10 < 0.1
Total 277,270 100.0
2. Outputs -
Lake outlet - Taunton River 181 ,380
3. Net annual P accumulation - 95,890 lbs.
* Included in Matfield River load at station A-l.
** See Working Paper No. 1.
-------
12
C. Annual Total Nitrogen Loading - Average Year:
1. Inputs -
lbsN/ %of
Source yr total
a. Tributaries (non-point load) -
Matfield River 587,680 31.3
(Satucket River 274,930)* —
Town River 497,060 26.5
b. Minor tributaries & immediate
drainage (non-point load) - 8,670 0.5
c. Known municipal STP’s -
Bridgewater 39,120 2.1
Brockton 742,390 39.6
d. Septic tanks - Unknown ?
e. Industrial — Unknown ? —
f. Direct precipitation** 370 < 0.1
Total 1 ,875,290 100.0
2. Outputs —
Lake outlet - Taunton River 1 ,931 ,315
3. Net annual N loss - 56,025 lbs.
D. Mean Annual Non-point Nutrient Export by Subdrainage Area:
Tributary lbs P/mi 2 /yr lbs N/mi 2 /yr
Matfield River*** 1,040 7,692
Satucket River 227 7,878
Town River 302 8,257
* Included in Matfield River load at station A-l.
** See Working Paper No. 1.
*** Includes Satucket River and Salisbury Plain River nutrient exports.
-------
13
E. Yearly Loading Rates:
In the following table, the existing phosphorus loading
rates are compared to those proposed by Vollenweider (in press).
Essentially, his “dangerous” rate is the rate at which the
receiving water would become eutrophic or remain eutrophic;
his “permissible” rate is that which would result in the
receiving water remaining oligotrophic or becoming oligotrophic
if morphometry pennitted. A mesotrophic rate would be consid-
ered one between “dangerous” and “permissible”.
Note that Vollenweider’s model may not be applicable to
water bodies with very short hydraulic retention times.
Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen
Units Total Accumulated Total Accumulated
lbs/acre/yr 7,297.0 2,523 49,350 loss*
grams/m 2 /yr 817.8 282.8 5,531 -
Vollenweider loading rates for phosphorus
(g/m 2 /yr) based on mean depth and mean
hydraulic retention time of Matfield Impoundment:
“Dangerous” (eutrophic rate) 7.6
“Permissible” (oligotrophic rate) 3.8
* There was an apparent loss of nitrogen during the sampling year. This
may have been due to insufficient sampling, nitrogen fixation in the
reservoir, solubilization of previously sedimented nitrogen, recharge
with nitrogen-rich ground water, or unknown and unsarnpled point sources
discharging directly to the reservoir. Whatever the cause, a similar
nitrogen loss has occurred at Shagawa Lake, Minnesota, which has been
intensively studied by EPA’s National Eutrophication and Lake Restoration
Branch.
-------
14
V. LITERATURE REVIEWED
Chesebrough, Eben W., 1975. Personal communication (Matfield River
basin plan). MA Div. Water Poll. Contr., Westborough.
Vollenweider, Richard A. (in press). Input-output models. Schweiz.
Z. Nydrol.
-------
15
VI APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
TRIBUTARY FLOW DATA
-------
TRIBUTARY FLOW INFORMATION FOR MASSACHUSETTS 11/26/74
LA (E CODE 2508 MATFIELD RIVER IMPOUNDMENT
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA OF LAKE 138.00
SUB—DRAINAGE NORMALIZED FLOWS
TRIBUTARY AREA JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MEAN
2508A1 76.40 173.00 188.00 275.00 248.00 156.00 92.40 51.50 45.60 50.00 62.30 113.00 145.00 132.95
250881 38.60 87.20 95.00 139.00 125.00 78.70 46.70 26.00 23.00 25.30 31.50 57.10 73.30 67.13
2508C1 34.90 78.90 85.90 126.00 113.00 71.20 42.20 23.50 20.80 22.90 28.50 51.70 66.30 60.74
2508D1 138.00 312.00 339.00 497.00 447.00 282.00 167.00 93.00 82.40 90.40 113.00 204.00 262.00 240.07
2508E2 60.20 136.00 148.00 217.00 195.00 123.00 72.80 40.60 35.90 39.40 49.10 89.10 114.00 104.70
2508ZZ 1.20 2.70 3.00 4.30 3.90 2.40 1.50 0.80 0.70 0.80 1.00 1.80 2.30 2.09
SUMMARY
TOTAL DRAINAGE AREA OF LAKE = 138.00 TOTAL FLOW IN = 4423.57
SUM OF SUB—DRAINAGE AREAS = 211.30 TOTAL FLOW OUT = 2888.80
MEAN MONTMLY FLOWS AND DAILY FLOWS
TRIBUTARY MONT 1 YEAR iEAN FLOW DAY FLOW DAY FLOW DAY FLOW
250 8A1 9 72 130.00 9 127.00
10 72 105.00 6 61.70
11 72 365.00 ‘. 178.00
12 72 422.00 8 824.00
1 73 268.00 11 196.00
2 73 306.00 9 350.00
3 73 204.00 3 180.00 20 204.00
4 73 260.00 7 371.00 19 166.00
5 73 218.00
5 73 21R.O0 14 275.00
6 73 85.00
7 73 193.00 23 115.00
8 73 82.10
2 50881 9 72 66.00 9 64.10
10 72 53.20 6 31.20
ii 7? 184.00 4 89.90
12 72 2)3.00 8 416.00
1 73 13c.o0 11 99.20
2 73 155.00
3 73 103.00 3 91.10 20 103.00
4 73 111.00 7 187.00
5 73 110.00
5 73 110.00 14 139.00
6 73 43.00
7 73 97.20 23 57.90
8 73 41.40
-------
T lBlITakY FLOW 1NFO MATI()N FOR MASSACHUSETTS
11/26/74
LAcE CODE 2508
MATFIELD 1VE9 IMPOUNDMENT
WEAN MONTHLY FLOwS AND DAILY FLOWS
TP1 UTAPY MONTH YE4P MEAN FLOW DAY
FLOW DAY FLOW DAY
FLOW
0 7 59.90
10 72 49.20
I I 7 ’ 167.00
1? 72 193.00
73 122.00
2 73 160.00
1 73
4 73 119.00
5 73 99.70
5 73 99.70
6 7 1 IP.P0
7 73 97.00
9 73 37.40
9 72 ?3 6.O0
10 72 191.00
11 7? 669.00
72 762.00
1 73 4144.00
P 73 551.00
3 73 369.00
4 73 469.00
S 73 395.00
6 73 154.00
7 73 348.00
8 73 148.00
0 72 103.00
10 7? 83.00
II 72 298.00
1? 7? 332.00
I 73 2 11.n O
7 73 241.00
3 73 161.00
4 73 ‘05.00
6 73 172.0)
6 73 67.C0
7 73 152.00
9 71 64.60
9 7’ 2.10
10 72 1.70
II 72 5.90
1’ 7?
I 73
73 4 . .)
1 71 3.”)
4 71 4.10
6 71 1.40
F, 71 1.40
7 73 1.99
73 1.1)
3
7 169.00
14 126.00
21 2.40
C) 229.00
6 112.00
4 322.00
8 1488.00
11 35.00
3 326.00
7 669.00
14 497.00
23 207.00
9 99.90
6 48.60
4 140.0’)
E l 649.00
II 165.00
3 142.0’)
7 29d.O0
14 217.00
23 90.30
A) 368.00
19 299.00
9
6
4
8
11
57.90
28.20
91.30
176.00
89.70
2504C1
2500 1)1
?S0 HF 2
20 93.20
20 161.00
19 131.00
-------
APPENDIX B
PHYSICAL and CHEMICAL DATA
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 74/11/26
DATE
FROM
TO
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
32217
CHLRPHYL
A
UG/L
250801
41 59 43.0 070 56 32.0
MATTF IELD IMPOUNDMENT
25 MASSACHUSETTS
72/06/04
72/08/01
7?/10/08
14 ?5 0000
15 00 0000
16 40 0000
2. 1J
S.OJ
I • 3J
1 1EPALES
3
2111202
0005 FEET
DEPTH
00010
00300
00077
00094
00400
00410
00630
00610
DATE
TIME
DEPTH
WATER
DO
TRANSP
CNDUCTVY
PH
1 ALK
NO2 NO3
NH3—N
PHOS—TOT
PHOS—DIS
FROM
OF
TF.MP
SECCHI
FIELD
CACO3
N—TOTAL
TOTAL
TO
DAY
FEET
CENT
hlG/L
INCHES
MICRONHO
SU
MG/L
MG/I
MG/L
MG/I.. P
MG/I P’
72/06/04
14 25 0000
21.3
1.6
2 ’
260
6.60
72/08/01
15 00 0000
18
380
6.40
15 00 0003
21.7
3.0
265
6.50
27
0.320
4.100
37
0.500
6.000
1.090
0.760
38
0.510
6.000
1.140
0.800
K VALUE KNOWN TO BE LESS
THt N INDICATED
J VALUE KNOWN TO BE IN ERROR
-------
STORET PETRIEVAL DATE 74/11/26
DATE
FROM
TO
TIME DEPTH
OF
DAY FEET
3 217
CHLRPHYL
A
UG/L
250802
41 59 54.0 070 56 58.0
MATTFIFLD IMPOUNDMENT
25 MASSACHUSETTS
1 IFPALES
3
2111202
0005 FEET DEPTH
00010
00300
00077
00094
00400
PHOS—TOT
PHOS—DIS
DATE
TIME
DEPTH
WATER
DO
TRANSP
CNDUCTVY
T
ALK
M02&N03
FROM
OF
TEMP
SECC -II
FIELD
CACO3
N—TOTAL
TOTAL
P
P
TO
DAY
FEET
CENT
MG/L
INCHES
MICROMHO
SU
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
72/06/04
14 35 0000
72.7
5.2
20
140
6.30
10
0.140
0.320
0.200
0.270
0.108
0.167
72/08/01
15 20 0000
12
160
6.10
10K
0.270
0.590
15 ?0 0003
22.2
3.2
155
6.10
10K
0.260
0.540
0.310
0.108
7?/10/0R
16 25 0000
16.6
6.0
6
150
6.35
10K
0.350
0.420
72/06/04
14
35
0000
1.6J
7?/OH/0l
15
?0
0000
2 4J
7?/IO/O’
16
75
0000
1.3J
K VALUE KNOWN TO 3F LESS
T-IAN INDICATED
J VALUE K J )WN TO 3E 1 EP O
-------
APPENDIX C
TRIBUTARY and WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT DATA
-------
STORET RETRIEVAl DATE 74/11/26
?508A1 LS25OSA1
42 00 30.0 070 56 30.0
HATFIELD RIVER
25 705 W IITMAN
I/MATFIELD RIVER IMP.
POND ST 8r DG SE OF ELMWOOD
11EPALES 2111204
4 0000 FEET DEPTH
00630 00625 00610 00671 00665
DATE TIME DEPTH N02&NO3 TOT KJEL NH3—N PHOS—DIS PHOS—TOT
FROM OF N—TOTAL N TOTAL ORTHO
TO DAY FEET MG/I G/L MG/I MG/L P MG/L P
72/09/09 10 50 0.332 3.850 0.07? 0.009 0.430
7?/II/04 15 30 0.460 4.300 0.430 0.195 1.470
72/12/08 13 45 0.520 ?.310 0.380 0.084 0.154
73/01/11 14 15 0.830 3.700 ‘.200 0.705 1.250
73/02/09 14 30 0.670 2.800 1.100 0.440 0.660
71/03/03 15 55 0.650 9.850 2.750 1.000 1.250
73/03/20 12 10 0.400 2.730 1.800 0.630 0.820
73/04/07 13 30 0.378 4.100 0.890 0.300 0.440
73/04/19 14 30 0.320 4.900 2.600 0.930 1.200
73 /07/23 14 25 0.550 5.400 2.800 0.770 1.150
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 74/11/26
?508 B1 LS2508B1
4? 01 30.0 070 58 00.0
SALISBURY PLAIN PIVE
25 7.5 WHITMAN
T/MATFIELI) RIVER IMP.
SPRING ST H DG BELOW HROCP(TON STP
1 IFPALES 2111204
4 0000 FEET DEPTH
00630 00625 00610 00671 00665
DATE TIME DEPTH NO?&N03 TOT KJEL NH3—N PHOS—OTS PHOS—TOT
FROM OF N—TOTAL N TOTAL ORTHO
TO DAY FEET MG/L MG/I MG/L MC./L P MG/L P
72/09/09 10 10 0.530 6.300 3.500 1.260 1.920
72/10/06 0.440 7.000 1.100 0.400 1.180
72/11/0” 16 00 0.460 4, O0 0.525 0.098 C.770
73/01/11 13 30 1.060 4.375 2.543 0.380 0.675
73/03/03 11 55 0.850 7.350 1.100 1.300
73/03/20 15 00 0.680 3.70f) 2.400 0.510 0.690
73/04/07 14 40 0.590 2.200 1.020 0. IQ O 0.310
73/05/14 11 10 0.480 4.?00 1.470 0.225 0.375
73/07/23 11 10 0.465 5.40C 1.435 0.800 1.300
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 74/11/26
2SO8C1 LS250%C1
42 01 10.0 070 57 00.0
SATUCKET RIVER
25 7.5 WHITMAN
T/MATFIELO RIVER IMP.
ST HWY 106 BRDG
1 1FPALES
4
00630
00625
00610
00671
00665
DATE
TIME
DEPTH
NO?€ NO3
TOT KJEL
NHI-N
PHOS—DIS
PHOS—TOT
FROM
OF
N-TOTAL
N
TOTAL
ORTHO
TO
DAY
FEET
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L P
MG/L P
7?/09/09
0.117
1.200
0.370
7 / 10/06
0.470
1.000
0.220
0.037
0.115
7?/1I/04
14
45
C.231
0.g60
0.154
0.036
0.084
7?/12/0R
13
30
0.330
2.300
0.096
0.023
0.044
73/03/03
13
20
0.470
5.100
0.154
O.0?4
0.030
73/03/20
11
30
0.198
2.900
0.075
0.011
0.060
71/04/07
14
06
0.121
1.100
C.04S
0.016
0.032
71/05/14
11
45
0.075
2.300
0.100
0.044
0.075
73/07/23
15
00
0.25?
0.Q60
0.150
2111204
0000 FEET DEPTH
-------
STOPET RETRIEVAL DATE 74/1l/ 6
250801 LS250 4D1
42 59 30.0 071 56 30.0
TAUNTON RIVER
25 7.5 BPIDGFWATER
0/MATFIELD RIVER IMP.
ST HWY 104 B DG ,MILL ST.
11EPALES 2111204
4 0000 FEET DEPTH
00630 00625 00610 00671 00665
DATE TIME DEPTH NO?. NO3 TOT KJEL NH3—N PHOS—DIS PHOS—TOT
FROM OF N—TOTAL N TOTAL ORTHO
TO DAY FEET MG/L ‘ r n/i MG/L Mr./L P MG/L P
72/09/OQ 1? 05 0.255 4.050 2.300 0.300
73/01/il 13 40 0.720 2.520 1.000 0.200 0.280
7,103/03 11 50 0.590 5.300 1.500 0.430 0.525
71/03/20 13 45 0.370 2.300 0.930 0.140 0.230
71/04/07 12 10 0.231 1.900 0.460 0.154 0.230
73/04/19 11 00 0.?40 3.570 1.470 0.440 0.560
71/05/14 14 35 0.160 4.800 0.720 0.180 0.270
71/07/23 1? 50 0.160 4.700 1.600 0.110 0.550
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 74/11/26
2 0 E1 LS2508E1
42 00 00.0 071 59 00.0
TOWN RIVER
25 705 BRIDGEWATER
T/MATFIELD RIVER IMP.
OAK ST BRDG ABOVE BRIDGEWATER SIP
I 1EPALES 2111204
4 0000 FEET DEPTH
00630 00625 00610 00671 00665
DATE TIME DEPTH NO?&N03 TOT KJEL NH3-N PHOS—DIS PHOS—TOT
FROM OF N—TOTAL N TOTAL ORTHO
TO DAY FEET MG/L MG/I MG/L MG/L P MG/I P
72/09/09 09 40 0.110 1.200 0.059 0.010 0.095
7?/10/0F 0.422 1.100 0.270 0.034 0.100
72/1.1/04 17 15 0.231 0.920 0.?1O 0.034 0.078
72/12/0 12 00 0.294 2.730 0.126 0.018 0.040
73/01/11 1? 05 0.600 0.8 O 0.090 0.017 0.035
73/04/07 15 ?0 0.096 1.900 0.130 0.025 0.040
73/04/19 14 45 0.120 2.100 0.085 0.024 0.045
73/05/14 10 25 0.050 4.770 0.154 0.040 0.075
73/07/23 11 45 0.198 2.360 0.410 0.150 0.170
-------
STORET ETRTEVAL DATE 74/11/26
2508E2 LS2S0RE2
42 00 00.0 071 57 30.0
TOWN R1VE
?5 7.5 BR1DGEWATER
T/MATFIELD PIVEP IMP.
PIAYWARD ST BROG BELO BRIDGEWATEP STP
1 IEPALES 2111204
4 0000 FEET DEPTH
00630 00625 00610 00671 00665
DATE TIME DEPTH N02 .NO3 TOT P(JFL NH3—N PHOS—DIS PHOS-TOT
FROM OF N-TOTAL N TOTAL ORTHO
TO DAY FEET MG/L MG/L MC /L MG/L P MG/L P
72/09/09 11 50 0.130 1.650 0.231 0.130 0.220
72/10/0# 0.190K 1.850 O.R80 0.189 0.380
72/11/04 14 15 0.320 1.260 0.R50 0.080 0.12R
73/01/11 1? 30 0.640 2.500 0.252 0.033 0.065
73/03/03 15 Co 0.500 4.200 0.240 0.044 0.065
73/03/20 12 35 0.315 1.760 0.100 0.032 0.065
73/04/07 11 35 0.120 1.100 0.069 0.026 0.045
73/06/19 11 45 0.160 ?.500 0.215 0.086 0.160
73/05/14 13 30 0.066 3.500 0.315 0.072 0.125
73/)7/23 13 55 0.310 2.310 0.360 0.13? 0.24u
—
_t - c T - I ‘‘
-------
STOPET RETRIEVAL DATE 74/11/?6
2508F1 LS25OSF1
42 00 00.0 071 57 30.0
SOUTH BROOK
25 7.5 BRIDGEWATER
T/MATFIELD RIVER IMP.
HAYWARD ST BRDG
1 1EPALES
4
00630
00625
00610
00671
00665
DATE
TIME
DEPT’4
NO? .NO3
TOT KJEL
NH3—N
PHOS—DIS
PHOS—TOT
FROM
OF
N—TOTAL
N
TOTAL
ORTHO
TO
DAY
FEET
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L
MG/L P
MG/L P
72/09/09
11
40
0.320
0.650
0.270
0.047
0.139
72/10/06
0.094
1.250
0.126
0.005K
C.063
72/11/04
13
30
0.339
1.600
0.194
0.034
0.082
73/01/11
13
00
1.240
0.630
0.067
0.018
0.040
73/03/03
14
15
0.870
4.600
0.180
0.036
0.075
73/03/20
1?
50
0.520
3.590
0.091
0.026
0.090
73/05/14
14
05
0.280
3.450
0.130
0.048
0.110
73/07/23
13
15
1.840
3.500
0.060
0.014
0.250
2111204
0000 FEET DEPTH
V.L1P -
LESS T.-4 ‘j I [ T
-------
STOPET RETRIEVAL DATE 74/H/??
250850 TF 085O P002300
‘.2 00 00.0 071 58 30.0
PP IOGEwATEP
25 7.5 BRIDGEWATEP
T/MATFIELD PIVEP IMP.
TOWN RIVEN
1 IEPALES 2141204
4 0000 FEET DEPTH
00630 00625 006)0 00671 00665 50051 50053
DATE TIME DEPTH JO2F N03 TOT KJEL NH3—N PHOS—DIS PHOS—TOT FLOW CONDUIT
FROM OF N—TOTAL N IOTAL OPTHO PATE FLOw—MGD
TO DAY FEET MG/L MG/L MG/L MG/L P MG/L P INST MGD MONTHLY
7?/12/01 10 00
CP(T)— 0.360 26.000 11.000 3.600 5.100 0.500 0.400
72/12/01 14 00
73/01/09 09 30
CP(T)— 0.780 19.900 5.400 3.175 0.350 0.400
73/01/09 14 30
73/01/31 10 00
CP(T)— 0.780 33.000 14.500 4.650 6.100 0.400 0.300
73/01/31 14 00
73/02/2R 09 00
CPU)— 1.400 31.600 12.000 3.000 6.300 0.400 0.350
73/02/28 14 00
73/05/02 11 00
CP(T)— 1.075 30.000 14.000 4.650 6.300 0.350 0.350
73/05/0 15 00
73/05/3 1 09 45
CP(T)- 0.270 15.000 10.500 4.500 6.300 0.400 0.600
73/05/31 14 45
73/07/31 09 30
CP(T)— 0.260 18.000 7.000 1.150 6.400 0.350 0.612
73/07/31 14 45
73/10/01 09 00
CPU)— 0.510 29.400 19.000 7.300 8.900 0.600 0.600
73/10/01 IS 00
73/10/31 09 30
CPfl— 0.240 27.000 12.000 4.400 7.200 0.585 0.550
73/10/31 14 30
73/12/06 09 00
CPU)— 0.310 34.000 17.000 7.300 8.700 0.544 0.540
73/12/06 15 00
76/04/01 10 00
CP(T)— 1.000 13.000 9.800 4.300 22.000 0.627 0.650
74/04/01 14 00
74/04/30 09 30
CP(T)- 0.280 27.000 3.900 6.500 9.000 2.400 0.632
74/04/30 1 ’. 30
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 74/11/27
250850 TF2 50850 P002300
42 00 00.0 071 58 30.0
QIDGE4ATE
23 7.5 BF IDGEWATE
1/HATFIELD RIVER IMP.
TOWN RIVER
1 1EPALES 2141204
4 0000 FEET DEPTH
00630 006?5 00610 00671 00665 50051 50053
DATE TIME DEPTH N02&N03 TOT KJFL NH3-N PHOS—DIS PHOS—TOT FLOW CONDUIT
FROM OF N—TOTAL N TOTAL OPTHO RATE FLOW—MGD
TO Dt Y FEET MC’/L MGIL M6/L MG/L P MG/L P INST MGI) MONTHLY
74/07/01 09 00
CP(T)— 1.680 24.000 11.500 6.600 8.500 0.376 0.445
74/07/01 15 00
-------
STORET RETRIEVAL DATE 74/11/27
250851 AS250851 P052000
42 01 30.0 071 01 00.0
B OCTON
25 7.5 wHITMAN
T/MATFrELD RIVER IMP.
SALISBURY PLAIN PIVER
L IEPALES 2141204
4 0000 FEET DEPTH
00630 00625 00610 00671 00665 50051 50053
DATE TIME DEPT’I NO?&N03 TOT KJEL NH3-N PHOS—OTS PROS—TOT FLOW CONDUIT
FROM OF N-TOTAL N TOTAL ORTHO RATE FLOW—IIGD
TO DAY FEET MG/L MG/L MG/I MG/L P MG/I P INST MGO MONTHLY
72/11/27 08 00
CP(T)— 0.120 1.600 4.300 2.315 3.100 18.200 9.700
72/11/28 06 00
72/12/27 00 00
CP(T)— 0.126 19.000 4.100 1.800 2.100 19.100 20.000
72/12/28 24 00
73/01/31 08 00
CP(T)— 0.058 14.000 7.850 1.775 2.800 14.900 15.200
73/02/01 06 00
73/02/28 08 00
CP(T)— 0.050 17.000 8.750 2.900 4.000 12.500 15.300
73/03/01 06 00
73/03/29 08 00
C°(T)— 0.058 24.000 9.900 3.200 5.000 11.600 12.400
73/03/30 06 00
73/05/07 08 00
CP(T)— 0.145 27.000 10.600 4.300 6.750 12.200 14.300
73/05/08 06 00
73/05/31 08 00
CP(T)— 0.069 19.900 10.000 3.390 5.000 11.500 12.800
73/06/0 1 06 00
73/07/01 08 00
CP(T)— 0.IQO 15.400 4.900 1.640 3.400 14.600 9.800
73/07/02 06 00
73/07/31 08 00
CPU)— 0.110 ?‘.000 8.300 2.600 5.800 10.400 11.800
73/09/01 06 00
73/09/03 08 00
CP(T)— 12.000 3.700 4.700 8.400 9.500
73/09/03 16 00
73/09/30 08 00
CP(T)— 0.070 27.000 9.900 6.900 .50O 9.000 9.300
73/09/30 18 00
73/10/31 08 00
CP(T)— 0.100 ?9.000 10.400 4.600 7.300 9.500 8.600
73/11/01 06 00
-------
STORE! RETRIEVAL DATE 74/H/27
250851 AS2 50851 P052000
42 ii 30.0 071 01 00.0
BP OCTON
25 7.5 wHITMAN
T/MflFTELD ‘UVER IMP.
SALIS 3URY °LAIN IVER
11EPALES 2141204
0000 FEET DEPTH
00630 00625 006)0 00671 00665 50051 50053
DATE TIME OFPTH NO2 NO3 TOT KJFL NH3—N PHOS—DIS PHOS—TOT FLOW CONDUIT
FROM OF N-TOTAL N TOTAL ORTHO RATE FLO —MGD
TO DAY FEET MG/L MG/I MGIL MG/L P MG/L P INST MGD MONTHLY
73/I2/0 ? OR 00
CP(1)— ).840 18.500 Q. 6 00 3.570 4.400 9.180 8.850
73/12/03 06 00
------- |