A
CWT 10-30
¥
wmm ®QDMfv
¦ITDDIDV
\ WCLLESLEY ,
MOLL IS TON 1 JV-'N
AyMEDFIE
r \ MILLIS
MEDWAY \
Charles Rtwer
\ \
\ NORFOLK >
V f%
ttf
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION I BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS
SEPTEMBER, 1971
-------
CHARLES RIVER WATER QUALITY STUDY
APPENDIX E
OF
CHARLES RIVER STUDY
Chaired by:
Department of the Army
New England Division, Corps of Engineers
CWT 10-30
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Regicn I, Boston, Massachusetts
September, 1971
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
1. INTRODUCTION E-l
a. Background E-l
b. Purpose and Scope E-l
2. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA E-3
a. Topography E-3
b. Climate E-3
c. Streamflow E-4
d. Population E-7
3. PRESENT WATER QUALITY, WASTE LOAD AND WATER USE E-9
a. Present Water Quality E-9
(1) State Standards E-9
(2) Water Quality Sanpling Programs E-9
(3) Dissolved Oxygen and Biochemical Demand E-ll
Relationships
(4) Nutrient and Growth of Aquatic Plants E-12
(5) Temperature E-15
(6) Bacteria E-15
(7) Color and Turbidity E-16
(8) Bottom Organisms e-17
b. Present Waste Load E-17
(1) Point Sources of Pollution E-17
(2) Other Sources of Waste E-18
c. Present Water Use E-22
{1) Water Siqpply E-22
(2) Recreation E-22
4. FUTURE POPULATION AND ECONOMY E-24
5. FUTURE WASTE LOADS AND WATER QUALITY E-26
a. Waste Loads E-26
(1) Point Sources E-26
(2) Non-Point Sources E-31
i
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page No.
b. Water Quality E-31
(1) Standards Implementation E-31
(2) Estimated Quality after Minimun Treatment E-31
6. ALTERNATES TOR MEETING WATER QUALITY GOALS E-36
a. General E-36
b. Low Flow Augmentation E-36
c. Advanced Waste Treatment E-39
(1) General E-39
(2) Basis of Cost Estimates E-39
(3) Costs of Alternatives E-40
(4) Other Considerations E-47
d. Cortinatian of Low Flow Augmentation and Advanced E-48
Waste Treatment
e. Disposal of Wastes Outside the Watershed E-48
f. Siiasurfaoe Disposal E-49
g. Disposal of Waste to Wetlands E-50
h. In-Stream Aeration E-50
i. Methods to Reduce Effects of Non-Point Sources E-51
of Pollution
(1) Urban Runoff E-51
(2) Sanitary Landfills E-52
7. ENVIRONMENTAL RELATIONSHIPS E-53
8. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS E-57
9. BIBLIOGRAPHY E-63
ii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title Page No.
E-l Location and Drainage Area of Charles River E-5
Gaging Stations
E-2 Minimum Monthly Mean Discharges Observed at E-6
Charles River Village Gage during 31 Years
of Record
E-3 1960 Population of Charles River Municipalities E-8
E-4 Charles River Watershed Classification E-10
E-5 Major Sources of Organic Waste - 1968 E-19
E-6 Quantity of DOD5 Discharged to Charles River E-20
Watershed by Type - 1968
E-7 Results of Stornwater Overflow Analyses E-21
E-8 Projected Population E-25
E-9 Projected Population and Population Served E-27
by Sewerage Systems
E-10 Percent of Ccmnunity Sewered versus Population E-28
Density
E-ll Projected BOD5 Waste Loadings of Charles River E-29
Watershed Corrrnunities
E-12 Projected Waste Flews of Charles River Watershed E-32
Ccmmunities
E-13 Projected BOD5 Waste Loadings of Charles River E-35
Watershed Communities after Minimum Treatment
E-14 Flaw Augmentation at Minimum Waste Treatment E-37
Levels
E-15 Distribution of Flow Augmentation - River E-38
Temperature of 30°C
E-16 Conparison of Average Annual Cost of Individual E-42
versus Regional Systems for Milford, Bellingham,
Franklin, Medway and Wrentham
iil
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table No. Title Page No.
E-17 Comparison of Average Annual Cost of E-42
Individual versus Regional Systems for
Bellingham, Franklin, Medway and Wrentham
E-18 Catpariscn of Average Annual Cost of Individual E-43
versus Dual Ccramunity Systems - 1970-1995
£-19 Comparisons of Average Annual Costs of E-45
Alternate Treatment Systearas - Norfolk, Millis,
Medfield and Holliston
E-20 Charles River Watershed Classification E-58
iv
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Following
Figure No. Title Page No.
E-l Stud/ Area E-2
E-2 Charles River Watershed E-4
E-3 Location of Charles River Gaging Stations E-4
E-4 1960 Population Density - Persons Per Square E-8
Mile
E-5 Charles River Watershed Classification E-10
E-6 Sartpling Station Locations E-l 2
E-7 Dissolved Qsygen Profile - 1967 Waste Loads E-l 2
and River Flows
E-8 Dissolved Oxygen Profile - 1967 Waste Loads E-12
and Minimum River Flews
E-9 Average Toted Phosphate as P, Summer of 1967 E-I4
E-10 Average Armenia as N, Sumner of 1967 E-l4
E-ll Average Nitrate as N, Sunnier of 1967 E-l4
E-12 Phytoplariktcn, Summer of 1967 E-14
E-13 Diurnal Fluctuation of Dissolved Oxygen at E-14
Camcnwealth Avenue Bridge, Newton
E-14 Diurnal Fluctuation of Dissolved Oxygen at E-14
Needham Street Bridge, Newton
E-15 Nunber of Species and Total Nuirber of Bottom E- l 8
Organisms, Sumner of 1967
E-16 Sources of Waste - 1968 E-l8
E-17 1980 Population Density - Persons Per Square E-24
Mile
E-18 2000 Population Density - Persons Per Square E-24
Mile
E-19 2020 Population Density - Persons Per Square E-24
Mile
v
-------
LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Following
Figure No, Title Page Kb.
£-20 Location of Individual Treatment Plants E-36
E-21 Location of Regional Treatment Plants E-36
E-22 Projected Dissolved Osygen Profiles with E-36
90 Percent Removal of BOD5
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
EA Velocity Discharge Relationships - Charles River
and Tributaries
EB General Policy and Water Quality Criteria -
Oonncnwealth of Massachusetts
EC Location of Water Quality Sanpling Stations,
1967 and 1969 Surveys
ED Cost Breakdown of Alternate Treatment Plant
Configurations
EE Development and Method of Application of Curves
of Average Annual Reduction in Treatment Costs
versus Flow Augmentation Amounts , and Flew Regimes
EF Siijsurfaoe Disposal of Waste
vi
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
a* Background
A water quality investigation has been conducted at the request
of the U. S. Amy Corps of Engineers as one part of a aonprehensive
water resources study of the Charles River Watershed, Massachusetts.
The abjective of the water resources study is to formulate "...a plan
of development which will serve as a guide to the best use, or com-
bination of uses, of water and related land resources of the water-
shed to meet foreseeable short and long-term needs."
As part of the study, an interim report covering the Lower Charles
River was completed by the Corps in May 1968. It reooratended con-
struction of a new dam in the Lower Charles River Basin. A discussion
of water quality for that portion of the Charles River Watershed below
the Moofy Street Dam in Waltham (see Figure E-l) particularly as it
relates to the proposed dam, is contained in that interim report.
Ihis present report is primarily concerned with the water quality
aspects of that portion of the Charles River Watershed above the
Moody Street Dam in Waltham. The basic authorities for preparing
tliis report are the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended
(33 U.S.C. 466 et. seq.), and a letter request dated January 27, 1966
from the Corps of Engineers.
b. Purpose and Scope
Initially, the purpose of this water quality investigation was to
determine the need for and value of low flow augmentation in the
Charles River Watershed. The aim was to determine if storage for
water quality purposes should be included in any reservoirs that
might be reocmnended by either the Corps of Engineers or Soil Con-
servation Service as part of the watershed study.
As the study progressed, it became evident there was a need for
broader water quality management planning. The communities in the
upper watershed have a high growth potential, the need for enhancing
and protecting water uses can be expected to grow in a parallel
fashion, and the choices between the several alternates that could
meet water quality goals appeared to be carp lex. It became clear
also that a major water quality management program is required to
maet the goals that have already been established by the water quality
standards, as well as those that may be set by desires for uses re-
quiring higher water quality.
Hie soope of the study was, therefore, expanded to examine in
more detail possible alternates, including alternate treatment plant
arrangements, waste diversion to Boston Harbor and subsurface dis-
posal possibilities, as well as low flow augmentation.
-------
It should be understood that costs and technical assumptions used
aze generalized, They are considered suitable for ocnparative plan-
ning purposes, i. e., to compare cne alternate with another, and to
provide an order of magnitude. Hie final program elements, however,
such as treatment processes, collection system service areas, the tse
of flow augmentation and operating arrangements, will necessarily be
the result of more detailed studies and specific actions at the oont-
irasiity, regional, State and Federal levels. Final decisions along
these lines will be geared to an advancing technology and improving
institutional arrangements. The oontents of this report are not in-
tended to provide fixed technical answers or precise costs. Instead,
the intention is to provide sound information for a basirwide perspec-
tive to aid in ipocrdng decisions that will set water quality manage-
ment trends for the foreseeable future in the watershed.
E-2
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
2. DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA.
a. Topography
The Charles River Watershed includes an area of 307 square miles
in eastern Massachusetts. It is bordered on the north by the Mystic
River Basin and thence in a counterclockwise direction by the Merri-
mack, Blacks tone, Taunton and Nepcnset River Basins (see Figure E-2).
ttie watershed length is 31 miles with widths ranging fran five to 15
miles.
Except along the perimeter and certain interior sections, the
terrain consists mainly of gently rolling hills and flat lands. Ex-
tensive wetlands are prevalent in the watershed. Elevations range
from 560 feet above msl (mean sea level) along the southwesterly rim
in Hopkintcn to less than 10 feet above msl along the lower eight and
one-half miles of the river.
The Charles River is a well-developed, meandering stream. Within
the watershed's 31 miles straight-line length, the river traverses
approximately 80 miles. There are 20 darts on the Charles River which
affect the normal fall of 350 feet. The longest stretch of river
between dams is 20.8 river miles frctn the Medway Dam to the South
Natick Dam.
b. Climate
The Charles River Watershed has a variable climate characterized
by mild pleasant surmers and cold winters. The watershed lies in the
path of "prevailing westerlies" and cyclonic disturbances that traverse
the area fran the west or southwest. It is also exposed to coastal
storms, some of tropical origin, that travel up the Atlantic seaboard.
Terrperature extremes in the watershed range frcm occasional highs
in excess of 100°F (Fahrenheit) to infrequent lews below minus 20°F.
The average annual terrperature of the watershed is about 50°F to 51°F.
Average monthly temperatures range from 72°F in July to 29°F in Feb-
ruary in the lower watershed area and from 73°F in July to 27.5°F in
January in the upper portion of the watershed.
Average annual rainfall during the year is about 41 inches in the
lower Charles River area and about 44 inches in the upper portion.
The area has no dry season and precipitation is distributed rather
uniformly throughout the year. For example, at Boston average monthly
precipitation varies from a low of 3.16 inches in June to 3.87 inches
in March. The average annual snowfall in the watershed is relatively
constant: about 42 inches per year.
E-3
-------
c. Streamflow
The U. S. Geological Survey maintains gaging stations at the
Charles River Village section of Needham, at Welles ley and at Waltham
on the Charles River and one cn Mother Brook at Dedham (see Figure
E-3). Mother Brook, a canal originally constructed in 1639 for water
power, now diverts about one-third of the Charles River flow at that
point to the Neponset River.
The Stony Brook Sub-watershed lying within portions of Lincoln,
Lexington, Vfeston and Waltham, is the principal source of water for
the City of Canbridge. The entire runoff from this area is diverted
from the Charles River Watershed during rrost of each year to the City
of Canbridge for water supply purposes, and subsequently disposed of
through the MDC (Metropolitan District Commission) sewerage system
directly to Boston Harbor. Normal flows in the Charles River are
also depleted as a result of groundwater withdrawals for water supply
by the towns of Dedham, Needham and Wellesley and subsequent disposal
to Boston Harbor by means of the MDC sewerage system. The overall
drainage area at each of the three gaging stations and effective
drainage area resulting from the Mother Brook and Stony Brook diver-
sions are shown in Table E-l.
The average annual flow measured at the Charles River Village
gage which covers 31 years of record is 293 cfs (cubic , feet per
second) or 1.59 cfsm (cubic feet per second per square mile). Hie
minimum mean monthly flows that have occurred at this station are
shewn in Table E-2.
The Massachusetts water quality standards, which are described
further in Section 3, are enforceable whenever river flows exceed the
average minijnum consecutive seven day flow that may be expected to
occur on the average once in ten years. The average seven day low
flows with a ten-year recurrence interval at Charles River Village
and Waltham are 12 cfs and 4 cfs, respectively.
During Septenber and October 1967, discharge velocity measure-
ments were made at several locations on the Charles River on three
different days by personnel of the New England Basins Office in order
to estimate discharge relationships, and also to estimate the time
of travel or time it takes for water to flow down the Charles River.
Observed daily discharges at the Charles River Village gage on the
three dates of measurement were 42 cfs, 82 cfs and 171 cfs. The
discharge-drainage area relationship follows nearly a straight line
function.
E-4
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
TABI£ E-l
CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED STUDY
Location and Drainage Area of Charles River
Gaging Stations
Gaging Station
River Net Drainage
Mile Area
Effective
Drainage Area
aq. mi.
184.0
145.31
159.62
Beginning
of Record
Charles River 34.3
Village
Wellesley 20.0
Waltham 12.6
sq. mi.
184.0
211.3
249.2
October 1937
August 1959
August 1931
1. Allowance for diversion of one-third flow of Charles River to
the Neponset River through Mother Brook.
2. Includes Mother Brook Diversion and Stony Brook Diversion.
-------
TABUS E-2
CHAR[£S RIVER WMERSHED STUDY
Minimum Monthly Mean Discharges Observed At
Charles River Village Gage During 31 Years of Record
Minimum Monthly Year
Month Mean Discharge (cfs) Occurring
October
13.4
1957
Novenber
33*1
1965
December
54.6
1965
January
65.8
1966
February
143
1944
March
304
1941
April
169
1966
May
158.0
1965
June
67.2
1957
July
19.5
1957
August
9.01
1957
Septenber
7.78
1957
E-6
-------
The velocities that were measured on the three dates and velo-
cities measured by the U.S. Geological Survey at the three gaging
stations served as the basis for estimating time of travel rela-
tionships of the Charles River under a range of low flow conditions.
Ihe discharge-velocity measurements were made at sections with dif-
ferent flow-velocity characteristics. Between the headwaters and
the Moody Street Dam, the main stem was divided into 28 reaches.
Bour of the tributary streams were also divided into reaches. A
new reach was established whenever a diange in the flow character-
istics occurred, such as at impoundments, at the confluence of major
tributary streams, and at the location of present or estimated
future waste loads. Equations in the form of "v = aQ^", where "v"
is the velocity in fps (feet per seacnd), "Q" is the discharge in
c£s, and "a" and "b" are constants, were developed for each reach.
Hie equation for each reach and also the discharge of each reach as
a function of the measured discharge at the Charles River Village
Gage are shown in Attachment EA.
d. Population
Table E-3 presents the I960 population of the 35 cities and towns
that lie wholly or partially within the watershed, together with the
estimated population of each town that resides within the watershed
boundary.
Ihe watershed population of 800,000 is about 15 percent of the
1960 State population of 5,150,000. The watershed includes signifi-
cant portions of the most highly developed section of New England,
the Boston Metropolitan area.
The population density within the Charles River Watershed varies
from highly urban in the lower reaches to semi-rural in the vpper
reaches. Ihe average population densities found in the Charles River
Watershed ocmnunities in 1960 were as high as 22,400 persons per
square mile in Somerville and 15,200 and 13,600 persons per square
mile in Canto ridge arid Boston, respectively. At the other extreme,
population densities of 110 and 185 persons per square mile occurred
in Sherborn and Dover. Figure E-4 reflects the range of population
densities found within the Charles River Watershed.
E-7
-------
TABLE E-3
CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED STUDY
i960 Population of Charles River Municipalities
UPPER CHARLES
Charles
Total River
Municipality Population Portion
LOWER CHARLES
Charles
Total River
Municipality Population Portion
Ashland
7,780
300
Arlington
49,955
3,000
Bellingham
6,IIS
2,600
Belmont
28,715
10,000
Foxboro
10,135
10
Boston
697,195
300,000
Franklin
10,530
9,600
Brookline
54,045
54,045
Hoiliston
6,220
6,200
Canbridge
107,715
65,000
Hopedale
3,985
400
Dedham
23,870
16,000
Hopkintcn
4,930
300
Dover
2,845
2,400
Medfield
6,020
4,700
Lexington
27,690
3,500
Meciway
5,170
5,170
Lincoln
5,615
3,400
Mention
2,070
50
Needham
25,795
25,795
Milford
15,750
14,000
Newton
92,385
92,385
Millis
4,375
4,375
Somerville
94,695
32,000
Natick
28,830
10,000
Waltham
55,415
55,415
Norfolk
3,470
3,470
Watertcwn
39,090
34,000
Sherbom
1,805
1,400
Wayland
10,445
200
Walpole
14,070
1,200
We liesley
26,070
26,070
Wren than
6,685
2,000
Weston
8,260
7,500
Westwood
10,355
2,900
Svfc-Tbtal
138,600
65,775
Slb-TOtell
1,360,155
733,610
Total
1,498,755
799,385
E-8
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
3. PRESENT WATER QUALITY, WASTE LCAD AND WATER USE
a. Present Water Quality
(1) State Standards
In 1967 the Ccniranwealth of Massachusetts, after public
hearings, established water quality standards for all of its streams
and coastal waters. The standards for the Charles River, an intra-
state stream, axe administered and enforced wholly by the Carcncn-
wealth.
Ihe standards include three basic essentials. First, they
set the desired vises for each stretch of water. Second, they estab-
lish physical, chemical and biological limits, or criteria, which
relate the water quality to the desired uses. Third, the standards
contain a plan and schedule for the inplementaticai and enforcement
of the water quality criteria adopted. Massachusetts classifies
its streams into four categories, A through D. The water quality
criteria for each letter classification and general policies of the
Ccmncnwealth regarding measures for the attainment of the adopted
standards are presented in Attachment EB. The standards adopted for
the Charles River Watershed are shown on Table E-4 and Figure E-5.
Class A waters are of excellent quality and are suitable for
water supply. These waters are usually tributary to water supply
reservoirs and are prohibited for any other use. Class B waters are
suitable for bathing and other water contact sports, are excellent
fish and wildlife habitat and are of excellent aesthetic value.
Class C waters are of good aesthetic value, are suitable for recrea-
tional boating, and are a suitable habitat for wildlife and common
food and game fishes indigenous to the region, but they are not con-
sidered suitable for bathing. Class D waters are suitable for aes-
thetic enjoyment, power, navigation and certain industrial cooling
and process uses.
(2) Water Quality Sampling Programs
Major sections of the Charles River and its tributaries are
seriously affected by untreated and inadequately treated discharges
of wastes fran industrial, municipal and institutional sources. Dur-
ing the simmer of 1967 EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) 1 per-
sonnel conducted a sampling program of the Charles River. Sanples
were collected at 17 locations, 15 on the main stem, on 13 different
occasions. Various biological, chemical and physical parameters were
measured. The Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control
1. Federal water quality activities were transferred to the Water
Quality Office of the Environmental Protection Agency from the
Federal Water Quality Administration by Reorganization Plan
Niarber 3 of October 5, 1970. All work prior to that date,
therefore, was performed by the Department of Interior.
E-9
-------
TABLE E-4
CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED STUDY
Charles River Watershed Classification
River Present Anticipated Present
Boundary Miles Use Future Use Condition Classification
Hie Charles River from
its source to Dilla
Street, Milford
The Charles River from
Dilla Street, Milford
to Main Street, Milford
The Charles River from
Main Street, Milford to
Bridge Street, Dover
The Charles River from
Bridge Street, Dover to
Watertcwn Dam, Watertown
Hie Charles River from
Watertown Dam, Watertcwn
to the Charles River Basin
Dam in Boston
80.1-76.5 Water supply
76.5-75.2 Bathing
Fish & wildlife propagation
Fishing
75.2-44.7 Recreational boating
Fish & wildlife propagation
Fishing
Assimilation
44.7-9.8 Recreational boating
Fish & wildlife propagation
Fishing
Assimilation
9.8-1.2 Recreational boating
Fish & wildlife propagation
Fishing
Assimilation
Water supply
Sane
Same
Same and bathing
Same
B
D & C
D & C
D & C
B
B
Farm Pond, Sherbom
All other streams in the
Charles River Watershed
unless denoted above
Reereatioa
Recreation*
B
B
B
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Water Resources Commission, Division of Water Pollution Control
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
also conducted a sampling program of the Charles River in 1967.
On four different dates the Division collected sanples on tributary
streams and additional rain stem locations to complement the EPA
sanpling program. During the surrner and early fall of 1969, addi-
tional water quality sampling was conducted at six locations by EPA
personnel under a lower flow regime than existed during the 1967
survey. (The location of each of the sanpling stations is shown on
Figure E-6 and described in Attachment EC.)
(3) Dissolved Oxygen and Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Relationships
ftie concentration of dissolved oxygen in water is a sig-
nificant indicator of water quality. Sewage and many industrial
wastes contain organic matter which exerts an oxygen demand on the
receiving waters during the process of decomposition. Oxygen is
supplied to waters from the atmosphere through natural reaeration
and may be contributed by algae through the process of photosyn-
thesis. Ihe relative strength of organic pollutants is generally
measured by the amount of oxygen removed from the water in five days
under controlled laboratory conditions (5 day 20°C BCO5). Under
actual conditions, the pollutants, however, continue to remove oxygen
from the water over a greater time before the demand is ccrrpletely
satisfied. Hie dissolved oxygen content of a stream is progressively
reduced at each successive downstream point for as long as the demand
for oxygen exceeds the re aeration capabilities of the stream.
An adequate level of dissolved oxygen is necessary to main-
tain an environment suitable for fish and other aquatic life. Al-
though a high level of dissolved oxygen is not necessarily required
for recreation and aesthetic enjoyment, low levels can result in
septic conditions and obnoxious odors. Hence, since an adequate
level of dissolved oxygen is necessary for seme uses and desirable
for others, dissolved oxygen is one of the most suitable available
indicators of water quality.
To maintain a Class B water which is capable of supporting
an excellent fishery, the water quality standards require a dissolved
oxygen content of not less than 75 percent saturation during at
least 16 hours of any 24-hour period and not less than 5 mg/1 (milli-
grams per liter) at any time.
For Class C waters which are suitable for a warm water fish-
ery, the dissolved oxygen content should be at least 5 mg/1 during 16
hours of any 24-hour period and never less than 3 mg/1. To maintain
a Class C water for seasonal cold water fisheries, at least 5 mg/1
must be present at all times.
Organic wastes are added to the Charles River near the head-
waters at Milford, and again at Millis and Medfield between river
miles 49.8 and 47.5. The tributaries Mine Brook and Stop River also
E-ll
-------
receive organic wastes from sources located in Franklin, and
Wrentham and Norfolk, respectively.
During the summer of 1967, average dissolved oxygen con-
centrations in the Charles River were affected by these sources of
oxygen demanding wastes, but only below Mil ford was the average less
than 5.0 mg/1 (see Figure E-7). Average dissolved oxygen concentra-
tions of these two tributary streams which receive organic waste were
significantly lew as they entered the Charles River. The average
dissolved oxygen concentration of Mine Brook and Stop River at their
confluences with the main stem were 3.0 mg/1 and 2.7 mg/1, respec-
tively.
Sismer flews in the Charles River in 1967 were above average.
Hie mean discharge of the Charles River as recorded at the Charles
River Village Gage during the 1967 sampling period was 143 cfs. The
average minimum consecutive seven day low flow to be expected once
in ten years, the flow that the Massachusetts standards are based
upon, is only 12 cfs at Charles River Village. Had the actual flow
approached this rate, much lower dissolved oxygen levels would have
been found in 1967. Analyses have been made which indicate the dis-
solved oxygen profile at this low flow rate, and the profile is shown
in Figure E-8. In 1969 the average dissolved oxygen level found
below the Milford sewage treatment plant was 2.1 mg/1, significantly
lower than the 1967 average. Sunsner flows in 1969 were also lower
than 1967 sunnier flews.
(4) Nutrients and Growth of Aquatic Plants
Algae and rooted aquatic plants require certain chemical
elements for growth. Perhaps the most inportant of these are nitro-
gen and phosphorus. When they are present in sufficient amounts and
other conditions for growth are favorable, undesirable and excessive
growths of algae and/or rooted aquatic plants may occur. Nuisance
growths tend to develop in slow moving streams and ponds and lakes.
Excessive growths of algae and rooted aquatic plants can
interfere with many uses of the stream. Algae blooms are aesthet-
ically unpleasing, interfere with water supply operations, and during
decay cause unpleasant odors and use up oxygen. Certain types of
blue green algae are toxic to fish and waterfowl. Growth of rooted
plants may severely limit recreational pursuits such as swimming,
fishing and boating.
As part of the water quality standards, Massachusetts has
established numerical criteria limiting the amounts of aircncriia and
phosphorus that may be present in the waters of the State. The
concentration of total phosphate expressed as P (phosphorus) is not
to exceed an average value of 0.05 mg/1 for both Class B and Class C
E-12
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
note:
1967 Wasta Loads and Rivor Flows
Avorags Rivsr Temperature 23° to 24°C
MILFORD WASTE
J. 10.0 n
UJ
(9
> 8.0
o
S 6.0
5
o
<2 4.0
UJ
< 2.0H
» > I » I I || II I I I I I II I II | '
60 90 4 0 30 20 10
RIVER MILE
T
0
m
¦P
DISSOLVED OXYGEN PROFILE
-------
NOTE:
1967 Watt* Loads
MILFORD WASTE
MINE BROOK . FRANKLIN WASTES
River Flows Correspond to 7 Day Law Flow with
o Ton Yoar Recurrence Intorvol.
Average Rivor Temperature 23° to 24*C
STOP RIVER. WRENTHAM AND NORFOLK WASTES
MILLIS WASTES
MEOFIELD WASTES
IT
~ lO.O-i
z
UJ
X
o
a
ui
5
8
-------
stream. For Class B atxmm, cancrartraticna of aRitcnia ©greased
as N (nitrogen) are not to mamd m average value of 0.5 tcq/l, and
for Class C streams osronia m N should not exceed 1.0 mg/1. One of
the main reasons for establishing an ammonia limit is for water
supply purposes. Anncnia aceates a high chlorine dantand to form
chlorandnes which makes it difficult to obtain free residual chlorine
neoassary for disinfection. Anncnia concentrations greater than 1.0
to 2.0 mg/1 are also toxic to aquatic life.
Average concentrations of total phosphate as P and airmcnia
as N found during the 1967 stapling program are shown on Figures
E-9 and E-10.
Nutrient concentrations were extremely high below the Milford
sewage treatment plant. The average total phosphate concentration
as P was 3.14 mg/1, and anncnia as N averaged 3.04 mg/1. Above the
treatment plant, both total phosphate as P and anncnia as N averaged
0.07 mg/1.
Mine Brook contributed significant amounts of nutrients to
the Charles River. Total phosphate as P and anncnia as N concentra-
tions averaged 1.09 mg/1 and 2.93 mg/1, respectively, near the con-
fluence. Nutrient levels in the Charles River increased substantially
at the Milford treatment plant and then generally decreased as the
water progressed downstream, but except at the headwaters, the average
total phosphate as P was never below 0.10 mg/1 and nowhere did the
Charles River ireet the Class B and C total phosphate criteria.
Except in the vicinity of the Milford sewage treatment plant and
Mine Brook, anncnia concentrations did meet the Class B standard.
Nitrates were also measured at each sailing station and
the results are shown on Figure E-ll. As was the case of toted phos-
phate and ammonia, nitrate levels as N are extremely high at Milford,
4.0 mg/1. Nitrates decreased to 0.4 mg/1 at Moody Street, Waltham.
At all sampling stations, the inorganic nitrogen concentration (ni-
trates plus annonia) was greater than 0.5 mg/1.
Concentrations of nutrients found in 1969 were slightly higher
than those found during the 1967 survey because of the lower river
flows in 1969.
Ihe observed concentrations of nutrients in conbination
with other factors such as light intensity, turbidity and tenperature
were sufficient to produce growths of aquatic plants. In the upper
reaches of the Charles River below the Milford treatment plant,
dense growths of aquatic plants were prevalent. Dense growths were
also found in Mine Brook and downstream reaches of the Charles River
to Mectaay. Below Medway rented aquatic plants were not prevalent,
except in the ponded areas near Route 30 in Newton.
E-13
-------
Concentrations of phytcplankton found in th® Charles River
asa sham on Figure E-12. Generally, where extensive growth* of
sooted aquatic plants were present, such as at Milfard and Mine Brock,
oonoantrations of phytoplsrikton \mnce low. Phytcplariktcn concentra-
tions incsaasod as the river flow progressed downstream and reached
a peak of 19 ,800 ctaHs/ml near tha Moody Street Don in Vlaltham. Wa-
ters witii concentrations of phytoplarikton exceeding 1,000 to 2,000
oells/tal are considered overly enriched.
Fhytoplenktcn and aquatic plants, through the proosss of
photosynthesis, utilise the sun's rays acting en chlorophyll to syn-
thesis® living st&stmcs from carbon dicadds aid water. The end
products of photosynthesis ars sisple sugars known as carbohydrates
and £sae moleailar ootygan which are released to the water. Rsspira-
ticn is mother basic life process. In the respiration process,
single sugars ace oxidized by drawing dissolved oxygen from the water
to produce energy. Inspiration continues constantly, while photosyn-
thesis only occurs in the presence of sufficient sunlight.
During a sunny day, photosynthesis proceeds at a more rapid
rate than respiration, and the dissolved oxygen content of a stream
will increase, while in the absence of light, photosynthesis stops,
and the dissolved oxygen content decreases through respiration.
Generally, over a season there is a net production of dissolved oxy-
gen. Where there are excessive algal growths in a stream, oxygen
levels may be severely depleted at night or on cloucty days to such
an extent that higher farms of life are damaged.
During the sutmer of 1969 dissolved oxygen and tenperature
monitors were placed at two locations on the Charles River to estimate
the diurnal fluctuations in the stream. These locations were at the
CcnsnonMealth Avenue Bridge in Newton (river mile 15.4) and the Needham
Street Bridge in Nswtscn (river mile 21.2). This section of the Charles
River had high oonoantrations of phytoplarikton.
At the Ccmmonwealth Avenue Bridge, ten full days of reaord
were obtained between August 15 and 24. The daily variation in dis-
solved OBcpgen was between 1.6 and 2.5 mg/1 with, except for one day,
at least 11.6 hours of sunshine. Figure E-13 shows a typical daily
fluctuation at this location. Dissolved oxygen concentrations were
never below 6.0 mg/1 at this station.
Five days of reaord were obtained at the Needham Street
Bridge (August 15 through 19). Daily changes in dissolved oxygen
at this location varied from 3.0 mg/1 to 4.6 mg/1. A typical daily
dissolved ootygen profile is shown in Figure E-14. The minimum dis-
solved oxygen concentration recorded was 7.8 mg/1. Although minimum
dissolved oxygen levels were always above 6 mg/1, daily fluctuations
at tiroes were s\±>stantial.
E-14
-------
MILFORD WASTE
~ 3.0-
o»
Q.
CO
<
UJ
I-
<
X
CL
V)
o
X
Q.
<
1.0-
UJ
52 0.5 J
cc
UJ
>
<
MINE BROOK. FRANKLIN WASTES
STOP RIVER, WRENTHAM AND NORFOLK WASTES
MILLIS WASTES
MEOFIELD WASTES
NOTE:
Summer of 1967
n
CLASS B AND C
O | H I l» I I I H I | I » I I I 1 I I I | I I I I I I I I I | I I I I I I TTl'ITH I I T'H I | I I I » I I I I I |l't I I 1 ITT I p Tl I" fH
80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
RIVER MILE
AVERAGE TOTAL PHOSPHATE AS P
-------
MILFORD WASTE
MINE BROOK, FRANKLIN WASTES
STOP RIVER, WRENTHAM AND NORFOLK WASTES
MILLIS WASTES
MEDFIELD WASTES
2.0
NOTE:
i
ro
Summer of 1967
z
UJ
<
sr
«*j i.O
>
<
CLASS
CLASS B
30
20
SO
40
RIVER MILE
60
70
80
AVERAGE AMMONIA AS N
-------
3
5
c
39
m
m
MILFORD WASTE
MINE BROOK . FRANKLIN WASTES
STOP RIVER, WRENTHAM AND NORFOLK WASTES
MILLIS WASTES
MEOHELP WASTES
4.0
Summer of 1967
ro
2.0
UJ
uj
1.0-
n-i
20
111111111 i 111
60
I I | I I I I II I M | I I I
40
TT
T
T
30
70
80
RIVER MILE
AVERAGE NITRATE AS N
-------
MILFORP WASTE
20,000-1
o 15,000-
z
o
I-
z
<
_l
0.
o
I-
>
X
CL
10,000-
5,000
MINE BROOK . FRANKLIN WASTES
STOP RIVER. WRENTHAM AND NORFOLK WASTES
MILLIS WASTES
MEDFIELD WASTES
n
NOTE:
Summer of 1967
0 { > I I I i i i i I | i '« n » i l I » | | ii i | |» i i i i i i i i | i ii i | l I I II l l l l 1 | I l l i i I i I l | l l I I l I l I I | »l I I I I I I l |
60 70 60 90 4 0 90 20 10 0
RIVER MILE
PHYTOPLANKTON
-------
NOTE:
Data Token at Commonwealth Avenue Bridge, Newton
River Mile 15.4 August 1969
10.0 n
9.0-
8.0-
7.0-
6.0-
j
A.M.
P.M.
TIME (HRS.)
DIURNAL FLUCTUATION OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN
-------
13.01
Data Taken at Needham Street Bridge, Newton
River Mile 21.2 August 1969
12.0-
11.0-
10.0-
9.0-
8.0-
A.M. 1 P.M.
TIME (HRS.)
DIURNAL FLUCTUATION OF DISSOLVED OXYGEN
-------
The majority of dissolved oxygen analyses were performed on
saiplaa collected in the warning hours whan dissolved axygsan levels
are below the average daily concentration. Thus, dissolved oxygen
profiles based on these observations would tend to be nearer ndnimro
than average values.
(5) TBtperature
For warm water fisheries in Massachusetts such as the Charles
River, in order to maintain a Class B or Class C water, allowable
temperature increases are "None except where the increase will not
exoeed the reoaimamded limits on the most sensitive receiving water
use and in no case ^ill/ exoeed 83°F (28.3°C) in warm water fish-
eries, or, in any case, raise the normal tenperature of the receiv-
ing water more than 4°F."
River temperatures measured during the July and August 1967
survey averaged 23TC in the upper reaches of the Charles and slowly
increased to an average of 25% at the Moody Street Dam. Maximum
temperatures ranged from 25% in the qsper reaches to 27% at the
Moody Street Dam.
During July and August 1969 maximum tenperatures found in
the \jppar Charles were 25%, and 27% in the middle portions of the
stream.
During September 1967, the Massachusetts Division of Water
Pollution Control measured tenperatures as high as 26% in the Upper
Charles River. On occasion, tenperatures have been recorded as high
as 29% to 30% by the Massachusetts Department of Health at several
points in the tpper and middle portions of the river.
(6) Bacteria
Since aoliform bacteria are found in the intestinal tract
of animals, including man, and are easily measured, they are used
as an indicator of fecal pollution and the possible presence of
pathogenic organisms. When aoliform bacteria exoeed an average
value of 1,000 per 100 ml during any monthly sampling period, or
2,400 per 100 ml in more than 20 percent of the samples examined
during that period, the water is oonsidered unsafe for bathing and
other water aontact sports by the Camonwealth of Massachusetts and,
therefore, does not meet a B classification.
In 1967 and 1969 at all Charles River sanple stations,
average aoliform concentrations exceeded 1,000 organisms per 100
ml. The highest values were found below sources of domestic waste.
During the sampling periods, several waste dischargers did not
chlorinate their effluents, although they do now. Urban runoff is
E-15
-------
another source of bacterial pollution that affects th® Charles River.
During periods of rainfall, svtsstaitial nvntoers of bacteria can be
ackkd to the stream (sea Table E-7),
(7) Oolor md Turbidity
For Class B and Class C streams, the oolor and turbidity of
a bod/ of water should not iirpair assigned uses.
In its Health (Madelines for Water Resource and Related Land
Use Management, the U.S. Ptblic Health Servioe has reocnmended that
for water aont&ct sports, the oolor should not exoeed 15 standard
isiits. This reocmrondation is designed chiefly for the safety of the
water users.
The oolor along the entire length of the Charles River was
high. Average values varied from a lew of 71 oolor units below Mil-
ford to a'high
-------
The disk was not visible at any location at a depth of four
feet. In fact, the dink bseme invisible at depths that ranged fran
1.25 feet to 2 fast.
The aolor vies fairly constant in the 35 mile reach. Appar-
ent color varied from 80 to 100 color units and true aolor (measured
after the removal of turiaidity) between 35 to 45 color units. Tur-
bidity was low, varying fro® five standard units to nine standard
units.
(8) Bottom Organisms
Macrcbenthic invertebrate surveys serve as an excellent
indication of both gross pollution and subtle changes in the aquatic
environment.
unpolluted waterways support many kinds of bottom dwelling
insects (clean-water organisms) such as caddisflies, mayflies, stone-
flies, and certain beetles. Because of predators and acnpetition
for food, these organisms are relatively few in raaiber. Yet, grossly
polluted waters, which are low in dissolved ootygen and rich in settled
organic sludges, si^pport only a few types of organisms such as sludge-
worms and bloodwone. These organisms are usually found in great
numbers due to the lack of predators and -the unlimited food supply.
Grossly polluted conditions existed on the Charles River
below the Milford sewage treatment plant. Here, 4,319 organisms per
square foot were found. Although there were 11 different types of
organisms, 3,744 ware the pollution tolerant sludgeworm. In con-
trast, at river mils 34.5 in the Needham-Dover area, the river was
relatively unpolluted. At this location, 24 kinds of organisms
were found. Tbtal markers of organisms per square foot were 338,
of which one was considered a pollution tolerant organism. Figure
E-15 indicates the niatber of species and total nuntoers of organisms
found along the Charles River at each sanpling station.
b. Present Waste Load
(1) Point Sources of Pollution
During the fall and winter of 1967 and 1968, sources of
wastes discharged to the waters of the Charles River Watershed were
inventoried by personnel of EPA and the Massachusetts Division of
Water Pollution Control. After a preliminary location survey, each
source of waste was sampled over an eight hour period and analyzed
for various constituents. Where necessary, a source of waste was
sanpled cn more than one day.
The location of each waste source is shown on Figure E-16,
and the quantity of BOD5 and total phosphate as P contributed by
E-17
-------
each scuroa ana presented cm Table E-5. Tha total tw BCD^ load
fresn major sources is ^oproadinstaly 8,300 lbs/day (pounds par day),
while after treatment 3,100 Ibs/da/ axe discharged to the river, a
net removal of 63 percent.
Wastes are contributed by municipalities, industry and in-
stitutions, like a hospital and a prison. The B0D5 fxcxn each type
is shorn on Table E-6. Although indt®trial sources account for
only 19 percent of the total raw load, because of little tsaatansnt
afforded industrial wastes, they contribute 50 percent of the BGD5
discharged to the Charles.
<2> other Sources of Waste
Non-point sources of waste also contribute pollutants to the
waters of the Charles River Watershed. In the ipper readies above
Naedhon, nuch of the population discharges its waste through indi-
vidual disposal systems. In at least two areas, this method of dis-
posal has beaone inadequate and overflows of septic tank effluent are
reaching the Charles River and tributary streams.
In the middle section of the stream from Needham to the
Mood/ Street Dam, there are few, if any, identified point sources
of pollution. The wastes discharged to the sewerage systems of each
community in this section are aonveyed out of the basin and dis-
charged after treatment to Boston Harbor by the Metropolitan District
Gomnission. Each ocnmunity has a separate sewerage system, that is,
a sewerage system with separate sanitary sewers and storm drains.
However, wastes are added to the watercourse as a result of urban
rainfall runoff. Accumulations of street litter; dirt and dust;
oils; salt; pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers; possible cross-
connections of sewage to storm drainage systems; and other sources
may add significant quantities of pollutants to streams during periods
of rainfall.
Samples from three storm sewer overflow points in Welles ley
on a rainy day, Novenber 7, 1968, illustrate pollution from urban
runoff. Three sanples were collected at each outfall—the first
near the beginning of the rainfall, and hourly thereafter. Five-day
BOD concentrations and ooliform bacteria were measured and, where
possible, the discharge of the overflow estimated. The results are
shown in Table E-7. In all cases ooliform concentrations were above
1,000 organisms/100 ml and at two of the overflow points, above
100,000 organisms/100 ml. The River Street storm drain, which col-
lects storm runoff from the ocnmsrcial section of Welles ley, contained
substantial quantities of BCDg. Ihe results clearly show that pollu-
tants added from numerous storm drains to waterways from urban runoff
are substantial, and can adversely affect legitimate uses of the
receiving water.
E-18
-------
25-i
20-
i/>
UJ
o
UJ
Q.
to
2
to
z
<*
o
a:
o
tr
UJ
CD
15-
10-
3
2 5-
15
2
NOTE:
Summer of 1967
Bar Graph Length Shows Number of
Species, Figures Beside Bar Show
Number of Organisms.
297
10
4,319
3,832
487
158
72
33S m,222
B Il60
37
129
0 | ! I ! i'i'T'i i | I I I I I I I I I" |'l I I I I
80 70 60
I
60
243
2
338
I
LEGEND
118
123
376
Total Organisms-15
-5
Number of Organisms m Po|||ltion Tolerant
in Each Category
183
54
154
321
Intermediate
Pollution Sensitive
51
o, 203
I
I
557
121
27
56
134
231
160
69
434
i i i » p i i i i i i i
50 40 30 20 10
RIVER MILE
NUMBER OF SPECIES
AND
TOTAL NUMBER OF BOTTOM ORGANISMS
"H
0
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
TABLE E-5
CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED STUDY
Major Sources of Organic Waste - 1968
Location
Number
Name
of Waste
Source
Location by
River Mile
Type of
Waste
Present
Treatment
Waste
Discharge
(mgd)
B0D5 BOD5
Before After
Treatment Treatment
(lbs/day) (lbs/day)
Total
Phosphate
P
(lbs/day)
1
Milford STP1
73.4
Municipal
Secondary
1.5
1,930
360
104
2
Unicnville Woolen
Mills, Franklin
63.2-4.1
(Mine Brook)
Textile
None
.15
110
110
-
3
M
Franklin STP
63.2-3.4
(Mine Brook)
Municipal
Secondary
1.2
1,960
660
77
m 4
vo
Wrentham State
School, Wrentham
51.8-6.5-1.1
(Stop River)
Domestic
Secondary
.3
390
200
19
5
Pandville Sanitar-
ium, Norfolk
51.8-6.7
(Stop River)
Domestic
Intermittent
Sand Filters
in
o
«
60
10
2
6
Norfolk Prison,
Norfolk
51.8-3.4
(Stop River)
Domestic
Intermittent
Sand Filters
.4
1,470
170
25
7
Ruberoid, Millis
49.8-1.6
Shingles
Lagoons
.2
15
10
-
8
Cliquot Club ,
Millis
49.8-1.6
Carbonated
Beverages
None
.2
1,440
1,440
66
9
Millis STP
49.8-1.1
Municipal
Secondary
.2
370
40
12
10
Medfield STP
49.2-1.9
Municipal
Intermittent
Sand Filters
.1
95
35
9
11
Medfield State
Hospital, Medfield
47.5
Danes tic
Intermittent
Sand Filters
.3
420
75
16
Total
4.6
8,260
3,110
330
1. STP =
= Sewage Treatment Plant
-------
TftEUE E-6
CHARLES RIVER WKIERSHEX) STUDY
Quantity of BOD5 Discharged to
Charles River Watershed by Type -1968
Source Raw BOD5 % of Total BOD5 Load % of Treated % Renoval
Type Load RawLoad After Treatment Load By Treatment
(lbs/day) (lbs/day)
Municipal 4,355 53% 1,095 35% 75%
Industrial 1,565 19% 1,560 50% 0.3%
Institutional 2,340 28% 455 15% 81%
Total 8,260 100% 3,110 100%
-------
TABLE E-7
CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED STUDY
Results of Stornwater Overflow Analyses
Rainfall - November 7, 1968 - As Measured at Logan
International Airport, Boston
Time Inches
10-11 am 0.00
11-12 am .04
12-1 pm .03
1-2 pm .01
2-3 pm .07
3-4 pro .10
Station 1-30 inch overflow at River Street, Welles ley
Tine Discharge Total Col i forma BOD5
12:00 noon - 600,000 org./lOO ml 200 mg/1
1:20 pm - 280,000 org./lOO ml >86 mg/1
2:25 pm - 500,000 ocg./lOO ml 48 mg/1
Station 2-15 inch overflow at Mica Lane, We lies ley
Time Discharge Total Coliforms BOD5
1
12:15 pm 16 gpm 4,700 org./lOO ml 38 mg/1
1:30 pm 14 gpm 9,400 org./lOO ml 12 mg/1
2:30 pm 29 gpm 22,000 org./lOO ml 9 mg/1
Station 3-15 inch overflow at Boulevard Road, Welles ley
Time Discharge Total Coliforms BOD5
12:30 pm ncne
1:35 pm 4.4 gpm 400,000 org./lOO ml >6 mg/1
2:40 pm 115 gpm 190,000 org./lOO ml 20 mg/1
1. gpm - gallons per minute
E-21
-------
Drainage from inproperly located solid waste disposal facil-
ities is mother source of pollution that affects the Charles River
and tributary otreons—many oamunities, mainly for economic reasons,
have located sanitary landfills in lew marsh azeas where direct run-
off to nearby tsater bodies occurs. Drainage from sanitary landfills
aontains sicpificant bacterial concentrations, and have a high or-
ganic load and low dissolved oxygen concentrations. The Massachusetts
Division of water Pollution Control has ordered three Charles River
aanmunities to cfoote pollution caused by sanitary landfills.
During 1970, the Massachusetts Department of Piiblic Health
conducted an inventory of all solid waste disposal facilities in the
State. Each disposal site was located on Geological Survey maps.
Based on the results of the survey, approximately 15 oennunities
have improperly operated solid waste disposal facilities in areas
that oould came pollution of waters in the Charles River Watershed.
c. Present Water Use
(1) Water Svpply
Nineteen aormunities take water from within the watershed
for water supply. Only Milford, Lincoln and Canbridge have surface
water sources, while the others have ground water suppHes.
Milford withdraws water from Echo Lake at the headwaters
of the Charles River. The safe yield of this source is 1.0 mgd.
In Lincoln, Sandy Pond with a safe yield of 1.2 mgd is the source
of aipply. The City of Canbridge controls the drainage of the
Stony Brook Watershed which is located in Weston, Walthan, Lexington
and Lincoln. The safe yield of this source is approximately 13.7 mgd.
Several industries use water from the watershed, primarily
for cooling purposes. The quantity of cooling water used is not
known. Process water use which is not supplied by municipal systems
within the study area is in the order of 3 mgd.
(2) Recreation
Practically every long-time resident of the watershed knows of
someone who vised to swim in the Charles or has swim there himself.
People would go to the severed public beaches or to same spot where
the shore gave good access. It has been almost twenty years since
the last piiblic beach was closed (at the South Natick Dam in 1953).
High bacterial concentrations and excessive turbidity and color (partly
because of algae growths) in the river and its tributaries have pre-
vented swimning and limited other water sports. Now only a few lakes
at the headwaters of contributing streams are open for swiximing. Pol-
lution fed algae and an unpleasant appearance do not encourage pic-
nicking, park development and intensive use of the river banks.
E-22
-------
Historically, canoeing has been extremely popular in the
middle and upper river; the demand for this pastime has recently
been gaining mcmentun again. However, after the Norurctoega Boat House
in Newton burned in 1959 , the ¥MCA's Red Wing Bay Center in Charles
River Village (Needham) remained the only canoe rental place above
the Boston metropolitan area. Above Millis, except during lew flow
periods, one can paddle from the West Mectaay Dam to the South Natidc
Dam, a distance of almost 21 miles. Present use, nonetheless, is
limited.
Sport fishing in the Charles is generally marginal, although
the State Division of Fisheries and Game considers that a condition
of underharvesting exists along the whole river. The Division has
been stocking rainbow and brook trout for some time, and in the spring
of 1971 began a brook trout tagging project at Shepherd, Vine and
Bogastow Brooks and on the mainstem at Norfolk, Millis, Dover and
Natick. Surprisingly, the biggest trout caught in the State during
1970 was found in the Charles: a brown trout weighing 9-3/4 pounds
caught by a boy in Needham.
In much of the upper valley, the rural scenery is a pleasant
mix of woods, rock outcroppings and meadows, ftie river meanders
through marshes, with only scattered houses. The extensive wetlands
of Medfield and Millis are an important staging and breeding area
for migrating waterfowl and nursery area for fish.
The upper and middle Charles River areas possess a strong
potential for moderate and low intensity recreation use and sport
fishing. This potential, at present, is inadequately served, largely
due to pollution factors. Unsightly algal conditions, oil scums,
debris and turbidity create an unpleasant setting that is not attrac-
tive to people bent on recreation. Low oxygen contents and other
adverse factors in the water inhibit the growth and reproduction of a
balanced aquatic biota and sport fishery. Improper control of sewage
flows poses a health threat to those who might acme in contact with
the water. A major pollution abatement program aimed at the entire
range of water quality problems is essential to improved water use and
fulfillment of the river's recreation potential.
E-23
-------
4. FUTURE POPULATION AND ECONOMY
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, as part of the Charles River
Study, has developed land use, population, and economic data bearing
on present and future uses of water and related land resources . The
population projections, which extend to the year 2020 for the cities
and towns within the watershed, were coordinated with the Metropoli-
tan Area Planning Council, the Department of Agriculture and the En-
vironmental Protection Agency, and distributed to all coordinating
committee members. They are consistent with projections made on a
county basis by the Office of Business Economics, U.S. Department
of Commerce. Table E-8 shows the projections, divided into Upper
and Lower Charles Communities, of both the total numicipality popu-
lation and the portion of the population within the watershed.
As shown in the Table, substantial growth in the Upper watershed
is expected. The projected 2020 Upper watershed population of
507,000 is about 3.7 times greater than the I960 population. The
Lower Charles communities are expected to continue their slight de^
cline until 1980 and then increase to the year 2020. Between 1980
and 2020 the Lower Charles communities are expected to grow by a
factor of 1.15 .
The rapid growth in the Upper watershed is due in part to the ex-
pected continued migration from urban Boston to the suburbs. Future
growth and industrial development is also expected as a result of the
recently constructed Interstate Route 495 expressway which runs
generally north/south through the communities of Hopkinton, Milford,
Bellingham, Franklin, and Wrentham.
Figures E-17 through E-19 illustrate the future expected distribu-
tion of population for the years 1980, 2000, and 2020. In I960 most
of the Upper Charles communities had population densities of less
than 500 persons per square mile. By 2020 the majority will have
densities greater than 1,000 persons per square mile.
E-24
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
TABLE E-8
CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED STUDY
Projected Population
Total Municipality Watershed Portion
U. S. Census Est'd
1960 1980 2000 2020 1960 1980 2000 2020
Upper Charles
138,600
241,000
381,000
507,000
65,775
126,120
201,030
274,540
Lower Charles
1,360,155
1,323,000
1,447,000
1,579,000
733,610
753,650
822,600
898,800
Total
1,498,755
1,564,000
1,828,000
2,086,000
799,385
879,770
1,023,630
1,173,340
w
to Upper Charles Municipalities Lower Charles Municipalities
Ashland Mendcn Arlington Needham
Bellingham Mil ford Belmont Newton
FCoboro Millis Boston Scmerville
Franklin Natick Brookline Waltham
Holliston Norfolk Cambridge Watertcwn
Hopedale Sherborn Dedham Way land
Hopkintcn Walpole Dover Wellesley
Medfield Wrentham Lexington Weston
I>fecfc/ay Lincoln Vfestwood
-------
5. FURJBE t&STE WM3S AND WRIER QUHJTt
a. Wrate Loads
(1) Point Sources
Of the 35 cities and towns that lie wholly or partially
within the watershed, 17 dispose of maiicdpal wastes through the
I®C systsn, four discharge nuiidp&l wastes to the waters of the
Charlas River Watershed, two discharge nwnicdpal wastes to other
basins, and 12 presently hare no nunicipal sewerage systems. In
the future, as nunidpalities grow and require sewerage ays tens,
we estimate that ten aanramities will discharge nuiidpal wastes
to the waters of the watershed. Hie future population of these
communities is shown an Table £-9. Other ocsmunities within the
watershed should continue to discharge wastes outside of the water-
shed or will likely do so in the future.
Also shown cn Table £-9 are estimates of the population
within each canrsunity that will be served by municipal sewerage
systems. These estimates are based on the percentage of people
served by municipal sewerage systems at the present time in over
30 cities and town in the Boston area as oorpared with the popu-
lation density of each ccnmunity. The percentage served for each
population density range was established (Table E-10) as a basis
for the estimates of future nisrbers of people to be served by waste
treatment plants in the Charles River oarrtunities.
In 1965, approximately 18,500 persons were served by sewer-
age systems in the towns of Milford, Franklin, Millis and Medfield,
which was only 42 percent of the total population of the four ocmru-
nities. The average per capita waste load from the four towns was
0.24 pounds of BCD5 per day. In these aanwunities, the per capita
raw waste load is relatively high because large flows and loads axe
contributed by their aormercial canters. As more residential areas
became sswered, the per capita waste load will decrease. However,
decreases in the per capita waste flow as a result of added residen-
tial areas will be offset by industrial inputs to the systen. There-
fore, for the projection years, it was assured that eadi person will
contribute 0.25 pounds of BCDc per day which includes an allcwanae
for industrial additions to the sewerage syst&ns.
Table E-ll shows the rat waste loadings anticipated for the
ten aaranunities expected to discharge to the Charles River, and also
indicates possible locations of treatanent plants by river mile for
both an individual community and an alternate regional waste treat-
ment plant scheme. Locations were changed on the basis of general
knowledge and cursory map studies. Final locations should be selected
only after ocmpletion of more detailed investigations involving sifc-
surfaoe conditions, local population and sewer service area trends,
E-26
-------
TABLE E-9
CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED STUDY
Projected Population and Population Served by Sewerage Systems
Charles River Watershed Catimmities
1965 1980 2000 2020
Ctarrrnunityl Pep. Pop. Served Pop. Pop. Served Pop. Pop. Served Pep. Pop. Served
Bellingham (50%) 2
5,300
0
9,000
2,700
14,000
7,000
18,500
13,000
Franklin
14,700
4,500
22,000
8,800
41,000
20,500
60,000
48,000
Hollistcn
8,9.00
0
14,000
4,200
21,000
8,400
28,000
14,000
Medfield
7,500
1,000
12,000
3,600
22,000
11,000
32,000
25,600
Medway
6,900
200
10,000
3,000
15,000
6,000
20,000
12,000
Milford
17,000
12,000
24,000
17,600
33,000
26,000
42,000
42,000
Millis
5,300
1,000
9,000
2,700
16,000
8,000
22,000
13,200
Norfolk
4,000
0
6,000
0
11,000
2,200
17,000
6,800
Sherborn
2,300
0
4,000
0
7,000
800
10,000
2,200
Wrentham
7,500
0
13,000
2,600
25,000
10,000
33,000
16,500
Total
79,400
18,700
123,000
45,200
205,000
99,900
282,500
193,300
1. Other ocranunities within the watershed are expected to continue to discharge wastes outside of
the watershed, or are likely to do so in the future.
2. Only 50% of population of Bellingham considered. Assumed 50% of ocmnunity will discharge waste
outside of diaries River Watershed.
-------
TABLE E-10
CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED STUDY
Percent of Ccnmmity Sewered versus Population Density
Population Density
(Persons/Square Mile) Percent Served
450 or less 0
451-540 10
541-720 20
721-1000 30
1001-1300 40
1301-1600 50
1601-1900 60
1901-2150 70
2151-2400 80
2401-2700 90
2701 or greater 100
NOTE: Percent served per population density range was based
an acnparing the present population served in over
thirty Boston area ocnraunities with the population
density of the ocmnunities.
E-28
-------
TABLE E-ll
CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED STUDY
Projected BOD5 Waste Loadings of Charles River Watershed Caimunities
River Mile of
1980 Waste Load^
2000 Waste Load
2020 Waste Loac
Community
Waste Discharge^-
(lbs/day)
(lbs/day)
(lbs/day)
Individual Waste Treatment Plants
Milford
73.4
4,400
6,500
10,500
Bellingham
69.1
680
1,750
3,250
Franklin
63.2-3.4
2,200
5,120
12,000
Medway
58.7
750
1,500
3,000
Wrentham
57.6-3.7
1,040
2,890
4,510
Norfolk^
51.8-3.4
1,530
2,080
3,230
Millis5
49.8-1.1
2,130
3,450
4,750
Medfield
49.2-1.9
1,320
3,170
6,820
Holliston
48.4-6.0
1,050
2,100
3,500
Sherborn
47.0
0
200
550
Total
15,100
28,760
52,110
Regional Waste Treatment Plants
Milford
73.4
4,400
6,500
10,500
Bellingham, Franklin,
57.5
4,700
11,260
22,760
Medway, Wrentham3
Norfolk^, Millis-*,
50.3
6,000
10,800
18,300
Medfield6, Hollistcn
Sherborn
47.0
0
200
550
Total
15,100
28,760
52,110
-------
TABLE E-ll (Continued)
1. Hyphenated figures indicate discharge is on tributary. The
first nvrber locates the tributary's confluence with the
Charles River, and the second nunber is the distance from
the confluence to the discharge point.
2. loads are based on 0.25 lbs. of DOD^ per capita per day.
3. Includes waste fran Wrentham State School - 390 lbs/day.
4. Includes waste fran Pandville Sanitarium and Norfolk Prison -
1,530 lbs/day.
5. Includes waste from Cliquot Club and Ruberoid - 1430 lbs/day.
6. Includes waste fran Medfield State Hospital - 420 lbs/day.
E-30
-------
and land use relationships and needs. The location of the individual
and regional plants are shown geographically on Figures E-20 and E-21,
respectively.
In a study conducted for the Metropolitan Area Planning
Council by Carrp, Dresser and McKee, Consulting Engineers, the water
aonsinpticn and sewage flow of 152 Boston area oainunities was pro-
jected to the years 1975 and 1990. The future per capita sewage
flews were assumed equal to 85 percent of the estimated, per capita
water oensunption plus estimates of infiltration into the system.
Sewage flews for the present stud/ were based upon interpolation and
extrapolation of the Carp, Dresser and McKee estimates of per capita
waste flew, modified in sane cases and then acrnbirved with the esti-
mates of population served for each city and town. Table E-12 is a
sunroation of the projected sewage flews of those Charles River Water-
shed ocmnunities considered likely to discharge wastes to the Water-
shed for both the individual and regional waste treatment plant
schemes.
(2) Non-Point Sources
As the Upper Charles River comnunities continue to grow,
the pollutional load contributed to the stream as a result of urban
runoff and drainage from solid waste disposal areas may increase
correspondingly unless measures are taken to reduce the pollution.
By 2020 population densities of nest of the Upper Charles River
ocmnunities will be greater than 2,000 persons per square mile.
b. Water Quality
(1) Standards Implementation
As mentioned previously, in 1967 the Catmonwealth of Massa-
chusetts, after public hearings, established water quality standards
which include a pollution abatement schedule for the Charles River.
On this basis, all sources of pollution must have approved treatment
facilities in operation by 1973 or sooner.
(2) Estimated Quality after flmimum Treatment
The minimum treatment which now must be provided under the
Massachusetts water quality standards is secondary treatment. This
normally will remove about 85 peraent of the suspended solids and
bcd5. In addtian, it is anticipated that the State will require seme
form of nutrient removal for all facilities on the Charles in an
effort to control the algal growth problems which are particularly
botherscme during critical low flow periods.
As a. base level frcro which alternate msasures can be tested,
it has been assumed that treatment will be provided which removes
E-31
-------
TABLE E-12
QIAHLES FIVER WATERSHED STUDY
Projected Waste Flows of Charles River Watershed Comrunities
River Mile of 1980 Waste Flew 2000 Waste Flow 2020 Waste Flow
Carrnunity Waste Discharge mgd2 cfs mgd cfs mgd cfs
Individual Waste Treatment Plants
Ililford
73.4
2.0
3.1
3.6
5.6
6.7
10.4
Bellingham
69.1
.3
.4
.9
1.4
1.9
3.0
Franklin
63.2-3.4
2.0
3.1
4.5
7.0
9.5
14.7
ffedway
58.7
.3
.5
.8
1.2
1.7
2.6
Wfcenthanr
57.6-3.7
.7
1.1
1.9
2.9
3.5
5.4
Norfolk^
51.8-3.4
.4
.6
.7
1.1
1.6
2.5
Millis®
49.8-1.1
.8
1.2
1.6
2.5
2.7
4.2
Medfield^
49.2-1.9
.6
.9
1.8
2.8
4.3
6.7
Holliston
48.4-6.0
.5
.8
1.1
1.7
2.0
3.1
Sherborn
47.0
.0
.0
.1
.2
.4
.6
Total
7.6
11.7
17.0
26.4
34.3
53.2
Regional Waste Treatment Plants
Milford
73.4
2.0
3.1
3.6
5.6
6.7
10.4
Bellingham, Franklin
57.5
3.3
5.1
8.1
12.5
16.6
25.7
Medway, Wrentham^
Norfolk^, Millis^, Medfield^
50.3
2.3
3.5
5.2
8.1
10.6
16.5
Holliston
Sherborn
47.0
.0
.0
.1
._2
.4
.6
Total
7.6
11.7
17.0
26.4
34.3
53.2
-------
TABLE E-12 (Continued)
1. Hyphenated figures indicate discharge is on a tributary. The
first nunber locates the tributary's aonfluenoe with the Charles
River, and the seocnd nunber is the distance fran the aonfluenoe
to the discharge point.
2. Million gallons per day.
3. Cubic feet per second.
4. Includes waste flew from Wrentham State School - 0.3 mgd.
5. Includes waste flew fran Pondville Sanitarium and Norfolk Prison -
0.4 mgd.
6. Includes waste flow fran Cliquot Club and Ruberoid - 0.4 mgd.
7. Includes waste flow from Medfield State Hospital - 0.2 mgd.
E-33
-------
at least 90 percent of the phosphate for all point waste sources.
This will normally be accomplished by secondary treatment followed
by an advanced waste treatment process of coagulation and sedimen-
tation which also removes at least 90 percent of the BOD5. The base
river flow used to evaluate the effect of treatment is the average
seven day flow with a ten year recurrence interval. At the Charles
River Village gage, this is 12 cfs. The projected waste flows from
municipalities discharging to the Charles River Watershed in the
year 1980, 2000 and 2020 are 11.7 cfs, 26.4 cfs and 53.2 cfs, respec-
tively.
Assuming each person contributed .0099 lbs/day of phosphate
and that the minimum required treatment will remove 90 percent of
the phosphate, the phosphate as P contributed to the Charles River
frail iruniciDal sewage treatment plants is estimated to be 45 lbs/day
in 1980, 100 lbs/day in 2000 and 190 lbs/day in 2020. Ihese values
are substantially less than the measured 1968 phosphate load of 330
lbs/day discharged to the Charles River by point sources.
Estimated BCD5 waste loads that would be discharged to the
Charles River and tributaries during the 1980, 2000 and 2020 years
following the minimum treatment are shown on Table E-13.
With these waste loads and extreme low river flow condi-
tions, projected dissolved oxygen profiles for individual treatment
plants and the regional treatment plant scheire have been estimated
and are shown an Figure E-22. In these analyses, a background level
of 2 mg/1 of BOD^ was assumed to account for the urban nature of
the stream. It can be seen that significant reaches of the mains tern
Charles River will not meet the Class C or Class B dissolved oxygen
criteria in 1980 even with 90 percent BOD5 removal. The four tributary
streams that would accept treated waste under the individual treatment
plant sdieme will also be severely degraded below the sewage treatment
plant outfalls.
Generally, with treatment plant negionalization, fewer miles
of river would not meet water quality standards and the tributary
streams would not be affected bv pollution fran point sources. Hew-
ever, by concentrating the waste load at fewer locations within the
degraded reaches, the dissolved oxygen concentrations would be much
lower than under the individual treatment plant scheme.
During low flow periods, levels of treatment that remove
only 90 percent of the BOD5 will not prevent severe degradation of
significant reaches of the Charles River by 1980. Additional measures
will, therefore, be reouired to achieve the water quality standards.
E-34
-------
TABLE E-13
CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED STUDY
Projected BOD5 Waste Loadings of Charles River Watersned Ccrrmunities
after Minimum Treatment
River Mile of 1980 Waste Load 2000 Waste Load 2020 Waste Load
Ccmnunity Waste Discharge (lbs/day) (lbs/day) (lbs/day)
Individual Waste Treatment Plants
Milford
73.4
440
650
1,050
Bellingham
69.1
68
175
325
Franklin
63.2-3.4
220
512
1,200
Medway
58.7
75
150
300
Wrentham
57.6-3.7
104
289
451
Norfolk
51.8-3.4
153
208
323
Millis
49.8-1.1
213
345
475
Msdfield
49.2-1.9
132
317
682
Mollis ten
48.4-6.0
105
210
350
Sherborn
47.0
0
20
55
Total
1,510
2,876
5,211
Regional Waste Treatment Plants
Milford
73.4
440
650
1,050
Bellingham, Franklin
57.5
470
1,126
2,276
Medtfay, Wrentham
Norfolk, Millis, Medfield
50.3
600
1,080
1,830
Hollistcn
Sherborn
47.0
0
20
55
Total
1,510
2,876
5,211
-------
6. ALTERNATES FOR MELTING WATER QUALITY COALS
a* General
As described in the previous chapter, during extreme low flow
periods when river temperatures are high, levels of treatment that
remove only 90 percent of the DCD^ will not bring about desired
water quality goals in significant reaches of the Charles River
and tributary streams.
Additional measures, however, that may be undertaken to meet
desired water quality goals include low flow augmentation, advanced
waste treatment, orarfcinatians of the two, disposal of wastes out of
the basin, subsurface disposal and in-stream aeration.
The natural flow of the Charles will be augmented and correspond-
ingly diluted as the volume of highly treated effluent soon increases
through time (with population expansion). Particularly as a balance
between natural flows and artificial increment is approached and
then altered during low flow periods in favor of treated wastewater
effluent, the river will benefit from taking in this clean water of
higher quality than its own naturally colored and turbid flow. Fish
will prosper with the higher dissolved oxygen levels, canoes may be
able to travel further, and people will find improved, algae-free,
less brown and turbid swirrming opportunities.
b. Lew Flow Augmentation
Quantities of flow to maintain a dissolved oxygen level of 5.5
mg/1 in the Charles River and tributary streams have been ocrrputed
under the 1980, 2000 and 2020 waste loading conditions corresponding
to 90 percent removal of BOD5 (Table E-13). A dissolved oxygen
level of 5.5 mg/1 in the stream approximates the Class B and meets
the Class C requirements and is suitable for the maintenance of a
well balanced fishery.
Flows were determined for stream temperatures of 20°, 25° and
30°C, terperatures that are found between May and October. Augmen-
tation flows were also determined for both the individual waste
treatment plant scheme and the regional waste treatment plant scheme
(shown schematically in Figures E-20 and E-21) to see what influence
plant size and location nay have on flow requirements). Quantities
of flow needed in the Charles River to maintain an average dissolved
oxygen concentration of 5.5 mg/1 with minimum levels of treatment
are presented an Table E-14. Flow augmentation would be introduced
at several locations above major sources of waste. Augmentation
water was assumed to contain dissolved oxygen levels equivalent to
88 percent saturation. The distribution of flows for the 1995 and
2020 years at the maximum river tenperature of 30°C are shown on
Table E-15.
E-36
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
MILL RIVER -WRENTHAM
MEDWAY
MINE BK.-FRANKLIN
BELLINSHAM
MILFORD
^ 8.Ch
STOP RIVER - NORFOLK
MILLIS
MEOFIELD
BOSASTOW BK. - HOLLISTON
SHERBORN
I
INDIVIDUAL TREATMENT PLANTS
1980 Wast* Load!
CLASS C - D.O. = 5.0 r
W P 60
CLASS B - D.O. = 5.7
2000 watt* Load>
2020 Wast* Loads
RIVER MILES-80
BELLINOHAM, FRANKLIN, MEDWAY .WRENTHAM
MILFORD
NORFOLK, MILLIS, MEOFIELO, HOLLISTON
SHERBORN
REGIONAL TREATMENT PLANTS
B - D.O.- 5.7
CLASS C- D.0.=
2000
> o 4.0
O
in 2.0-
cn
20 20 Wast* Loads
RIVER MILES- 80
INDIVIDUAL AND REGIONAL TREATMENT PLANTS
90% Removal of BODg
River Flows Correspond to 7 Day Low Flow
with a Ten Year Recurrence Interval.
Average River Temperature 30°C
10 0
PROJECTED DISSOLVED OXYGEN PROFILES
-------
TABI£ £-14
CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED STUDY
Flow Augmentation^ at Minirnun Waste
Treatment Levels
1995 Flow Requirement
Month and
River Tenperature
May 20°G
June 25^
July 30PC
August 30°C
Septeirber 25°C
October 20°C
Individual
Treatment Plants
45 cfs
80 cfs
165 cfs
165 cfs
80 cfs
45 cfs
Regional
Treatment Plants
50 cfs
90 cfs
180 cfs
180 cfs
90 cfs
50 cfs
Month and
River Tenperature
May 20^:
June 25^C
July 30°C
August 30°C
September 259c
October 20°c
2020 Flow Requirement
Individual
Treatment Plants
110 cfs
195 cfs
390 cfs
390 cfs
195 cfs
110 cfs
Regional
Treatment Planjts
110 cfs
200 cfs
400 cfs
400 cfs
200 cfs
110 cfs
1. Flow amounts are those needed in addition to the base low
flow and waste discharge flows.
E-37
-------
TABLE E-15
CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED STUDY
Distribution of Flow Augmentation
River Temperature of 30^
Individual Treatment Plants
1995
2020
Portion needed above Milford Waste (R.M. 73.4)
60
105
Portion needed above Franklin Waste
(R.M. 63.2 - 3.4 Mine Brook)
20
35
Portion needed above Wrentham Waste
(R.M. 57.6 - 3.7 Hill River)
13
25
Portion needed above Norfolk Waste
(R.M. 51.8 - 3.4 Stop River)
8
10
Portion needed above Hoi listen Waste
(R.M. 48.4 - 6.0 Bogastow Brook)
4
5
Portion needed above R.M. 63.2
60
210
Total Flow Augmentation
165
390
Regional Treatment Plants
1995
2020
Portion needed above Milford Waste (R.M. 73.4)
55
90
Portion needed above Regional Plant at
R.M. 57.5 (Bellingham, Franklin, Medway,
Wrentham)
125
310
Tbtal Flow Augmentation
180
400
E-38
-------
c. Advanced Waste Treatment
(1) General
Processes are available to remove greater amounts of pollu-
tants than is possible with secondary treatment plus coagulation and
sedimentation. For example, the addition of rapid sand filtration
would remove approximately 93 percent of BOD5, and a final granular
carton absorption process could be expected to further increase the
removal rate to 98 percent. Advanced treatment processes also remove
further quantities of suspended solids and phosphates.
The technology of advanced waste treatment is changing
rapidly. Thus, while the costs and processes used herein are con-
sidered valid for comparing alternate treatment plant configurations
for general planning purposes, the actual cost of future construction
may vary markedly due to irrproved processes and operating procedures.
Analyses, based on stream flow and quality conditions and waste loads
that existed during 1967, were made to show the dissolved oxygen
response to future variations in flow and waste loadings. Treatment
efficiencies necessary to maintain an average dissolved oxygen con-
centration of 5.5 mg/1 in the stream were estimated for the 1980,
2000 and 2020 years. A background level of 2 mg/1 of BOD5 was assumed.
The calculations indicate that, to meet an average dissolved
oxygen level of 5.5 mg/1 during lew flew periods, between 94 and 98
percent of the BOD5 will need to be removed and effluents aerated to
6 mg/1. To achieve these efficiency levels with existing technology,
the municipalities, except Sherborn, would typically have to provide
the equivalent of primary treatment, secondary treatment, coagulation,
sedimentation, filtration, carbon adsorption and post-aeration.
Effective chlorinaticn is also necessary to control bacteria and
viruses. These treatment methods would also provide a high level of
phosphate removal with effluent phosphate concentrations on the
order of 0.5 mg/1 as P.
(2) Basis of Cost Estimates
The average annual aosts have been compared for individual
treatment plants versus alternate regional treatment plants to limit
waste loads discharged to the amount necessary to maintain 5.5 mg/1
dissolved oxygen in the stream during extreme low flow conditions
and high river terrperatures.
Treatment aosts were taken fran curves developed by Robert
Smith, EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio. The curves present average costs on
a national basis and are considered valid for the purpose of com-
paring treatment plant configurations. The treatment costs reflect
both capital costs and costs of operation and maintenance. Opera-
tion of advanced waste treatment processes was assumed necessary
E-39
-------
for only six months per year. Capital costs of treatment were
amortized over 25 years at 4-5/8 percent interest. The annual cost
of providing the neaessary treatment is about twiae the cost of
secondary treatment alcne.
Costs of interceptors were based on curves prepared by
Bcwe, Albertsen and Walsh, Consultants, for towns in Suffolk County,
New York. These costs ccrpared favorably with interceptor costs
ocrpiled by Met calf and Eddy, Consulting Engineers, Boston. Inter-
ceptor costs were amortized over 50 years at an interest rate of
4-5/8 percent.
As reported by Robert Smith, construction costs represent
above 80 percent of the total bonded cost for plant construction.
Therefore, construction costs were multiplied by a factor of 1.25
to alio; for preliminary expenses such as administrative, engineer-
ing and legal fees, interest during construction and contingencies.
All aosts were adjusted to the June 1967 level.
(3) Costs of Alternatives
Types of alternatives considered and evaluated:
*A ccrparison of individual treatment plants, regional
treatment plants, and dual ccrmunity configurations
located on the Charles River for the communities of
Milford, Bellingham, Franklin, Mectoay and Wrentham.
*A ccrparisan of individual treatment plants and
regional and s\±>regional plants for the communities
of Norfolk, Millis, Medfield and Holliston.
*A single regional treatment plant for all of the
above ccrmunities.
Projections for Sherborn indicate that a sewerage system
will not be required until about 1990. At that time, Sherborn will
probably construct its own treatment plant because of the small load
and distance from other Upper Charles River ccrmunities.
(a) Milford, Bellingham, Franklin, Medway and Wrentham
Of the first group of comnunities considered, Milford
has a secondary treatment plant in need of rehabilitation. Franklin
and Medtfay are now under orders of the Ccfrmorwealth of Massachusetts
to construct and operate sewage treatment facilities by 1973 and 1972,
respectively. Bellingham and Wrentham, as indicated by the projec-
tions, should construct a sewerage system in the near future.
E-4Q
-------
For the five rrunicipalities and also for four of them,
excluding Milford, the following sewage treatment plant configura-
tions have been considered:
1_. Individual treatment plants from 1970 to 2020.
2. A regional treatment plant from 1970 to 2020.
i_. Individual plants frtsri 1970 to 1995, followed by
a regional plant frcsn 1995 to 2020.
4_. Pour dual municipality configurations for the
1970 to 1995 period consisting of:
a. Milford and Bellingham
b. Franklin and Medway
c. Bellingham and Franklin
d. Medway and Wrentham.
Tables E-16, E-17 and E-18 summarize the costs of pro-
viding the various treatment plant configurations.
During the initial construction phase (1970-1995) the
average annual cost of constructing and operating individual treat-
ment plants is approximately 10 percent less expensive than either a
four-cartnunity or five-cumiunity regional plant. (Table E-16 and
E-17) A dual oomnunity plant between Milford and Bellingham would
have about the same total cost as individual plants constructed con-
currently. A dual cannunity plant between Medway and Wrentham is
approximately 6 percent more expensive than individual plants.
Costs of the dual plant for Franklin and Medway are
based on a Franklin plant on 'line Brook at the site of the existing
plant about 3.5 miles from the mouth of the brook. The Medway plant
was assumed to be along the Charles River, downstream of Populatic
Pond (see Figure E-20). The cost of the dual plant included an inter-
ceptor to transport Franklin's waste from I line Brook to the proposed
dual plant location which is also below Populatic Pcnd.
Recently, the engineering consultant for Franklin has
reccttmended that the town construct a new plant which would discharge
to the Charles River one-half mile dcwnstream of the Mine Brook con-
fluence , at about the same cost as constructing the plant at the
existing Mine Brook site. The proposed Franklin plant along the
Charles River would be about two miles frcm the Medway plant. In
light of this reoent development the two towns should determine if
a single plant could serve both communities.
Frcm 1995 to 2020, the cost of construction and opera-
tion of a four-ccTTTTiunity regional treatment plant is about the same
as that of constructing and operating individual plants.
E-41
-------
TABLE E-16
CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED STUDY
Carp arisen of Average Annual Cost of Individual
versus Regional Systems for Milford, Bellingham,
Franklin, Medway and Wrentham
Secondary Treatment Plus Six Months Operation of
Coagulation, Sedimentation, Filtration, Carbon
Adsorption and Post Aeration to 6 mg/1 Dissolved Oxygen
1970-1995
1995-2020
Individual Treatment (1970-2020)
$1,037,000
$2,010/000
Regional Treatment (1970-2020)
1,130,000
2,288,000
Individual Treatment (1970-1995),
Regional Treatment (1995-2020)
1,037,000
2,032,000
TABLE E-17
CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED STUDY
Ccrrparisan of Average Annual Cost of Individual
versus Regional Systems for Bellingham, Franklin,
Medtfay and Wrentham
Secondary Treatment Plus Six Months Operation of
Coagulation, Sedimentation, Filtration, Carbon
Adsorption and Post Aeration to 6 mg/1 Dissolved Oxygen
1970-1995
1995-2020
Individual Treatment (1970-2020)
$711,000
$1,450,000
Regional Treatment (1970-2020)
793,000
1,628,000
Individual Treatment (1970-1995),
Regional Treatment (1995-2020)
711,000
1,462,000
E-42
-------
tabu: e-18
CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED STUDY
Ccrpariscn of Average Annual Cost of Individual
versus Dual Ccmnunity Systems - 1970-1995
Secondary Treatment Plus Six Months Operation of
Coagulation, Sedimentation, Filtration, Carbon
Adsorption and Post Aeration to 6 mg/1 Dissolved Oxygen
Individual
Dual
Ccmnunity
Milford and Bellingham
$426,000
$426,000
Franklin and Mectoay
Bellingham and Franklin
463,000
568,000
456,000
528,000
Mectoay and Wzentham
255,000
271,000
E-43
-------
(b) Norfolk, Mi His, Medfield and Holliston
The second regional configuration includes Norfolk,
Millis, Medfield and Holliston. At the present tine, Millis and
Medfield have new secondary treatment plants. Both will be in need
of expansion in the near future. The municipality of Norfolk will
not need a sewage treatment plant until about 1985. Sources of
waste in Norfolk include the Pcmdville Sanitarium and the Norfolk
Priscn, both of which discharge to the Stop River. Hie Norfolk
Prison is presently under orders to build and operate a new sec-
ondary treatment plant. The Pcndville Sanitarium has an efficient
secondary treatment plant. Holliston is not on an irplemantatian
schedule, but projections indicate that sewerage facilities will
be needed in the near future.
Treatment plant configurations that have been con-
sidered are as follows:
1. Individual treatment plants from 1970 to 2020.
2. A dual ccmnunity plant consisting of Millis and
Medfield from 1970 to 1995.
2- A tri-oanriunity plant consisting of Millis,
Medfield and Holliston from 1970 to 1995.
A. A regional plant for the four ocmmunities between
1995 and 2020.
Cost estimates of these alternatives are presented on
Table E-19.
These estimates show there would be a saving of approxi-
mately 6 percent if Millis and Medfield construct a joint treatment
plant when these ccrrrnunities expand. Both ocrrrriunities now discharge
into small brooks that drain to the Charles River less than a mile
from each other. A tri-connrunity plant consisting of Millis, Med-
field and Holliston also ocnpares favorably with individual plants.
Between 1995 and 2020 a regional treatment plant appears
to be less expensive than individual plants.
(c) Single Regional Plant
Fran 1995 to 2020 the cost of constructing one regional
treatment plant to handle the wastes of the nine ouiinunities (Sher-
born not included) was compared to the cost of treating the waste at
two treatment plants as discussed above. The average annual costs
of each were essentially equal—$2,970,000 for two regional plants
E-44
-------
TABI£ E-19
CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED STUD*
Comparisons of Average Annual Costs of Alternate
Treatment Systems
Norfolk, Millis, Medfield, Holliston
Seoondary Treatment Plus Six Months Operation of
Coagulation, Sedimentation, Filtration, Carbon
Adsorption and Post Aeration to 6 mg/1 Dissolved Oxygen
Period 1970 - 1995
Individual Treatment Plants
Norfolk $108,000* Ifedfield $175,0002
Millis 153,000 Holliston 125,000
Dual Treatment Plant - Millis and Medfield
Dual Plant $311,000
Individual Plants 328,000
TriKjCrmunity Plant - Millis, Medfield and Holliston
Tri-Carmunity Plant $449,000
Dual Plant (Millis and Medfield),
Individual Plant (Holliston) 436,000
Individual Plants 453,000
Period 1995 - 2020
Individual Treatment Plants $1,128,000
Regional Treatment Plant 978,000
1. Costs reflect those of institutions within Norfolk. Town of Norfolk
does not require sewerage system at present time.
2. Cost of expanding existing sewage treatment plant.
E-45
-------
and $2,960,000 for one regional plant. The average annual cost of
constructing and operating cne regional plant to handle the wastes
of eight communities, Mil ford not included, was $2,560,000 compared
to an average annual cost of $2,400,000 to construct and operate
two regional plants.
A more detailed cost breakdown of all alternatives
considered is presented in Attachment ED.
(d) Surmary
All ocnfcinations investigated during the 1970-1995
time frame, with three exceptions, show individual treatment plants
to be more economical than a regional plant. Hie first exception
is a dual plant serving Millis and Medfield which would be slightly
less expensive than individual systems. The other exceptions are
a tri-cctrinunity plant serving Millis, Medfield and Holliston, and
a dual plant for Milford and Bellingham. The latter two systems
are essentially equal to individual plants.
In many cases, however, the costs were within 10 per-
cent of each other. These carbinations that vary within 10 percent
(considered economically equivalent) are as follows:
1. Individual plants versus a regional plant for
Milford, Bellingham, Franklin, Medway and Wrentham.
2. Individual plants versus a dual ocmnunity plant
for Milford and Bellingham.
3. Individual plants versus a dual cormunity plant
for Medway and Wrentham.
4_. Individual plants versus a dual ccnrrunity plant
for Millis and Medfield.
5. Individual plants versus a tri-ccarrnunity plant
for Millis, Medfield and Holliston.
Carrbinaticns that had a greater than 10 percent
variance for the 1970 to 1995 period were as follows:
1. Individual plants versus a regional plant for
Bellingham, Franklin, Mectoay and Wrentham. (Individual plants
11 percent less expensive.)
2. Individual plants versus a dual ocmnunity plant
for Franklin and Medway. (Individual plants 23 percent less
expensive.)
E-46
-------
3. Individual plants versus a dual ocmnunity plant
for Bellingham and Franklin. (Individual plants 16 percent less
expensive.)
(4) Other Considerations
In those cirerunstanoes where the costs of alternate treatment
plant configurations are about the same, other considerations will
play a deciding role in choosing the alternative, particularly where
decisions will be needed in the immediate future. Sate of the major
considerations are as follows:
(a) Regional treatment plants would remove waste discharges
fran tributary streams and the upper reaches of the Charles River,
but also could deplete flows to such an extent that desired uses may
be curtailed in the affected reaches.
(b) Regional treatment plants require less land and physical
plant than a series of individual treatment plants. Aesthetic benefits
associated with the fewer treatment plants may be a factor.
(c) Larger treatment plants generally are better able to
absorb changing characteristics and volume of wastes being treated.
(d) Timing of construction between ocmrtunities and site
selection aould make it difficult to implement a regional facility.
(e) Cost analyses for the 1995 to 2020 time frame nay
influence irrmediate decisions.
In addition to the above considerations, the ccnrrunities in
the Upper Charles River Watershed should form a regional sewerage
district. Advantages ccrmonly attributable to regional treatment
plants may also be possible if individual facilities are operated
by a single management authority such as:
(a) Increased efficiency of operation because of ability
to enploy highly qualified personnel such as process specialists,
biologists, chemists and electrical and instrumentation technicians.
(b) Ability to correct operational and maintenance prob-
lems more quickly because of specialists, availability of central
maintenance facilities and a large spare parts inventory.
(c) May relieve local ccnmunities of the problems associ-
ated with administration, operation and maintenance of a ccrtplex
treatment facility.
E-47
-------
d. Carbination of Low Flew Augmentation and Advanced Waste Treatment
Curves have been developed for Charles River zones which show
average annual reductions in treatment costs over a fifty-year period
as a result of providing various levels of flow and augmentation
amounts. The flow amounts shown on the curves would be needed during
the warmest months, July and August (assumed river terrperature of
30°C). During periods when river tearperatures are lower, for the
same level of treatment, lesser amounts of flow would be required
to maintain adequate dissolved oxygen concentrations in the stream.
Therefore, the ratios of flows required at 20^ river tenperatures
(May and October) and 25°C (June and September) to those required
at 30°C for the same waste load have been calculated to establish a
flew regime for each zone. Flow regimes, once established, may then
be used to determine and ocrpare the costs of reservoir storage with
corresponding treatment cost reductions for purposes of project
formulation.
Preliminary investigations made by the Corps of Engineers and
the Soil Conservation Service indicate that flow augmentation sites
on Mine Brook and Bogastow Brook may provide a net savings in the
treatment costs of sources in Franklin on Mine Brook, and in Hollistan
on Bogastow Brook.
The curves of average annual reductions in treatment costs over
50 years versus flow augmentation amounts and the flew regime de-
veloped for each zone along with a description of the development of
curves and flew regimes and their method of application are presented
in Attachment EE.
e. Disposal of Wastes Outside of Watershed
The transportation of wastes outside of the watershed with treat-
ment and disposal at the MDC sewage plant at Nut Island was also
investigated as a method of improving the quality of waters of the
Charles River Watershed.
One advantage of this alternative is that waste discharges would
be removed from the Upper Charles River, thus assuring a good quality
water. In addition aesthetic benefits would also accrue by eliminating
treatment plants and associated lands from the watershed.
On the other hand, the depletion of flews in the river could
curtail desired uses, and transporting wastes out of the watershed
would be expensive.
For exarrple, the cost of transmitting wastes from the Upper Charles
River immunities to the MDC sewage treatment plant at Nut Island,
including the oennunities' share of the capital and operation and
maintenance costs at the Nut Island treatment plant are estimated to
E-48
-------
be $2,125,000 annually during the 1970 to 1995 tine period, and
$4,618,000 annually during the 1995-2020 period. Hie most economi-
cal ccrteination of treatment and disposal within the watershed is
$1,590,000 annually for the 1970 to 1995 tune period, and $3,000,000
annually for the 1995 to 2020 period.
f. Subsurfaoe Disposal
If the soil has good permeability, subsurfaoe disposed, of wastes
after secondary treatment and chlorinatian can offer an economical
way of meeting water quality goals.
There are two carman methods of subsurface disposal; namely,
direct injection into the groundwater through recharge wells, and
spreading or distributing the waste on the ground surface and allow-
ing it to seep into the soil. The injection method has severed dis-
advantages over spreading. High levels of treatment may be required
prior to injection to avoid clogging of the recharge well. The
removal of pollutants from the waste as it travels through the soil
to the groundwater by the spreading method is negated by direct
injection. Unless land costs are extremely high, groundwater injec-
tion is usually more expensive than spreading.
Disadvantages of waste water spreading are the relatively high
land requirements and possible operational problems during periods
of high water table and during the winter months.
Percolation through the ground has been shown to be an effective
mechanism for the removal of pollutants from wastewater. Studies
at wastewater reclamation projects have shown that vertical percola-
tion of wastewater through relatively short distances is effective
in removing bacteria and virus, BOD5, suspended solids and phosphate
ion.
Geologic studies of the Charles River Watershed are being under-
taken by the U.S. Geological Survey. Preliminary results indicate
the existence of many sand and gravel lenses near the river bank
that may be suitable for wastewater spreading.
Wastewater spreading should be considered by the Charles River
communities. Prior to its use, detailed engineering investigations
and extensive borings and percolation tests will be required at
proposed spreading sites.
A more detailed description of the subsurfaoe disposal method
and cost oanparisens with advanced waste treatment are shewn in
Attachment EF.
E-49
-------
g. Disposal of Waste to Wetlands
A major reocrmendaticn of the Charles River Watershed Study
will be to acquire and preserve approximately 8,500 acres of wetlands
which provide natural flood oontrol storage. Most of the wetlands,
about 7,500 acres, lie above the Charles River Village gage.
In addition to flood oontrol benefits, it may be possible for
Charles River towns to utilize the marshes as a means of waste dis-
posal. Following secondary treatment and chlorination, a town's
sewage effluent may be distributed over the wetland. As the waste
travels through the wetland, nutrients and organics would be used
by plants and additional suspended materials would be removed by
settling. The result would be the maintenance of water quality
standards in the stream with substantial savings in treatment costs.
Periods of high runoff when this method of disposal may not be
effective correspond to the time when operation of advanced treat-
ment processes are also not needed.
Possible disadvantages may be short circuiting effects which
could cause carryover of nutrients to the stream and over-enrichment
of the wetlands. Prior to its use, detailed studies of wetland
hydrology, rates of nutrient uptake by plants, and the possible
problems of over-enrichment should be investigated.
This method of waste disposal should be considered by the Charles
River aarrmunities. Small scale demonstration projects to determine
the feasibility of disposal to the wetlands should be a first step.
h. In-Stream Aeration
As previously mentioned, in the future waste contributors should
provide post-aeration as a normal treatment process. During low flow
periods, the river flow will be predominantly waste effluent. In
addition to high levels of BOD5 removal, post-aeration is oonsidered
necessary to assure that adequate dissolved oxygen levels are main-
tained in the stream below waste outfalls.
As an alternate to post-aeration at the treatment plant, oxygen
may also be introduced directly to the stream by the installation
of floating mechanical aerators or diffused air systems. However,
post-aeration probably has several advantages over in-stream aeration.
Because of the relatively constant flows and waste effluent charac-
teristics at a treatment plant, mechanical aerators may be designed
to achieve higher efficiencies of aeration than in-stream aerators.
Aeration devices located at the treatment plant can be operated and
maintained by plant personnel much more easily than in-stream aera-
tors, especially when more than one waste souroe contributes to the
E-50
-------
same oxygen sag. In addition, aerators located in the stream could
interfere with boating, can be displeasing to the eye, and may present
a safety hazard to inquisitive youngsters.
Recently, a consultant firm has proposed that a series of cascades
be placed in the Charles River below the Milford secondary sewage
treatment plant to supply oxygen to the stream to relieve the nuisance
conditions that presently occur, and also to provide added aeration
potential when Milford constructs necessary additional treatment
facilities. Cascades are inexpensive to construct and install, and
require little maintenance. Full advantage should be taken of the
aeration afforded by devices such as cascades or weirs, either in-
straam or in the waste effluent channel, to reduce the cost of mechan-
ical post-aeration.
i. Methods to Reduce Effects of I Jon-Point Sources of Pollution
(1) Urban Runoff
Pollutants added to a stream fran urban runoff can, at times,
be significant. As ocrmunities grow, the problems associated with
urban runoff may beacme more severe unless the ocrmunities are aware
of the problem and counteract it.
To prevent illegal discharges of denes tic or industrial
wastes to storm water sewers, ocrprehensive ordinances relative to
sewer use should be established and strictly enforced. An effec-
tive sewer inspection and maintenance program should also be imple-
mented by each ccrmunity.
A particularly objectional problem affecting the Charles
River is the oils that are discharged from a nunber of diffuse sources.
Frequent inspection of service stations and other sources of waste
oil should be made to insure that "grease-traps", which are designed
to collect the oil so that it is not discharged to the storm drains,
are functioning properly. Methods rrust be developed to adequately
dispose of or reproaess waste oils.
Litter, dirt, dust, oils, etc. that accumulate on the
ground surface can best be controlled by litter prevention and
removal of such materials before they are washed to nearby water-
courses. Urban beautification programs should be inplamented within
each ouiuiunity. In addition to aesthetically enriching the community,
the amount of pollutants added to nearby streams would be greatly
reduced. Ccrmunity programs should include public education, beauti-
fication of private property, the placement of sufficient litter
containers, frequent collections of trash and garbage, frequent
street cleaning, effective anti-littering enforcement, and frequent
cleaning of catch basins.
E-51
-------
As oormunities expand and are required to construct new
storm drainage systems, careful design may reduce the effects of
urban runoff. For example, storm outlets should not be allowed to
discharge to high use areas such as recreational ponds or at par-
ticularly scenic reaches of streams. The total nutber of storm
drain outlets should be minimized in the event that treatment of
storm drainage becomes necessary.
Recently, the American Public Works Association conducted
a detailed study of the urban runoff problem. Hie results of the
investigation and suggested control measures presented in greater
detail than described above are contained in the report entitled
Water Pollution Aspects of Urban Runoff. This reference should be
obtained and used by locaT public works and planning agencies with
a role in urban beautification and sewerage works.
Once aontrol measures described above are instituted, addi-
tional means of abating pollution from urban runoff may be required
to achieve desired uses of the stream. It may be necessary to re-
move additional pollutants such as bacteria, oil, suspended materials,
etc., by treatment either within the storm drainage system or by
treating the stream itself.
(2) Sanitary Landfills
Compliance with regulations administered by the Massachusetts
Department of Public Health would reduce pollution from sanitary
landfills. Ifriese regulations prohibit the location of a sanitary
landfill in areas subject to flooding, in areas where the maximum
ground water elevation is less than four feet from the lowest point
of refuse deposition, or within 60 feet horizontally of any surface
waters.
Refuse disposal sites that are in violation of the above
criteria should be phased out as soon as possible and measures should
be taken to prevent further pollution at these sites. If the regu-
lations are strictly followed and sanitary landfills are properly
operated and maintained, pollution of the Charles River should be
significantly reduced or eliminated from this source.
E-52
-------
7. ENVIRONMENTAL RELATIONSHIPS
The primary goal of the foregoing water quality management
measures is to meet quality standards in the Charles River, and to
make possible the water uses provided in those standards. When
fully implemented, the river can provide an attractive setting for
a wide range of recreation water uses including boating, swiitming
and fishing, and at the same time fulfill its more mundane but,
nevertheless, important role of receiving, assimilating and trans-
porting treated wastewater discharges.
More than a successful water quality program is needed, however,
to achieve full potential. Planning, development and management
in related water resource and land use areas is essential to obtain
full benefits. Actions in these areas can either enhance or degrade
the water use; and, conversely, actions geared to the creation of
better water quality also can enhance or inhibit other goals. To
assess, then, the true value of the water quality program, it would
be necessary to examine it in terms of its interaction with other
forces in the basin, both planned and unplanned, in an effort to
determine its net value and iirpact on society and cn the basin's
surroundings.
A total environmental analysis of this type is not easy. There
are too many unknowns and unpredictable variables to expect com-
plete answers. Even if it were possible to predict with sane degree
of certainty the economic, social and environmental consequences of
alternate courses of action, valid differences of opinion on priori-
ties and goals would require that final choices be made in the
political forum. Despite the irpossibility of arriving at firm
recommendations, it is important to recognize that water quality is
not an end in itself; and that some discussion of its relationship
with other environmental factors is needed to place it in perspec-
tive.
First, actions aimed at improving water quality inevitably will
have side effects. Some exartples of these are discussed below:
A necessary part of a treatment plant construction program is
the extension of existing sewerage systems and the consequent aban-
donment of on-site subsurface disposal systems. In many cases, these
systems are causing local health and nuisance problems, and, in
other cases, they are functioning adequately. The net effect is to
collect a large volume of sewage where it can be economically treated
rather than to dispose of it in the ground near its source. In
sane respects, the latter course is preferable, because it avoids
the concentrated problems associated with treatment plants and their
iirpact on the receiving water's quality. Unfortunately, individual
disposal systems become less adequate as areas become more densely
populated, and the cost of collection, treatment and river iirpact
are one of the prices of urbanization.
E-53
-------
Extension of major trunk and interceptor sewers to areas of
predicted growth may itself have a causal effect on long-term popu-
lation distribution and land use. Community planners and developers
are likely to seek out those areas where utility services are readily
available. Sewer construction, if not planned along with other
services and needs, can have a disproportionate influence on zoning,
transportation facilities and community growth patterns.
It has been said the natural color of the Charles River is like
tea, and that it will always look dirty, regardless of wastewater
treatment programs. The kind of wastewater treatment processes,
however, that are proposed for the Charles River Basin will produce
an effluent of higher quality in some respects than the natural
river flow. It will have less natural color, artificial color and
turbidity than the river now has. As these treated waste flows
increase and become a larger fraction of the total flow, the appear-
ance of the water in the river will improve. This will increase
over a period of time, and will be most pronounced during dry weather
periods when the natural flow contribution is small.
The location of treatment plants will affect the low flow hydrology
of the river since wastewater will provide much of the flow in the
river during dry periods. In the extreme, it is possible to correct
a water quality problem in a brock by diverting sewage to another
treatment location. But during a critically dry period, this might
also eliminate most of the brook flow and any of its water uses, what-
ever they might be, for a brief time.
Treatment plant construction, operation and maintenance will
also have environmental consequences. Siting and architecture have
aesthetic inpact. Methods chosen for the final disposed of sludge
can influence the quality of the groundwater, air and land resources.
Where alternates exist, both market place economics and environmental
costs should be weighed.
Low flow augmentation, if used as an alternate to advanced waste
treatment, has several effects on the downstream watercourse. Among
these are: 1) additional dilution of non-degradable wastes, 2) in-
creased river depths, 3) higher stream velocities, 4) greater flow
at all downstream locations for better assimilation of treated waste
regardless of unforeseen loading conditions and patterns, and 5) dilu-
tion of waste emanating from diffuse sources that are not subject
to collection and treatment.
At the reservoir projects built for flow augmentation and other
purposes, environmental changes will also occur. Ilan-made structures,
highways and utilities would be removed, and in sane cases relocated,
and the existing terrain and stream would be replaced by a pond or
lake and a dam structure. Adverse aesthetic effects, most pronounced
during drought periods, may also occur as a result of drawdown of
pool levels.
E-54
-------
Improvement of Charles River water quality, coupled with increased
public use, can trigger further actions resulting in even higher
standards and higher levels of water quality. The present standards
were established after public hearings and specific legislative and
administrative actions, and new have the force of law. While they
necessarily must serve as the fundamental goal of this study and
reoenmendatiens arising from it, it would be naive to as suns they
will be unchanging. Because of increased use and public awareness,
periodic review of the standards will be essential to ins tore they
meet the requirements and needs of a changing human environment.
These future changes, together with improved control methods and
management methods, will lead to even further environmental changes.
The environmental effect of the water quality program, acting in
ccnfeinaticn with other water resource and land use programs, is
undoubtedly even more far reaching than the side effects resulting
from water quality control actions alone.
Water svpply programs, for exanple, interact with water quality
programs in severed ways. Where the river serves as either an in-
dustrial or irunicipal supply source, the need for water supply treat-
ment is dependent on the basic river water quality. Also, the choice
of supply sources will affect the low flow hydrology and waste assimi-
lative capacity of the river. When natural river flow is diverted
for water supply, when ground water sources near the river are used,
and when wastewater after use and treatment is not returned directly
to the river, river flows will tend to decrease. When a supply is
imported frran outside the basin and when supply reservoirs within
the basin release water from storage, river flows will tend to in-
crease. All of the above factors will be operating within the
basin as time goes on, and will have a bearing on the river's flow
and its capacity to dilute, assimilate and transport waste.
Another program related to pollution cleanup will be the effort
to iitprove the river's fishery. The success of the plan to restore
the American shad and alewives by replacing certain fish ladders and
installing new ones at a nurrber of dams will hinge on not only water
quality, but will also depend an other ecological and management
elements.
The MAPC has recommended studies be undertaken to develop an
intern-connected system of bridle paths, walking and bicycle trails.
Launching places for boats are proposed at various points. MAPC
also urges that land be acquired for public use or to be left in its
natural state, particularly the natural valley storage areas of wet-
lands. The Massachusetts Department of Natural Resources favors a
recreation corridor along the Charles. It reoarmends that 10,000
acres be protected through a variety of holding and restrictive
measures. The Corps of Engineers is considering a proposal to pre-
serve 8,500 acres of natural valley storage areas for flood control
E-55
-------
and other purposes, and the Soil Conservation Service is evaluating
possible conservation pool development and potential conservation
areas within the basin.
Ihese and other public and private developments will be strength-
ened by better water quality. Careful management of land and water
uses, conversely, will encourage better water quality control and
management practices. Both reinforce each other and are essential
for use and protection of the natural resources.
A successful cleanup which makes the water more attractive for
use and development, in conjunction with the pressure of an expand-
ing population, poses a difficult problem. Poorly planned and supei>
vised residential building, motels, oomercial development and
public areas, and lack of adequate and well controlled access could
thwart the very uses and benefits sought in establishing the water
quality standards. The induced developments may create more pollu-
tion in the form of treated discharges, poorly sited septic tanks,
dunps, debris and oil, either violating the standards or making it
more costly to achieve them.
Comrtunity, State, Federal and private interests are now being
forced to address this major environmental issue. Most can agree
that a balanced and well coordinated program is needed with proper
emphasis placed on preservation, conservation, utilization and
economic development. Divergent interests and values, nevertheless,
make it difficult to accomplish this on a mile-by-mile and acre-by-
acre basis. In the last analysis, achievement of water quality
standards will be an essential and inportant step in maintaining
environmental quality. The wisdom with which other land and water
vise factors can be accomodated and managed will play an even more
inportant role in determining the future landscape and atmosphere
of the Charles River Basin.
E-56
-------
8. StMOFY AND GCNCLUSICNS
1. At the present tine, reaches of the Charles River and tribu-
tary streams are seriously degraded by discharges of untreated or
inadequately treated wastes. In 1968 approximately 3/100 pounds of
BOD5 were discharged daily to the stream from known sources of waste.
The raw waste load before treatment was approximately 8,300 pounds
per day. Pollutants are also added to the stream as a result of
storm water runoff, particularly in the highly urban middle and
lower sections of the watershed.
2. The Ccnncnwealth of Massachusetts' water quality standards
for the Charles River include three essentials. They reflect a pub-
lic consensus as to desired uses for each stretch of water, they
establish critical limits of the amount of various pollutants allowed
in the waters so that the desired uses may be realized, and they
provide an inplementation schedule for the construction by 1973 of
waste treatment facilities required to meet the water quality cri-
teria adopted. The Charles River Classification is shown on Table
E-20 and Figure e-5. Water quality criteria appear in Attachnent Eft..
3. At the present time, major sections of the Charles River do
not meet the allowable criteria established for dissolved oxygen,
00liform bacteria and nutrients, such as phosphate and arrmcnia.
Legitimate uses of the stream are prevented or reduced.
4. Attainment of the standards without delay is an essential
step in gaining full use of the watershed's potential.
5. Rapid growth is expected in the area, particularly in the
vpper reaches of the watershed. Estimated raw waste loads to the
Charles River Watershed fron those ocrtrauni ties, including industrial
contributions, are expected to be 15,000, 29,000 and 52,000 pounds
per day of BOD5 in 1980, 2000 and 2020, respectively.
6. Projected waste flows from the same communities are 11.7
cfs, 26.4 cfs and 53.2 cfs in 1980, 2000 and 2020, respectively.
The present seven-day low river flow with a ten year recurrence
interval measured at the Charles River Village gage, which is down-
stream of all projected waste discharges, is only 12 cfs. In the
future, therefore, during low flow periods, a significant portion
of the river flow will be made up of waste discharges.
7. lb satisfy water quality needs as expressed by the water
quality standards, advanced waste treatment processes beyond the
secondary treatment level are necessary. As population increases,
demands for even higher water use can also be anticipated. Further
engineering studies will be needed to determine the final design
of these facilities, and the extent to which low flow augmentation,
industrial plant process changes, and other control measures are
to be used.
E-57
-------
TABLE E-20
CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED STUDY
Charles River Watershed Classification
Boundary
River
Miles
Present Use
Anticipated
Future Use
Present
Condition Classification
The Charles River from
its source to Dilla
Street, Milford
She Charles River from
Dilla Street, Milford
to Main Street, Milford
Hie Charles River from
Main Street, Milford to
Bridge Street, Dover
The Charles River from
Bridge Street, Dover to
Watertown Dam, Watertown
Ihe Charles River frcan
Watertown Dam, Watertown
to the Charles River Basin
Dam in Boston
Farm Pond, Sherborn
All other streams in the
Charles River Watershed
unless denoted above
80.1-76.5 Water supply
76.5-75.2 Bathing
Fish & wildlife propagation
Fishing
75.2-44.7 Recreational boating
Fish & wildlife propagation
Fishing
Assimilation
44.7-9.8 Recreational boating
Fish & wildlife propagation
Fishing
Assimilation
9.8-1.2 Recreational boating
Fish & wildlife propagation
Fishing-
Assimilation
— Recreation
Water supply
Sane B
Same D & C
Same and bathing D & C
Sane D & C
Recreation B
B
B
B
B
Carmcnwealth of Massachusetts, Water Resources Cormissiai, Division of Water Pollution Control
-------
8. For purposes of comparison in evaluating the need for flow
aucpantaticsi, a Hdnia&sn treatment laval consisting of seoondary
treatroant and six months1 operation of a coagulation and sediiranta-
ticn process to remove phosphate was assisted. In addition to nutrient
renewal, ^jprcodmately 90 percent of the BCD5 is nenoved by this type
of treatment.
9. To maintain an average dissolved oxygen level of 5.5 mg/1
in the Charles River and tributaries only with a ndniimsn level of
traatnant, theoretical au^nantation flows during the critical summer
months would hove to be as high as 165 cfs by 1995 and 390 cfs by
2020. This augmentation would be in addition to the miniimsn base
flow, plus the flow corresponding to waste discharges. All augmen-
tation water was assumed to contain dissolved coygen levels equiva-
lent to 88 percent saturation.
10. Without any flow augmentation, to meet an average dissolved
axygan level of 5.5 rag/1 during low flow periods, by 1980 the communi-
ties would have to rrarov© betwen 94 and 98 percent of the BOD5 and
effluents would have to be aerated to 6 mg/1. To achieve these
efficiency levels with existing technology, the municipalities,
except Sharborn, would typically have to provide the equivalent of
prlirary treatxrent, secondary treatment, coagulation, sedimentation,
filtration, carbon adsorption and post-aeration.
11. Assisting no flow augmentation, the average annual costs
haws been compared for individual treatment plants versus alternate
regional treatment plants to provide adequate dissolved oxygen
levels in the stream. Generally, results indicate for the 1970 to
1995 period, individual plants are slightly more economical than
regional alternatives with the possible exception of a single plant
serving Millis and Madfield, and a single plant serving Franklin
and Medway. During the 1995 to 2020 tine frame, a regional plant
serving Norfolk, Millis, Madfield and Holliston would save approxi-
mately 13 percent. In many cases, however, the costs of alterna-
tions are within 10 percent of each other and are considered econom-
ically equivalent. Average annual costs are on the order of $1,600,000
for the 1970 to 1995 time from, and $3,000,000 during the 1995 to
2020 period* The oosts are at an interest rate of 4-5/8 percent.
They include oosts of operation and maintenance. Operation of
advanced treatment processes was assumed necessary for only six
months per year.
12. The technology of advanced waste treatment is inproving
rapidly. While the oosts and processes used herein are considered
valid for oonparing alternate water quality control measures for
general planning purposes, the actual cost of future construction
and operation may be reduced as new or better processes and operating
procedures are developed.
E-59
-------
13. In those circumstances where the costs of alternate treat-
ment plant configurations are about the sane, other considerations
will play a deciding role in choosing the alternative, particularly
where decisions will be needed in the iirmediate future. Some of the
major considerations are as follows:
a. Regional treatment plants would remove waste discharges
fran tributary streams and the upper reaches of the Charles
River, but also could deplete flows to such an extent that
desired uses may be curtailed in the affected reaches.
b. Regional treatment plants require less land than a
series of individual treatment plants. Aesthetic benefits
associated with the fewer treatment plants may be a factor.
c. Larger treatment plants generally are better able to
absorb changing characteristics and volume of wastes being
treated.
d. Timing of construction between acamxunities and site
selection could make it difficult to implement a regional
facility.
14. Curves have been prepared which indicate the savings in the
cost of advanced waste treatment, that is, beyond the assumed mini-
mum treatnent level, as a result of providing intermediate levels
of flow augmentation for various zones on the Charles River and
tributary streams. It may be possible to achieve a net savings in
treatment plant costs by providing flow augmentation. Preliminary
investigations made by the Corps of Engineers and the Soil Conser-
vation Service indicate that flow augmentation sites on Mine Brook
and Bogastow Brook may provide a net savings in the treatment costs
of sources in Franklin en Mine Brock, and in Holliston on Bogastow
Brook. In addition to reducing treatment costs, low flow augmenta-
tion can be used to reduce the effect of non-point sources of poll\>-
tion in the river.
15. Cost analyses have been made of collecting the wastes fran
the watershed, transporting them to the MDC treatment plant at Nut
Island, and expanding the Nut Island facility. Average annual costs
of this method of disposal, which include operation and maintenance
costs, are $2,120,000 for the 1970 to 1995 time period, and $4,620,000
during the 1995 to 2020 period. Disposal of all wastes outside of
the watershed is more expensive than treatment and disposal within
the watershed, could seriously deplete flows in the Charles River,
and, therefore, is considered inpractical. However, on an individual
basis it may be economical for a umiiuunity, particularly one that
borders the MDC sewerage system, to join the MIX).
E-60
-------
16. Sursurfaoa disposal of chlorinated secondary waste effluent
itay offer an eooncndcal means of meeting water quality goals and
should be considered by the Upper Charles River ocnsnunities. Pre-
liminary studies of the U.S. Geological Survey indicatethat sand
and gravel lenses suitable for wastewater spreading iray exist.
Prior to such disposal, detailed borings, percolation studies and
cost estimates would be required.
17. A major reccrnnendaticn of the Charles River Watershed Study
will be to acquire and preserve approximately 8,500 acres of wet-
lands, of which 7,500 lie above the Charles River village gage.
It may be possible to use the marshes as a means of waste disposal
by distributing secondary treated effluent over the wetland. As
the waste travels through the wetland, nutrients and organ!cs
would be used by the plants, and additional suspended materials
would be removed by settling. Prior to its use, detailed studies
of wetland hydrology, rates of nutrient uptake by plants, and the
possible problems of over-enrichment and short circuiting should
be investigated. Small scale demonstration projects to determine
tiie feasibility of disposal to the wetlands should be a first step.
18. Post-aeration is considered necessary to assure that ade-
quate dissolved oxygen levels are maintained in the stream below
outfalls. Full advantage should also be taken of the aeration
afforded by devices such as cascades or weirs, either in-stream or
in the waste effluent channel, to reduce the cost of mechanical post-
aeration.
19. The ocranunities in the Upper Charles River Watershed should
form a regional sewerage district. Treatment plants that will be
needed in the future, whether they serve an individual community
or a regional area, will be complex and require highly trained
personnel. The ability to enploy highly qualified personnel is
enhanced under a single authority . Also operational and maintenance
problems may be corrected more quickly because of the greater variety
of specialists and availability of central maintenance facilities
and a large spare parts inventory.
20. To reduce the adverse effects of urban runoff, watershed
towns, where necessary, should institute and enforce ocnprehensive
sewer use ordinances, establish effective sewer inspection and
maintenance programs, and implement community beautification programs.
21. Compliance with State regulations would reduce pollution
from sanitary landfills. In those oomnunities where pollution front
solid waste disposal now occurs, corrective measures should be
taken in accord with implementation schedules established by the
Caniunwealth of Massachusetts „
E-61
-------
22. It is important that the water-related land use plan that
is developed as part of the Charles River Watershed Ccnprehensive
Stud/ be closely coordinated with the achievement of water quality
standards to insure that the desired uses of the waters can be fully
realized.
23. Water quality standards are not static. They should be
continuously evaluated and upgraded to reflect changes in public
and private interests, technology and financial resources.
E-62
-------
9. BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. U. S. Amy Corps of Engineers, New England Division. Plan of
Survey - Charles River Watershed Study, Waltham. Massachusetts.
August 1967.
2. U. S. Amy Corps of Engineers, New England Division. Interim
Report on Charles River for Flood Control and Navigation, Lower
Charles River/ Massachusetts, Waltham, Massachusetts, May 1968.
3. , Water Quality Criteria, National
Technical Advisory Coimittee, Washington, D.C., April 1968.
4. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration. Water Quality Studies - Training Course
Manual, Cincinnati, Ohio, July 1967.
5a No/ England-New York Interagency Coimittee. The Resources of
the New England-New York Region - Massachusetts Coasted. AreaT
Part itoo, Chapter XVI, 1954.
6. Sawyer, C. N. and McCarty, P. L., Chemistry for Sanitary
Engineers, McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, 1968.
7. Fair, G. M. and Geyer, J. C., Water Supply and Wastewater
Disposal, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1954.
8. McKinney, R. E., Microbiology for Sanitary Engineers, McGraw-
Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, 1962.
9. Massachusetts Department of Came roe and Development, City and
Town Monographs, Boston, 1969.
10. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health
Service, Health Guidelines for Water Resource and Related
Land Use Management, Washington, D.C., March 1968.
11. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Water Pollution
Control, Water Quality Standards - Laws, Policy and Standards,
Volvsne 1, Boston, 1967.
12. Oxrmorwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Water Pollution
Control, Water Quality Standards - Intrastate Rivers, Boston,
1967.
13. Metropolitan Area Planning Council, Open Spaoe and Recreation
Program for Metropolitan Boston - Ifystic, Charles and Neponset
Rivers, Volume 3, Boston, April 1969.
14. Gcmranwealth of Massachusetts, Department of Public Health,
The State Sanitary Code - Minitmart Standards for Bathing
Beaches, Article VII, Boston, 1969.
E-63
-------
15,
16,
17,
18,
19,
20
21,
22,
23,
24
25
26
27
28
Metropolitan Area Planning Council. The Population of Cities
and Towns in Metropolitan Boston Projected to 1990, Boston,
April 1968.
Metropolitan Area Planning Council. Economic Base and Population
Study, Volumes I, II and III, Boston, 1967.
¦ . Projected Economic Studies of
New England, Arthur D. Little, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts,
1964-1965.
U. S. Arm/ Corps of Engineers, New England Division. Charles
River Watershed Study - Hydraulics and Hydrology Interim Mato
No. 1, Watershed Areas, Waltham, Massachusetts, September 1967.
Department of the Interior, U. S. Geological Survey. Surface
Water Records. Published Annually.
Whipple, W., Jr., et al, Instream Aeration of Polluted Rivers,
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J., August 1969.
Smith, R., "Cost of Conventional and Advanced Treatment of
Waste Water", JWPCF, September 1968.
Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration. Physical-Chemical Treatment Technology -
Training Manual, Cincinnati, Ohio, Deoentoer 1968.
Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health
Service. Ground Water Contamination, Proceedings of 1961
Synposiun, Technical Report W61-5, 1961.
Todd, D. K., Ground Water Hydrology, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
New York, 1960.
Frankel, R. J., Economics of Artificial Recharge for Municipal
Water Supply, Resources for the Future, Inc., Washington, D.C.,
1567:
Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health
Service. Ultimate Disposed of Advanced Treatment Waste,
AWTR-8, May 1964.
Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration. Chemical and Physical Aspects of Water
Quality - Charles River and Boston Harbor, Massachusetts,
February 1968.
Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration. Biological Aspects of Water Quality - Charles
River and Boston Harbor, Massachusetts, January 1968.
E-64
-------
29. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Quality Administration.
1969 Water Quality Survey of the Charles River. Ujapvtoliahed
Data.
30. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Quality AdnLnistraticn.
Conprehensive Water and Related Land Resources, Connecticut
River Basin, Appendix D, Water Supply and Water Quality, Boston,
June 1970.
31. . Artificial Aeration of Reoeiving
Watera, National Council of the Paper Industry for Air and
Stream improvement, Inc., Technical Bulletin NO. 229, May 1969.
32. Department of the Interior, Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration. Water Pollution Aspects of Urban Runoff,
Contract No. WA66-23 by the American Pvfelic Works Association,
January 1969.
33 . . Regulation of Sewer Use, Water
Pollution Control Federation Manual of Practice No. 3,
Washington, D.C. 1963.
34. Massachusetts Department of Natural Resources, Division of
Fisheries and Game, "Colcbater Fisheries Investigation - Charles
River Watershed", Boston, 1970.
35. Metropolitan Area Planning Council. Inventory of Water and
Sewer Facilities, prepared by Camp, Dresser and McKee, Consulting
Engineers, Boston, March 1967.
36. Metropolitan Area Planning Council. Projected Needs and Current
Proposals for Water and Sewer Facilities, prepared by Camp,
Dresser and McKee, Consulting Engineers, Boston, July 1969.
E-65
-------
ATTACHMENT EA
VELOCITY-DISCHARGE RELATIONSHIPS
CHARLES RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES
-------
ATTACHMENT EA
CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED STUDY
Velocity-Discharge Relationships
CHARLES RIVER REACHES
Reach
River Miles
Fran - To
Velocity-Discharge
Equation
Average Q in Reach
vs. Q at Charles
River Village Gage
75.2-73.4 Mean Street Bridge, Milfard to Milford Sewage
Treatment Plant
73.4-72.3 Milford Sewage Treatment Plant to Hartford
Avenue Bridge, Bellingham
72.3-70.3 Hartford Avenue Bridge, Bellingham to Box
Pcnd Dam, Bellingham
70.3-66.4 Box Pcnd Dam, Bellingham to above No. Bellingham
Dam
66.4-66.2 Above No. Bellingham Dam to No. Bellingham Dam
66.2-65.4 No. Bellingham Dam to above Caryville Dam
65.4-64.7 Above Caryville Dam to Caryville Dam
64.7-64.3 Caryville Dam to Hopping Brock
Hopping Brook River Mile = 64.3; Drainage Area = 11.5 sq. mi.
64.3-63.2 Hopping Brock to Mine Brock
Mine Brook River Mile = 63.2; Drainage Area - 15.7 sq. irtL.
v = 0.086 q0-894
v - 0.071 qO-894
v = 0.042 Q1
0.767
v
v
v
v
0.00068 Q1*00
0.30 Q0'776
0.00094 Q0-990
0.046 Q0-560
v = 0.035 Q
0.560
Q = 0.04 Qcry.
Q = 0.05 Q
crv
v = 0.00090 Q0-965 Q = 0.06 Q
crv
Q = 0.09
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
0.11
0.12 Qcn,
= 0.13 Q
cxv
- °-13 °crv
- 0.05 0^
= °-a# °crv
» 0.08 Qjjp,
-------
ATTACHMENT EA (Continued)
CHARLES RIVER REACHES
Reach
River Miles Fran - To
Chicken Bzock River Mile = 63.0; Drainage Area = 7.0 sq. mi.
63.2-57.6 Mine Brock to Mill River
Mill River River Mile = 57.6; Drainage Area = 16.3 sq. mi.
57.6-56.1 Mill River to Baltimore Street Bridge, Mi His
56.1-51.8 Baltimore Street, Millis to Stop River
Stop River River Mile = 5.8; Drainage Area = 17.1 sq. mi.
51.8-50.3 Stop River to above Bridge Street Bridge,
Millis
50.3-49.8 Above Bridge Street Bridge, Millis to below
Railroad Bridge
49.8-48.4 Below Railroad Bridge to Bogastcw Brook
Bogastow Brook River Mile 48.4; Drainage Area = 25.5 sq. mi.
48.4-47.5 Bogastow Brook to above Main Street Bridge,
Medfield
47.5-39.4 Above Main Street Bridge, Medfield to Waban
and Fuller Brooks
Waban and Fuller Brocks River Mile = 39.4; Drainage Area =
16.1 sq. mi.
Average Q in Reach
Velocity-Discharge vs. Q at Charles
Equation River Village Gage
-
Q =
0.03 Q_
crv
V =
0.027 q0-560
Q =
0.34
-
Q =
0.°8
V =
0.073 Q°»706
Q =
0.50 Qcrv
V =
0.011 Q0*902
Q =
0.52
-
Q =
0.08 Qcrv
V =
0.0080
q0.902
Q =
0.62 Qcrv
V =
0.0074
q0.902
Q =
0.63 Qcrv
V =
0.0072
q0.902
Q =
Q -
0-66
0 • 13 Qqy
V =
0.0063
q0.902
Q =
0.82
V =
0.0060
q0.902
Q =
Q =
0-88 Qcrv
°-08
-------
ATTACHMENT EA (Continued)
CHAKIgS RIVER REftCHES
Reach
River Miles
From - To
Velocity-Discharge
Equation
Average Q in Reach
vs. Q at Charles
River Village Gage
39.4-38.2
Waban and Fuller Brocks to Charles River Bridge,
Needham
v = 0.0056 Q0-902
Q = 0.98
®crv
38.2-34.5
Charles River Bridge, Needham to Charles River
Village Gage
v « 0.00055 Q1*00
Q = 0.98
Qcrv
34.5-32.9
Charles River Village Gage to Chestnut Street
Bridge, Needham
0.710
v = 0.028 Q
Q = 1.00
^crv
32.9-26.5
Chestnut Street Bridge, Needham to Mother Brook
v = 0.0068 q0-660
Q = 1.03
^crv
Mother Brock
River Mile = 26.5; Diversion
-
-
26.5-22.1
Mother Brock to Kendrick Street Bridge, Needham
v = 0.0072 Q0-660
Q = 0.95
crv
22.1-20.2
Kendrick Street Bridge, Needham to Silk Mill Dam
v = 0.0071 Q0*770
Q = 0.97
^crv
20.2-20.0
Silk Milk Dam to Metropolitan Circular Dam
v = 0.00090 Q1*00
Q = 0.98
Qcrv
20.0-18.9
Metropolitan Circular Dam to Rosemary Brock
v = 0.120 Q0-592
Q =0.98
®crv
Rosemary Brock River Mile = 18.9; Drainage Area = 3.4 sq. mi.
-
Q = 0.03
^cxv
18.9-17.9
Rosemary Brook to Newton Lower Falls Dam
v = 0.130 qO-578
Q = 0.97
^CTV
17.9-14.7
Newtcn Lower Falls Dam to Stony Brook
v « 0.00023 Q1'31
Q = 1.00
Qcrv
Stony Brook
23.6 sq. mi.;
(Waltham) River Mile = 14.7; Drainage Area =
; Diversion
-
-
14.7-12.6
Stony Brook to Moody Street Dam
v = 0.00016 Q0-918
Q = 1.09
^crv
-------
ATTACHMENT EA
CHAKLiSS RIVER WATERSHED STUDY
Velocity-Discharge Relationships
CHARLES RIVER TRIBUTARIES
Reach
River Miles
Fran - Tt>
Average Q in Reach
Velocity-Discharge vw. Q at Charles
Equation River Village Gage
Mine Brook R.M. 63.2
7.2-4.1
4.1-3.4
Grove Street Bridge, Franklin to Grove Street
Bridge, (Lower) Franklin
Grove Street Bridge, (Lower) Franklin to
Franklin Sewage Treatment Plant
3.4-0.0 Franklin Sewage Treatment Plant to Confluence
Mill River R.M. 57.6
5.5-3.7
3.7-0.0
Franklin Street Bridge, Wrentham to above
Norfolk-Franklin Boundary
Above Norfolk-Franklin Boundary to Confluence
Stop River R.M. 51.8
7.0-6.7 Dedham Street Bridge, Norfolk to Pondville
Sanitarium, Norfolk
6.7-3.4 Pcndville Sanitarium, Norfolk to Norfolk Prison
Sewage Treatment Plant
3.4-0.0 Norfolk Prison Sewage Treatment Plant to
Confluence
v — 0.14 Q0*53
v = 0.11 Q°*53
v = 0.092 q0"53
v = 0.084 Q0*54
v - 0.068 Q0-54
v = 0.48 Q0*54
v = 0.21 Q'
.0.54
v = 0.165 Q
0.54
Q
Q
Q
0.03 Q
crv
0-05
°-07Qcrv
Q = 0-05 Q^
Q - 0.08 Q,
*crv
o.oi
0-05 0^
Q
Q
Q = 0.08 Q
crv
-------
MTflCHMENT EA (Continued)
nram.rc; p-rvrp tptritp&ptfr
Reach
River Miles Fran - To
Velocity-Discharge
Equation
Average Q in Reach
vs. Q at Charles
River Village Gage
Bogastaw Brock R.M. 48.4
7.4-6.0 Dopping Brook Oanfluenae to Central Street Bridge
Hollistcn
v = 0.94 Q0*54
Q = 0-04 Qcrv
6.0-0.0 Central Street Bridge, Hollisfcon to Confluence
v = 0.72 Q0*54
Q - °-07 Qcrv
-------
ATTACHMENT EB
GENERAL POLICY AND
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA
OOMCNWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
General Policy EB-1
Procedure for Follow-up of Inpleirentatian EB-3
Program
Water Quality Standards EB-4
General EB-5
Fresh Waters EB-6
-------
MASSACHUSETTS PURE WKTER PROGRAM
GENERAL POLICY
General Policy
The following general policies of the Division of Water Pollu-
tion Control are as follows:
1. Classification of all waters of the Ccnmonwealth is for
the express purpose to establish water quality goals
commensurate with the anticipated future uses of the
subject water and also that considered attainable by
superior technological programs of waste treatment.
The classifications designated in the submission to the
Secretary are considered to be those that will be
attained over the first phase of this program or within
a five- to seven-year period depending on the availabil-
ity of Federal appropriations.
2. All waste sources on fresh waters will be required to be
treated to the secondary level regardless of the stream
classification assigned. Secondary treatment will gen-
erally refer to biological treatment as applicable and/or
its industrial wastes treatment equivalent, all as deter-
mined by the Division of Water Pollution Control.
Secondary treatment efficiencies shall range fran 80 to
95 percent BCD removed with correspondingly similar
removals on other waste parameters. On coastal and
marine waters the degree of treatment required will be
that which will attain the particular classification set
on the area waters.
3. Tertiary treatment may be required where the estimated
increased beneficial water uses can be shown to be
economically justifiable. Classifications are not to be
considered as immutable. After waste treatment facili-
ties are instituted, continuing programs of surveillance
combined with improvements in technology may indicate
reclassification to a higher use class should be made.
4. Classification review on D and C streams will be made
after completion of the first phase of this program.
Classifications shall be made on wet weather consider-
ations in regard to bacteriological control in order to
provide the maximum amount of protection insofar as the
public is concerned.
EB-1
-------
5. The Massachusetts ccnplianoe program will be tied to a
chronological time period associated with those amounts
of Federal and Stats aid that is made available.
6. Section 27 of Chapter 685 describes the responsibilities
of the Division in regard to oarprehensive planning
for water pollution control.
7. It is the policy of the Division whenever low classifi-
cations are encountered, the application of which was
required by particularly difficult technological problems,
that research and development funds be expended to provide
for the upgrading of those waters so classified.
8. Where serious water quality control problems are the
result of lew dependable flora, consideration will be
given to the need for and value of storage for waters
to be used for low flow augmentation, contingent vpon
the requirements of Section 39, of Chapter 685 of the
Massachusetts Acts of 1966.
EB-2
-------
PROCEDURE FOR P3LLCJW-UP OF IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM
Each polluter listed in the plan of implementation will be
informed in writing of the provisions of the Massachusetts
Clean Waters Act and the schedule established by the Division
for the abatement of pollution. Each will be required to
indicate in writing their agreement to proceed with the
program in accordance with the schedule.
In the event of failure of the polluter to indicate their
agreement with the schedule, or failure or to subsequently
fail to opnply with the schedule, the Division will take
appropriate action under the provisions of the Massachusetts
Clean Waters Act to effect oatplianoe.
If it is shown that any scheduled date or dates cannot be met
because of circumstances beyond the control of the polluter,
the schedule will be adjusted and the Federal Water Pollution
Control Agency so notified.
If subsequent investigation or surveys disclose a relevant
source of pollution, the source will be added to the plan and
the Federal W^feer Pollution Control Agency so notified.
A potential source of pollution (municipality) may be added
if preliminary reports show that a sewerage system and treat-
mervb' facility axe needed to prevent the degradation of the
waters of the Ccnncsrcwealth.
EB-3
-------
CCMONWEAL1H OF MASSACHUSETTS
WATER RESOURCES OOttHSSICN
DIVISION OP WATER POLLUTION CONTROL
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
Adopted by the Massachusetts Division of Water
Pollution Control on March 3, 1967, in accordance
with the Provisions of Section 27 (4) of Chapter
21 of the General Laws, and in accordance with the
procedure required by Chapter 30A of the General
Laws, and after a pvblic hearing held cn February
17, 1967
Filed with Secretary
of State on
March 6, 1967
EB-4
-------
STANDARDS OF WATER QUALITY
1. General
To achieve the objectives of the Massachusetts Clean Water Act
and to assure best use of the waters of the Commonwealth, the follow-
ing standards are adopted and shall be applicable to all waters of
the Ccranonwealth or to different segments of the sane waters. The
Classes shall be assigned by the Division of Water Pollution Control.
In the classification of waters due consideration will be given
to all factors involved including pvblic health, public enjoyment,
propagation and protection of fish and wildlife, and economic and
social development. Classifications are not intended to permit
indiscriminate waste disposal or to allow ndninun efforts of waste
treatment under any circumstances.
When an effluent is permitted to be discharged to the receiving
waters, cognizance shall be given both in time and distance to allow
for mixing of effluent and stream. Such distances required for
ccnplete mixing shall not affect the water usage Class adopted.
Reocmmendations on other waste parameters will constitute a
portion of the continuing effort of the Division as inproved
standard methods are developed or revisions consistent with the
enhancement of the waters of the Commonwealth are justified.
Water quality parameters not specifically denoted shall not
exceed the reoonnended limits on the most sensitive and governing
water class use. In areas where fisheries are the governing con-
sideration and approved limits have not been established, bio-
assays shall be performed as required by the appropriate agencies.
EB-5
-------
Standards of Water Quality
Fresh Waters
Class A - Waters designated for use as pitolic water supplies in accordance
with Chapter 111 of the General Laws. Character uniformly excellent.
Standards of Quality
Item Water Quali ty Criteria
1. Dissolved oxygen
Not less than 75 percent of satu-
ration during at least 16 hours
of any 24-hour period and not
less than 5 mg/1 at any tine.
2. Sludge deposits-solid refuse-
floating solids-oil-grease-scum
3. Color and turbidity
4. Coliform bacteria per 100 ml.
5. Taste and odor
6. pH
7. Allowable tarperature increase
8. Chemical constituents
9. Radioactivity
None allowable
None other than of natural origin
Not to exceed an average value of
50 during any monthly sampling
period
None other than of natural origin
As naturally occurs
None other than of natural origin
None in concentrations or ocnbinaticns
which would be harmful or offensive
to humans, or harmful to animal or
aquatic life.
None other than that occurring fran
natural phenomena
EB-6
-------
Class B - Suitable far bathing and recreational purposes, including water
contact sports. Acceptable for public water simply with appropriate
treatment. Suitable for agricultural, and certain industrial cooling and
process uses; excellent fish and wildlife habitat; excellent aesthetic
value.
Standards of Quality
Item
1. Dissolved oxygen
2. Sludge deposits-solid refuse-
floating solids-oils-grease-scun
3. Color and turbidity
4. Coliform bacteria per 100 ml.
5. Taste and odor
6. pH
7. Allowable temperature increase
8. Chemical constituents
Water Quality Criteria
Not less than 75 percent of saturation
during at least 16 hours of any 24-
hour period and not less than 5 mg/1
at any time.
None allowable
None in such concentrations that would
impair any usages specifically
assigned to this class.
Not to exceed an average value of
1000 during any monthly sampling
period nor 2400 in more than 20
percent of samples examined during
such period.
None in such concentrations that
would inpair any usages specifically
assigned to this class and none
that would cause taste and odor in
edible fish.
6.5 - 8.0
None except where the increase will
not exceed the recommended limit on
the most sensitive receiving water
tse and in no case exceed 83°F in
warm water fisheries, and 68°F in
cold water fisheries, or in any case
raise the normal temperature of the
receiving water more than 4°F.
None in concentrations or combina-
tions which would be harmful or
offensive to human, or harmful to
animal or aquatic life or any water
use specifically assigned to this
class.
EB-7
-------
9. Radioactivity
10. Dbfcal phosphate
11. Armenia
12. Rwnols
None in aonoBntratians or obnbinat-
tiona which would be harmful to
hunon/ animal or aquatic life far
the appropriate water use. None
in such concentrations which would
result in radio-nuclide ocnoentra-
tions in aquatic life which exceed
the reoenntanded limits for consutp-
tion by humans.
Not to exceed an average of 0.05
mg/1 as P during «iy monthly sampling
period.
Not to exceed an average of 0.5
mg/1 as N during any monthly sanpling
period.
Shall not exoeed .001 mg/1 at any
tine.
EB-8
-------
Class C - Suitable for recreational boating; habitat for wildlife and
ommui food and game fishes indigenous to the region; oertain industrial
cooling and process uses; under some conditions acceptable for public
water simply with appropriate treatment. Suitable for irrigation of crops
used for ccnsunptian after oooking. Good aesthetic value.
Standards of Quality
Item
1. Dissolved oxygen
2. Sludge deposits-solid refuse-
floating solids-oils-grease-scum
3. Color and turbidity
4. Coliform bacteria
5. Taste and odor
6. pH
7. Allowable temperature increase
Water Quality Criteria
Not less than 5 mg/1 during at least
16 hours of any 24-hour period nor
less than 3 mg/1 at any time. For
seasonal cold water fisheries at
least 5 mg/1 must be maintained.
None allowable except those amounts
that may result from the discharge
from waste treatment facilities
providing appropriate treatment.
None allowable in such concentrations
that would inpair any usages speciff
dically assigned to this class.
None in such concentrations that
would inpair any usages specifically
assigned to this class.
None in such concentrations that
would inpair any usages specifically
assigned to this class, and none
that would cause taste and odor to
edible fish,
6.0 - 8.5
None except where the increase will
not exceed the reoorrenended limits
on the most sensitive receiving
water use and in no case exceed 83°F
in warm water fisheries, and 68°F
in cold water fisheries, or in any
case raise the normal temperature
of the receiving water more than
4°F.
None in concentrations or ccnbina-
tians which would be harmful or
offensive to human, or harmful to
animal or aquatic life or any water
use specifically assigned to this
class.
8. Chemical constituents
EB-9
-------
9. Radioactivity
10. Total phosphate
11. Armenia
12. Phenols
None in concentrations or oaibina-
tions which would be harmful to
human, animal or aquatic life for
the appropriate water use. None
in such concentrations which would
result in radio-nuclide concentra-
tions in aquatic life which exceed
the reoomnended limits for ocnsunp-
tion by humans.
Not to exceed an average of 0.05
mg/1 as P during any monthly
sampling period.
NOt to exceed an average of 1.0
mg/1 as N during any monthly
sanpling period.
Not to exceed an average of 0.002
mg/1 at any time.
EB-10
-------
n— n - Suitable far aesthetic enjoyment, power, navigation and oartain
industrial cooling and prooess uses. Class D waters will be assigned
only where a higher water use class cannot be attained after all appropriate
waste treatment methods are utilized.
Standards of Quality
Item Specifications
1. Dissolved oxygen
2. Sludge deposits-solid refuse-
floating solids-oils-grease-scum
3. Color and turbidity
4. Coliform bacteria
5. Taste and odor
6. pH
7. Allowable terperature increase
8. Chemical constituents
9. Radioactivity
Not less than 2 mg/1 at any time.
None allowable except those amounts
that may result from the discharge
from waste treatment facilities
providing appropriate treatment.
None in such concentrations that
would impair any usages specifically
assigned to this class.
None in such concentrations that would
irtpair any usages specifically
assigned to this class.
None in such concentrations that
would iirpair any usages specifically
assigned to this class.
6.0 - 9.0
None except where the increase will
not exceed the recommended limits
on the most sensitive receiving
water use and in no case exceed 90°F.
None in concentrations or ocsrbina-
tions which would be harmful to
human, animal or aquatic life for
the designated water use.
None in such concentrations or com-
binations which would be harmful to
hunan, animal or aquatic life for
the designated water use. None in
such concentrations which will result
in radio-nuclide concentrations in
aquatic life which exceed the
recommended limits for consumption
by humans.
EB-11
-------
All wastes shall receive appropriate waste treatment which is
defined as secondary treatment with disinfection or its industrial
waste treatment equivalent except when a higher degree of treat-
ment is required to meet the objectives of the water quality
standards, all as determined by the Division of Water Pollution
Control. Disinfection from October 1 to May 1 may be discontinued
at the discretion of the Division of Water Pollution Control.
Appropriate water supply treatment is as determined by the
Massachusetts Department of Ptfolic Health.
Ihese water quality standards do not apply to conditions brought
about by natural causes.
Class B and C waters shall be sifcstantially free of pollutants
that will:
(1) unduly affect the oonpositian of bottom fauna
(2) unduly affect the physical or chemical nature of the
bottom
(3) interfere with the spawning of fish or their eggs
Ihe average minimum consecutive seven-day flew to be expected
once in ten years shall be used in the interpretation of the
standards, except where noted.
Ihe amount of disinfection required shall be equivalent to a
free and oarbined chlorine residual of at least 1.0 mg/1 after
15 minutes contact time during peak hourly flow or maximum rate
of punpage.
EB-12
-------
ATTACHMENT EC
LOCATION OF WATER QUALITY SAMPLING STATIONS
1967 AND 1969 SURVEYS
-------
CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED STUDY
Location of EPA Sampling Stations - 1967 Survey
Station
Nuntoer Location River Mile
C-l Main Street Bridge, Milford 75.2
C-2 Mellon Street Bridge, Milford 73.1
C-3 Mine Brook along Pond Street, Franklin 63.2-0.7
C-4 Bent Street Bridge, Medway 60.2
C-5 Stop River at Causeway Street Bridge, 51.8-0.2
Medfield
C-6 Main Street Bridge, Medfield 51.2
C-7 Hospital Road Bridge, Medfield 47.3
C-8 Union Street Bridge, South Natick 41.1
C-9 0.2 mi. above Charles River Village Gage, 34.5
Dover
C-10 Ames Street Bridge, Dedham 26.8
C-ll Bridge Street Bridge, Dedham - below 25.3
Mother Brock
C-12 Wellesley Gaging Station 20.0
C-13 GcmromMealth Avenue Bridge, Newton 15.4
C-14 Moody Street Bridge, Walthara 12.6
C-15 Foot Bridge above Watertown Dam, Watertown 9.8
C-16 Weeks Foot Bridge, Canbridge 5.1
C-17 Longfellcw Bridge, Boston 1.7
EC-1
-------
CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED STUDY
Location of State Sampling Stations - 1967 Survey
Station
Nmfcer
S—1
Location River Mile
Charles River below Echo Lake. Cedar 78.2
Street Bridge, Milford
S-2
Charles River, Dilla Street Bridge, Milford
76.5
S-3
Charles River along East Shore of Cedar
Swarrp Pond, Milford
76.1
S-4
Charles River, Depot Street Bridge,
Bellingham
70.1
S-5
Mine Brook, Grove Street Bridge, Franklin
63.2-4.1
S-6
Chicken Brook, Main Street Bridge, Medvay
63.0-0.6
S-7
Eagle Brook (Mill River), Outlet of Lake
Pearl, Franklin Street Bridge, Wrentham
57.6-5.5
S-8
Mill River, Main Street Bridge, Norfolk
57.6-1.9
S-9
Stop River, South Street Bridge, Medfield
51.8-1.7
S-10
Bogastow Brook, Outlet of Bogastow Pond,
Orchard Street Bridge, Millis
48.4-2.3
S-ll
Charles River, Hospital Road Bridge, Medfield
47.3
S-12
Waban Brook, Outlet of Lake Waban, Washington
Street Bridge, Weliesley
39.4-0.7
S-13
Rosemary Brook, Oakland Street Bridge,
Welies ley
18.9-1.2
S-14
Charles River at Culvert near Newton Along East Bank
Incinerator
S-15
Charles River at Culvert - Just Downstream Near R.M. 14.3
of Station S-14
S-16
Charles River at Woerd. Avenue Bridge, Waltham
li II
S-17
Charles River at Watertcwn Dam
9.8
EC-2
-------
CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED STUDY
Location of EPA Sampling Stations - 1969 Survey
Station
Nurrber
Location
River Mile
F-l
Mellon Street Bridge, Milford
(Same as Station C-2, 1967 Survey)
73.1
F-2
Hospital Road Bridge, Medfield
(Same as Station C-7, 1967 Survey)
47.3
F-3
Commonwealth Avenue Bridge, Newton
(Same as Station C-13, 1967 Survey)
15.4
F-4
Moody Street Bridge, Waltham
(Same as Station C-14, 1967 Survey)
12.6
F-5
North Beacon Street Bridge, Boston
8.1
F-6
Longfellow Bridge, Boston
(Same as Station C-17, 1967 Survey)
1.7
EC-3
-------
ATTACHMENT ID
COST BREAKDOWN OF ALTERNATE
TREATMENT PLANT CONFIGURATIONS
-------
Hie following Tables show a more detailed cost breakdown
of various possible treatment plant configurations than has been
presented in the text. Average annual capital aosts of treatment
plants and interceptors have been divided into those portions
eligible under existing regulations for Federal grants (55 percent),
State grants (25 percent) and to be financed by the immunity (20
percent). Presently, the ccrplete cost of operation and maintenance
is borne by the acrmunity. For regional plants and major inter-
ceptors that transport the wastes of more than one ocrmunity, costs
have been apportioned on the basis of the design flow from each
town. This method of cost allocation is oarnmonly used, however, in
sane cases it can result in inequities. Therefore, other methods
of cost apportionment should be investigated before a final decision
is made.
ED-1
-------
TfiRT.F EP-1
1970-1995
Individual Treatment Plants—Milford, Bellingham, Franklin, Medvay and Wrenthsan
Total Annual
Average Annual
Capital Cost
Federal
Grant
55%
State
Grant
25%
Cost to
Ccranunity
20%
Annual
O&M
Cost to
Community
Total Anro
Cost
Milford
$202,000
$111,000
$50,000
$41,000
$124,000
$165,000
$326,000
Bellingham
68,000
38,000
17,000
14,000
32,000
46,000
100,000
Franklin
226,000
124,000
56,000
46,000
130,000
176,000
356,000
Medway
71,000
39,000
18,000
14,000
36,000
50,000
107,000
Wren than
97,000
53,000
24,000
20,000
51,000
71,000
148,000
-------
TABLE ED-2
1970-1995
Regional Treatment Plant—Milford, Bellingham, Franklin, Medway and Wrentham
Average Annual
Capital Cost
Federal
Grant
55%
State
Grant
25%
Cost to
Caimunity
20%
Annual
O&M
Total Annual
Cost to
Ccnnunity
Total Annual
Cost
Milford
Treatment
Interception
Subtotal
Bellingham
Treatment
Interception
Subtotal
Franklin
Treatment
Interception
Subtotal
§149,000
207,000
356,000
30,000
28,000
58,000
176,000
131,000
307,000
$ 82,000
114,000
196,000
16,000
15,000
31,000
97,000
72,000
169,000
$37,000
52,000
89,000
8,000
7,000
15,000
44,000
33,000
77,000
$30,000
41,000
71,000
6,000
6,000
12,000
35,000
26,000
61,000
$94,000
0
94,000
19,000
0
19,000
111,000
0
111,000
$124,000
41,000
165,000
25,000
6,000
31,000
146,000
26,000
172,000
$243,000
207,000
450,000
49,000
28,000
77,000
287,000
131,000
418,000
-------
TABLE ED-2 (Continued)
Average Annual
Capital Cost
Federal
Grant
55%
State
Grant
25%
Cost to
Ccmtunity
20%
Annual
O&M
Total Annual
Cost to
Ccmtunity
Total Annua
Cost
Mectoay
Treatment
$ 32,000
$18,000
$ 8,000
$ 6,000
$21,000
$ 27,000
$ 53,000
Interception
3,000
1,600
800
600
0
600
3,000
S\±> total
35,000
19,600
8,800
6,600
21,000
27,600
56,000
Wrentham
Treatment
51,000
28,000
13,000
10,000
32,000
42,000
83,000
Interception
46,000
25,000
12,000
9,000
0
9,000
46,000
Subtotal
97,000
53,000
25,000
19,000
32,000
51,000
129,000
Total
$853,000
$468,000
$215,000
$170,000
$277,000
$447,000
$1,130,000
Total from Table ED-1$664,000
$365,000
$165,000
$135,000
$373,000
$508,000
$1,037,000
-------
TABLE ED-3
1970-1995
Regional Treatment Plant—Bellingham, Franklin, Medway and Wrentham
Average Annual
Capital Cost
Federal State Cost to Annual
Grant Grant Cannunity O&M
55% 25% 20%
Total Annual
Cost
Carmunity
Total Annual
Cost
Bellingham
Treatment
Interception
Si±> total
Franklin
Treatment
Interception
Subtotal
Medway
Treatment
Interception
Subtotal
$ 33,000
63,000
96,000
195,000
149,000
344,000
36,000
3,000
39,000
$18,000
35,000
53,000
107,000
82,000
189,000
20,000
1,600
21,600
$ 8,000
16,000
24,000
49,000
38,000
87,000
9,000
800
9,800
$ 7,000
12,000
19,000
39,000
29,000
68,000
7,000
600
7,600
$22,000
0
22,000
128,000
0
128,000
24,000
0
24,000
$29,000
12,000
41,000
167,000
29,000
196,000
31,000
600
31,600
$55,000
63,000
118,000
323,000
149,000
472,000
60,000
3,000
63,000
-------
TABLE ED-3 (Continued)
Aire rage Annual
Capital Cost
Federal State
Grant Grant
55% 25%
Cost to
Ccnmmity
20%
Total Annual
Annual Cost to Total Annual
O&M Camrnunity Cost
Wrenthan
Treatment
Interception
Subtotal
Total
$ 56,000
47,000
103,000
$582,000
Total of Bellingham,
Franklin, Meckvay and
Wrentham from ED-1 $462,000
$31,000 $14,000
26,000 12,000
57,000 26,000
$321,000 $147,000
$254,000 $110,000
$ 11,000
9 ,000
20,000
$ 37,000
0
37,000
$ 48,000
9,000
57,000
$115,000 $211,000 $326,000
$94,000 $249,000 $343,000
$ 93,000
47,000
140,000
$793,000
$711,000
-------
TABLE ED-4
Dual Ccranunity Plant—Mil ford and Bellingham
Average Annual
Capital Cost
Federal
Grant
55%
State
Grant
25%
Cost to
Cartirunity
20%
Annual
O&M
Total Annual
Cost to
Ccrmrunity
Total Annual
Cost
Milford
Treatment
Interception
Subtotal
Bellingham
Treatment
Interaepticn
Total
$194,000
70,000
264,000
39,000
0
$303,000
Total of Milford and
Bellingham fran ED-1 $270,000
$107,000 $48,000
38,000 18,000
145,000
21,000
0
66,000
10,000
0
$166,000 $76,000
$39,000 $102,000 $141,000
14,000
53,000
8,000
0
0
102,000
21,000
0
14,000
155,000
29,000
0
$61,000 $123,000 $184,000
$149,000 $67,000 $55,000 $156,000 $211,000
$296,000
70,000
366,000
60,000
0
$426,000
$426,000
-------
TAHE£ ED-5
1970-1995
Dual Ccmnunity Plant—Msdway and Wfcentham
Average Annual
Capital Cost
Federal State Cost to Annual
Grant Grant Cartrajnity O&M
55% 25% 20%
Total Annual
Cost to
Gamnunity
Total Annual
Cost
Mecbray
Treatment
Intercepticn
Subtotal
Wrentham
Treatment
Interaepticn
Subtotal
Total
$53,000
11,000
64,000
83,000
46,000
129,000
$193,000
Total of Medway and
Wrentham from ED-1 $168,000
$24,000
6,000
35,000
45,000
25,000
70,000
$105,000
$ 92,000
$13,000
3,000
16,000
21,000
12,000
33,000
$49,000
$42,000
$11,000
2,000
13,000
17,000
9,000
26,000
$39,000
$30,000
0
30,000
48,000
0
48,000
$41,000
2,000
43,000
65,000
9,000
74,000
$78,000 $117,000
$34,000 $87,000 $121,000
$83,000
11,000
94,000
131,000
46,000
177,000
$271,000
$255,000
-------
Individual Treatment Plants
Milford
Bellingham
Franklin
Medway
Wrentham
Total
Average Annual
Capital Cost
$341,000
142,000
432,000
121,000
214,000
$1,250,000
Federal
Grant
55%
$188,000
79,000
238,000
67,000
118,000
$690,000
TABLE ED-6
1995-2020
Milford, Bellingham, Franklin, Medway and Wrentham
Total Annual
State Cost to Annual Cost to Total Annual
Grant Community O&M Ccrrrrunity Cost
25% 20%
$85,000
$68,000
$220,000
$288,000
$561,000
35,000
28,000
77,000
105,000
219,000
108,000
86,000
269,000
355,000
701,000
30,000
24,000
74,000
98,000
195,000
53,000
43,000
120,000
163,000
334,000
$311,000
$249,000
$760,000
$1,009,000
$2,010,000
-------
TABLE ED-7
1995-2020
Regional Treatment Plant—Milford, Bellingham, Franklin, Mectoay and Wrentham
(Individual Plants over Previous Phase)
Average Annual
Capital Cost
Federal
Grant
55%
State
Grant
25%
Cost to
Carcnunity
20%
Annual
O&M
Toted Annual
Cost to
Community
Total Annual
Cost
Milford
Treatment
Interoepticn
Subtotal
Bellingham
Treatment
Interception
5i±> total
Franklin
Treatment
Interception
Subtotal
$238,000
276,000
514,000
68,000
68,000
136,000
341,000
211,000
552,000
$130,00
152,000
282,000
37,000
37,000
74,000
188,000
116,000
304,000
$60,000
69,000
129,000
17,000
17,000
34,000
85,000
53,000
138,000
$48,000
55,000
103,000
14,000
14,000
28,000
68,000
42,000
110,000
$161,000
0
161,000
46,000
0
46,000
229,000
0
229,000
$209,000
55,000
264,000
60,000
14,000
74,000
297,000
42,000
339,000
$399,000
276,000
675,000
114,000
68,000
182,000
570,000
211,000
781,000
-------
TABLE ED-7 (Continued)
Msdway
Treatment
Interception
Subtotal
Wrentham
Treatment
Interception
Subtotal
Total
Toted from ED-6
Total Annual
Average Annual Federal State Cost to Annual Cost to Toted Annual
Capital Cost Grant Grant Ccranunity O&M Ccranunity Cost
55% 25% 20%
$60,000
$33,000
$15,000
$12,000
$40,000
$52,000
$100,000
9,000
5,000
2,000
2,000
0
2,000
9,000
69,000
38,000
17,000
14,000
40,000
54,000
109,000
127,000
70,000
32,000
25,000
84,000
109,000
211,000
74,000
41,000
18,000
15,000
0
15,000
74,000
201,000
111,000
50,000
40,000
84,000
124,000
285,000
$1,472,000
$809,000
$368,000
$295,000
$560,000
$855,000
$2,032,000
$1,250,000
$690,000
$311; 000
$249,000
$760,000
$1,009,000
$2,010,000
-------
TABLE ED-8
1995-2020
Regional Treatment Plant—Bellingham, Franklin, Mectoay and Wrentham
(Individual Plants over Previous Phase)
Average Annual
Capital Cost
Federal
Grant
55%
State
Grant
25%
Cost to
Camiunity
20%
Annual
O&M
Total Annual
Cost to
Carrnunity
Total Annual
Cost
Eellindham
Treatment
Interception
Subtotal
Franklin
Treatment
Interception
Svfatotal
Medway
Treatment
Interception
Sit) total
$ 74,000
102,000
176,000
368,000
235,000
603,000
65,000
6,000
71,000
$41,000
57,000
98,000
202,000
129,000
331,000
36,000
3,000
39,000
$18,000
25,000
43,000
92,000
59,000
151,000
16,000
2,000
18,000
$15,000
20,000
35,000
74,000
47,000
121,000
13,000
1,000
14,000
$46,000
0
46,000
232,000
0
232,000
40,000
0
40,000
$61,000
20,000
81,000
306,000
47,000
353,000
53,000
1,000
54,000
$120,000
102,000
222,000
600,000
235,000
835,000
105,000
6,000
111,000
-------
TABLE ED-8 (Continued)
Total Annual
Average Annual Federal State Cost to Annual Cost to Total Annual
Capital Cost Grant Grant Cannunity O&M Carmunity Cost
55% 25% 20%
Wrentham
Treatment $136,000 $75,000 $34,000 $27,000 $84,000 $111,000 $220,000
Interception 74,000 41,000 18,000 15,000 0 15,000 74,000
Subtotal 210,000 116,000 52,000 42,000 84,000 126,000 294,000
Total $1,060,000 $584,000 $264,000 $212,000 $402,000 $614,000 $1,462,000
Total of Bellingham,
Franklin, Mecbray and
Wrentham firon ED-6 $910,000 $502,000 $227,000 $181,000 $540,000 $721,000 $1,450,000
-------
TABLE ED-9
1970-1995
Individual Treatment Plants—Norfolk, Millis, Medfield and Holliston
Total Annual
Average Annual
Capital Cost
Federal
Grant
55%
State
Grant
25%
Cost to
Camrunity
20%
Annual
O&M
Cost to
Camtunity
Total Annual
Cost
Norfolk
$68,000
$37,000
$17,000
$14,000
$40,000
$54,000
$108,000
Millis
93,000
51,000
23,000
19,000
60,000
79,000
153,000
Medfield
113,000
62,000
28,000
23,000
62,000
85,000
175,000
Holliston
84,000
46,000
21,000
17,000
41,000
58,000
125,000
Total
$358,000
$196,000
$89,000
$73,000
$203,000
$276,000
$561,000
-------
TABLE ED-10
1970-1995
Dual Ccmnunity Plant—Millis and Medfield
Average Annual
Capital Cost
Federal
Grant
55%
State
Grant
25%
Cost to
Ccmnunity
20%
Annual
O&M
Total Annual
Cost to
Ccmnunity
Total Annual
Cost
Millis
Treatment
Interception
Subtotal
Medfield
Treatment
Interception
Subtotal
Total
$74,000
19,000
93,000
92,000
14,000
106,000
$199,000
$43,000
10,000
53,000
51,000
7,000
58,000
$111,000
$18,000
5,000
23,000
23,000
4,000
27,000
$50,000
$13,000
4,000
17,000
18,000
3,000
21,000
$38,000
$50,000
0
50,000
62,000
0
62,000
$112,000
$63,000
4,000
67,000
80,000
3,000
83,000
$150,000
Total of Millis and
Medfield fran ED-9 $206,000
$113,000 $51,000 $42,000 $122,000 $164,000
$124,000
19,000
143,000
154,000
14,000
168,000
$311,000
$328,000
-------
TABLE ED-11
1970-1995
Tri-Ccranunity Plant—Millis, Medfield and Holliston
Average Annual
Capital Cost
Federal
Grant
55%
State
Grant
25%
Cost to
Community
20%
Annual
Cost
Total Annual
Cost to
Community
Total Annual
Cost
Millis
Treatment
Interception
Si±> total
Medfield
Treatment
Interception
Subtotal
Holliston
Treatment
Interoepticn
Subtotal
Totol
$74,000
15,000
89,000
93,000
14,000
107,000
56,000
69,000
125,000
$321,000
Total of Millis, Medfield and
Holliston from ED-9 $290,000
$41,000
8,000
49,000
51,000
7,000
58,000
31,000
38,000
69,000
$176,000
$159,000
$18,000
4,000
22,000
23,000
4,000
27,000
14,000
17,000
31,000
$80,000
$15,000
3,000
18,000
19,000
3,000
22,000
11,000
14,000
25,000
$65,000
$43,000
0
43,000
53,000
0
53,000
32,000
0
32,000
$128,000
$58,000
3,000
61,000
72,000
3,000
75,000
43,000
14,000
57,000
$193,000
$72,000 $59,000 $163,000 $222,000
$117,000
15,000
132,000
146,000
14,000
160,000
88,000
69,000
157,000
$449,000
$453,000
-------
TABLE ED-12
1995-2020
Individual Treatment Plants—Norfolk, Millis, Medfield and Holliston
Total Annual
Average Annual Federal State Cost to Annual Cost to Total Annual
Capital Cost Grant Grant Ccmnunity Cost Catimmity Cost
55% 25% 20%
Norfolk
$128,000
$70,000
$32,000
$26,000
$69,000
$95,000
$197,000
Millis
179,000
98,000
45,000
36,000
108,000
144,000
287,000
Medfield
251,000
138,000
63,000
50,000
143,000
193,000
394,000
Holliston
148,000
81,000
37,000
30,000
102,000
132,000
250,000
Total
$706,000
$387,000
$177,000
$142,000
$422,000
$564,000
$1,128,000
-------
TABLE ED-13
1995-2020
Regional Treatment Plant—Norfolk, Millis, Medfield and Hollistcn
(Individual Plant over Previous Phase)
Average Annual
Capital Cost
Federal
Grant
55%
State
Grant
25%
Cost to
Ccranunity
20%
Annual
O&M
Total Annual
Cost to
Community
Total Annual
Cost
Norfolk
Treatment
Interception
Subtotal
Millis
Treatment
Interception
Subtotal
Medfield
Treatment
Interception
S\±> total
$73,000
59,000
132,000
124,000
20,000
144,000
196,000
22,000
218,000
$40,000
32,000
72,000
68,000
11,000
79,000
108,000
12,000
120,000
$18,000
15,000
33,000
31,000
5,000
36,000
49,000
6,000
55,000
$15,000
12,000
27,000
25,000
4,000
29,000
39,000
4,000
43,000
$46,000
0
46,000
78,000
0
78,000
123,000
0
123,000
$61,000
12,000
73,000
103,000
4,000
107,000
162,000
4,000
166,000
$119,000
59,000
178,000
202,000
20,000
222,000
319,000
22,000
341,000
-------
TABUS ED-13 (Continued)
Total Annual
Average Annual Federal State Cast to Annual Cost to Total Annual
Capital Cost Grant Grant Caimunity O&M Cannunity Cost
55% 25% 20%
Hollistcn
Treatment
$91,000
$50,000
$23,000
$18,000
$57,000
$75,000
$148,000
Interception
89,000
49,000
22,000
18,000
0
18,000
89,000
Subtotal
180,000
99,000
45,000
36,000
57,000
93,000
237,000
Total
$674,000
$370,000
$169,000
$135,000
$304,000
$439,000
$978,000
Total from ED-12
$706,000
$387,000
$177,000
$142,000
$422,000
$564,000
$1,128,000
-------
ATTACHMENT EE
DEVELOPMENT AND METHOD OF APPLICATION
OF CURVES OF AVERAGE ANNUAL REDUCTION
IN TREATMENT COSTS VERSUS FI£W AUGMENTATION
AMOUNTS AND FLOW REGIMES
-------
1. Development of Curves
The river has been divided into six zones under an individual
treatment plant scheme and two zones under a regional treatment
plant scheme. The location of each zone is given in Table EE-1,
and shown on Figures EE-1 and EE-2. For each zone, flow versus
waste load discharged to the zone has been analyzed. The deter-
mined flow augmentation amounts are exclusive of waste flows dis-
charged to the stream and of base flows in the stream. Typical
plots are shown on Figure EE-3, which represents Zone 4 under
individual waste treatment plant conditions.
Aeration was provided to assure that the dissolved oxygen
concentration in the waste effluent would be 6 mg/1. Ihis was
found to provide the most economical combination of treatment and
effluent aeration at all flow levels to assure the desired dis-
solved oxygen concentrations in the stream.
Using the generalized cost curves developed by Fcbert Smith of
the Advanced Waste Treatment Branch, Division of Research, EPA,
average annual costs of treatment required to limit waste loads
discharged to the stream to a specified amount were computed for
each zone. The costs presented graphically are over and above
the cost of plants providing the minimum treatment level that is
expected to be required of all wastes in the year 1980. For pur-
poses of this study, the minimum treatment level includes secondary
treatment and six months' operation of a coagulation and sedimenta-
tion process. It is expected that nutrient removal will be neces-
sary in the Charles River Watershed because of the high ratio of
waste flows to natural stream flow.
Costs were computed for the periods 1970 to 1995, and 1995 to
2020, and were adjusted to equivalent annual costs over the fifty-
year period, 1970-2020, in order to be directly comparable to
reservoir costs. Die costs were based on an interest rate of 4-5/8
percent. The aosts reflect both capital costs and operation and
maintenance expenses.
Operation of those treatment processes above the minimum re-
quired treatment was assumed necessary for six months per year.
The curves developed for Zone 4 are shown on Figure EE-4. They
show the adjusted costs of treatment versus waste load for the
periods 1970 to 1995, 1995 to 2020, and a acuposite curve covering
the entire 50-year period.
By containing Figures EE-3 and EE-4, a curve of average annual
cost of treatment over a 50-year period versus flow augmentation
for the months of July and August (30% river tenperature) was
drawn (Figure EE-5). During aooler months, less flaw is required
to maintain a given stream dissolved oxygen concentration for the
EE-1
-------
same level of waste treatment. The ratios of flows required at
20°C (May and October) and 25°C (June and Septenfoer) to those re-
quired at 30°^ for the same waste load have been calculated to
establish a flew regime. Flew regimes, ones established, may then
be used to determine and ootpare the costs of reservoir storage
with corresponding treatment cost reductions for purposes of pro-
ject formulation.
For Zone 4, the augmentation regime is as follows: Where the
augmentation required during July and August (30°C) is Q14, the
augmentation required during June and September (25°C) is 0.53 Q14
and the augmentation required during May and October (20^C) is
0.33 03-4.
For those periods when natural flews coupled with minimum
treatment are adequate to maintain dissolved oxygen levels in the
Charles River, operation of advanced waste treatment processes is
unnecessary. Based on the historical record of mean monthly flows
recorded at the Charles River Village gage, the average annual
costs of treatment for each zone have been reduced to account for
the decreased operation and maintenance costs during periods of
high stream flew (dotted line on Figure EE-5).
With no flew augmentation the average annual cost of treatment
is $47,000. At an assumed flow of 10 cfs plus the base flow and
waste flow in the zone, there is no additional cost of treatment
above the minimum required treatment. Thus, a 10 cfs augmentation
flow would result in an average annual decrease in treatment cost
of $47,000. Figure E-6, which is the reverse of Figure E-5, shows
a plot of average annual reductions in treatment cost versus flow
augmentation for the months of July and August (30^C river tem-
perature) .
On the following pages are curves of average annual reductions
in treatment costs over 50 years versus flow augmentation amounts
for each zone for both individual and regional plants (Figures EE-7
through EE-14) and the flow regime for each zone (Tables EE-2 and
EE-3).
EE-2
-------
80
Milford
70
Bellingham
Franklin
MINE BROOK-^£oAf
63.2
Wrenthom
MILL RIVER
60
Medway
Norfolk
STOP RIVER
Holliston
31.•
BOGASTOW BROOK
Millis
Medfield
46.4
Sherborn
40
Zone I - Headwaters to R.M. 63.2
Zone 2 - Mine Brook (entire length)
30
Zone 3 - Mill River
Zone 4 - Stop River •» «i
Zone 5 - Bogostow Bk. " "
Zone 6— R.M.63.2 to R.M. 12.6
20
12.6
LOCATION OF ZONES
FOR
INDIVIDUAL TREATMENT PLANTS
FIGURE EE-I
-------
MINE BROOK'
MILL RIVER
STOP RIVER
Norfolk, Minis, Medfield, Holliston
4S.4
80
¦Milford
70
Bellingham, Franklin, Medway, Wtenlham
Zone I - Headwaters to R.M. 57.6
Zone 2- R.M. 57.6 to R.M. 12.6
W
S
o
BOGASTOW BROOK
Sherborn
40
30
..20
12.6
LOCATION OF ZONES
FOR
REGIONAL TREATMENT PLANTS
FIGURE EE-2
-------
NOTE:
6mg/l Dissolved Oxygen Concentration
In Waste Treatment Plant Effluent
ZONE 4 INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
20°C
500
600
700
100
200
300
400
0
WASTE LOAD BOD5 (lbs/day)
FLOW AUGMENTATION VS. WASTE LOAD
-------
O 40-
\
NOTE:
Plant effluent D.O. is 6.0 ma /I
ZONE 4 INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
100 150 200 250 300
WASTE LOAO TO RIVER - BODg (Ibs./day)
ADDED TREATMENT COST
vs.
WASTE LOAD TO STREAM
FIGURE EE-4
-------
7CH
NOTE:
Plant affluent D.O. it 6mg/l
Rivor tamporaturo is 30°C
ZONE 4 INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
\
FLOW AUGMENTATION (CFS)
ADDED TREATMENT COST
vs.
FLOW AUGMENTATION
FIGURE EE-5
-------
o
o
o
K
50-
*"*
(ri
ae
>
o
m
OE
Ul
>
40-
o
h
W
o
a
o
z
UJ
2E
30-
b
<
UJ
CE
H
-
Z
Z
o
20-
1-
o
3
Q
UJ
«
o:
-i
<
3
Z
10-
Z
-------
INDIVIDUAL TREATMENT PLANTS
Curves of Average Annual Decrease
in Treatment Costs versus Flow Augmentation
and Table of Flow Augmentation Regimes
EE-3
-------
TABLE EE-2
CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED STUDY
Flew Augmentation Regimes Cor Individual Treatment Plants
Augmentation Ratio
Zone May (20^0 June (25°C) July (30^0 Aug. (3QOC) Sept. (25^0 Oct. (20^)
1
.28Qn
* 47QI1
9ri
QI1
*47QI1
.28Qn
2
.31QJ-2
•53QJ2
Ql2
°I2
,53QI2
,31QI2
3
.28Qj3
.51Qi3
°I3
°I3
.51Qi3
.28Qi3
4
•33QI4
•53Qi4
Q14
°I4
*53QI4
•33Qi4
5
•22Qjg
.44Q15
QI5
•44QI5
•22Qjg
6
.29Qi6
.52Qi6
916
°I6
*52QI6
•29QI6
EE-4
-------
230-,
200-
m
UJ
150
NOTE:
Plant effluent 0.0. is 6.0 mg/l
River temperature is 30°C
UJ
100-
INDIVIOUAL PLANTS
ZONE I
50-
Q
UJ
60
100
120
20
40
80
FLOW AUGMENTATION (CFS)
H
6)
e
TREATMENT COST REDUCTION
vs.
FLOW AUGMENTATION
UJ
-------
lOOn
80-
m
ui
40-
Plont effluent D.O. is 6.0 mg/l
River temperature is 30°C
ZONE 2 INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
20-
FLOW AUGMENTATION (CFS)
TREATMENT COST REDUCTION
vs.
FLOW AUGMENTATION
FIGURE EE-8
-------
70—1
S 60-
50
UJ
40
2 30-
note;
Plant effluent D.O. is 6.0 mg/l
River temperature is 30°C
20-
ZONE 3 INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
10
20
15
0
5
FLOW AUGMENTATION (CFS)
TREATMENT COST REDUCTION
vs.
FLOW AUGMENTATION
FIGURE EE-9
-------
o
8
"j< 50-
tn
s '
OVER
~
o
•
« i • l i
< 0 2 4
1 1
6
1 1 1 1 1
8 10 12
FLOW
AUGMENTATION (CFS)
TREATMENT
COST
VS.
REDUCTION
FLOW
AUGMENTATION
FIGURE EE-10
-------
50
40
5 30
UJ
Plant effluent D.O. is 6.0 mg/l
River temperature is 30°C
ZONE 5 INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
Ul
UJ
0
2
3
5
4
FLOW AUGMENTATION (CFS)
TREATMENT COST REDUCTION
vs.
FLOW AUGMENTATION
FIGURE EE-II
-------
I75n
« 125
° 100-
oc
75
NOTE:
Plant effluent 0.0. is 6.0 mg/l
River temperature is 30°C
l*i
a: 50
ZONE 6 INDIVIDUAL PLANTS
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
FLOW AUGMENTATION (CFS)
TREATMENT COST REDUCTION
vs.
FLOW AUGMENTATION
FIGURE EE-12
-------
REGIONAL TREATMENT PLANTS
Curves of Average Annual Decrease
in Treatment Costs Versus Flow Augmentation
and Table of Flow Augmentation Regimes
EE-5
-------
TABLE EE-3
CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED STUDY
Flew Augmentation Regimes for Regional Treatment Plants
Augmentation Ratio
Zone May (20°C) June (25^0 July (30^C) Aug. (309c) Sept. (25°C) Oct. (20°C)
1 .30Qj^ •SlQjyL QrI Qri *51Qpi »30Qpi
2 .26Qr2 .520^2 Qr2 Qr2 .52Qr2 .26Qr2
EE-6
-------
O 200
175
150
125
Plant affluent 0.0. is 6.0 mg/l
River temperature is 30°C
100
ZONE I REGIONAL PLANTS
50
UJ
25
80
100
0
20
40
60
FLOW AUGMENTATION (CFS)
TREATMENT COST REDUCTION
vs.
FLOW AUGMENTATION
FIGURE EE-13
-------
350
O 300
250
oc
o 200
150-
NOTE:
Plant effluent D.O. is 6.0 mg/l
River temperature is 30°C
ZONE 2 REGIONAL PLANTS
50
0
100
200
300
400
FLOW AUGMENTATION (CFS)
TREATMENT COST REDUCTION
vs.
FLOW AUGMENTATION
FIGURE EE-14
-------
2. Application
The information shown on the foregoing Figures EE-7 through
EE-14 shows potential reductions in the cost of waste treatment due
to varying flow augmentation regimes. Before the feasibility of flow
augmentation in the Charles River Basin can be determined, it is
necessary to relate this information to storage volumes and storage
costs.
Augmentation flow, as ocrputed in the model and as used herein,
is the flow which when added to the base flow and the waste flow in
a reach will provide a total flow capable of meeting the dissolved
oxygen criteria. Base flow magnitudes are estimates of the lowest
seven day average which could be expected on a frequency of once in
ten years in the absence of waste flow.
Waste flow magnitudes vary with population growth, water ccn-
sunptian and type of sewerage system. Waste flow is derived pri-
marily from the water supply systems of the area, but is also affected
by ground water infiltration to sewer systems. A major increase in
waste flow, therefore, presupposes an increase in water stpply.
Estimated base flows and waste discharge flows for the basin are
given in Table EE-4.
Hie relationship between base flow, waste flow and augmentation
flow is illustrated in Table EE-5. It shows flows in Zone 4 cor-
responding to a flow augmentation regime of 5 cfs in 1995 and 2020.
This regime, as indicated in Figure EE-4, would result in an esti-
mated average annual savings of $33,500 over a fifty year period.
Table EE-5 indicates the waste flow increase accounts for the
increase in total flow while the augmentation flow and base flow
regimes remain unchanged. The water quality storage requirements
can, therefore be examined independently of increased waste flow and
water supply requirements, if desired.
To determine the amount of reservoir storage needed to meet a
selected flow regime, a ocrtparison of that regime with either his-
troic flows, car synthetic flows representing a critical design
period, is required. This can be done in the case of water quality
storage amounts and costs, provided the historic or synthetic hydro-
graph is adjusted for changing waste flows. An illustration of how
this may be done is shown in Table EE-6, again using Zone 4 as an
exanple.
Onoe the storage amount is established, the associated cost of
reservoir construction and operation can be estimated with allowance
for the needs of other purposes using standard project formulation
procedures. Several flow augmentation regimes may be tested in this
EE-7
-------
way and a storage aost versus flay augmentation curve prepared. This
curve when compared with the treatment cost reduction versus flow
augmentation curve can be used to determine the optimum economic
mix of advanced waste treatment and water control storage.
TABLE EE-4
CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED STUDY
Base Flews and Waste Flows1
Zone Base Flow (cfs) Waste Flow (cfs)
1965 1995 2020
Individual Plants
1
0.2
2.4
6.0
13.4
2
0.2
2.1
5.9
14.7
3
0.2
0.5
1.7
5.4
4
0,2
0.6
0.9
2.5
5
0.2
0.0
1.4
3.1
6
1.5
1.5
5.5
14.1
Regional Plants
1
0.2
2.4
5.0
10.4
2
2,3
4.7
16.4
42.8
1. FIOWS
shown are those which originate within a zone.
EE-8
-------
TABLE EE-5
CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED STUDY
5 cfs Flow Augmentation Regime - Zone 4
Month
Base
Flew (cfs)
Waste Augmentation
Total
1995
May
0.2
0.9
1.6
2.7
June
0.2
0.9
2.6
3.7
July
0.2
0.9
5.0
6.1
August
0.2
0.9
5.0
6.1
Septenber
0.2
0.9
2.6
3.7
Octcber
0.2
0.9
2020
1.6
2.7
May
0.2
2.5
1.6
4.3
June
0.2
2.5
2.6
5.3
July
0.2
2.5
5.0
7.7
August
0.2
2.5
5.0
7.7
September
0.2
2.5
2.6
5.3
Octcber
0.2
2.5
1.6
4.3
EE-9
-------
TABLE EE-6
CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED STUDY
Sanple Storage Odnputation for 5 cfs Flow Augmentation*
Zone 4
Historic Estimated Historic Augmentation Water Quality
Month
Total
Flow2
Waste
Flow
(1965)
Natural
Flow
Plus Base
Flow
Storage -
Releases
May
8.50
0.60
7.90
1.80
-
June
5.00
0.60
4.40
2.80
-
July
1.80
0.60
1.20
5.20
4.00
August
0.90
0.60
0.30
5.20
4.90
Septenber
1.00
0.60
0.40
2.80
2.40
October
1.50
0.60
0.90
1.80
0.90
12.20
12.20 MSF x 60.4 = 737 Acre Feet
1. All figures are in month-second-feet which is a volume of water
equivalent to a flow of one cubic foot per second for one month.
2. Historic Total Flow figures are for illustrative purposes only.
3. Does not include amounts for reservoir evaporation, transit losses
and regulation losses.
EE-10
-------
ATTACHMENT EF
SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL OF WASTE
-------
1. General
If tiie soil has good permeability, stbsurfaoe disposal of wastes
after secondary treatment and chlorinaticn can offer an economical
way of meeting water Quality goals.
There are two caiman methods of subsurfaae disposal; namely,
direct infection into the groundwater through recharge wells., and
spreading, or distributing the waste on the ground surface and
allowing it to seep into the soil. The injection method has several
disadvantages over spreading. High levels of treatment may be re-
quired prior to injection to avoid clogging of the recharge well.
The removal of pollutants from the waste as it travels through the
soil to the groundwater by the spreading method is negated by direct
injection. Unless land costs are extremely high, groundwater injec-
tion is usually more expensive than spreading.
Disadvantages of waste water spreading are the relatively high
land requirements and possible operational problems during periods
of high water table and during the winter months.
Percolation through the ground has been shown to be an effective
mechanism for the removal of pollutants fran wastewater. Studies at
wastewater reclamation projects have shown that vertical percolation
of wastewater through relative short distances is effective in remov-
ing bacteria and virus, BOD5, suspended solids and phosphate ion.
Care should be taken to insure wastewater spreading does not
interfere with groundwater supplies, although in sections of the
country where water is scarce, this technique is being used as a
method of wastewater reuse for water oupply. In New England where
sufficient water is available to avoid reclaiming sewage effluents,
wastewater reuse would probably be unacceptable to the general
public.
2. Land Requirements
The land requirement is directly proportional to the waste flow
and inversely proportional to the rate of infiltration. The infil-
tration rate for a given soil is affected by depth to water table,
time in the spreading cycle and type of treatment applied to the
waste. For wastewater spreading to be successful, the soil must
have a good permeability.
The U.S. Geological Survey is presently conducting water re-
sources investigations of the Charles River Watershed. Part of
the study includes describing the surficial geology of the area.
Preliminary results indicate the existence of many lenses of sand
and gravel located near the riverbank that may be suitable for
wastewater spreading. In sane cases the depth to groundwater may
EF-1
-------
be as much as thirty to forty feet. At these locations, it may be
possible to discharge treated effluent over spreading basins which
would percolate vertically to the groundwater table and then hori-
zontally to a nearby watercourse.
Land requirements to handle the 1995 to 2020 waste flaws at
assumed infiltration rates of 0.5 fpd (feet per day) and 2.0 fpd
are presented on Table EF-1. In the analysis, it was assumed that
each spreading basin will be operated eight hours per day and then
allowed to aerate, the minimum nunfcer of spreading basins is three,
and the total land requirement for spreading is 1.25 times the spread-
ing basin area requirement.
3. Cost of Wastewater Spreading
The cost of spreading is affected mainly by the percolation rate
through the soil which is the major factor in determining the land
requirement. Infiltration rate is affected by depth to water table,
time in the spreading cycle, and type of treatment applied to the
waste.
Cost analyses, based on procedures noted in Reference 26, have
been made which illustrate the variations in cost for a given waste
flow at different rates of infiltration. In the analyses, the
following assunptions were made:
(a) The cost of land is $2,000 per acre.
(b) Each spreading basin will be operated eight hours per
day and then allowed to aerate (considered optimum for
spreading application).
(c) The minimum nurrber of spreading basins is three.
(d) Total land requirement for spreading operation is 1.25
times the spreading basin area requirement.
(e) Cost of construction, excluding dike construction, is
$1,600 per acre of spreading basin.
(f) Cost of dike construction is $0.59 per cubic yard.
(g) Dike cross-section is eight square yards.
(h) Spreading ponds are square in shape.
(i) Costs of engineering and contingencies are equal to 0.25
times the cost of construction.
EF-2
-------
TABLE EF-1
CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED STUDY
Acreage Requirement for Wastewater Spreading
Upper Charles River Carmunities
Acres Required Acres Required Acres Required Acres Required
1995 Waste (Infiltration (Infiltration 2020 Waste (Infiltration (Infiltration
Carimunity Flow (mgd) Rate = 0.5 fpd) Rate = 2.0 fpd) Flow (mgd) Rate = 0.5 fjpd) Rate = 2.0 fpd)
Milford
3.2
74
18
6.7
155
39
Bellingham
.65
15
3.8
1.9
54
14
Franklin
3.8
89
22
9.5
220
55
Jfedway
.7
16
4.0
1.7
39
9.8
Wrentham
1.1
25
6.2
3.5
80
20
Norfolk
.6
13
3.2
1.6
37
9.2
Millis
1.2
27
6.8
2.7
62
15
Medfield
1.5
34
8.5
4.3
98
24
Hollistan
.9
20
5.0
2.0
46
12
Sherborn
.1
2.1
.5
.4
8.8
2.2
Total
13.75
315
78
34.3
800
200
-------
(j) Maintenance cost is $300 per acre of spreading basin per
year.
(k) All costs are based on an interest rate of 4-5/8 percent,
amortized over 25 years and adjusted to the June 1967
level.
(1) TWO rates of infiltration are assumed—0.5 fpd and 2.0 fpd.
Based on the above assumptions, curves of average annual cost of
wastewater spreading for two infiltration rates versus wastewater
flow have been plotted (Figure EF-1). The curves do not reflect the
cost of providing the preliminary treatment. Prior to wastewater
spreading, primary and secondary treatment and chlorinaticn should
be sufficient. However, the coagulation and sedimentation process
may be desirable as an additional pretreatment step. Coagulation
and sedimentation would further reduce the amount of suspended
materials from the wastewater and increase the efficiency of the
spreading application. This may be reflected in the ability to
adueve higher infiltration rates and thus require less land.
As indicated previously, to meet water quality goals by advanced
waste treatment, the municipalities would typically have to provide
the equivalent of primary treatment, secondary treatment, coagula-
tion, sedimentation, filtration, carbon adsorption, and post-aera-
tion. The average annual cost of advanced waste treatment processes
as a function of waste flow is also shown on Figure EF-1. It is
evident from Figure EF-1 that substantial savings can result where
wastewater spreading proves feasible.
Based an the projected waste flows of each ocumunity and Figure
EF-1, costs of wastewater spreading at the two assured infiltration
rates were computed for the 1970 to 1995, and 1995 to 2020 time
periods and are shown cn Table EF-2. It will be noted that increased
infiltration rates significantly decrease the land requirements and,
therefore, the cost.
During periods of high groundwater table or during the winter
when the efficiency of wastewater spreading may be reduced, the
treated effluent may be discharged directly to the surface water.
These periods generally correspond to the same times when operation
of advanced treatment processes may not be needed.
4. Smmary
Subsurface disposal of treated waste by spreading may offer an
economical means of meeting water quality standards and should be
considered by the upper Charles River ouuuunities. This method
of waste treatment will require detailed engineering investigations,
such as extensive borings and percolation tests at proposed spread-
ing sites prior to its use.
EF-4
-------
100-1
80-
60-
40-
20-
10-
8-
T) 6-
a>
E
—
i.o-
.8-
.6-
.4-
.2-
NQTE:
of Land = $2,000/Acre
All Advanced Triotmtnl Processes
Operated for Six Months.
-r-
2
i
20
i >ii
40 60 80 100
i
200
ii» i
600 1000 2000
i iii
6000 iqpoo
6 8 10
AVERAGE ANNUAL COST (x*lOOO)
AVERAGE ANNUAL COST OF TREATMENT VS. WASTE FLOW
-------
TABLE EP-2
CHftBIES RIVER WATERSHED STUDY
Average Annual Cost of Wastewater Spreading
Inf. Rate 0.5 fpd inf. Rate 2.0 fpd Inf. Rate 0.5 fpd Inf. Rate 2.0 fpd
1995 Waste Average Average 2020 Waste Average Average
Ccrmxnity Flew (mgd) Annual Cost Annual Cost Flow (ragd) Annual Cost Annual Cost
1970 - 1995 1970 - 1995 1995 - 2020 1995 - 2020
Kilforcl
3,2
$38,000
$10,000
6.7
$75,000
$20,000
Bellingham
,65
7,500
2,200
1.9
22,000
6,000
Franklin
3.8
44,000
12,000
9.5
105,000
27,000
Medwa^
.7
8,300
2,300
1.7
20,000
5,400
Wrentham
1.1
13,000
3,600
3,5
40,000
11,000
Norfolk
.6
7,100
2,000
1.6
18,000
5,000
Millis
1.2
14,000
3,800
2.7
31,000
8,300
Hedfieia
1.5
17,000
4,800
4.3
49,000
13,000
llollistcn
.9
U,000
2,900
2.0
26,000
6,200
Sherborn
0.0
0
0
.4
4,800
1,400
Total
13.65
$159,900
$43,600
34.3
$390,600
$103,300
------- |