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 ------- |