PALIS #93060
LAKE QUANNAPOWITT COM
fo) O i I I I I I I I I I LAKE QUANNAPOWITT • DIAGNOSTIC/FEASIBILITY STUDY • Wakefield, Massachusetts FINAL REPORT • July, 1986 i i i i i i i I COM CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. One Center Plaza environmental engineers, scientists, _ „ .. . mmo a , , ', Boston, Massachusetts 02108 I planners, & management consultants ' I y 617 742-5151 I July 24, 1986
I Mr. Richard C. Boutiette, P.E. Director of Public Works Town of Wakefield I 1 Lafayette Street Wakefield, MA 01880 I Dear Mr. Boutiette: Please find 12 copies of the addendum to the Final Diagnostic/Feasibility Study for Lake Quannapowitt. One copy has been sent to the Wakefield I Library. This revision to the Final Report completes the work on our contract with the Town of Wakefield for Phase I of the project, and 10 I copies have been sent to the Clean Lakes Section of DEQE. It has been a pleasure working on the project with the Department of Public Works, and we look forward to continuing our good working I relationship with the Town of Wakefield. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call. I Sincerely, I CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC
I Eileen Pannetier Project Manager I cc: Chris Duerring, DEQE I I I I I I
I ADDENDUM TO FINAL REPORT I DIAGNOSTIC/FEASIBILITY STUDY Lake Quannapowitt, Wakefield, Massachusetts I DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, TOWN OF WAKEFIELD I INTRODUCTION The purpose of this addendum is to address the final comments from the Department of Environmental Quality Engineering (DEQE) on the Lake I Quannapowitt Phase I Diagnostic/Feasibility Study. These comments were received from the Massachusetts DEQE, Division of Water Pollution Control, I Clean Lakes Section, and may be found at the end of the addendum. The first comment relates to'the preimplementation milestone schedule shown in the final report on Page 2-16 and 2-18. Primarily because of permitting requirements, the schedule is no longer realistic, and should I be replaced with the following schedule which allows for several months permitting time. I REVISED MILESTONE SCHEDULE I Milestone Date Task Responsibility
November 1, 1985 Deadline for Draft Final Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. I Phase I Report January 15, 1986 Deadline for Prioriti- Division of Water Pollution I zation Control DWPC May 15, 1986 Deadline for Local Match Town of Wakefield I Commitment May 31, 1986 Deadline for Full Program Town of Wakefield I Requirements Compliance August 1, 1986 Deadline for Revised Final Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. I Report October 1, 1986 Development and Approval Division of Water Pollution I of Substate Agreement Control November 3, 1986 Issue Phase II request for Town of Wakefield Proposals I November 21, 1986 Deadline for Proposals Town of Wakefield December 10, 1987 Selection of Consultant Town of Wakefield I for Final Design I I
I Milestone Date Task Responsibility I January 2, 1987 Begin Final Design Consultant I January 2, 1987 Purchase of Weed Harvester Town of Wakefield February 30, 1987 Submit Draft Environmental Consultant Impact Report I March 27, 1987 Submit Remaining Permit Consultant Applications I April - August Weed Harvesting as needed Town of Wakefield August 14, 1987 Pre-bid Conference Consultant I September 1, 1987 Select Contractor Town of Wakefield, Consultant I September 1, 1987 Begin Lake Drawdown Town of Wakefield, i October 15, 1987 Begin Construction Contractor i January 1, 1988 Completion of Construction Contractor It should be noted that the Environmental Impact Report is only required for the dredging/disposal portion of the work, and although it is not desirable from a construction standpoint, the construction of the i phosphorus control berm may be done separately if delays result from permitting constraints on the dredging/disposal portion of the work. i The second comment relates to the environmental evaluation of lake drawdown, which will occur prior to construction to reduce the environmental impacts of the work. Since the Final Report did not i adequately address the impacts of the drawdown on downstream wetlands, water table, and fish populations in the lake, the following revised evaluation of fish and wildlife impacts should replace the one found on i page 2-22 of the report. REVISED SECTION 2.5.4 FISH AND WILDLIFE IMPACTS i Although temporary turbidity is expected to occur during dredging, impacts will be minimized by the late fall construction timing. Impacts from the spoil disposal will be minimized by the filter fabric lining on the berm i and because the lake will not be refilled until the next spring allowing it to stabilize over several months. The drawdown should-minimize construction impacts on water quality by the i reduction in resuspension of dredged materials. Although the total volume i of the lake will also be reduced during the time the lake is drawn down, i I
I fish and wildlife impacts are expected to be minimal since drawdown will occur only once during the winter when biological activity is at a minimum, I Some negative effects on fish communities have been reported in the literature, including a reduction in the standing crop of lake whitefish, walleye, northern pike, and Cisco in Cross Lake, Manitoba caused by a I summer drawdown (Gaboury and Ratal as, 1984). However, drawdown is also considered an important tool in fish management, used to increase fish standing crop (Lanz et al., 1964), to shift species composition (Hulsey, 1958), and to enhance spawning of bass and crappie (Richardson, 1975). I While the effect that drawdown in Lake Quannapowitt will have on fish populations is not known, any negative impacts should be minimized by the fact that only minimal drawdown can occur, and the long-term effects of I the water quality improvements associated with the project will be beneficial to fisheries in the lake. I In addition to improvements in water quality and thus fisheries that will result from the project, the drawdown may also reduce shoreline aquatic weed densities. Since the shoreline (littoral zone) has been implicated as a significant source of internal nutrient loading to the open water I (Cooke, et al., 1986), the winter drawdown of Lake Quannapowitt may have positive water quality effecfs~as wefH " I Weed harvest? nj^_u£ejdj^ring^Sj^rjj^^ should not have anyTignifi can't negative environmental effects. "The effect on water quality, however, should be beneficial in that the weeds will no longer I decompose in the lake. REFERENCES SOURCE: Cooke, G. Dennis, Welch, E.B., Peterson, S.A., and I Newroth, P.R. 1986. Lake and Reservoir Restoration. Butterworth I Publishers. I I I I I I I I I wowwnoweoeaMfc of ^/vf&A&czwuMeJfo I WMav S. RUSSELL SYLVA I Commissioner 01581 July 3, 1986
I Ms. Eileen Pannetier Camp Dresser & McKee One Center Plaza I Boston, MA 02108 I Dear Eileen: I have completed my review of the revised Diagnostic/Feasibility Report on Lake Quannapowitt . With the exception of the following two items, all of the I comments on the draft report from this office have been satisfactorily addressed. Page 2-18 The preimplementation milestone schedule appears unrealistic now, con- I sidering that the final report has not yet been approved and that MEPA may require and EIR for a portion of the project. The schedule should be revised to reflect these delays. I suggest allowing at least one I month (from Sept. 1 , 1986) for Subs t ate development and at least two months from that date for weed harvester purchase. The remaining mile- I stone dates should be revised accordingly. Page 2-22 The environmental evaluation of lake drawdown does not adequately address the impact on downstream wetlands, water table, and fish populations in I the lake.
Once the above comments have been satisfactorily addressed, the report will be I acceptable to this office as a final product for the project. These revisions can be submitted in the form of an addendum to the final report, if necessary. I Please submit total of ten copies of the revised final report to this office no later than August 1, 1986.
If you have any questions concerning the final report please do not hesitate I to call me. I CKfis Duerring I Sanitary Biologis CD/cf cc: R. Boutiette I R. McVoy I B. Haynes I COM CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. ineers, scientists. One Center Plaza I planners, & management consultants Boston. Massachusetts 02108 I 617742-5151 I May 20, 1986 Mr. Richard C. Boutlette I Director of Public Works One Lafayette Street I Wakefield, MA Dear Mr. Boutiette: I Enclosed are 12 copies of the Final Report for the Lake Quannapowitt Diagnostic/Feasibility Study, as revised with the DEQE Lakes Section comments. Three copies of the report have been delivered to Ms. Chris Duerring at the Division of Water Pollution Control, along with a I tabulation of our response to comments and the locations of revised information. I We have enjoyed working with the Town of Wakefield and look forward to working with the Town again. If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call. I Sincerely, I CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC
I Eileen Pannetier Project Manager I 13 Enclosures I I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section No. Title Page No.
SUMMARY 1
DIAGNOSTIC STUDY 1-1
1.1 General Description 1-1 1.2 Morphometric Data 1-9 1.3 Nutrient and Hydrologic Budgets 1-9 1.4 One Year Limnological Data 1-27 1.5 In-Lake Data 1-31 1.6 Macrophyton Data 1-32 1.7 Storm Surveys 1-32 1.8 Sediment Analysis 1-41
FEASIBILITY STUDY 2-1
2.1 Alternative Identification and Evaluation 2-1 2.2 Final Alternatives 2-9 2.3 Public Participation 2-16 I 2.4 Scheduling and Monitoring Program 2-16 2.5 Environmental Evaluation 2-20 I 2.6 Permitting 2-22 I APPENDIX A. Grant Application Forms B. Data Graphs I C. Data Tables D. Agency Correspondence I E. Environmental Notification Form I F. Permit/Approval Forms I I
I LIST OF FIGURES
I Figure No. Title Page No. I 0 Recommended Alternative Project 4 1 Location Map 1-2 • 2 Lake Quannapowitt Watershed and Land Use 1-3 3 Location of Public Access 1-4 • 4 Surficial Geology 1-6 • 5 Bathymetric Map 1-12 6 Precipitation 1-14 | 7 Groundwater Inflow-Outflow Zones 1-17
— 8 Retention Time 1-20 • 9 Phosphorus Budget 1-21 10 Net Internal Phosphorus Loading 1-23 • 11 Nitrogen Budget 1-25 12 Sampling Stations 1-28 13 Macrophyte Survey 1-33 14 Storm Drains 1-36 15 Flow Measurements and Concentrations vs. I Time at Drain A 1-38 16 Flow Measurements and Concentrations vs. m Time at Drain B 1-39 17 Flow Measurements and Concentrations vs. — Time at Drain B - 1-42 • 18 Flow Measurements and Concentrations vs. Time at Drain C 1-43 I 19 Depth of Sediment 1-45 I 20 Alternative 1 2-12 I 21 Dillon-Rigler Trophic Status 2-15 I I
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title Page No • 0 Summary of Alternatives Screening Process 2 1 Land Use Components 1-10 I 2 Morphometric Data - 1-11
— 3 Monthly Hydrologic Budgets 1-15 • 4 Monthly Phosphorus Budgets 1-22 • 5 Monthly Nitrogen Budgets 1-26 6 Percent Saturation of Inlet Water 1-30 | 7 Key to Macrophyte Distribution Map 1-34 — 8 Results of Analysis of Storm Drain I Sampling (11/29/84) 1-37 9 Results of Analysis of Storm Drain • Sampling (5/21/85) 1-40 10 Composite Sediment Analyses 1-44 | 11 List of Technologies 2-2 g 12 Preliminary Alternative Screening 2-3 • 13 Alternatives Development 2-6 14 Summary of Advantages and Disadvantages 1 of Final Alternatives 2-11 • 15 Cost Comparison of Final Alternatives 2-13 16 Cost Breakdown of Selected Alternatives 2-17 I 17 Monitoring Schedule 2-19
18 Proposed Work and Spending Plan 2-21 i i i I
I SUMMARY
I INTRODUCTION The Lake Quannapowitt Diagnostic/Feasibility Study consisted of two main components: a diagnostic, or investigative, portion and a feasibility I phase, or engineering analyses. The diagnostic portion of the project — included sampling over a year-long period, beginning in March of 1984 and • ending in March of 1985. Sampling took place on a monthly basis during the * winter per-iod and biweekly during the summer and fall. The sampling stations used during the study included an in-lake station in I the deepest basin of the lake where samples were taken at the top of the water column and near the bottom of the lake. Other stations included one at the main inlet of the lake near the Lord Wakefield Inn, one at the main I outlet of the lake near Main Street, and one at the secondary outlet near American Mutual. The graphs and tables at the end of the report show the water quality monitoring results for the study, and a summary of data is I given in Section 1.4 One-Year Limnologic Data. In addition to the samples collected for chemical and bacterial analyses, biological and physical data were also collected. These data included I numbers and types of algae, extent and distribution of aquatic weeds, and morphometric data such as the maximum and average lake depth, watershed I size and development, and a hydrologic budget for the lake. MAJOR FINDINGS |H The most serious problem in Lake Quannapowitt is heavy aquatic weed growth that interferes with recreational swimming and boating. The cause is — primarily the shallow shoreline depth that allows light penetration to the I bottom. Incoming high nutrient levels, both historically and at present, ™ probably also contribute to the extensive aquatic weed growth. Another serious problem is the massive algal blooms that occur in the lake I throughout summer and fall. These blooms cause aesthetic problems, odors, and reduce the clarity of the water. The primary cause is the high nutrient levels in the water column. I The third problem is low clarity, which is partially caused by algae as mentioned above, but also by the windy nature of the area and subsequent high wave action that stirs up sediments in the shallow lake. Occasion- I ally, the clarity of the lake falls below bathing beach standards for transparency (4 ft). I ALTERNATIVE IDENTIFICATION AND EVALUATION The primary problems to be dealt with are: 1) aquatic weeds; 2} algae; and 3) low clarity. To address these problems, a total of 18 possible I technologies were examined for their applicability to Lake Quannapowitt. As shown on the next table, nine of these were eliminated initially either because of probable ineffectiveness or because of impracticality. The I remaining nine alternatives were evaluated in more detail based on their I I I SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES SCREENING PROCESS
I Complete List of Alternatives Remaining After Alternative Technologies Examined 1st Screening 2nd Screening Projects I 1) Dredging 1) Dredging (limited) 1) Limited 1) Limited 2) Weed Harvesting 2) Weed Harvesting Dredging Dredging, 3) Aeration 3) Inflow Treatment 2) Weed Inflow Treat- 4) Mixing 4) Liners Harvesting ment, i 5) Diversions 5) Fish Removal and a) Contracted Purchase of a 6) Inflow Treatment Restocki ng b) Harvester Weed Harvester, 7) Liners 6) Algicides Purchase Public i Education 8) Dilution 7) Herbicides 3) Inflow 9) Drawdown 8) Trace Chemical Treatment Program i 10) Fish Removal and Addition 4) Liners 2) Liners, Restocking 9) Public Education 5) Public Contracted i 11) Biological Manipulation Programs Education Weed Harvesting 12) Wetlands Treatment Programs and Public 13) Algicides Education 14) Herbicides 'Program i 15) Chemical Precipitation 16) Light Blockage 17) Trace Chemical Addition i 18) Public Education Programs i i i i i i I
I projected effects on the water quality of the lake and their ability to deal with the lake's primary problems. In this screening, four more alternatives were eliminated because of limited or short-term I effectiveness. The five remaining alternatives were then combined into two alternative "projects" which were then evaluated for overall effectiveness, cost, and benefits to recreation and the nutrient budget. Based on this E evaluation, the recommended project described below was selected. RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE PROJECT I The recommended project has three basic components: 1) inflow treatment; 2) purchase of a weed harvester; and 3) limited dredging. The first component, inflow treatment, is proposed to reduce incoming high levels of I nutrients and turbidity, as well as to reduce the filling-in of the lake over time. This will be accomplished in combination with the dredging, as shown on the next figure, since one of the dredged spoil disposal areas I will form a part of the inlet control berm. The control berm will be composed of crushed stone with a sand/clay mixture in the-middle, and will be located at the main inlet to the lake. Flow from the inlet will enter the bermed pool area first before filtering out into the lake. Silt, I debris, and other particulate material, including particulate phosphorus, will be forced to settle out in the pool area which will have to be cleaned out once or twice per year. This should reduce incoming phosphorus levels, I and the resultant algal problems. It should also reduce incoming silt and turbidity* thus improving the clarity of the water and slowing the I filling-in process. The dredging is proposed for the two most weed-infested areas of the lake, with removal and on-site bermed disposal of about 45,000 - 55,000 cubic yards of material. The purpose is to deepen two particularly shallow areas I of the lake while expanding usable open space area by the placement and compaction of spoil material. I Despite the proposed dredging and inflow treatment, some aquatic weed problems are expected to continue, so another component is the purchase of a weed harvester to be used on an as-needed basis in the lake. The I harvester will be operated by Town personnel when and where specific weed problems occur. In addition to controlling aquatic weeds, this component may have some beneficial effect on the overall nutrient budget of .the lake, in that the weeds will be removed from the watershed instead of decomposing I and releasing their nutrients in the lake as they do now. The final component of the proposed project is a public education program I to educate watershed residents on how to reduce nutrient levels entering the lake. I Overall, the proposed project is expected to accomplish the following: 1) Control of the aquatic weed problem; I 2) Reduction in the length and severity of algal blooms; and 3) At least a small increase in the clarity of the water, with a I reduced potential for beach closure. I AREAS OF DREDGING TOWN HALL BERMS
NEW LAND AREAS MADE USING DREDGED MATERIAL
FIGURE 0 DIAGNOSTIC/FEASIBILITY STUDY RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE PROJECT LAKE QUANNAPOWJTT WAKEFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS I I SECTION 1 I DIAGNOSTIC STUDY 1.1 GENERAL DESCRIPTIONS I Basic information on Lake Quannapowitt and its watershed are included in this section. These data are particularly important in determining the influence of the watershed on water quality. A series of maps have been I prepared to accompany the descriptions of the area. Figure 1 is a map showing the location of the "lake with the topography of the surrounding I area, 1.1.1 IDENTIFICATION AND DESCRIPTION OF LAKE QUANNAPOWITT Lake Quannapowitt is a highly utilized recreational lake in the surburban I community of Wakefield, Massachusetts. It is a gl^ciaM ^^^^^^^^^^miERclHANd-E::, j f LOCATION MAP FIGURE 1 LAKE QUANNAPOWITT 1000 0 1000 2000 FEET WAKEFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 1-2 CAMP DRESSER & McKEE I I I I I I I I I I I I LEGEND - 1980 LAND USE CATEGORIES Industrial Cropland Commercial I AP Pasture I SUBWATERSHED DRAINED BY INLET R 1 D«na« Residential j WPJ Woody Paranoia! ' ' « U4 «(« 101 .Medium Residential [_Oj Ooen I H4 - 1/2 jcre R3 Soarse Residential | W | Water 1 fc B SUBWATERSHED DRAINED ' 1<2 acr« BY STORM SEWERS I |_UTj Transportation [FW] Fresn Wetland I UOJ Ooen and Public j_SWJ Sail Wetland Preoared by: DEPARTMENT of FORESTRY S WILDLIFE "AflAGEKENT, REMOTE Si-'.S.'.'IG Waste Disposal RW) Water Recreation I UNIVERSITY of MASSACHUSETTS dE AMHERST SOIL,CONSERVAT;ori SERVICE In coooeration witH'. M Mining RP| Participation Recreation weiROPOLITAN AREA PLANNING COUNCIL,MASSACHUSETTS OEPARTMENT of PUBLIC I——_i WORKS .U.S. DEPARTMENT of TRANSPORTATION. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION and L'RSAN MASS TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATION I• P Forest I RS 1 Spectator Recreation FIGURE 2 I DIAGNOSTIC/FEASIBILITY STUDY LAND USE LAKE QUANNAPOWITT 1000 0 1000 2000 FEET WAKEF1ELD, MASSACHUSETTS I 1-3 PUBLIC ACCESS FIGURE 3 DIAGNOSTIC/FEASIBILITY STUDY LAKE QUANNAPOW1TT LOCATION OF PUBLIC ACCESS WAKEF1ELD, MASSACHUSETTS 500 1-4 I I sailboarding is a popular activity on the lake in the summer, while iceboats are used extensively in the winter. I Year-round, especially in good weather, Lake Quannapowitt is a popular spot for picnickers and strollers. There are picnic tables and a gazebo on the south Public Beach. At the inlet near the Lord Wakefield Inn, feeding I ducks and geese is a popular activity. In summary, Lake Quannapowitt is very accessible, and it is the site for I numerous water-based activities. The lake is actively enjoyed through water sports such as swimming, fishing, canoeing, sailing and windsurfing. It is also enjoyed passively through use of the park and picnic facilities I on the shore. The records of the Wakefield Parks Commissioner substantiate this exceptionally heavy usage of the lake. In 1984, only the north beach was I open because of funding constraints, yet an average of 200 people per day were estimated to have used the beach from Ouly 1 to September 1. Previous records indicate an average usage of 350 persons per day when both beaches I were open. In addition, records for use of the public boat docks indicate weekend launching of an average of 50 boats, with possibly an additional 10 boats per day on weekdays. Approximately 100 boats moor at the private I yacht club. 1.1.3 GEOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAINAGE BASIN I The USDA Soil Conservation Service has not completed mapping soils for the Wakefield area. The best information available is the Surficial Geology I Map for the Reading Quadrangle prepared by the USGS in 1962 (Figure 4). The geological components of the Lake Quannapowitt watershed are the result of glacial erosion and deposition. The lake itself is a glacial kettle, and drainage is controlled mainly by the glacial features and preglacial I valleys. The surficial deposits consist of stratified and unstratified drift and a small amount of swamp deposits. I The unstratified component is till, a poorly sorted mixture of sand, gravel, silt and clay which was deposited directly by a glacier. Small amounts of stratified material are scattered throughout the till in units I too small to be mapped at this scale (Figure 4). A thin layer of windblown material, which was not mapped, is less than three feet thick in most I places. Organic sediments are widespread in the area. Cedar Swamp and the interconnected swamps north of the lake are very extensive. Many of these swamps are underlain by leached sand and silt of probable aeolian origin, I and may contain peat deposits. I Major components of the watershed are: Swamp deposits - Mostly muck and peat with some sand and gravel , silt and clay. I Ground moraine - Till with minor amounts of stratified drift. I 1-5 I I I I I I I I I I I KEY Deposits I Outwash Sand and gravel I undifferentiated Ground Moraine Drum"! in V VV Kame Terrace I Artificial Fill I Bedrock outcrops I ••••• Watershed Boundary I I FIGURE 4 SURFICIAL GEOLOGY DIAGNOSTIC/FEASIBILITY STUDY 1000 0 1000 2000 LAKE QUANNAPOWITT FEET WAKEF1ELD. MASSACHUSETTS Drumlin - Streamlined stratified drift hills of till. Valley Fill - Valley material composed of sand and gravel. In some places, ice contact slopes terminate these deposits at one or both ends. Artificial Fill - This component makes up Route 128, other roads in the watershed, and the boat ramp area. Bedrock outcrops - These are scattered throughout the morainal material. 1.1.4 SUMMARY OF HISTORICAL LAKE USES An historical survey of Wakefield is underway at this time by the Massachusetts Historical Society, the Wakefield Historical Commission, the Wakefield Center Neighborhood Association and Architectural Preservation Associates. According to the Architectural Preservation Associates (personal communications, Bonnie Maxer, APA), the earliest historical records show that native Americans cultivated much of the area around the lake, formerly called Reading Pond. The name was changed to Lake Quannapowitt after it was sold to settlers by an Indian named James Quannapowitt. The northern shores of the lake were farmed from the late 18th to the 19th century. In 1845 the railroad (Boston & Maine) was constructed and the town subsequently experienced rapid growth. Suburban houses built in the early 1800's included the Beebe Homestead and Federal House near the eastern shores on Main Street. Ice companies owned much of the land on the southern and western shores from the 1830's to 1880's. Pressures for housing caused most of these companies to be sold in the late 1880's; however, a few lasted into the 20th century. The two cemeteries on the west side of the lake have been there since the mid-19th Century. Lakeside Cemetery was established in 1846. Temple Adath Israel Cemetery was established in 1859, and it was the first Jewish cemetery in the Boston area. The Hartshorne House on the southern shore of Lake Quannapowitt is one of the two oldest houses. The other is the Deacon Kendall home at 1 Prospect Street. Other historic houses line Main Street, including 14- Main (pre-1750), 17 Main (1765), 50 Main (1790) and 190 Main Street (1750). Additional important historical land use components are the churches that dot the watershed, including the Congregational Church and cemetery on the southern shore. The land surrounding Lake Quannapowitt was farmland that has been transformed slowly into suburban residential uses. Property surrounding the lake was owned basically by Wakefield churches, ice companies and private residences. Lake Quannapowitt was noted as "pure" in brochures published to attract settlers, 1-7 I I Several historical activities may have affected the water quality of Lake Quannapowitt, including the discharge and dumping of coal tarjand other wastes from the old gas house on the western side of the lake. Apparently, I up to a foot of oily waste was dumped in the lake near the current public dock area. The ball field and parking area adjacent to this cove were once wetlands that were filled with several feet of clean gravel. The American I Mutual area and the Lord Wakefield Motel area (northwest side) were also wetlands that were filled for building purposes (personal communication, Meritt Wenzel). I The area near the inlet, just south of the Lord Wakefield, was an open dump for many years. Upstream in the area currently occupied, by wetlands, farming once took place. The construction of the rail lines through this I area resulted in stagnant water and swampy conditions due to the height of the culvert under the railroad. I To the north in what is now American Mutual grounds and across Route 128 to the north, a vast wetland area apparently fed the lake. This area was cut off from the watershed of the lake in the late 1930's by the Reading I Drainage Canal. The construction of Route 128 and the filling of the American Mutual property apparently resulted in further diversion of this portion of the watershed around the lake. In fact, water now flows out of I Lake Quannapowitt from this area. The "lake has never been particularly deep in the memory of long-time I residents, with a reported maximum depth of 15 feet. 1.1.5 WATERSHED LAND USE I The predominant land use (35%) in the watershed is single residence (R2), as shown on Figure 2. This category represents land used for homes which are spaced closely together on lots which are 12,000 sq ft or less in size. I This category is represented by most houses on Main Street. The second most prevalent land use (29%) is general residential land (R3, Rl). Lot sizes in this group are 10,000 square feet or less. The Prospect I Road neighborhood is an example of this category. Eight percent of the watershed is comprised of a freshwater wetland (FW). I This category represents variations of swamps, bogs and marshes. Forested land (F) composes five percent of the watershed. Forested land is defined as a combination of hardwood and softwood trees and vegetation. This I category is represented by the forested area near Bear Hill. Open and public lands (UO) compose six percent of the watershed. This includes undeveloped land or cemeteries which appear open in the midst of I developed areas. It is further described as available for public use. In this case, the areas denoted include the cemeteries that lie on the I southern and western shores of the lake. Four percent of the watershed is spectator recreation (RS). This category includes the recreational "complex" including access roads, parking facili- ties, buildings and other related facilities. The public beach on the south I western shore is the predominant recreational component in the watershed. I I I Commercial land (UC) makes up three percent of the land use in the water- shed. This land is predominantly used for distribution or sales of goods and services. This land use is represented by the area along the northern I shore containing American Mutual Insurance Company and two gas stations. Participant recreation land (RP) makes up three percent of the total land I use in the watershed. This category again includes the recreational complex: access roads, parking lots, buildings and other facilities. In I this watershed, the Bear Hill Golf Club is the dominant component. Transportation land (UT) comprises two percent of the watershed. This category generally includes land used for truck, rail, air and water-based transportation. In the watershed, the entire category represents a divided I highway with 200 feet or more of right-of-way width. Narrower roads are not measured for their area. Route 128 is the entire category on this map. I Open lands (0) comprise one percent of the watershed. This component appears between the American Mutual Insurance Company, the forested wetland I and the gas stations. Water-based recreation (RW), with one percent, includes marinas, freshwater beaches and swimming pools. This category is represented by the yacht club I on the western shore of Lake Quannapowitt. Figure 2 shows the areal distribution of land use in the watershed. Table I 1 shows the categories and percentages. Ul MORPHOMETRIC DATA I The morphometric parameters for Lake Quannapowitt were determined using a U.S.G.S. topographic map and field measurements. These are listed in Table 2. A bathymetric map, or map of the bottom contours of the Take, was I generated from depth measurements. It is shown in Figure 5. The morphometric data (Table 2) and the bathymetric map (Figure 5) show that the lake has a large surface area but a relatively small volume I because of its shallow depth (11.3 feet [3.4 meters] maximum). The mean depth is only 6.3 feet, or 1.9 meters, indicating that much of the lake is quite shallow. This is also evident from the bathymetric map, and the I result is that large areas of the lake, particularly on the western side, are suitable for the growth of aquatic vegetation, I :U3 NUTRIENT AND HYDROLOGIC BUDGETS The purpose of the hydrologic and nutrient budgets is to determine the sources and loading rates to the lake of nitrogen and phosphorus. This I information is necessary to determine the effects of these nutrients on algae and macrophyton growth and to develop means of controlling that I growth. I I 1-9 I I TABLE 1 I LAND USE COMPONENTS I CATEGORY PERCENTAGE I Moderate Density Residential (R2) 35% Sparse Residential (R3) 28% I Freshwater Wetland (FW) 8% Forested Land (F) 5% Open and Public Lands (UO) 6% I Spectator Recreation (RS) 4% Other Towns 3% I Commercial (UC) 3% Participant Recreation (RP) 3% I Transportation (UT) 2% Open Lands (0) 1% I High Density Residential (Rl) 1% I Water-based Recreation (RW) 1% I I I I I I I I 1-10 I I TABLE 2 I MORPHOMETRIC DATA I METRIC ENGLISH I (1) Surface area 101 hectares 250 acres (2) Maximum depth 3.4 meters 11.3 feet I (3) Mean depth 1.9 meters 6.3 feet (4) Volume 1.7236 x 106 m3 1,397 acre feet I (5) Watershed area 302 hectares 747 acres (6) Maximum length 1,792 meters 5,880 feet I (7) Maximum width 878 meters 2,880 feet (8) Shoreline length 4,791 meters 15,720 feet I (9) Development of Shoreline: 1.34 1.34 I I I I I I I I I 1-11 FIGURE 5 DIAGNOSTIC/FEASIBILITY STUDY BATMYMETRIC MAP LAKE QUANNAPOWITT WAKEFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 5OO 1-12 I I 1.3.1 HYDROLOGIC BUDGET - INPUT I Direct Precipitation Direct precipitation onto the lake surface was calculated using monthly data collected at the Reading gaging station and published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Monthly precipitation was I multiplied by the area of the lake to determine the volume of water entering the lake (Figure 6). The total precipitation for the year was 117.9 cm, and the area of the lake surface is 101 hectares. The resulting I volume of water is 1,190,790 m (965.2 acre-ft) which is 41.0% of the total yearly input (Table 3). For comparison, Figure 4 also includes monthly I normals at Reading, based on 30 years of data. Input from streams, storm drains and surface runoff The watershed is divided into two areas. One is a 150 ha (371 acre) area I drained by the main inlet culvert, located on the western shore. The remaining 152 ha (376 acre) area drains to the lake via storm sewers. I These areas, with land use categories, were shown in Figure 2. For the area drained by the main inlet, the monthly discharge was calculated by dividing monthly discharge at the Aberjona River USGS gaging station by I that river's watershed area to determine a monthly discharge rate per hecta- re. This was multiplied by 150 hectares to obtain the sonthly discharge to the lake at the inlet. The yearly total was 854,600 m (692.7 acre-ft) which represents 29.5% of the yearly input (Table 3). The Aberjona River gaging I station was chosen because its watershed is similar in topography, land-use, and soil types to the area drained by the inlet to Lake Quannapowitt. i For comparison, the monthly inlet discharge was also calculated by multiplying the area of the inlet watershed by monthly precipitation. This result was multiplied by the fraction of the watershed occupied by each I land-use category and a land-use runoff coefficient. The sum pf_these volumes, 727,753 m (590 acre-ft}, is^the "monthly" in!et fTbVdui to storm- water runoff. Since the runoff coefficients do not reflect stormwater infiltration, the difference between the results from the two methods was 1 assumed to represent groundwater base flow. Results from the former method were used to represent inlet flow. This assumption is further justified by the fact that the inlet drains a wetland area in addition to carrying I stormwater runoff. Discharge, via storm sewers, for the remaining watershed area was I calculated by multiplying monthly precipitation by the area, and multiplying this by the fraction occupied by each land-use category (Figure .20' and a runoff coefficient. The result is the monthly input from storm eVerrtTaSTTTr;ThTTearry total is 803,720 nr (651.5 acre-ft,) which I represents 27.7% of the yearly input. It should be noted that the input estimations were calculated, rather than I measured, since flow measurements were not called for in the scope of work. The volume of discharge from the inlet is likely to be overestimated since flow throughout the year is indicated in the calculated estimations (Table I 3), but no flow was found during three of the sampling runs (8/14/84, I 1-13 I I I I LflKEqUHNNHPOWiTT I PRECIPITATION I I 25 H Year of Study (Yearly total 117.9 cm) I r — — Monthly Normals (Yearly total 116.1cm) LJ I 20- I I 9/26/84, and 12/28/84). No actual Inlet flow was found during August, late September, or during December. I The cause of the difference between the calculated and observed inlet flows may be the hydraulic conditions found in the wetland area upstream of the inlet. This wetland, which is about 100 acres in size, appears to have been originally caused by the construction of the B&M Railroad and an above I grade culvert under the B&M railroad tracks. The railroad tracks form a "bank" all along the downstream edge of the wetland area. Outflow is I directed through a box culvert just upstream from the lake inlet. The culvert is undersized, however, and is well above the gradient of the immediate upstream area. Additionally, it is partially clogged with I debris. The end result of these factors is that flows out of the wetland area (and discharging from the lake inlet) do not occur during low flow periods except as a result of storms. I Some of this flow may enter the lake as groundwater, but the amount is not known. In addition, how much water evaporates or is lost to transpiration in the stagnant area upstream of the railroad culvert is also unknown. I Because of these factors, and because continuous flow monitoring was not conducted, no attempt was made to estimate the difference between I calculated and actual inflow conditions. Groundwater Flow I Groundwater inflow was calculated using Darcy's Law for flow in a porous medium: I Q = KA 4p where Q = groundwater flow I K = permeability A = cross-sectional area of flow J L — = hydraulic gradient I dl The lake shoreline was divided into zones of inflow and outflow according to the surficial geology and topography, and these are shown in Figure 7. I In general, the groundwater inflow occurs through the western, southern, and eastern portions of the lake where it is surrounded by areas of glacial I deposition and higher elevations. The permeability was determined from USGS data {Water-Supply Paper 1694) 'for the nearby Wilmington-Reading area. The depth of flow was estimated as I 4 feet since groundwater inflow to a Take decreases away from the shoreline. This depth was multiplied by the length of shoreline for each zone to determine the cross-sectional area. The hydraulic gradient was determined from data from wells in the vicinity of the lake (Massachusetts I Hydrologic - Data Report No. 21, 1980). It was assumed that monthly variations in groundwater inflow were the same as the variations in I precipitation. I 1-16 FIGURE 7 DIAGNOSTIC/FEASIBILITY STUDY DIRECTION OF GROUNDWATER FLOW LAKE QUANNAPOWITT WAKEFIELD. MASSACHUSETTS 500 1000 2000 FEET 1-17 I I The monthly groundwater inflow volumes are presented in Table 3. The yearly total is 53,650 m (43.5 acre-ft.) which represents 1.8% of the total inflow. I 1.3.2 HYDROLOGIC BUDGET - LOSSES I Evaporation Evaporation data were available from the Rochester, MA gaging station for April through October, 1984. These were used with a pan coefficient ...of, I 0.7Q^_ For the remainder of the year, it was assumed that evaporation for ftay through October represented 76% of the total with the remaining 24% distributed over the months when the lake had no ice cover (U.S. Weather I Buerau Technical Paper 37, 1959). The monthly totals were determined by multiplying the evaporation rate by the lake area and distributing this on a monthly basis as described in the I previous paragraph. The results are presented in Table 3. The yearly evaporation loss is 746,900 m (605.4 acre-ft.) which represents 25.7% of I the total losses. Groundwater Outflow Flow of groundwater out of the lake wasocalculated the same as it was for I flow in. The yearly flow was 103,430 m (83.8 acre-ft) or 3.6% of the total losses. I Outlet Flow The reservoir storaqe-yie1_d_equatipn_was_solv.ed for outlet flow, the I remaining varia~?le in the hydrologic budget, with the assumption that total flow into the lake equaled flow out over the year of study. The effect of drawing down .thejake, injtoyember was determined.-from data provided by the I Wakefield DPW. Changes in lake volume were estimated from measurements of water depth taken at the outlets during the regular sampling runs. The i equation is: x^ V. = V + I + SD + DP + GWI - 0 - E - GWO, where f o ' i Vf = final lake volume VQ = initial lake volume i I = inlet flow SO = storm drain flow i DP = direct precipitation i GWI = groundwater inflow 0 = outlet flow i E = evaporation losses i 1-18 I I GWO = groundwater outflow Monthly flows are presented in Table 3. The yearly flow for the year was I 2,052,440 m (1,664 acre-ft.) representing 70.7% of the total losses. Retention Time and Flushing Rate I 3 The volume of the lake, 1,723,600 m , was divided by the total outflow, 2,902,770 m , resulting in a retention time ofJ^3_y_eats..._rMonthly retention times were also calculated and are presented in Figure 8. The i flushing rate, calculated as the inverse of retention time, was 1.68 flushes per year. i 1.3.3 NUTRIENT BUDGETS Data from the analysis of water samples were combined with the results of i the hydrologic budget calculations to determine nutrient inputs and losses for the lake. i Phosphorus Phosphorus inputs to the lake were calculated for the inlet drainage area by multiplying the monthly inlet flow times the average phosphorus i concentration in the inlet samples taken during that month. For the remaining area, monthly storm drain flows were used with flow-weigjited___ averages from, the stormwater sampling data. Losses through the outlet were i calculated the same way as inputs from the inlet. Contributions from groundwater were assumed to be negligible since phosphorus does not move , f readily through soil (Steel and McGhee, Water Supply and Sewerage, 1979). \ i V Monthly phosphorus budgets are presented in Figure 9 and Table 4. The yearly input was found to be 2,447 kg/yr and the yearly loss through the outlet was 3,080 kg/yr. i r The monthly phosphorus loads were incorporated with in-lake concentration data in mass balance equations to determine monthly net internal loads. i These results are presented in Figure 10. The two processes involved are biological uptake/release and__sedi merit accumulation/release, though it is not clear to what extent each one is involved. Also, since these are net amounts, actual loads and losses are not represented. Still, the cyclical i nature of the data throughout the year and the lack of anaerobic conditions suggest that some of this_lntej^aj_l_p_a_ding___i_s_djje_to the resuspension of i bottom sediments caused by the wind, followed by settling." Other factors that may be involved include phosphorus inputs from boat washing in the lake (reported to occur fairly frequently), inputs from i fertilizer use on the extensive lawn areas around the lake, inputs from ducks and geese that frequent the Lord Wakefield lawn area, and inputs from i vegetation/algae decomposition. Although there appears to be some difference of opinion in the litera- ture as to phosphorus movement in soil, there are no known sources of i phosphorus, such_as septic systems, in the groundwater in this area. i 1-19 1 1 LAKE QUANNAPOWITT 1 RETENTION TIME (V / 0 ) 1 1 120- Annual Retention time I 1 110- 0.59 years I 1 100- 1 90- JS Itg 80- 4 1 w 70 2 _1 • S5 60- O 50- liUJ H — 1 40- 1 30- 20- 1 I 1 10- l 1 B Mi. 1 0^ MAR APR MAY «JUN JUL IAUG SEP QCT HOV DEC JAN FEB 1 1984 1985 1 FIGURE 8 1-20 1 - LAKE QUANNAPOWITT • PHOSPHOROUS BUDGET • 800 • 750 I 700- I 650J | 1 1 ••••" INFLOW (TOTAL 2447 KG) ••• | 600- 1 = = Illlllllllllllll OUTFLOW (TOTAL 3080 KC • 550- 10 M 500- 1to. .S «50. • o •£ 400- ' ll _cn IBK ^) 350- d. III |< 300- i- |° 250- i - 200- I 1 I J I 150- i i i I S 100- i 50: I : 0 MAR AP1R MAYIlli JUH JUL AUG iSEP OCiJT HOiV DEC JA1N 1FEB I 1984 1985 • FIGURE 9 I 1-21 1 tSrSt \> J I LAKE QUANNAPOWITT | NET INTERNAL PHOSPORUS LOADING I Positive Loads - releases to water column Negative Loads - releases from water column 1 3600- 1 3600- fl • FIGURE 10 1-23 I I Nitrogen The nitrogen budget for the inlet, storm drains, and outlets was calculated I as it was for phosphorus. In addition, the inputs and losses from groundwater flows were considered. The nitrogen concentrations in ground- water inflow were assumed to equal the nitrate concentrations entering the lake at the inlet, since only limited chemical analyses were available for I groundwater (Mass. Hydrologic-Data Report No. 21, 1980). The outflow concentrations were assumed to be the mean of the concentrations at the I in-lake sampling station (Station 2A). The monthly nitrogen budgets are presented in Figure 11 and Table 5. The yearly input was 4,049 kg/yr and the loss was 5,896 kg/yr. It should be I noted that this budget does not account for atmospheric sources of nitrogen or nitrogen that may be fixed by algae or legumes. Some species of algae and plants can obtain atmospheric nitrogen for growth. This nitrogen is then left in sediments or the water column after the decomposition of the I plant material. I Nutrient Budget Summary Ratios of nitrogen to phosphorus (N:P) ranged from 0.5 to 4.0 for the May through September growing season. Although this would suggest that the I lake is nitrogen-limited, this does not appear to be the case since concentrations of all nutrients remain high even with increased biological activity. As a result, an analysis of trophic status using either the Dillj^/JiigJ^r^or^the Vg.ljenwelcler.met^qd^ has limited applications. I -Ptnnrphorus is £he eas'iest nutrient*tb^cohtrol , and in theory it would be possible to reduce its concentrations below the point at which it becomes the limiting nutrient. This is particularly true for some types of algae I that can "fix" atmospheric nitrogen. In addition, it has been reported that lakes that were nitrogen-limited by this criteria have been improved by reducing phosphorus levels. For these reasons phosphorus reduction in I .Lake Quannapowitt can have potential beneficial effects. To determine the source(s) of excessive phosphorus, additional limited sampling upstream was conducted. Samples were taken at four locations: 1) I the upstream end of the large wetland area west of the lake; 2) further downstream in the same wetland area (just upstream of the 8AM railroad culvert); 3) at the upstream end of the inlet culvert; and 4) at the I downstream end of the inlet culvert (Station 3). This additional sampling was coordinated with the last sampling round of the study (March 8, 1985). Samples were analyzed for total phosphorus and ammonia nitrogen, two I parameters that were found in especially high concentrations in the lake and inlet stream. The results are listed below: I Total Phosphorus Ammonia (N) Station <0.05 mg/L 0.14 mg/L. A Upstream end of wetland 0.10 mg/L 1.68 mg/L B Downstream end of wetland I <0.05 mg/L 0.28 mg/L C Upstream end of inlet culvert 0.31 mg/L 0.45 mg/L D Downstream end of inlet culvert (Inlet) 0.05 mg/L 0.11 mg/L E Inlake surface I 0.05 mg/L 0.10 mg/L F Inlake bottom N/A N/A G Outlets (not flowing) I 1-24 1 LAKE QUANNAPOWITT NITROGEN BUDGET 1 1 »••• INFLOW (TOTAL 4049 KG) • Illllllllillllll OUTFLOW (TOTAL 5896KG) 1 3000- 1 2600- 2600- — _!_ 2400- = -j == 1•t 2200- := 2000- l£ ^^^ 0 1600- 10 OS - — H 1600H ~ = IS - = -1 1400- - EEE 1• o- 1200- ^E r 1000- ^^ = 1 600 - = ~ - 600 - ^ M^ ^ 1. = = ^ ^ = 400 - ~ EE E g^^ = 1 200 - 1 MAIR APR iMA Y !JU N iJUlL AU.G SE .P OC LT NOV DEjC iJA N FE^B L • 1 1984 1985 1 FIGURE 11 1-25 I I TABLE 5 I MONTHLY NITROGEN BUDGETS LAKE QUANNAPOWITT I SOURCES (kg/month) STORMDRAIN GROUNDWATER MONTHLY I INLET AREA AREA INFLOW TOTAL 1984 MAR 152 212 1 365 APR 225 350 3 578 I MAY 332 715 10 1,057 JUN 311 301 0 612 JUL 78 307 2 387 I AUG 23 77 1 101 SEP 10 94 1 105 OCT 28 265 2 295 NOV 50 75 2 127 I 114 5 191 DEC 72 1985 JAN 29 39 1 69 I FES 103 58 1 162 YEARLY I TOTAL 1,413 2,607 29 4,049 I 34.9 64.4 0.7 LOSSES (kg/month) I GROUNDWATER MONTHLY OUTLETS OUTFLOW TOTALS I 1984 MAR 347 2 349 APR 519 11 530 MAY 1,064 12 1,076 JUN 677 1 678 I 483 5 488 JUL AUG 0 1 1 SEP 0 3 3 I OCT 93 7 100 NOV 2,653 5 2,658 I DEC 0 9 9 1985 JAN 0 2 2 FEB 0 2 2 I YEARLY TOTAL 5,836 60 5,896 I 99.0 1.0 I 1-26 I I Using this data, two areas were further investigated. First, the area upstream of Station B was examined for possible sources of nutrients. However, other than the wetlands and a trunk sewer, none were found. The I sewer was dye tested, but no evidence of leakage was found. Additionally, most of the trunk line is below grade so exfiltration of sewage is unlikely. The second area investigated was the 1 nl et culvert between Statioiis_C_anjdJ),^sincAJ;he_sample taken at the~~hea~d of~the culvert I contained" less than OJ35jng/l of phosphorus, while the sample taken at the same time downstream"~at"~the lake inlet contained 0.31 mg/1. Although this was only a one-time sample, it indicates that a substarTtTal quantity of I phosphorus enters the inlet culvert underground. Based on subsequent investigations, a likely source of this phosp_hprus is an^aTjacehT^Eac^ dealership where_detepgen,ts and degreasers-containing phosphqrus~^are used I 'to_clean_carslnm -,,,,_,_•" J^^S—S^". t*^"*—. .„,_ ^rn.-r*^-*- .**=-—-— -—•— - ' ' «*J**»»»IHI— •*• —v. -,** •*•" •'^^ •*"'•'- -•«•*'— -u -^ - T- - _ , ^Jta^a,!*^^^^^ Because of the limited data from this additional sampling, the annual phosphorus load that would be expected from nonrpoint sources in the inlet I subwatershed was calculated for comparison using a loading coefficient that was determined for the other subwatershed area. The result was 5.2 kg per ha per yr, or J78(LKg/yr from the 150 ha area. Since there are about JL_._657_. I kg/yr of phosphorus entering the lake from the inlet, it follows that of the remaining 877 kg/yr may be resulting from a point-source from the auto dealership. The amount may actually be less, however, since the upstream wetland probably takes up some of the watershed phosphorus loading I at least during the summer. Although an increase in ammonia concentrations was also noted between the I upstream ends of the culvert, no source was found. I 1.4 ONE YEAR LIMNOLOGIC DATA Figure 12 shows the sampling stations used in the study. An analyses of data collected is described below. Graphs and tables are included in the I Appendix. 1.4.1 TEMPERATURE AND DISSOLVED OXYGEN I The temperature and dissolved oxygen (D.O.) data for the in-lake stations and the outlets show little variation, indicating the well-mixed, well-aerated nature of the lake. There does not appear to be an anaerobic I bottom layer present because of the well-aerated condition. This is substantiated by the January 29, 1985 run, when the largest differences in both temperature and D.O. were found between the bottom and top layers of I the in-lake station during a period where substantial ice cover prevented wind aeration. The inlet station has shown substantial D.O. deficits, from May through I August and again in October through January. This inlet stream begins as a combination of a very small stream from Bear Hill Golf Course and groundwater flow in the wetland area upstream. It then spreads out as it I passes through a large wetland area originally created by the construction of the B & M railroad. A culvert under these tracks causes a backwater I effect and stagnation upstream except during higher flows. I 1-27 LEGEND Main Outlet TOWN •2 Intake Station HALL A Surface B Bottom •3 Inlet •4 Secondary Outlet i FIGURE 12 DIAGNOSTIC/FEASIBILITY STUDY SAMPLING STATIONS LAKE QUANNAPOWITT WAKEFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 0 500 1000 i 1-28 I I Calculation of the percent saturation of the inflow, given on Table 6, shows a normal decrease in D.O. from biological activity from March to July. It then increases dramatically to supersaturation levels in I ' September and falls substantially in October. The supersaturation levels may be due to upstream biological activity during diurnal (daylight) hours, with the reduction in October caused by decomposition and oxygen demand. I However, subsequent winter data does not exhibit the expected increase, remaining below 20% saturation. A comparison with climatologies! data and flow data does not show a good correlation or reason for the low oxygen, indicating that there is a high oxygen demand in the wetland area. It is I possible that this is caused by the stagnant area upstream of the railroad culvert. I 1.4.2 PH AND TOTAL ALKALINITY The normal pH range for freshwater is between 6 and 8. Alkalinity leveljs I should be over 20 mg/1 for the protection of freshwater aquatic life (EPA, 1976). ' Both pH and alkalinity data show normal levels for the lake, with some I minor anomalies such as an alkalinity of 6.8 ppm at the inlet in March of 1984 and 82.1 ppm at the same station in January. This may be related to the elevated phosphorus levels of November 28, since increased phosphates I can be reflected in alkalinity measurements. The cause is not known definitely but is likely to be a result of the high phosphorus levels. I The average alkalinity for "the lake indicates goo_d..buf-£ecing,j:ap_aci.ty_. however, so acid rain ^should not affect the lake for some time. pH is also normal, with summer i'rf-lake increases corresponding well with algae data. i 1.4.3 SUSPENDED AND DISSOLVED SOLIDS The suspended_solidsi _data for all stations has generally been very.Jn'.gb_in I comparison with" levels normally found in this area (DWPC,"Selected Analysis of Unpolluted Waters in Massachusetts) while dissolved sol ids-have been well within state andjFederal water quality standards. The suspended solids levels, and the high turbTdi'ty~of the lake, may partially be due to I the windy. nature__of the lake and subsequent_resus.pens.i-on-of—sediments. This appears reasonable because the highest levels have been found at the bottom of the in-lake station. Incoming levels are only moderately high, • and are probably due to rain events. Another contributing factor may be _ algae blooms since the peaks in chlorophyll ^ concentrations (and • associated bloom conditions) also correlate well with the data. However, • the contribution of each is not known. The dissolved solids levels, while generally within normal ranges, indicate that somewhat higher levels are entering the lake from the inlet, particularly on the last run of January ( 29. TherJanuary 29 levels of conductivity and chloride correspond with these data, probably indicating input of road salt. There is also an — interesting peak on July 26, with all stations showing a peak. At the same i time, these was also a peak for total coliform at the inlet, and fecal streptococcus at all stations. However, the most recent rainfall event was i on July 21st with precipitation totalling 0.16 inches. i 1-29 TABLE 6 PERCENT OXYGEN SATURATION OF INLET WATER 3/21/84 89% 7/21/84 13% 4/4/84 71% 7/26/84 18% 4/18/84 76% 8/14/84 35% 5/2/84 33% 9/5/84 52% 5/11/84 25% 9/26/84 105% 5/23/84 21% 10/25/84 16% 6/7/84 16% 11/28/84 17% 6/21/84 15% 1/29/85 18% 3/8/85 25% 1-30 I I 1.4.4 CONDUCTIVITY AND CHLORIDES While there is no standard for conductivity in freshwater systems, the data I indicate generally higher levels in the inlet than at other stations, with a peak on the January 29 run, as discussed above. The chloride data shows the same basic trend, with the inlet exhibiting generally higher levels. I Since the groundwater in the area is known to have chloride levels in the range of 30-70 mg/L, the inlet levels which peak at 135, 175, and 260 mg/L do appear high. Only the last peak, 260 mg/L, seems to be due to road salt I input. The second peak, at 175 mg/L, was in June, and seems to correspond to elevated levels of alkalinity, Kjeldahl nitrogen, and ammonia. Stock- piling of salt within the drainage area would explain the peak of chloride levels in June, however, mLJialt-Stj^XpiLxLju^^ occur within the I drainage area (personal communication, Public Works). "One possible source is construction use of calcium chloride to control dust somewhere.J.n..t.he I watershed. " """" ~~ 1.4.5 NUTRIENTS The nutrient levels found at all stations of the lake are very high in I comparison with those found in other lakes within the vicinity and in Massachusetts in general (COM, 1950 - 1986 data from recreational and water supply lake studies). Total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) has been excessive I during all runs except for 4 April 1984, showing both high incoming levels and even" higher outgoing levels, which is expected if decomposition is occurring both in the upstream wetlands and in the lake. Ammonia nitrogen, I which can be extremely toxic to aquatic life, has also been very high, particularly from the inlet. Nitrate nitrogen has also been consistently high, but with very irregular peaks. I While all nitrogen parameters have been found in high concentrations for a freshwater system, the phosphorus levels are even more excessive. Interestingly, some of the peaks such as the November 11 peak of 12.1 ppm I of phosphorus may simply be lab errors, although it has been rare to find levels of any of the nutrients that are within normal limits (COM, 1950 - 1986; DWPC Selected Analyses of Unpolluted Waters in Massachusetts). I Essentially, the sheer quantities of nutrients will be very difficult to deal with. Additional sampling for ammonia and phosphorus in the upstream wetland indicates that the source of a large portion of phosphorus enters the inlet culvert underground. However, the source of high ammonia levels I was not found. I 1.4.6 BACTERIA The results of bacterial sampling do not indicate any sewage contamination, and were within Health Department Limits for bathing waters. With the I exception of one peak for fecal streptococcus, peaks in bacterial counts were not excessive compared to other lakes and ponds in the area and are I probably related to specific storm events. 1.5 IN-LAKE DATA Chlorophyll £ data and the density and types of algae were analyzed for I each sampling run at the in-lake station. The counts of algae do not I 1-31 I I generally reflect the high chlorophyll admeasurements, although they follow the same trends. The differences may be a result of the highly windy nature of the lake, since the highest counts were usually found after I several days of little or no wind. 1.6 MACROPHYTQN DATA I A map of aquatic vegetation is shown on Figure 13, and is accompanied by a list of species on Table 7. Heaviest growth occurs in the cove by the I public launching ramp, the yacht club area, and the inlet area. It is notable that heaviest weed growth is generally restricted to the western and northern shorelines of the lake. This is probably attributable I to the prevailing winds and subsequent wave action on the eastern shore and the sharper drop of water levels on the eastern shore. There appear to be two predominant weed related problems: 1) The I excessive growth of pond lillies which interfere with boating activity, and 2) floating pieces of waterweed (Elodea), which gather on the shore near I the main outlet of the pond. 1.7 STORM SURVEYS I The first round of storm water sampling was conducted on November 29, 1984. Grab samples were collected from storm drains A and B located as shown on Figure 14. Beginning with the initial flow, samples were collected at 10 minute intervals for the first half hour of the storm and at 15 minute I intervals for the remainder of the cumulative two hour sampling period. Flow measurements were made each time a sample was collected. I Drain A is a 15-inch concrete culvert draining from the east under Main Street. Drain B is a 18-inch concrete culvert draining into the southern I end of Lake Quannapowitt from the Town Hall area. Although samples were collected for a cumulative two hour period, the one hour after peak flow criterion was in fact the shorter time period. Consequently, the last two samples collected at Drain A and the last sample I collected at Drain B were discarded. A set of samples from each drain was flow-composited for heavy metal analysis. The individual grab samples collected at each drain were analyzed for suspended and dissolved solids, I Kjeldahl-nitrogen, ammonia-nitrogen, nitrate-nitrogen, and total phosphorus. I In addition, a grab sample was collected at each drain before the peak flow and after the peak flow and analyzed for total and fecal coliform. Table 8 lists the results of the laboratory analyses. Figures 15 and 16 display I the flow measurements and concentrations of solids versus the time at each drain. A second storm event was sampled on May 21, 1985. During this event, a I total of 20 samples were collected from drains B and C, shown on Figure 14. Drain C is a 10 inch drain receiving flow from a large area of the watershed to the south and west of the lake. The same analyses were done I on the samples taken during this storm (Table 9), but the full two hour I 1-32 SEE NEXT PAGE FIGURE 13 DIAGNOSTIC/ FEASIBILITY STUDY MACROPHYTE SURVEY i LAKE QUANNAPOWITT WAKEFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS i 1-33 1 1 TABLE 7 KEKEY TO MACROPHYTE DISTRIBUTION MAP 1 MAP KEY RELATIVE 1 SPECIES COMMON NAME SYMBOL ABUNDANCE 1 Sagittaria latifolia Arrowhead SL C Pontederia cordata Pickerelweed PC1 S 1 Peltandra virginica Arrow-arum PV C Nymphaea ordorata Water lily or N A 1 Pond lily Nuphar variegatum Yellow pond lilly N A 1 or Spatterdock Elodea canadensis Waterweed or EC C 1 ditch moss 1 Wolf fiell a Watermeal W S Scirpus validus Bui rush SV S 1 Ly thrum sail can" a Purple loosestrife LS A Sparganium spp. Bur-reed Sl S 1 Typha spp. Cattail T S Betula spp. Gray bi rch B A 1 American white birch 1 Cornus stolonifera Red osier dogwood CS A Cephalanthus occidental is Buttonbush CO C 1 Fraxinus nigra Black ash FN S 1 Quercus rubra Red oak QR C 1 1 1 1-34 I I TABLE 7 (continued) RELATIVE I SPECIES COMMON NAME IYMBOL ABUNDANCE I Acer rubrum Red maple AR C Ulmus americana American elm UA S I Robinia pseudo-acacia Black locust RP C I Gleditsta triacanthos Honey locust GT C Eupatorium maculatum Joe-Pye-weed EM S I Bidens tripartita BT S I Prunus serotlna Black cherry PS S Platanus occidentals Sycamore PO S I Echinochloa crusgalli Barnyard-grass EC C Cyperus strigosus Umbrella sedge CS C I Kalmla angustifolia Sheep laurel KA C Phragmites communls Phragmites PC2 S I Populus ssp. Poplar P S Salix ssp. Black willow So A I Weeping wi How I I I I I I I 1-35 DRAINS DRAIN CQ LEGEND •1 Main Outlet TOWN 02 InLake Station HALL A Surface B Bottom •3 Inlet •4 Secondary Outlet FIGURE 14 DIAGNOSTIC/FEASIBILITY STUDY STORM DRAINS LAKE QUANNAPOWITT 10 500 1000 WAKEFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 1-36 I I TABLE 8 I RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF STORM DRAIN SAMPLING (11/29/84) DRAIN A TIME (MINUTES) I Constituent PEAK I 0 10 20 30 45 60 75 90 105 Suspended Solids (mg/L) 68.4 70.2 106.0 133.6 108 68.4 30.8 56 - - Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 97.5 311.3 255 142.5 68.8 102.5 340 128.! I 33 2.19 1.75 1.56 1.41 1.20 1.87 1.39 - - Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/L) 1. Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/L) 0.68 0.66 0.68 0.67 0.50 0.40 0.31 0.34 - - Nitrate Nitrogen (mg/L) 0.5 1.4 1.0 0.6 0.7 0.7 1.4 0.8 - - I Total Phosphorus (mg/L) 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.16 0.05 0.14 0.20 0.15 - - Total Col ifonn (No/100 ml) before peak ; 6500 after peak: 1800 I Fecal Colifonn (No/100 ml) before peak : 1900 after peak: 700 Metals Flow Composite Chromium (mg/L) <0.05 I Manganese (mg/L) 0.34 Iron (mg/L) 3.71 Copper (mg/L) 0.10 I Zinc (mg/L) 0.96 Cadmium (mg/L) <0.05 I Lead (mg/L) 0.13 DRAIN TIME (MINUTES) I Constituent PEAK I 0 10 20 30 45 60 75 90 105 Suspended Solids (mg/L) 145. 6 122.8 111.2 204.8 202.4 60.4 17.2 19.6 9.2 I Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 138. 3 126.7 71.7 63.3 45.0 55.0 13.3 13.3 31.7 Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/L) 2.10 2.36 1.82 1.27 1.08 0.99 0.97 1.31 1.29 Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/L) 1.74 1.69 1.10 0.88 0.57 0.51 0.58 0.37 0.48 Nitrate Nitrogen (mg/L) 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.3 0.3 I 0.49 0.46 0.03 0.33 0.70 0.52 0.58 0.73 Total Phosphorus (mg/L) 0.52 Total Coliform (No/100 ml) before peak: 12,300 after peak: 7,300 I Fecal Coliform (No/100 ml) before peak: 2,300 after peak: 800 Metals Flow Composite I Chromium (mg/L) <0.05 Manganese (mg/L) 0.14 Iron (mg/L) 2.42 I Copper (mg/L) <0.05 Zinc (mg/L) 0.19 Cadmium (mg/L) <0.05 I Lead (mg/L) 0.19 1-37 • Flow (liters per second) • SUSPENDED SOLIDS (mg/0 f DISSOLVED SOLIDS (mgrt) 90 120 TIME 105 FIGURE 15 FLOW MEASUREMENTS AND CONCENTRATIONS VS. TIME AT DRAIN A (11-29-84) DRAIN B FLOW (liters per second) SUSPENDED SOLIDS (mg/l) 250 - DISSOLVED SOLIDS (mg/l) 200 - -20 150 - 100 - O O 0 90 105 120 TIME FIGURE 16 FLOW MEASUREMENTS AND CONCENTRATIONS VS. TIME AT DRAIN B (11-29-84) 1 1 TABLE 9 RESULTS OF ANALYSES OF STORM DRAIN SAMPLING (5/21/85) 1DRAIN B TIME (MINUTES) Constituent PEAK 0 10 20 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 Armenia Nitrogen (mg/L) 1.28 1.47 2.00 1.83 1.70 1.69 1.15 1.08 1.07 1.29 Nitrate Nitrogen (mg/L) 4.4 4.0 7.4 6.4 0.3 0.8 1.0 0.6 0.6 0.5 Total Phosphorous (mg/L) 1.05 1.42 1.28 1.86 1.43 1.43 1.17 1.52 1.53 0.97 Suspended Solids (mg/L) 28.6 35.6 23.6 10.6 38.8 50.8 38.0 157.2 91.6 76.0 Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 775 463 524 369 154 73 55 40 28 44 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/L) 5.98 7.07 8.20 6.63 4.44 2.89 2.84 3.10 3.44 3.57 1Total Coliform (No. /100ml) before peak: 30,000 after peak: 82,000 Fecal Colifom (No./100/ml) before peak: .100 after peak: 300 1Metals Flow Composite •• Chromium (mg/L) <0.05 Manganese (mg/L 0.07 Iron (mg/L) 1.36 Copper (mg/L) 0.08 Zinc (mg/L) 0.36 Cadmium (mg/L) <0.05 Lead (mg/L) 0.063 1DRAIN C TIME (MINUTES) Constituent PEAK 1 20 30 45 60 75 90 105 120 • 0 10 Ammonia Nitrogen (mg/L) 3.21 2.48 2.42 2.89 2.80 2.01 1.12 1.05 0.83 1.06 1Nitrate Nitrogen (mg/L) 3.0 2.4 2.3 2.9 2.7 2.1 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.8 Total Phosphorous (mg/L) 1.22 1.52 1.10 1.13 1.12 0.35 0.85 1.03 1.04 1.08 Suspended Solids (mg/L) 72.8 84.8 56.0 38.8 48.0 49.2 49.6 41.2 49.2 137.2 1Dissolved Solids (mg/L) 138 82 78 92 99 54.0 40.3 38.0 35.3 30.6 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen (mg/L) 7.36 . 5.98 4.93 5.23 5.29 4.14 2.81 2.73 3.13 3.13 Total Coliform (No./lOO ml) before peak: 50,000 after peak: T.N.T.C. Fecal Colifom (No./100/ml) before peak : <100 after peak: 300 1Metal s Flow Composite Chromium (mg/L) <0.05 Manganese (mg/L 0.09 Iron (mg/L) 0.63 Copper (mg/L) 0.05 Zinc (mg/L) 3,46 Cadmium (mg/L) <0.05 Lead (mg/L) 0.019 1 1-40 I I period was sampled due to the length of the storm. Figures 17 and 18 display the flow measurements and concentrations of solids versus the time I at each of these drains. Results of the analysis indicate generally higher suspended solids during the November run, with the highest concentrations found at Drain B. I Dissolved solids were highest at Drain A in November, but highest at Drain C in May. Flow peaks for the November storm occurred at 30 minutes for Drain A and at 45 minutes for Drain B, probably reflecting the larger drainage area of Drain B. During the May storm, flow did not peak until 90 I minutes at Drain B and 120 minutes at Drain C, although the flow at Drain B was greater in volume. I As might be expected, phosphorus, ammonia nitrogen, and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN) concentrations were much higher during the May storm_ttiaj]i the November ev.eitt. The highest concentrations of phosphorus and TKN were I foUncTat Drain B during the May storm, while the highest concentrations of ammonia nitrogen were found at Drain C during the May storm. Suspended and dissolved solids, ammonia nitrogen, and TKN concentrations I tended to peak during the early portions of both storms at all drains. However, phosphorus concentrations tended to remain fairly constant I throughout the storms at all drains. Metals analyses were conducted as a flow-weighted composite for each storm on each drain. Metals concentrations were generally higher during the I November storm, with Drain A having the highest concentrations of manganese, iron and copper. The highest concentrations of lead were found at Drain B during the November storm, while the highest concentrations of zinc were found at Drain C during the May event. Cadmium and chromium were I below detection limits for all samples. In general, all measurements were similar or lower than those found by COM I at several other lakes in the region during the same time period (1984 - 1985). I 1.8 SEDIMENT ANALYSIS A composite sediment sample was taken on March 11, 1985, and was analyzed I for a number of parameters as shown in Table 10. The results indicate that the material will be classified as Category 2 Type C in the Division of Water Pollution Control classification, which I means it will be normally approvable for most types of disposal with I effluent control. Figure 19 shows the depth of sediments for the lake. I I I 1-41 DRAIN B Flow (liters per second) SUSPENDED SOLIDS (mg/l) DISSOLVED SOLIDS (mg/l) 250 Dissolved Solids Suspended Solids \ 120 o ,- «, w - T|ME FIGURE 17 FLOW MEASUREMENTS AND CONCENTRATIONS VS. TIME AT DRAIN B (5-21-85) DRAIN C • Flow (liters per second) 800 • SUSPENDED SOLIDS (mg/l) T DISSOLVED SOLIDS (mg/l) 14 12 O o HI DC + 10 K o0c) *»•3» Dissolved Solids + 8 if I 4 6 ^Suspended Solids 0 105 120 TIME FIGURE 18 FLOW MEASUREMENTS AND CONCENTRATIONS VS. TIME AT DRAIN C (5-21-85) 1 1 TABLE 10 COMPOSITE SEDIMENT ANALYSES 1 LAKE QUANNAPOWITT 1^B PARAMETER SEDIMENT 1 1) Total nitrogen 266.2 mg/kg* 1 2) Total phosphorous 8.0 mg/kg* 3) Organic/Inorganic Fraction 1 ( loss on ignition) 6.15% 4} Heavy metals - Chromium 80 mg/kg 1 - Manganese 464 - Iron 7056 - Copper 95 1 - Zinc 243 - Cadmium 7 1 r Lead 76 5) Grain size analyses 1 MICRON SIZE FREQUENCY % -7.5 37.73 1 7.5 x 15 20.91 1 15 x 30 21.82 30 x 60 11.54 1 60 x 120 4.18 120 x 180 1.82 1 180 x 240 1.46 1 + 240 Q.54 1 * Wet weight, other analyses are dry weight 1 1 1-44 DEPTH OF SEDIMENT less than 1 foot 1-3 feet -i=E=i=: 3-5 feet IJlii more than 5 feet (Mi**** L I area not surveyed FIGURE 19 DIAGNOSTIC/FEASIBILITY STUDY DEPTH OF SEDIMENT LAKE QUANNAPOWITT WAKEFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 1-45 I I I I U — ~M p "' ~ Q ^ I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I SECTION 2 I FEASIBILITY STUDY 2.1 ALTERNATIVE IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING I The full list of alternative technologies considered for Lake Quannapowitt is shown on Table 11. These alternatives were evaluated using the I following criteria: Complexity - difficulty of operation and maintenance Flexibility - ability to adapt to changing conditions - I Experience - past success/failure of component options Effectiveness - proven capability to produce desired "results Biological - impacts on terrestrial and aquatic organisms or habitats I Recreational - ability to produce desired recreational improvements The matrix analyses, shown on Table 12, rates each alternative based on I (++) highly beneficial or excellent; (+) beneficial or good; (0) ineffective or neutral; (-} adverse or poor. Based on this, several I alteratives were eliminated or modified as described below. 2.1.1 FIRST SCREENING I jJredging The size of Lake Quannapowitt makes complete dredging impractical. In addition, dredging can cause sediment resuspension and nutrient release, I particularly in a well-mixed, turbulent lake such as this. For these reasons, dredging will only be considered in limited areas of high aquatic I weed growth. Aeration and Mixing Based on the data base compiled to date, the lake is already highly aerated I from strong local winds and the large surface area vs. shallow depth of the lake. Anaerobic conditions have not been found in the bottom layers of the lake, so nutrient release is probably minimal. Therefore, aeration and/or I mixing would probably be ineffective and unnecessary. I Diversions The Carr Report suggests diversion of the inlet and a storm drain located just west of the main outlet. Any diversions, however, may result in I exacerbated downstream flooding impacts or impacts on the Saugus River water quality—used as a water supply downstream," Since flooding downstream has been a chronic problem for years, and since I the Saugus River essentially forms part of Lynn's water supply, these I diversions are not recommended. I 2-1 I I TABLE 11 I LIST OF TECHNOLOGIES I I PHYSICAL BIOLOGICAL •Dredging • Fish removal and restocking I • Weed Harvesting • Algae and zooplankton species manipulation • Aeration • Wetland treatment I • Mixing • Diversion of stormdrains • Treatment of inflows CHEMICAL I • Benthic barriers • Sewer inspections • Algicides I • Dilution • Chemical precipitation • Drawdown • Light blockage I • Trace chemical addition I CULTURAL I • Public education programs I I I I I I I 2-2 I I TABLE 12 I PRELIMINARY ALTERNATIVE SCREENING I I I Alternative Comments Dredging + 0 ++ + - + Restrict to limited areas Weed Harvesting 0 + ++ + 0 + Compare to dredging I Aeration 0 0 0 Eliminate Mixing 0 0 0 Eliminate Diversions 0 0 0 - 0 Eliminate Treat Inflow 0 0 + + 0 + Investigate nutrient budget I Sediment Blankets - + + 0 + Compare to dredging Sewer inspections + + + + + To be investigated Dilution - 0 0 0 0 Eliminate I Drawdown 0 0 0 0 0 Eliminate Fish removal - + + + + Investigate need based on and restocking nutrient budget I Algae & Zooplankton - 0 0 0 0 Eliminate manipulation Wetlands Treatment 0 + 0 Eliminate Algicides/Herbicides + + 0 - + Compare to long-term measures I Chemical Precipitation + + 0 0 0 Eliminate Light Blockage 0 0 0 0 0 Eliminate Trace Chemical Addition + + 0 0 0 Investigate benefit I Public Education + + + + + Develop program needs Key ++ highly beneficial or excellent I + beneficial or good 0 ineffective or no effect I - adverse or poor I I I I I 2-3 I I In addition, the storm drain just west of the outlet mentioned in the Cam report was never found to be flowing during this study. It is unlikely that it contributes significantly to the lake's nutrient load, particularly I in light of its proximity to the outlet. I Dilution and Drawdown These alternatives were eliminated for two reasons: 1) they are I impractical; and 2) their effectiveness is questionable. First, there is no ready source of dilution water to the lake. In addition, the large volume of the lake would require a substantial amount of dilution water for effectiveness. In the second case, available I drawdown over the winter months is not substantial, and in addition, the lake is currently drawn down to the level possible every winter—with little apparent effect on aquatic weeds. For this reason, drawdown will I not be considered for treatment of the lake, but may be used with other alternatives to assist construction activities. I Algae and Zooplankton Species Manipulation In recent years, there has been some interest in various "biological manipulations such as the addition of zooplankton to ponds to consume algae I instead of using algicides. Unfortunately, there is little practical experience with this technology, and what there is has generally been pilot scale or on very small ponds. Because of 1) the lack of experience; 2} I the fact that the algal problem is a secondary problem in this case; and 3) the large volume of Lake Quannapowitt, it has been eliminated. I Wetlands Treatment Wetlands treatment, while becoming a popular technology, still requires a large amount of space for implementation. In the case of Lake I Quannapowitt, a large wetlands area already occupies the upstream portions of the inlet. The incoming water quality from this inlet is not particularly good, and this may be a result of an above grade culvert where I the B & M railroad tracks cross the wetland. This culvert apparently causes stagnation in the wetland area. However, the wetland area is also expanded by this backwater effect, and repairing/replacing the culvert I would drain part of the wetlands. Since the wetlands are very diverse and high quality, it appears that the .environmental effects of replacing the culvert might be excessive in comparison to the limited benefits. I Chemical Precipitation As discussed under aeration and mixing, an anaerobic layer was not found in I Lake Quannapowitt, making it unlikely that nutrient release from sediments is a substantial problem. Chemical precipitation of nutrients, then, would I probably be ineffective. Another possible method to reduce nutrient release to the water column from sediment resuspension is the use of a fly ash layer over the sediments. However, fly ash generally contains various pollutants from the incineration I process, and there are no known sources of "clean" fly ash in this area. I 2-4 I I Light Blockage Currently, the turbulence and algal growth in the lake are thought to limit I light penetration. Because of this, serious weed problems are generally found only in areas less than one meter deep. I Because application rates for any light blocking chemical would be large and difficult to control, and because of the unknown effects of these chemicals on water supplies downstream, particularly aesthetics, this I alternative has been eliminated. The remainder of the alternatives shown on Table 13 are evaluated further below based on their effectiveness in dealing with the lake's primary I problems. I 2.1.2 BASIS FOR SECOND SCREENING Lake Quannapowitt has three primary problems, including 1) heavy aquatic weed growth that interferes with recreational boating and swimming; 2) I severe algal blooms that reduce the clarity of the water, cause odor problems, and can result in unsightly conditions; and 3) low clarity that sometimes falls below standards for bathing waters and reduces the I aesthetic valuve of the lake. Each of these problems and their primary causes are described below. I Aquatic Weeds There are two primary types of aquatic weeds in the lake, Elpdea or waterweed, and pond lillies. The waterweed is a serious problem in early I summer, with floating masses covering a large part of the lake. Both white and yellow pond lilly become problematic later in the summer, and also I cover large areas. Essentially, these plants interfere with boating, making some areas of the lake impossible to travel through. I Many of the problems seen in the lake, particularly in the late summer, are a result of free-floating masses of waterweed and other species that tend to blow to the north or south sides of the lake with the prevailing winds, I ending up on one of the two beaches where they decompose. In Lake Quannapowitt, the shallow depth near the shoreline allows light penetration to the bottom, resulting in nuisance aquatic weed growth. I Because of the prevailing winds and the "coves" on the west side of the lake, this side experiences the most severe problems. A reduction in nutrients, which are required for plant growth, is not expected to signifi- I cantly reduce the weed problem in this lake since the sediments appear to have adequate levels of nutrients for the growth of aquatic weeds. I Algal Blooms Several bloom conditions were recorded in Lake Quannapowitt through the I sampling period. The most predominant algal species was Anabaena, which can cause odor problems as well as unsightly conditions. As with aquatic I 2-5 I I TABLE 13 I ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT • Limited Dredging I • Weed Harvesting • Treatment of Inflow I • Benthic Barriers • Fish Removal and Restocking • • Algicides • • Herbicides • • Trace Chemical Addition • Public Education Programs I I I I I I I I I I I I 2-6 weeds, the prevailing winds tend to blow the algae to the north or south beaches, where they sometimes form a scum. Under calm conditions, the heavy blooms can form mats on the surface in various parts of the lake. The high nutrient levels, particularly phosphorus, now found in the water column of the lake are the primary cause of the severe algal blooms. Low Clarity The low clarity of the lake results in benefits as well as problems. High turbidity reduces the actual area that aquatic weeds can infest, as well as limiting growth of algae, since plant life requires sunlight for growth and reproduction. However, it also interferes with the recreation and the aesthetics of the lake. Low clarity is caused by three main factors: 1} The generally high wind action on the lake; 2) the fine sediments on the bottom of the lake that are easily resuspended by water movements; and 3) the severe algal blooms. 2.1.3 SECOND SCREENING Using these primary problems as a basis, the purpose of the second screening is to look more closely at the nine alternatives remaining after the initial screening. The reasons for retaining or eliminating each of these is discussed below. Limited Dredging Limited dredging of problem areas of the lake would partially address the aquatic weed problem. The primary advantages are that it is a relatively long-term alternative, it requires no operation or maintenance, and it should be quite effective where applied. There are no locally available dredge spoil disposal areas, so on-site disposal may be preferable where any dredging is done. This would consist of building a crushed rock containment berm for dewatering of the spoils adjacent to areas dredged. To assure thorough dewatering, dredging would take place in late fall following drawdown of the lake to the greatest extent possible. Drawdown may be further enhanced by minor alterations to the spillway. Dredging of the worst ten acres with on-site disposal would cost on the order of $500,000. It would actually create a weed-free area of about 20 acres including the spoil areas which would be grassed open space. Weed Harvesting Weed harvesting over the 10-20 acres considered for limited dredging could be accomplished at the cost of about $10,000 to $20,000 per year based on an estimated basic cost of $500/acre and two cuttings per summer season. The limitation of harvesting is that it must be done each year and thus 2-7 I I results in a much larger cost over a 20 year planning period (approximately $700,000 future value). It also does nothing to treat the source of the problem, but has been retained for comparison with dredging. In addition, I the purchase of a weed harvester that could be operated on an as-needed basis by town personnel may be a more practical alternative and will be retained as an alternative for use in conjunction with other alternatives. I An adequately sized harvester for this type of use is expected to cost about $50,000. I Treatment of Inflow, Treatment of inflow, unless accomplished in very simple ways, is generally prohibitively expensive due to the large variations in inlet flow which I must be accounted for. For example, a man-made wetlands treatment system on the inlet such as those used in wastewater treatment is estimated to require about $1,500,000 in construction monies with effective nutrient I control limited only to the summer months. Such an alternative also would require considerable modification to the existing wetland system and will I not be considered further. As a "sub" alternative of inflow treatment, a sediment trap or berm could be constructed at the main inlet. This positive, structural control would be placed in shallow water around the inlet. It would consist of two I simple berms of crushed stone with soil or a sand/clay mixture between. A construction cost of $50,000 to $75,000 is expected. This type of berm will necessitate annual cleaning to maintain its effectiveness and possible I eventual replacement of the soil. The lake would be drawn down to the greatest extent possible to accomplish the work. I Benthic Barriers (such as Aquascreen). As an alternative to dredging, a sediment cover or benthic barrier of synthetic material has been considered. High density 30 mil polyethylene I or similar sheets of synthetic material would be placed in shallow water areas and anchored with concrete blocks or weights. If solid sheets were utilized, small holes or ports would have to be provided to vent gases I found in the decomposing matter in the sediments. At the shoreline, the material would be covered with a layer of sand for aesthetic reasons. This alternative has an effect similar to dredging, especially in the shallow I water areas. The estimated construction cost is about $450,000, to cover about 20 acres. I There is considerably less sediment disturbance than with dredging and therefore less potential for environmental damage. However, the liner will probably need to be removed each fall and replaced in the spring, adding a I substantial operations and maintenance cost. Also, this material is relatively untested and its actual duration of effectiveness is unknown. As with dredging, the cost may be reduced by I limiting the number of acres treated, but again the effectiveness will be I proportionately reduced. I 2-8 I I Fish Removal and Restocking I Based on the large external phosphorus loadings, removal and restocking of fish are not expected to significantly affect the nutrient budget. Additionally, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service annually stocks the lake, and the popular gamefish in the lake would be destroyed along with the I trash fish. For these reasons, this alternative has been eliminated. I Algicides/Herbicides Use of algicides/herbicides is not considered a long-term measure. Although herbicides could have limited application in shore areas, the dead I aquatic plants would create nuisance conditions, especially in boat mooring areas, and add to the nutrient problems. Because the other methods consi- dered here have the potential for long-range effectiveness, these chemical I application alternatives have been eliminated from further consideration. Trace Chemical Addition I It may be possible to add silica to the lake in late spring to allow diatoms (algae) to continue to dominate the phytoplankton population. Theoretically, nuisance blue-green algae would not be able to reproduce I into "bloom" conditions because of competition with diatoms. However, silica measurements were not made during the study, so the effectiveness of this alternative is unknown. It should therefore be considered only on a "test-case" basis if phosphorus in the water column is not substantially I reduced by removal" of point sources and other methods. I Public Education Programs Fertilizer use on lawns, cemeteries, and golf courses in the watershed should be reduced if possible, and the use of detergents containing I phosphorus should be eliminated, particularly for boat washing in the lake but also for car wa£hing_J_n_t.he^wa,tershed. Since phosphorus-_free_ detergents are generally available,_i.t. .is simply a matter of educating re~sTdehts~abbut the problems with phosphorus-based detergents as well as I informing them how to reduce fertilizer use. A program to distribute this information should be included in any project implemented at Lake I Quannapowitt. 2.2 FINAL ALTERNATIVES I A total of nineteen alternative technologies were evaluated during the first part of the feasibility study. Ten of these were eliminated during the first screening since they were inappropriate to site-specific I conditions at Lake Quannapowitt. Five more alternatives were eliminated during a second, more detailed screening since their effectiveness was found to be very limited. Of the I remaining four alternatives, one was selected for definite inclusion in the I project. This is the development of a public education program. I 2-9 I I The remaining alternatives were developed into two alternative "projects", using combinations of the four. These are described below, and their I advantages and disadvantages are listed on Table 14. ,2.2.1 ALTERNATIVE 1: LIMITED DREDGING AND INLET BERM I Project Description In this project, dredge spoil is disposed on-site behind a berm since there I is no available disposal site in the area, and transportation to a landfill, if one could be found with available space, would make the option considerably more expensive. I In addition, a bermed control structure is included at the inlet to reduce siltation and filling in of the lake, and to reduce phosphorus by sedimentation. The sedimentation basin created by the berm would require I periodic cleaning to maintain its effectiveness. A soil layer that would filter out dissolved phosphorus could be added to I the berm. The technology has been used for the treatment of wastewater plant effluent, but its effectiveness under saturated conditions is unknown. At Lake Quannapowitt, it would probably be most effective when the inlet flow is increasing and passing through previously unsaturated I portions of the berm. However, the use of the sediment control structure would be expected to reduce particulate phosphorus substantially. I Although extensive dredging was examined, if all weedy areas were dredged, the cost could exceed 6 million dollars (not including disposal), so the acreage to be dredged was reduced. If some of the worst weed-infested areas I on the west side of the lake are dredged using hydraulic dredging, the project is more reasonable. The alternative shown on Figure 20 comprises dredging of about 45,000-55,000 cubic yards of material, with disposal in a I bermed area near the Lord Wakefield Inn. Additionally, the project includes the purchase of a small weed harvester to be operated by town personnel on an as-needed basis. Because of the I large size of the lake and the extensive weed problem, the approximately $50,000 investment would be considerably more cost-effective than contracted weed harvesting at about $10,000-20,000 per year over a 20 year I planning period. A cost summary is given on Table 15. Effect on Nutrient Budget I As mentioned in Section 1, elimination of the suspected point source (auto dealership) to the inlet would result in a reduction of the phosphorus load to 1,570 kg/yr. Particulate phosphorus makes up from 50% to 90% of the phos I iphgr;us 1m watershed runoff. With a sedimentation basin designed to remove 98% of the suspended particles, it was assumed that the inlet load could be further reduced by 70% resulting in an annual load of 1,024 kg. It was I then assumed that the use of a phosphorus-free fertilizer such as "Lakeshore Lawn Fertilizer" could further reduce phosphorus loading by 30%, resulting in a total annual load of 717 kg. The effect of the sand/clay layer in removing dissolved phosphorus is impossible to predict because of I the many unknown factors. For this reason, no reduction from the sand/clay I 2-10 TABLE 14 SUMMARY OF ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF FINAL ALTERNATIVES ALTERNATIVE COMPONENTS ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES • Limited Dredging • Good expected High capital expense, effectiveness somewhat limited • Inlet Berm knowledge of degree • Low annual cost of effectiveness of • Weed Harvester inlet, berm, some Purchase minor maintenance • Sediment Blanket • Reduced capital High annual expense, expense symptomatic treat- • Floating Booms ment only, possible maintenance problems • Contracted Weed with bl anket and Harvesting unknown length of effectiveness 2-11 I I I I •V*!. JX AREAS OF DREDGING I-- BERMS fpNEW LAND AREAS -""•MADE USING DREDGED I MATERIAL FIGURE 20 DIAGNOSTIC/FEASIBILITY STUDY ALTERNATIVE 1 LAKE QUANNAPOW1TT WAKEF1ELD, MASSACHUSETTS 500 100Q 2-12 I TABLE 15 I COST COMPARISON OF FINAL ALTERNATIVES i ALTERNATIVE COMPONENTS ANNUAL COST'1' CAPITAL COST 1 Limited Dredging - - - $500,000-$575,000 | Inlet Berm $ 1,500^ 50,000- 75,000 Weed Harvester Purchase 2,000^) 50,000 i TOTAL 3,500 5600,000-5700,000^^ 2 Sediment Blanket 5 5,000^' $450,000-5500,000 | Floating Booms 2,000^3' 10,000- 17,000 Contracted Weed Harvesting $10,000-520,000 - - - i TOTAL $17,000-527,000 5460,000-5517,OOO^4' i | * J Operations and Maintenance Cost - Not covered under lakes grant program. (2) Capital cost includes 25% Engineering and Contingencies. Does not include any land-taking. • (3\ v ' Operation and maintenance to be performed by DPW personnel--not fundable • as "in-kind" services. (A\ i x ' Does not include inflation. i i i i i 2-13 I I layer was added. In addition, with weed harvesting taking place twice each year, 224 kg/yr would be eliminated from the internal loading, assuming 2 kg/ha phosphorus removal (Hutchinson, A Treatise on Limnology III, 1975). I The trophic status was calculated using the Dillon/Rigler method (Figure 21). Although the results look promising, they should be interpreted with I caution since this model assumes phosphorus limitation. 2.2.2 ALTERNATIVE 2: WEED CONTROL LINER I Project Description The components of this alternative are use of a liner to control weeds along the western edge of the pond. It also includes contracted weed I harvesting, with two cuttings per season, and two weed control booms at the beach areas to collect floating weeds. I The sediment blanket involves a high density 20 mil polyethylene or similar sheets of synthetic material to be placed in shallow water areas and anchored with concrete blocks or weights. If solid sheets are utilized, I small holes or ports would have to be provided to vent gases found in the decomposing matter in the sediments. At the shoreline, the material would be covered with a layer of sand for aesthetic reasons. I There is considerably less sediment disturbance than with dredging and therefore less potential for environmental damage. If limited areas of the liner become covered with enough silt to support plant growth, the areas I can be recovered or the liner cleaned hydraulically. However, this adds a yearly maintenance cost not found in Alternative 1, I Because the sediment blanket would not cover all weedy areas of the lake, annual weed harvesting (two cuttings) is also included. The harvesting would be accomplished by a contractor as in the past. Weed/algae control booms are included at the beach areas to prevent wash up of materials, I particularly algae, which will remain during some portions of the year. I Effect on Nutrient Budget Alternative No. 2 is not expected to have as significant an effect on the nutrient budget. The only changes will be: 1) the improvements gained I from removing the phosphorus source from the inlet (auto dealership), which will occur with either alternative, and the effects of the public education program in reducing fertilizer use; and 2) the removal of the weed biomass with semiannual weed harvesting. The_j£0phic st,a.tus__was calculated as I shown on Figure 21. I 2.2.3 SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Because of the significantly higher phosphorus removal found in Alternative 1, as well as its smaller annual cost and greater reliability, this I alternative has been selected for implementation. The exact effect on algal growth caused by the inlet berm is not known. However, it is likely that there will be some reduction in the degree or frequency of the massive I blooms that now occur. It is also likely that turbidity in the lake will be reduced, resulting in greater clarity and less chance of beach closure I 2-14 I I I I I I PRESENT TROPHIC STATUS I I I I I I I 0.01 1.0 10.0 100.0 I MEAN DEPTH (m) I L: AREAL PHOSPHORUS LOADING (g/nAyr) I R: PHOSPHORUS RETENTION COEFFICIENT I T: HYDRAULIC RETENTION TIME I FIGURE 21 LAKE QUANNAPOWITT I DILLON/RIGLER TROPHIC STATUS WAKEFIELD MA I I due to low clarity. The final benefit will be the control of aquatic weeds by frequent as-needed weed harvesting. This will be beneficial in that aquatic weeds can be thoroughly controlled with only a small annual cost, I and in addition, the biomass of the weeds will be removed from the lake thereby reducing the nutrient input from their decomposition. (See Table I 16 for a cost breakdown of the selected alternative.)' Although Lake Quannapowitt cannot be totally renovated because of its high nutrient levels, the choice of no-action does not seem plausible. The I "no-action" alternative would result in continued and rapid degradation of the recreational potential of the lake, with a probable increase in beach closures due to low clarity, and a worsening of poor aesthetic conditions and interference with recreation. Considering the current heavy I recreational use of the lake and its central location in the Town, the effects of no action would be severe. I 2.3 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Two public meetings were held in Wakefield to discuss the project, review findings, and obtain input from the affected residents. The first meeting I was held on October 17, 1984, and was attended by about 20 persons. During this meeting, the purpose of the study, the findings-to-date, and the preliminary alternatives were reviewed. The residents expressed strong I interest in preserving the lake for recreation, and expressed no definitive preferences or prejudices for any particular alternative. I The second public meeting was held in the summer of 1985 near the end of the study. Again, about 20 interested residents were present, including members of the Conservation Commission. The final alternatives and results I of the study were presented to obtain input on what the selected alternative project should be. Support for the project was evident, although no real preference between alternatives was shown. One concern expressed was that any berm on the inlet should not cause upstream I flooding. The primary concern, however, was that weed problems should be alleviated as much as possible. I 2.4 SCHEDULING AND MONITORING PROGRAM I 2.4.1 SCHEDULE The milestone schedule below outlines the tasks to be completed before and during implementation of the project. The responsibility for each task is I also noted. Milestone Pate Task Responsibility I November 1, 1985 Deadline for Draft Final Phase I Report Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. I January 15, 1986 Deadline for Prioritization Division of Water for Funding Pollution Control (DWPC) May 15, 1986 Deadline for Local Match I Commitment Town of Wakefield I 2-16 1 1^w TABLE 16 1 COST BREAKDOWN OF SELECTED ALTERNATIVE Est. Annual ' ' Est. Capital il 1 Components Cost Cost Work Covered by 1 Chapter 628 1. Limited Dredging $500,000-$575, 000 2. Inlet Berm - - - $ 50,000-$ 75, 000 3. Weed Harvester Purchase $ 50,000 I 4. Modification to Outlet $ 5,000-$ 10, 000 1 •• Work Not Covered By Chapter 628 5. Maintenance and Cleaning of Inlet Berm $1,500 6. Operation of Weed 1 Harvester $2,000 1 TOTAL COST $3,500 $605,000-$710, 000 1 (1) v ' Al 1 costs are estimates only (2) 1 v ' Includes 25% Engineering and Contingencies 1 1 1 1 1 1 2-17 I I Milestone Date Task Responsibility I May 31, 1986 Deadline for Full Program Requirements Compliance Town of Wakefield July 1, 1986 Development and Approval of Division of Water I Substate Agreement Pollution Control I Purchase Weed Harvester Town of Wakefield July 15, 1986 Issue Phase II Request for I Proposals Town of Wakefield August 1, 1986 Deadline for Proposals Town of Wakefield August 10, 1986 Selection of Consultant for I Final Design Town of Wakefield I August 15, 1986 Begin Final Design Consultant September 15, 1986 Submit Permits Consultant I October 15, 1986 Pre-bid Conference Consultant October 31, 1986 Select Contractor Town of Wakefield, I Consultant November 15, 1986 Begin Construction Contractor I January 15, 1987 Completion of Construction Contractor I 2.4.2 MONITORING PROGRAM For the interim before construction begins, monthly monitoring should be conducted beginning in June to determine the effect of removing the phosphorus loading from the inlet culvert (suspected to be from the car I dealership), and to establish a baseline for dissolved and particulate phosphorus. This monthly monitoring should continue through construction I (to begin in November of 1986) and through the following October (1987). Seasonal sampling should then continue through the three year post- construction monitoring period (through October of 1989). The schedule is I summarized in Table 17. Parameters for all sampling runs should include the following: I (1) temperature profiles with one meter intervals (2) dissolved oxygen profiles with one meter intervals (3) pH I (4) suspended solids (5) dissolved solids (6) conductivity I (6a) chlorides (7) Kjeldahl-nitrogen I 2-18 TABLE 17 MONITORING SCHEDULE Month YEAR i L H A M_ 2 2 A I 2 1 2 1986 X X X X X X X 1987 X X X X X X X X X X 1988 X X X X 1989 X X X X 2-19 (8) ammonia-nitrogen (9) nitrate-nitrogen (10) phosphorus; dissolved and participate (11) iron (12) silica (13) flow rate (14) total and fecal coliform bacteria (15) phytoplankton (16) chlorophyll a_ Parameters 1 through 12 must be measured at the surface and bottom of the in-lake station, and the inlet and outlet (except as noted). Flow rate will be measured at the inlet and the outlets. Total and fecal coliform will be measured at the inlet and outlet and the surface of the in-lake station. Phytoplankton and chlorophyll a_ will be measured at the surface of the in-lake station, Table 18 summarizes the proposed schedule for spending and completion of work, 2.5 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION 2.5.1 HISTORICAL REVIEW A letter from the Massachusetts Historical Commission is included in the Appendix. No archaeological/historical resources are known to occur in areas to be disturbed. 2.5.2 CHEMICAL TREATMENT Not applicable. 2.5.3 DREDGING ANALYSES A total of about 45,000-55,000 cubic yards is proposed to be dredged in the area near the inlet on the northwest side of the lake and on the west side near the yacht club since weed harvesting would be difficult here because of the boat moorings. Prior to the dredging, the lake will be drawn down to the greatest extent possible by a modification at the outlet works involving temporary removal of part of the plate that acts as a dam. A flashboard to replace this will be constructed so that the lake can also be drawn down in the future if necessary. Although dredging will be hydraulic, the drawdown will allow construction of the containment berm where the dredged material will be placed. Additionally, dewatering and compaction of the material after dredging will also be facilitated by the drawdown. The spoils will be moved to the bermed containment area by pipe (hose) for placement and dewatering. The containment berm will be constructed of crushed rock lined with filter fabric to prevent siltation impacts on the lake. After dewatering and stabilization of the spoil, the containment area will be reseeded and mulched to provide additional grassed areas. a-20 1 1 TABLE 18 1 PROPOSED WORK AND SPENDING PLAN • LAKE QUANNAPOWITT 1 First Quarter Development and approval of substate agreement 1^^f Issue Phase II Request for Proposals Purchase Weed Harvester Selection of Consultant Begin final design 1 Prepare and submit permit applications 1 Monthly monitoring $153,500 Second Quarter Complete final design 1w Pre-bid conference 1 Select contractor Begin construction 1 Monthly monitoring $366,750 1 Third Quarter Complete construction Monthly monitoring $119,450 1 Fourth and Fifth Quarters Monthly monitoring ($4,050 per quarter) $ 8,100 1 Sixth Through Fourteenth Quarters 1 Quarterly monitoring $1,350 per quarter) $ 12,150 1 1 1 O_O1 I I Although the sediments in Lake Quannapowitt are classified as Categor^Z,—- Type C, permit restrictions should not prevent the dredging since adequate I measures to contain the spoil material are included. The dredging will be done during late fall and while the lake is drawn down, so water quality impacts will be minimized. The required permits are listed in Section I 2.6. 2.5.4 FISH AND WILDLIFE IMPACTS * Although temporary turbidity is expected to occur during dredging, impacts will be minimized by the late fall construction timing. Impacts from the spoil disposal will be minimized by the filter fabric lining on the berm I and because the lake will not be refilled until the next spring allowing it to stabilize over several months. i The drawdown should minimize construction impacts on water quality by the reduction in resuspension of dredged materials. Although the total volume of the lake will also be reduced during the time the lake is drawn down, no significant impacts on fish and wildlife are expected since drawdown i will occur only once during the winter when biological activity is at a minimum. i Weed harvesting, used during spring and summer as necessary, should not have any significant negative environmental effects. The effect on water quality, however, should be beneficial in that the weeds will no longer i decompose in the lake. Letters from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program are included in the Appendix. No rare species or i ecologically significant communities are known to exist in the vicinity of Lake Quannapowitt. i 2.5.5 MITIGATION MEASURES Overall, it is not expected that there will be any significant long-term i adverse impacts of the project. The primary adverse impacts are construction-related impacts from dredging and construction of the berms. These construction impacts will last about 2-3 months, and there may be some minimal dust, noise, and traffic disruption. These will be minimized i by work scheduling and dust control measures. Most of the impacts will be beneficial in the long-term. i 2.6 PERMITTING The following permits are likely to be required. Also included are the i forms required, the agency involved, and the name, address and telephone number of the appropriate contact person. Samples of the forms may be found in the Appendix. Permit applications would be the responsibility of the Phase II consultant, except for the Environmental Notification Form i which was filed on April 15, 1986. A copy is included in the Appendix. i i 2-22 I I Local Permit/Approval, Agency Order of Conditions Mr. Gene Giuffre I Form: Notice of Intent Wakefield Conservation Commission Wakefield, MA I 617/345-8877 I State/Permit Approval Ch. 91 Waterways License Mr. Charles Natale Form: License Application Chief Waterways Engineer Division of Wetlands and Waterways I Regulation Department of Environmental Quality Engineering I One Winter Street Boston, MA 02108 I 617/292-5695 Determination of need for Mr. James S. Hoyte Environmental Impact Report Secretary of Environmental Affairs I Form: Environmental Executive Office of Environmental Notification Form Affairs 100 Cambridge Street Boston, MA 02202 I 617/727-5830 Water Quality Certification Ms. Judy Perry I Form: Standard Application Division of Water Pollution Control Form Department of Environmental Quality Engineering I One Winter Street Boston, MA 02108 617/295-5655 I Federal Permit/Approval Department of the Army Permit Department of the Army I Form: Application New England Division, Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch I 424 Trapelo Road Waltham, MA 02254 Attn: Mr. Robert DeSista I 617/647-8492 I I I 2-23 APPENDIX A GRANT APPLICATIONS I I FORM DWPC-628-01 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS I DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ENGINEERING DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL I CLEAN LAKES PROGRAM I REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE 1. The legal name of the lake or pond and its location. I Lake Quannapowitt, Wakefield, Massachusetts 2. Statement of ownership. If the water rights are owned by a private concern I then this also must be stated. Publically owned I 3. A detailed description of the public access area(s) including its location relative to the lake and public roadway.. This description must include a locus map clearly indicating the public access area(s). I There are three public access locations to the lake: 1} Boat ramp off North Avenue at southwest side of the lake 2) Public beach and park south side Main St. 3} Public beach Main Street N. I 4. Description of recreational uses of the lake. Be sure to include histori- cal uses, if different. Swimming, wading, sailboating, windsurfing, motorboats, canoeing, ice-fishing, fishing, iceboats, picnicking, jogging and walking, other passive recreation I also. 5. Description of the particular problems and nuisance conditions affecting the lake. I Turbidity, algae blooms, heavy aquatic weeds 6. What type of project would you like to have implemented? I Phase II Implementation project I 7. Submitted by: Mr_. Richard C. Boutiette One Lafayette Street I Ap~plleant's Name (print or type) Address Director of Public Works Wakefield. MA I City/Town f(S17 I Terr NO. Return to: Lakes Section, Division of Water Pollution Control, Lyman School, I Westview Building, Westborough, Massachusetts 01581 I 23 ** LOCATION OF PUBLIC ACCESS DIAGNOSTIC/FEASIBILITY STUDY LAKE QUANNAPOWITT WAKEFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS FORM OWPC-628-05 COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ENGINEERING DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL CLEAN LAKES PROGRAM APPLICATION FORM 1. Legal Applicant Applicant Name and Title: Mr. Richard C. Boutiette, P.E. Director of Public Works Address: Town of Wakefield One Lafayette Street Telephone: Wakefield, MA 01880 (617) 245-2802 2. Type of Application: £}oiagnostic/Feasibil1ty Study {^/Restoration/Preservation Project Maintenance Program 3. Lake or Pond Information a. Legal name of lake or pond: Lake Quannapowitt b. Location of lake or pond: Wakefield, Massachusetts c. Description of the objectives or goals of the study or project. For what purpose is this application being made and what are the antici- pated benefits to the public? The purpose of the project is to halt the rapid deterioration of this heavily used recreational resource. By slowing the accelerated eutrophication of this lake, and by cleaning up problem areas, the lake can provide high quality recreation for the many people who use it. 24 I I I Form DWPC-628-05 4. Data Requirements I a. Application for Diagnostic-Feasibility Study The objectives of the diagnostic-feasibility study include the data I requirements of Appendix A - Date Requirements for Diagnostic- Feasibility Studies. It is possible that the applicant does not require a complete diagnostic-feasibility study but rather a partial one due to an existing body of recent limnological data. It is there- I fore important for-the applicant to be as thorough as possible in the submission of the requested data. I Using Appendix A as a guide, the applicant should submit any of the required data which are available. Such data should be current, espe- cially biological and chemical data. I b. Application for implementation of long-term restoration projects or preservation techniques. I The information and data requirements specified in Appendix A from a diagnostic-feasibility study or its equivalent. Refer to. Draft final Report of Diagnostic/Feasibility Study I c. Application for Water Quality Maintenance Program The application requirements are identical to those of 3.E.U) I diagnostic-feasibility study application. 5. Applicant* Lafayette Street Address Director of Public Works Wakefielde . Massachusetts 01380 Title City/Tow/ n _ , Date Telephone No. Return to: Lakes Section, Division of Water Pollution Control, Lyman School, West view Building, Westborough, Massachusetts 01581 26 APPENDIX B DATA GRAPHS Lake Quannapowitt Wakefield. Massachusetts o £ 3 Oa E o 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 3/21 4/4 4/L8 5/2 5/11 5/23 6/7 6/21 7/10 7/26 8/14 9/6 9/26 10/2511/2812/281/29 3/8 D 3 O 2B / ; Inlet In-Lake Surface In-Lake Bottom Main Outlet Second Outlet Lake Quannapowitt Wakefield. Massachusetts d C 9 O» 5? o 2 o n 5 1 - 2 J 4 t> t> / e 9 100 1n1 1rz2 1u3 144 1ia5 160 1i/7 1u8 3/21 4/4 4/18 5/2 5/11 5/23 6/7 6/21 7/10 7/26 8/14 9/6 9/26 10/2511/2812/281/29 3/8 D 3 Inlet In-Lake Surface In-Lake Bottom Main Outlet Second Outlet Lake Quannapowitt Wakefield. Massachusetts 110 100 - 90 c o o W •M C Q> O O Q_ 20 - 10 T I 1 1 r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 3/21 4/4 4/18 5/2 5/11 5/23 6/7 6/21 7/10 7/26 8/14 9/6 9/26 10/2511/2812/281/29 3/8 a 3 o & : -: 1 Inlet In-Lake Surface In-Lake Bottom Main Outlet Second Outlet Lake Quannapowitt Wakefield, Massachusetts 8 - *—*-^r 6 - ¥ aI. 4 - 2 - 1 - 0 1 I I I I ^ I I T I ^ I I I I I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718 3/21 4/4 4/18 5/2 5/11 5/23 6/7 6/21 7/10 7/26 8/14 9/6 9/26 10/2511/2812/281/29 3/8 n ^ -> 2B Inlet In-Lake Surface In-Lake Bottom Main Outlet Second Outlet Lake Quannapowitt Wokeficld. Massachusetts 90 80 H 70 H o o 60 H o u 50 - E a o. 40 - 0 X < 20 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 101112131415161718 3/21 4/4 4/18 5/2 5/11 5/23 6/7 6/21 7/10 7/26 8/14 9/6 9/26 10/2511/2812/281/29 3/8 O 3 •- O 2fci A 1 •.-: 4 Inlet In-Lake Surface In-Lake Bottom Main Outlet Second Outlet Lake Quannapowitt Wakefteld. Massachusetts 40.0 35.0 - 30.0 - a a 25.0 - o tn 20.0 -i •o c 9 15.0 - •a1. 3 W 10.0 - 5.0 - 0.0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IB 3/21 4/4 4/18 5/2 5/11 5/23 6/7 6/21 7/10 7/26 8/14 9/6 9/26 10/2511/2812/281/29 3/8 D 3 ' --* . & *-iB At ' * Inlet In-Lake Surface In-Lake Bottom Main Outlet Second Outlet Lake Quannapowitt Wak«field, Massachusetts 650 E a a n 14 15 16 17 IB 9/26 10/25 11/2812/28 1/29 3/8 D 3 $ 26 A 1 Inlet In-Lake Surface In-Lake Bottom Main Outlet Second Outlet Lake Quannapowitt Wok«fi«td, Massachusatts 1.1 1.0 - 0.9 - u 0.8 - M EC 0.7 - 3° 0.6 - •o c 0.5 - o u 0.4 - 0.3 - 0.2 - ~~i 1 r~ 1 2 3 4 567 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 IB 3/21 4/4 4/18 5/2 5/11 5/23 6/7 6/21 7/10 7/26 8/14 9/6 9/26 10/2511/2812/281/29 3/8 D 3 £ 28 A 1 Inlet In-Lake Surface In-Lake Bottom Main Outlet Second Outlet Lake Quannapowitt Wakeftold. Massachusetts a a o> 0 z** 0 +o« 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 d 9 10 11 12 13 14 t5 16 17 18 3/21 4/4 4/18 5/2 5/11 5/23 6/7 6/21 7/10 7/26 8/14 9/6 9/26 10/2511/2812/281/29 3/8 O 3 O 2B A 1 Second Outlet Inlet In-Lake Surface In-Lake Bottom Main Outlet Lake Quannapowitt Wak«fi«ld. Massachusetts 13.0 n O a *-a/ n 3 0 r a n 0 a£. o 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 d 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 3/21 4/4 4/18 5/2 5/11 5/23 6/7 6/21 7/10 7/26 8/14 9/6 9/26 10/2511/2812/281/29 3/8 D O 2B A 1 i 4 Inlet In-Lake Surface In-Lake Bottom Main Outlet Second Outlet Lake Quannapowitt Wak«fi«ld\ Massachusetts 2.600 2.400 H o o fc 1.600 £ -o § c 1.400 o o o 0.000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 .11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 3/21 4/4 4/18 5/2 5/11 5/23 6/7 6/21 7/10 7/26 8/14 9/6 9/26 10/2511/2812/281/29 3/8 D 3 A 1 : 4 Inlet In-Lake Surface Main Outlet Second Outlet Lake Quannapowitt Wokefield, Massachusetts 400.0 350.0 300.0 H o o 250.0 - .0 E c 200.0 H 150.0 H u0 o u 100.0 u9. 50.0 0.0 \ 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 13 16 17 18 3/21 4/4 4/18 5/2 5/11 5/23 6/7 6/21 7/10 7/26 8/14 9/6 9/26 10/2511/2812/281/29 3/8 D .*, A 1 Inlet In-Lake Surface Main Outlet Second Outlet Lake Quannapowitt Wak«fi«ld, Massachusetts 900 D :=18,000 + = 11,000 800 x = 7,000 700 - o o 600 - O c n 500 - 3 o u 0 u o 400 - tn 300 - o u 200 - 100 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 3/21 4/4 4/18 5/2 5/11 5/23 6/7 6/21 7/10 7/26 8/14 9/6 9/26 10/25 11/2812/28 1/29 3/8 D 3 1 Inlet In-Lake Surface Main Outlet Second Outlet Lake Quannapowitt Wakefield, Massachusetts IUU.U - T i\ 90.0 - ! ; / i 1 ', 80.0 - ,' / \ 70.0 - / 1 60.0 - / ^ (mg/m3 ) o 50.0 - / i X a 0 40.0 - \ \ 0 i \ Z ! \ o 30.0 - , 1 \ ~~" • -. / \ r ^ 20.0 - \ •, , 'I*- • 10.0 - • 0.0 - I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 * 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 3/21 4/4 4/18 5/2 5/11 5/23 6/7 6/21 7/10 7/26 8/14 9/6 9/26 10/2511/2812/281/29 3/8 In-Lake Surface Lake Quannapowitt Wakeffeld, Massachusetts 9 8 -i 7 H ft T--I 5 - -nX S r 4 H o 9 -e- •e- T— | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 3/21 4/4 4/18 5/2 5/11 5/23 6/7 6/21 7/10 7/26 8/14 9/6 9/26 10/2511/2812/281/29 3/8 n 1 In-Lake APPENDIX C DATA TABLES Lake Quannapowitt Wakefield, Massachusetts 280.0 u n O a a TJ 'C O Z a 20.0 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 IS 16 17 18 3/21 4/4 4/18 5/2 5/11 5/23 6/7 6/21 7/10 7/26 8/14 9/6 9/26 10/2511/2812/281/29 3/8 O $ 2ti A 1 Second Outlet Inlet In-Lake Surface In-Lake Bottom Main Outlet Lake Quannapowitt Wokefield. Massachusetts E a a £ O •o •*-"5* * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 3/21 4/4 4/18 5/2 5/11 5/23 6/7 6/21 7/10 7/26 8/14 9/6 9/26 10/2511/2812/281/29 3/8 O O 2B A 1 Inlet In-Lake Surface In-Lake Bottom Main Outlet Second Outlet Lake Quannapowitt Wakefiflld. Massachusetts n 0 E a *a^ o *c o E E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 3/21 4/4 4/18 5/2 5/11 5/23 6/7 6/21 7/10 7/26 8/14 9/6 9/26 10/2511/2812/281/29 3/8 a 3 6 2B A 1 Inlet In-Lake Surface In-Lake Bottom Main Outlet Second Outlet I I 3 ™ U T •:? I T r, — T a L- I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Parameter pK Units I Station Inlet In-lake 1m In-lake 3m Outlet #1 Outlet £2 £l-Mar-S4 5.4 6.3 7.0 7.0 NA 04-Apr-34 6.7 7.0 7.1 7.0 NA i3-Apr-S4 7.0 6.7 7.0 6.3 NA I 02-Ma y- 3 4 N A NA NA NA NA i. I -Msy -3^ 6,8 7.2 7.2 7,1 7,2 £3-Msy-3£ £.7 7,4 7.4 NA 7.3 I 07-Jun-84 S. 5 7.3 7.2 NA 7.3 £l-Jun-34 6.5 7.7 7.6 NA 7.5 lO-Jul-84 6.5 7.7 7.7 NA 7.7 I £6-Jul-S4 6.3 3.3 7.7 NA 3.3 14-Au 3-S4 NA 7.4 7.2 NA NA 05-Sep-34 6.3 7.3 7.3 NA NA I 26-Sep-84 NA 5.3 8.3 NA MA £^-Gct-S4 7.0 7,2 7,0 7.2 NA 23-No y-84 6.5 7.2 7.2 7.2 MA £S-Oec-34 NA NA NA NA N- I £?-Ja-:-35 6.S 7.2 7.1 NA NA I b . / b . y 7 . 0 NA NA I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 Pa rarne ter Alkal i n ity Unit s pprn as Ca c T -, 1 tat i o n i . 1 e-Lt. In -lake 1m I n-lake 3m Cu tlet £1 1 fvi _ v i,C OC. 1 .i J_ -84 i O 2Q . 1 cl _ , 1 04 -Apr -84 30 .8 23 . 0 56.4 -Apr -34 34 • £_ 17 . 1 23,3 1 !••.. U -— -May — 34 41 . 0 A NA iii! . !i — M - i i 3 cl / -May -34 3, 3 23 . '3 K. ' -••-.. 1 .-. — 1- J u n—84 44 er NA ^ O ". -Jun -34 51 •-i 1;3 . 3 35 . 3 ,"-/ii 10 -Jul 32 .5 -7 3 27 . 4 h ) .••-. 1 -Jui -54 -3 0 . o 30 .8 NA 14-Au = -34 NA 3 3 . 3 30 < b NA 05 -Sep 3r 0 . 30 ! '"'• 1 i =. 26 -84 NA cl 30 ,'s NA 1 I "* U C' t ci5 -84 44 , 5 -J j . s tT U . 3 23 , S 44 .5 2 "7 4 , 4 *.. i •'•. K1 NA T — — -1 1 23 3 27 g 4 I i— . cr ': 1 A I I I I I I I I i 1 1 1 Parameter Su sp ended Sol i ds Uni ts ppm I S t a t i i? n Inlet In -lake 1m In -lake 3rr? Outlet 4^1 21 -Mar -84 1.4 1.0 0.4 0.4 0<£-Apr-S4 1.4 2.2 1.3 2 . 3 lS-Apr-84 | 1.1 1.7 i 4 11 OS-Mav-34 5 . 0 NA NA 1 , 0 — ll-Msy-34 2.1 0.4 5.3 • £ , 3 I 23-Ma»-34 1 •-; ci •-; 1 -"• -1 K.'i * 07-J:jn-S4 12,5 0.3 35.0 NA 21-Jun-84 5,1 5.5 3.2 NA 10, 1 1,0 5.£ >-JA • 25-Jul-84 4.5 10.2 3.0 NA -, 4-Ai-q-~84 MA 9.5 13,4 NA Q5-Sep-94 7,3 10,5 13.4 NA 26-Sep-y* NA 5.4 ll.£ NA I ; : 2 5 - 0 c t - £ 4 5.8 12.4 ^ 3 . £ ' 1 0 . " 23 "No M -""c'4 0 .9 2 , 0 3 . 9 3 , 0 2^~Dec-34 NA NA NA NA 1 oQ_,T=r_q=r ' 25 . 3 3=5 5.6 N- ,-• S-:_M _ ,, _oer 2.4 0.3 1.7 NA 1 7" I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 Parameter Dissolued Soli ds U n i t s ppm b t a t i o F: Inlet In-lake Irn Outlet •"' Ci iC O 21-Kar-84 .-._ _i *_< a ^ 223.8 04-Apr-84 361.3 174.4 188.5 13-Apr-£'4 225.0 206. 0 208.3 NA NA ll-May-84 343, 3 266 . 3 230 .0 255.0 196.7 1S5. 0 C7-Jun-S4 250 .0 195, 0 21-Jur.-S4 263 , 3. 142.5 135.0 437,0 527.5 545 , 0 NA 225.0 229 . 0 05-Sep-34 245,0 267 . 5 290 ,0 NA 220 . 0 25-Oct-34 215.0 2S— No v— 84 166.3 197. 5 28 -Dec- 34 NA NA 1 1 1 Par arne t er Conduct i v i ty Iuni ts u mhos/ cm S 1 3 " ion Inlet In — lake irn In— lake 3rnOutii=t c- =• r, —i /! r, f-, .i f; •"! 21-M3r-34 --'•-.iJ OTU d-rU •- 04-Apr-S4 575 325 325 G340 | 13-Apr-34 370 340 340 3 L:-', .-£i~, f*, AI-ea _V . , _•-•<- O *.3 TO.-1 r~Ui i~ r .N>. 1M A ;•••:»—:h 1 A c•" cr ay t-i. o n '~' •"" s •-' d. "^ i:t^0-,-^X-O-!M; 430 355 355 --j | : 1 07-., un-b4 J / O -J t. •_>' w £ •H _ £ 1 — J u n - S 4 475 340 340 • iO-Jul-S4 275 330 330 -JA * 2S-Jul-S4 330 .340 3^0 K i A o tr r, .-, c; n i \r-l -:-_"_- O-JU as-sepll" 330 350 350 I ££-:3ep-c!4 NA 350 350 •Ji-t ; sr ill J^i "*" •^' '-^ '-- "~ — ' ^T 390 350 350 3 M O p _[v - : i — :"' ^ 320 325 330 3 NA NA NA 105G 395 330 £10 351 3£0 I^^V """^" I I l l l l l I l I I I Par ame ter Chi or i de Unit ppm as Cl •z- i t at i on Iniet In-lake Lake 3m Ou tlet 3=1 Outlet * ii •£;~ •7 £1-Mar -34 i el O• 'j 65 .7 55.5 NA 04 -Apr -34 135 .0 76. 0 74 .0 73.5 NA -7 ..-I K. ; ..•••. -Ap r -34 .0 T; 70 .0 i X! 02 -May -84 102 . 0 iA NA 74,0 NA •T "1 jv< _ . . — i->4 £i .0 S3. 0 66 .0 70.0 65 . 0 •~< o -May -34 j^l . 0 65 . 5 63 .0 NA 07 -Jun -84 60 .0 61 . 0 52 .0 NA 55 . 0 'Bl -Jur, — R £ 174 . '3 10S. 4 112 .2 NA 113.3 j. U-Jul -34 43 .0 64. •_i 53 .5 NA 61 .5 i -34 t-3 .5 59 . =• 53 pi NA 59 . 0 14 —A u -~.-84 NA ;'~T 0 £3 .0 NA NA f^ £* r- k.!..-\ 05 -Sep O ~' . 0 63. ,0 NA i -_• ^ j-i — pii NA 105. 6 10S . 3 NA i- -^' — Oc t -84 / •-> . y 64 . 4 66 . -L 67,4 NA oo -N o KJ . 5 1 .9 il O-Dec — O T1 NA i N NA T — _- * , ' .-•'•• i jl — •' 4 73 , ^ NA I '- en c? ,-rc* c; I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 Parameter iotal Kjeldahl Nitrogen ( Uni t-s Ppm '"• ^- —.•*-; -. !*j Inlet In-lake Irnln-iake 3mOutlet *1 Out let =? 21-!*!ar-34 0 .77 1 .14 1 .30 1.17 NA • 04-Ap-r— 84 0,21 0.36 0 . 0 9 0 . 26 MA • 18-Apr~84 0.77 0.70 0.46 0.26 NA t-i --, _f.^ _ . . ^ p £» 1.55 NA NA 2.- 70 NA ll-May-S4 2.14 1.70 1.37 2.98 2.03 | 23-May-34 1 .65 1 .51 1.20 NA 1 .53 07-Jun-84 1.60 1.02 1.33 NA 1.07 21-Jun-34 1.60 0,45 1.07 NA 3 . 23 -10-j!jl'S4 | 1 . 32 1 . 55 1 . 03 NA 3 -. 61 25—Jijl -34 0 . '34 0 . 91 0 . 93 NA 1.24 .-1L -4--T— M = OO U . ; o ^. . ou *4 . OU Nfi -,-. r,__ -,.. | ^- — ' w' ^ '— '•—* ™ NA NH Nft NA NA 23— Jan "3 5 1 .73 0.32 1 ,31 NA NA if OS-Mar -35 3 , 50 0 .74 0 . 60 NA NA I I I I I 1 I I I I I I Parameter Ammon i a Uni ts ppm as N I 3 1 -a t i o n In let I n-lske 1m I n-lake 3m Gut 1st *10utlet 3=: £1 -Mar - 34 0 .OS 0.02 0.02 0.06 NA 04 -Apr- 84 0 . 0 3 0.22 0.02 0.14 NA I ii. •—' — A P r —34 0 .02 0.02 0 . 0 2 0 . 0 2 NA 1-1 --J s,-« _. . , 34 0 • £."* '^- NA NA 0.05 NA 11-May- 34 IL .03 0 .23 C .05 ' 0 =50 •J - -L / 23-May- E'4 1 n "? 0 . 56 C . 77 NA :j . y b I ^ ,'i 07-Jun- 1.11 0 . 50 0 , 44 NA 0 = 44 21-Jun- 34 1. 42 0 . 40 0 . S3 NA 2 . £7 IQ-Jul- 34 1.00 0 .33 0 . S3 NA 0 = 03 I wi o '"** * J U J. """ 34 0 .59 0.11 C .16 NA U » J. c> 14-Auq- 34 NA 0.13 C , 32 NA NA G5-Sep- 34 ij .35 0 .30 C .30 NA Nrr- I 25-Sep- 34 NA L' i 'T -• L .35 NA NA :-: IT ~J .- 25-Oc t- 34 lj_ '1 T' '_' 1 •_' 1 '. . 53 0 . 65 NA A 23-Nov- 34 .26 U > ii. £- v , 23 0 « 25 NA 2 8 — D e c —34 NA K :/•• NA NA NA .— .—. - t-, -—i •-: K ! .-'-. T. :/•- I - : _L LJ """ L: _J -L ^^ O ^T" ."~ r_3 ]fcl i_i ._^ 1 r~- j \ f^ f^, . 1 1 2 S - J u 1 - 3 4 0 7 0 0 N A 0 14-Aus-34 NA 4 NA NA 05-Sep-34 SOO 1 NA NA 1 26-3ep-34 NA 0 NA NA £5-Dct-84 700 100 100 NA 2S-Nov-S4 IS 30 20 NA 2S-Dec-S4 NA NA ' NA NA T 1 C? Q•' —'_ .• -3 si nt —'_'•_ '-' ^! •_C! l_' l f' IJ n 1 Sr\ —' i1, i 4iK~ ' 1 -•"•- 1 OS-Mar-35 1000 2 NA NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Parameter Fecal Col i form 1 Un i t s Number / 1C Cml Station Inlet In -lake IrnOutlet #10uti£t * 21-Mar-S4 101 162 0 NA 1 04-Apr-84 7 1 3 NA i8-Apr-84 25 3 4 NA 0 2 -M a y -84 53 NA 6 N A 1 £l -— ' !'!-3V '— ' *"!" -i. -L C1 -t i '-•if-i i i 07-Jun-34 32 11 NA 13 2i-Jfjn-3^ 32 2 NA 10 1 lu-,JuI-34 175 13 NA 9 23-Jul-34 13 1 NA 0 14-Aus~84 NA 2 NA NA 1 05-3sp-S4 400 1 NA NA 26-Sep-34 NA 0 NA NA 25-Oc t -34 42 4 22 NA 2S-Nov-S4 Q 14 6 NA 1 23~Dec-84 NA NA NA NA : 1 c:_'-'Jan~-— — — 3=.-- ^i jC"b ~ " U- Ni.A JNT H 1 OS-Mar-85 14 u NA NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f 1 1 1 1 Parameter Fecal Streptococcus I LJni ts Number / 100ml S t a t i o n Inlet In -lake 1m Ou.tlet #1 Outlet * 21 -Mar -34 22 ' 4 0 NA 1 04-Apr-34 70 3 NA lS-Apr-34 39 3 . 1 NA 02 -Hay -34 1 4 . NA 2 NA ll-May-34 ICO 26 15 3 1 23-May-34 52 2 NA 10 G7-.jLin-34 200 35 NA 73 21-Jun-84 36 6- NA 11 1 10-Jul-34 300 . 9 NA 13 26- Ju 1-34 300 393 NA 375 14-AUQ-34 NA 3 NA NA fj "5 — C; ^ =-, — -; £ 300 0 NA NA 1 M.*. '~t M/'- I-,!/-. 2 G - 3 e p - 3 4 !Nf-i - ij iNH i •-•.—i •-t c1 rt — •*• ~ -~i ^- •-• --f •_.' . 3 "4 25 0 S NA 85 2 NA 1 NA NA NA NA •p c-t _ T -. - _ D c; 2 0 NA NA 1 Uo-Har-y^ 33 0 NA NA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 LAKE QUANNAPOWITT RESULTS OF PHYTOPLANKTON AND CHLOROPHYLL a_ ANALYSES DATES 3/21/84 4/4/84 4/18/84 5/2/84 5/11/84 5/23/84 6/7/84 6/21/84 7/10/84 Phytoplankton (Cells/me) Diatoms 243 365 111 195 280 51 67 59 Blue Greens 43 34 191 200 207 295 1142 334 Greens 10 25 - 89 55 10 19 17 Other Pigmented Algae 6 1 5 7 0 195 368 100 TOTAL 292 410 332 - 491 542 557 720 1320 3 Chlorophyll £ (mg/m ) 7.58 8.90 5.90 NA 17.72 6.47 5.24 15.40 18.93 DATES 7/26/84 8/14/84 9/5/84 9/26/84 10/25/84 11/28/84 12/28/84 1/29/85 3/8/85 Phytoplankton (Cells/me) Diatoms 67 368 199 201 Blue Greens 601 334 3367 3250 1250 110 5 Greens 17 251 34 183 52 7 1 Other Pigmented Algae 83 217 114 83 84 221 101 3 TOTAL 701 869 3481 3367 1517 751 312 205 3 Chlorophyll a_ (mg/m ) 28.50 25.60 53.40 99.10 43.50 11.87 NA 7.00 2.20 1 1 1 Par ame t er Chi o r o p hy 1 1 i-'ni ts ~ mg/m3 I w t a t i o n I n - 1 a k e 1 rn •"3 'I _M -,-.- _C> " -7 sr P. 04. -Apr -84 3.90 18-Apr-84 5.09 1 1 r< "-j k/j _ . C /I >• A '-' ~ - • -^ >• '— ' T" i '• i-) 2 23-May~S4 £.4 - — - — - ^^, 1 yt 5_ . il -f lC-JijI~84 13,53 1 £' L" — " i i 1 !^ ci O O ^ p •1 ,J_ A] : — — Pil O=T ^ n 1 2€-S8p-S4 y'3 , 10 25~Oct-34 i-3 . 50 1 2 S -N o y -34 11,87 23-Jan-35 7 , 0D 1 J '— , , •_ -_• -_• d « e0_ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I : l —i • = -a r I •--Apr I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX D ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATION FORM i i I I i i I i I P.I I APPENDIX A COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATION FORM I. SUMMARY A. Project Identification I 1. Project N«™» Lake Quannapowltt Restoration 2. Board of Public Works, Town of Wakefleld I One Lafayette Street. Wakefield, MA B. Town of Wskefield 1. Location within dry/town or street Mai'n 2. Est. Commencement Pate: 10/R6 .Ect. Completion 0 Appro*. Co«t « 660,000 Current Statu.._...... (preliminars of .Projec , . ty De* desig, i„ n complete^Complet) e I C. Narrative Summary of Project i Describe project and give a description of the general project boundaries and the present use of the project area. (If necessary, use back of thb page to complete summary). I The proposed project results from the recommendations of a Diagnostic/ Feasibility Study of Lake Quannapowitt under the Chapter 628 Massachusetts I Clean Lakes Program. t This program focuses on improving the recreational potential of lakes and ponds in Massachusetts, and as a result of these studies, a number of improvements designed to reduce aquatic weed and algae problems have been I proposed. The primary components of the project are as follows: • Dredging ten (10) acres on the west side of the lake to eliminate I the weed problem in this area; • Placement of the dredge spoils on-site behind a bermed area near I the Lord Wakefield Inn; • Placement of a bermed control structure at the inlet to reduce I siltation and phosphorus levels entering the lake; and I • Annual weed harvesting to further increase recreational uses. I Copies of this may be obtained from: Eileen Pannetier - Camo Dresser & MrKpp Inc. Address-. One Center Plaza, Boston. MA Q21Q8' Phone No—74P-R151 THIS IS AN IMPORTANT NOTICE. COMMENT PERIOD IS LIMITED. I P. 2 i Use Thli Page to Complete Narrative. If necessary. i i i I i This project is one which is categorically included and therefore automatically require* preparation of an Environmental Impact Report: YES NO % D. Scoping (Complete Sections II and HI first, before completing this section.) 1. Check those areas which would be important to examine in the event that an EIR is required for this project. This information Is Important so that significant areas of concern can be identi&ed as early as possible, in order to expedite analysis and review. Construc- Long Construe* Long tion Term - tion Term Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Open Space & Recreation ^Mineral R esources Historical .Energy Use Archaeological .Water Supply & Use Fisheries & Wildlife .Water Pollution Vegetation, Trees .Air Pollution , Other Biological Systems JSoise Inland Wetlands .Traffic Coastal Wetlands or Beaches .— .Solid Waste Flood Hazard Areas .Aesthetics Chemicals, Hazardous Substances, Wind and Shadow Htph Risk Operations .Growth Impacts Geologically Unstable Areas .Community/Housing and the Built Agricultural Land Environment. , Other (Speciiy) 2. List the alternatives which you would consider to be feasible in the event an EIR is required. Project Alternative No Action Alternative f P. 3 E. Ha« this project been filed with EOEA before? Y« No IfYes.EOEANo _ EOEAAction?— F. Do«9 this project fall under the Jurisdiction of NEPA? Ye». No X If Yes. which Federal Agency? NEPA Status?. G. U« the State or Federal agencies from which permit! will be sought: Agency Name Type of Perm it U.S. ACOE 404 Permit DEQE, DWPC Water Quality Certification DEQE, Division of Wetlands and Waterways Chapter 91 License H. Will an Order ofCondltions be required under the provisions of the Wetlands Protection Act (Chap. 131. Section 40)? Yes_X No DEQE Rl« No., If appBrable: I. Ust the agencies from which the proponent will se«k financial assistance for this project: Agency Name Funding Amount Massachusetts Department of Environmental $495,000 Quality Engineering, Clean Lakes Program II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Include an original 8Vi xll inch or larger section of the most recent U.S.G.S. 1:24,000 scale topographic map with the project area location and boundaries clearly shown. Include multiple maps if necessary for large proj- ects. Include other maps, diagrams or aerial photos if the project cannot be clearly shown at U.S.G.S. scale. If available, attach a plan sketch of the proposed project. B. State total area of project: _i£iLa_£I£i. Estimate the number of acres (to the nearest 1/10 acre) directly affected that are currently: 1. Developed C. Provide th« following dimensions, if applicable: Length in miles N/A Number of Housing Units N/A Number of Stories N/A Existing Immediate Increase Due to Project Number of Parking Spaces _N/A. N/A Vehicle Trips to Project Site (average daily traffic) N/A ' 3 Estimated Vehicle Trips past project site N/A N/A D. If the proposed project will require any permit for access to local or state highways, please attach a sketch showing the location of the proposed driveway(s) in relation to the highway and to the general development plan: identifying all loc*I and state highways abutting the development site: and indicating the number of lanes, pave- ment width, median strips and adjacent driveways on each abutting highway; and indicating the distance to the nearest intersection. .jJK. I P. 4 III. ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Instruction*: Consider direct and Indirect adverse impacts, including those arising from general construction and I operations. For every answer explain why significant adverse impact Is considered likely or unlikely to result. Al*o, state the source of Information or other basis for the answers supplied. If the source of the Information, I In part or in full, i« not listed In the ENF, the preparing officer will be assumed to be the source of the Jn/oi rr.ation. Such environmental information should be acquired at least in pan by Reid inspection. A. Open Space and Recreation I 1. Might the project affect the condition, use or access to any open space and/or recreation area? Y«_X No I Exp/ancffon and Source: Open space area of the cul-de-sac off North Avenue will be increased by the revegetated spoil area. General recreational use of Lake Quannapowitt is expected to be improved because of the reduction in aquatic weeds and algae I that interfere with recreation. I I B. Historic Resources I 1. Might any site or structure of historic significance be affected by the project? Yes No Explanation and Source.* I See attached letter from the Massachusetts Historical Commission. 2. Might any archaeological site be affected by the project? Yes No X_ Explanation and Source: As above.- C. Ecological Effects I. Mlqht the project significantly affect fisheries or wildlife, especially any rare or endangered species? Yes No * Explanation and Source: The lake will be drawn down to the extent possible before work on the shore begins to minimize water quality impacts. Dredging will be hydraulic and will result in some short-term water quality impacts in the vicinity of the work. Long-term effects on fisheries are expected to be beneficial. No impacts on rare or endangered species are expected {see attached letter from Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program). P. 5 2. Might th« project significantly affect vegetation, eepeciaDy any rare or endangered tp*ci« of pUnt? Yes _ No —L _ - 0 - (Estimate approximate number of mature trees to be removed: - ) Explanation and Source; No rare/endangered species should be affected, however, a small strip of bordering wetlands vegetation (approximately 1,000 sq.ft.) will be removed during the work, but is expected to reestablish along the new shoreline (2,500 sq.ft.) as part of the weed harvesting program. (SOURCE: COM, 1985) 3. Might the project alter or affect flood Hazard areat. Inland or coastal wetland* (e.g.. estuaries, marshes, sand dunes and beaches, ponds, streams, rivers,fis hruns , or shellfish beds)? Yes - No - Explanation and Source; Approximately 10 acres of "land under water" will be altered by dredging activities. 1,000 feet of "bank" and 1,000 sq.ft. of bordering wetland vegetation will also be disturbed during construction. 4. Might the project affect shoreline erosion or accretion at the profsct sit*, downstream or in nearby coastal anas? Yes No_* Explanation and Source: No change in hydrology expected, although inlet berm will reduce levels of suspended solids entering the lake. 5. Might the project Involve other geologically unstable areas? Yes No_JL Explanation and Sourer: D. Hazardous Substances 1. Might the pro>ect Involve the use, transportation, storage, release, or disposal of potentially hazardous substances? Yes No X . Explanation and Source I P. 6 I E. Resource Conservation and UK 1. Might the project affect or eliminate land suitable for agricultural or tor wiry production? Ye» No y I (Describe any present agricultural land use and farm units affected.) Explanation and Source; I I 2. Might the project directly affect the potential use or extraction of mineral or energy resources (e.g.. oil. coal, I sand & gravel, ores)? Yes No ¥ I Explanation and Source: I I 3. Might the operation of the project result In any Increased consumption of energy? Yes * No Explanation and Source: I (If applicable, describe plans for conserving energy resources.) I Short-term energy use for heavy equipment activities only. I F. Water Quality and Quantity 1. Might the project result in significant changes in drainage patterns? Yes No I Explanation and Source: I I 2. Might the project result In the Introduction of pollutants into any of the following: (a) Marine Waters Yes No I (b) Surface Fresh Water Body Ye* X No I (c) Ground Wat« Yes No_} Explain type* and avantitic* of pollutant*. Dredging will cause short-term increases in the turbidity of the lake. It I will be done during the fall and early winter, however, when outlet flow I does not occur so that there will be no downstream impacts. I T P. 7 3. Will the project generate sanitary sewage? Yes No —o— If Yes, Quantity: gallon* per day Disposal by: (a) Oncttc septic systems Yes No (b) PuWk sewerage systems Yet No (c) Other means {descrtbe)^_^ 4. Might the project result In an Increase In paved or Impervious surface over an aquifer recognised as an Impor- tant present or future source of water supply? Yes No —* Explanation and Source: 5. Is the project In the watershed of any surface water body used as a drinking water supply? No Are there any public or private drinking water wells within a I/ 2- mile radius of the proposed project? Y» _ No X Explanation and Source; The outlet stream of the lake eventually enters a pond used for water supply by the City of Lynn. SOURCE: Wakefield DPW. 6. Might the operation of the project resuh in any Increased consumption of water? Yes Approximate consumption gallons per day. Ukely water sources) Explanation and Source: Does the project involve any dredging? Yes X NO If Yes, Indicate: Quantity of material to be d™%«d 45,000 - 55,000 cubic yards Quality of material to be dn»dg>d Category 2, Type B Proposed method of dredging hydraulic Proposed disposal *it« on-sitp harming above water line Proposed »eason of year for dodging fall and parly wintpr Explanation and Source; Sediment depth measurements and composite sample analyses taken during Diagnostic/Feasibility Study to determine quantity take off, general depth contours (proposed and existing) and quality of material. Table 1 shows results of analyses and Figure 2 is sediment depth contour map I P. 8 1 G- Air Quality 1. Might the project affect ih« air quality in the project area or the immediately adjacent area? VM X _ No I Describe type and »ource of any pollution emission from the project site...—_—. I Construction dust and emissions only. I 2. Are there any sensitive receptors (e.g., hospitals, schools, residential areas) which would be affected by any I pollution emissions caused by the pro>ect. Including construction dust? Yes —X^. No Explanation and Source: Areas adjacent to work site are residential/cormiercial. Approximately 10 I houses will be affected by construction. A motel, the Lord Wakefield Inn, I lies adjacent to the site. 3. Will access to the project area be primarily by automobile? Yes X^ No I Describe any special provisions now planned for pedestrian access, carpoollng, buses and other mass transit. I N/A I H. Noise I 1. Might the project result in the generation of noise? Yes _X .-__ No Explanation and Source: I (Include any source of noise during construction or operation, e.g.. engine exhaust, pile driving, traffic.) Construction noise from trucks and dredging equipment will occur during I the short-term construction period. I 2. Are there any sensitive receptors (e.g., hospitals, schools, residential areas) which would be affected by any I noise caused by the project? Yes _X_ No Explanation and Source; I Residential area adjacent to the site on the south and the motel on the north. I I P. 9 ). - Solid I 1, Might the pro}ect generate solid waste? Yn No X Explanation and Source: (Estimate types and approximate amount! of waste mat trial i generated, e.g.. Industrial, domniic. hospital. I sewage sludge, construction debris from demolished structures.) Dredged material to be disposed of on-site. Weeds harvested from the Lake I will be taken to the Town's disposal area. J. Aesthetics 1. Might the project cause a change In the vUuat character of the project area or Its environs? Ye»J5 No Explanation and Source; The recreational uses of the lake, which include sailboating, swimming and many passive shoreline uses should be improved by increasing the clarity of the water and removing the now dense aquatic weed growth. 2. Are there any proposed structures which might be considered Incompatible with existing acf|acent structures In the vicinity in terms of size, physical proportion and scale, or significant difference* in land use? Ye» No-* Explanation and Source: 3. Might the project Impair visual access to waterfront or other scenic areas? Yes No Exp/aoor/on on d Source: K. Wind and Shadow 1. Might the project cause wind and shadow Impacts on adjacent properties? Yes No Explanation and Source; P. 10 IIV. CONSISTENCY WTm PRESENT PLANNING A. D«*crtbe any known conflict* or inconiUteneiet **th current federal, state *nd local land UM. tr«n»ponarlon, I open ipsce, recreation and environmental plan* and policies. Consult with local or regional planning authoritfe* where appropriate. I None known. V. FINDINGS AND CERTIFICATION A. The notice of Intent to fB« this form has been/will be published In the following neu*paper(*) (Name) _Wakefield Dai_1y Item .(Date) 4/15/86 B. This form has been circulated to ail agencies and persons as required by Appendix B. Date Signature of Responsible Offker or Pro)ect Proponent Mr. Rirhard C. Name (print or type) Director of Public Works Tnwn Mail ; OHP [afayette Street MA Telephone Number W Signature of person preparing ENF (if different from above) Ms. Eileen Pannetier Name (print or type) Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. Address One Center Plaza. Boston. MA OPTOfl Telephone Number 742-5151 .. CAMP-CURTIS ,'NATIONALJ GUARD - -.. V. K fi. & fc K y. *^\ ^--j, r .'•.5T V.''/-.INTERCHANGE- H ^••/.'." 3*j >>!>-AREAS OF DREDGING BERMS LAND AREAS ...• i«r_ 1voi1 c IM*-r * 1-1 ocr MATERIAL LOCUS MAP FIGURE 1 LAKE QUANNAPOWITT 1000 1000 2000 3000 4000 WOO 6000 7000 FEET WAKEFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS DEPTH OF SEDIMENT |j:j|:;| less than 1 foot 1-3 feet -i-E>< 3-5 feet IW-n more than 5 feet i" "1 [ I area not surveyed DIAGNOSTIC/FEASIBILITY STUDY DEPTH OF SEDIMENT LAKE QUANNAPOW1TT 5OO 1000 2000 WAKEFIELD. MASSACHUSETTS FEET 1 1 1 COMPOSITE SEDIMENT ANALYSES PARAMETER SEDIMENT 1l^V1 1 1) Total nitrogen ' 266.2 mg/kg* 2) Total phosphorous 8.0 mg/kg* 1 3) Organic/Inorganic Fraction (loss on ignition; b.it>* i 4; Heavy metals unromium au mg/ Massachusetts Historical Commission Cleric A. Talmage 'cuiive Director §ic Historic Preservation Officer I December 26, 1985 Ms. Eileen Pannetier I Camp Dresser S McKee, Inc. One Center Plaza I Boston, MA 021Q8 RE: Lake Quannapowitt Rehabilitation, Wakefield I Dear Ms. Pannetier: Thank you for supplying the Massachusetts Historical Commission with information concerning the proposed rehabilitation of Lake Quannapowitt I in Wakefield. Staff of the MHC have reviewed the materials you sub- mitted. The project location includes a prehistoric archaeological site which is listed in the Inventory of Historic and Archaeological I Assets of the Commonwealth. Review of project plans indicates that this site will not be affected by the proposal. MHC feels that this project is unlikely to affect significant historic I or archaeological resources. No further review is required in compliance with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 9, Sections 26C and 27C, as amended by Chapter 152 of the Acts of 1982 (950 CMR 71). If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Brona Simon or Jordan Kerber at this offi.ce. Sincerely, Valerie A. Executive Director^ State Historic Preservation Officer Massachusetts Historical Commission VAT/dr Massachusetts Natural Heritage W&3&, Program January 3, 1986 I Ms. Eil een Panetier Camp Dresser & McKee One Center Plaza I Boston, MA 02108 RE: Proposed Rehabilitation of Lake Quannapowitt, Wakefield, MA I Dear Ms. Pannetier, [ » Thank you for contacting the Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program regarding ' • rare Species and ecologically significant communities in the vicinity of — Lake Quannapowitt, Wakefield, Massachusetts. At this time, we are not aware I of any rare species or significant natural communities in•this area. • As our inventory expands with ongoing fieldwork and research, more data on this area may become available in the future. Since Ms. Sanders-Fleming is no longer working with the MNHP, kindly address all future environmental review requests to me. Sincerely, Joanne Michaud Environmental Reviewer JM/jm 77.7-P194.-3151 I I Department of Public Works 1 LAFAYETTE STREET WAKEF1ELD. MASSACHUSETTS 01880 T«l. B17-246-2802 ^'f^.-i^V' RICHARD C. BOUTIFTTE. Pt. April 14, 1986 This is to certify that Eileen Pannetier of Camp Dresser & McKee Inc., Consulting Engineers, has authority to sign the Environmental Notification Form (ENF) for the Lake Quanna- powitt Phase II Water Quality Project on my behalf. Very truly yours, OF PUBLIC WORKS £'*«•- ,c:hard C. Bqzrtiette, P. E. /Director • RCB/jm APPENDIX E AGENCY CORRESPONDENCE I CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. I environmental engineers, scientists, One Center Plaza planners, & management consultants Boston, Massachusetts 02108 I 617 742-5151 I December 9, 1985 I Ms. Brona Simon Massachusetts Historical Commission 80 Boylston Street I Boston, MA 02116 Re: Review of Proposed Rehabilitation of Lake I Quannapowitt, Wakefield Massachusetts Dear Ms. Simon: I Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. (COM), has been retained by the Town of Wakefield to conduct a Diagnostic/Feasibility study of Lake Quannapowitt in Wakefield, in conjunction with the Massachusetts Clean Lakes Program I (Chapter 628). This program focuses on improving the recreational potential of lakes and I ponds in Massachusetts, and as a result of these studies, a number of improvements designed to reduce aqu-a'Fic "weed and algae problems have been proposed. The primary components of the project are as follows: I • Dredging ten (10) acres, on the west side of the lake to eliminate the weed problem'in this area; I • Placement of the dredge spoils on-site behind a bermed area near the Lord Wakefield Inn; I • Placement of a bermed control structure at the inlet to "reduce siltation and phosphorus levels entering the lake; and I ' • Annual weed harvesting"to further increase recreational uses. Since the project is scheduled to begin next year, we would appreciate your review of the proposed project for any significant historical or I archaeological, resources which may be impacted by the project. Enclosed please find a project summary and map indicating the construction areas. We would-also. be.hapRy to. forward a copy of the full report if you need it I for your review. I I I i i CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. i Ms. Brona Simon December 9, 1985 i Page 2 9 If you have any questions concerning this project or require any additional information, please contact me. Sincerely, » CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. Eileen Pannetier I PProject Manager Enclosures i i i i i• i i i I I I The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Office of the Secretary of State I Michael Joseph Connolly, Secretary Massachusetts Historical Commission IValerie A. Talmage I I December 26, 1985 Ms. Eileen Pannetier I Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. One Center Plaza I Boston, MA 02108 RE: Lake Quannapowitt RehabiIllation, Wakefield I Dear Ms. Pannetier: Thank you for supplying the Massachusetts Historical Commission with information concerning the proposed rehabilitation of Lake Quannapowitt I in Wakefield. Staff of the MHC have reviewed the materials you sub- mitted. The project location includes a prehistoric archaeological site which is listed in the Inventory of Historic and Archaeological I Assets of the Commonwealth. Review of project plans indicates that this site will not be affected by the proposal. I MHC feels that this project is unlikely to affect significant historic or archaeological resources. No further review is required in compliaance _ with Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 9, Sections 26C and 27C, a-s • amended by Chapter 152 of the Acts of 1982 (950 CHR 71). If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Brona Simon or I Jordan Kerber at this offi.ce. Sincerely, Valerie A. Executive State Historic Preservation Officer I Massachusetts Historical Commission i VAT/dr i I CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. environmental engineers, scientists, One Center Plaza i planners. 4 management consultants Boston. Massacnusetts 02108 I 617 742-5151 i December 9, 1985 I Ms. Allison Sanders-Fleming Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program 100 Cambridge Street i Boston, MA 02202 Re: Review of Proposed Rehabilitation of Lake i Quannapowitt, Wakefield Massachusetts i Dear Ms. Sanders-Fleming: Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. (CDM), has been retained by the Town of Wakefield to conduct a Diagnostic/Feasibility study of Lake Quannapowitt in Wakefield, in conjunction with the Massachusetts Clean Lakes Program i (Chapter 628). This program focuses on improving the recreational potential of lakes and ponds in Massachusetts, and as a result of these studies, a number of improvements designed to reduce aquatic weed and algae problems have been proposed. The primary components, of the project are as follows: I • Dredging ten (10) acres on the west side of the lake to eliminate the weed problem in this area; i • Placement of the dredge spoils on-site behind a bermed area near the Lord Wakefield Inn; i • Placement of a bermed control structure at the inlet to reduce ' ' " siltation and phosphorus levels entering the lake; and i • 'Annual weed harvesting to further increase recreational uses. Since the project is scheduled to begin next year, we would appreciate your review of the proposed project for any rare species or significant i communities which may be impacted by the project. Enclosed please find a project summary and map indicating the construction areas. We would also be'happy-to forwa.rd-a copy of the ful-1 report if you need it for your i review. i i i I I CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. I Ms. Allison Sanders-Fleming ft December 9, 1985 Page Z If you have any questions concerning this project or require any additional information, please contact me. Sincerely, CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. • • Eileen Panrretier Project Manager I Enclosures i i f i i i i i i i Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program i January 3, 1986 Ms. Eil een Panetier i Camp Dresser & McKee One Center Plaza Boston, MA 02108 RE: Proposed Rehabilitation of Lake i Quannapowitt, Wakefield, MA Dear Ms. Pannetier, i Thank you for contacting the Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program regarding rare species and ecologically significant communities in the vicinity of Lake Quannapowitt, Wakefield, Massachusetts. At this time, we are not aware i of any rare species or significant natural communities in this area. As our inventory expands with ongoing fieldwork and research, more data on i this area may become available in the future. Since Ms. Sanders-Fleming is no longer working with the MNHP, kindly address i all future environmental review requests to me. i Sincerely, Joanne Michaud i Environmental Reviewer JM/jm i i i i i i Division of Fisheries and Wildlife 100 Cambridge Street, Boston, Mass. 02202 (617) 727-9194,-3151 I CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. environmental engineers, scientists, One Center Plaza I planners, & management consultants Boston. Massachusetts 02108 1 617 742-5151 I December 9, 1985 I Mr. Ralph Andrews Coastal Ecosystems Specialist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service I 1 Gateway Center, Newton Corner Newton, MA 02158 Re: Review of Proposed Rehabilitation of Lake I Quannappwftt, Wakefield Massachusetts I Dear Mr. Andrews: Camp Dresser & McKee Inc. (COM), has been retained by the Town of Wakefield to conduct a Diagnostic/Feasibility study of Lake Quannapowitt in I Wakefield, in conjunction with the Massachusetts Clean Lakes Program (Chapter 628). This program focuses on improving the recreational potential of lakes and I ponds in" Massachusetts, and as a result'of these studies, a number of improvements designed to reduce aquatic weed and algae problems have been I proposed. The primary components of the project are as follows: • Dredging ten (10) acres' on the west side of the lake to eliminate I the weed problem in this area; • Placement of the dredge spoils on-site behind a bermed area near the Lord Wakefield Inn; I • . Placement of a bermed control structure at the inlet to reduce siltation and phosphorus levels entering the lake; and I 0 Annual weed harvesting to further incraase recreational uses.. Since the project is scheduled to begin next year, we would appreciate your review of. the proposed project for any significant fish or wildlife I communities which may be impacted by the project. Enclosed please find a project s.ummaryi.a map indicating the construction areas, and a copy of the I final report. I I I I I CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. I Mr. Ralph Andrews December 9, 1985 I Page 2 . - .• I • If you have any questions concerning this project or require any additional information, please contact me. | Sincerely, g CAMP DRESSER & McKEE INC. I Eileen Pannetier Project Manager i Enclosures i i i i i i i i I i United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ECOLOGICAL SERVICES P.O. BOX 1518 l CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 03301 I Ms. Eileen Pannetier JAN 2 8 -333 Camp, Dresser 4 McKee, Inc. One Center Plaza l Boston, Massachusetts 02103 l Dear Ms. Pannetier: Your letter to Mr. Ralph Andrews regarding the Lake Quynnapowitt Clean Lakes I Project was referred to this office for response. Future correspondence with the Fish and Wildlife Service regarding this or other clean lakes projects in New England should be sent to this office. l '•Je appreciate the opportunity to review the proposed work,, anci provide the following comments and recommendations.' The effort to "save" Quannapowitt Lake calls for the destruction of much of the ecologically and aesthetically l valuable portion of the Lake itself. In particular, the proposed wetland dredging and subsequent in-water disposal of dredged spoil'is inconsistent with the preservation and enhancement of the Lake's amenities. The Draft I Final Report recognizes only the nuisances to boating associated with the dense stands of floating and emergent aquatic plants, and ignores the benefits provided by these wetlands. Although a matter of preference, most people find I the foliage and flowers of arrowhead, arrow-arum, pond lily and yellow pond lily aesthetically pleasing, and that the presence of these aquatic inacrophytes enhances the value of many water-based activities in and srouna the lake. In fact, reference in the Report to these plants as "weeds" siat as I a position that is debatable. The breas of emergent and floating wetland plants provide more tnan jus'; I aesthetic values. They are major fish habitats, serving as resting, feeding, spawning and nursery areas for in any fish species. Likewise, these areas ^re habitat for amphibians, repitiles, waterfowl, and wading birds, while some I songbirds use them as primary feeding grounds. The habitat losses from dredging would reduce the lake's overall abundance and functional diversity of flora and fauna. l Our review of the Report reveals little connection between the wetland portions of the lake proposed for dredging and the lake's overall nutrient budget. The only justification we find for dredging is to remove the wetland l plants and their substrate to make sailing and motor boating more convenient in these sraas. Elimination of the dredging proposal would preserve these valuable fish and wildlife habitats without significantly affecting the lake's l nutrient budget, or algas and Elodea control. I I I I I A "no-Jredge" scenario would also eliminate the need to destroy other wetiunds through the disposal of dredge spoil, while still accommodating inlet I nutrient/sediment control. Similarly, the no-dredge option would prevent the resuspension of contaminants presently buried in sediments. The analysis displayed in Table 10 does not include pesticides or complex organic materials. The heavily urbanized watershed and the dumping of co-?.l tar from I the former coal gasification plant are cause to suspect that pesticides and/or polynuclesr aromatic hydrocarbons CPAH's) may be present in the laXe's sediments. The highly carcinogenic nature of many PAH's and their relatively I low solubilities in water would be %eod reason to leave them undisturbed in the sediments, if present. I The "weedtr harvester option could be retained without the permanent impacts to the lake's fish and wildlife that would result from dredging and spoil disposal. Depending on tne timing and pattern of pl^nt harvestin;; in the I areas proposed for dredging, the overall impacts to fish and wildlife habitat oould be minimizc-J. If, for instance-, harvesting is done after June, and is limited to p^ths cut through the stands of aquatic plants not exceeding 30-MG percent, of the Zetland's arc-a, we would expect f!• w major impacts, I recommend 5 similar regimen for the harvesting of emergent aquatic plants in portions of tho lak:e wuere dredging is nc't proposed, 'out v;her 3 "weed" control I is proposed. In summary, we have serious problems with the proposed "restoration" plan. Our concerns and recommendations are not given lightly. You will note chat we I had few objections to the restoration plans for the recently-proposed Jl.j;vn Lakes Projects in Lynn, Massachusetts. However, we believe the resources at risk ir. LaKe 3u:;nn^powitt are of far gr-jJter quality, and deserving of spc-ci ;1 attention, especially in light of the lake's history of filling an;] water I -inversions. ,/e will be reviewing .^nd coiYimentins upon the Section -'(O-t p.-:-mi:- application for the site and will likely recommend its denial for the filling I activities as proposed in the Dm ft Final Report. Please contact Mr. Kenneth Carr or Ms. Susanna von Oettin^en (603-224-2535) I regarding any further coordination in this matter. Sincerely yours, Gordon E. Beckett I Supervisor I I I I rCC: USEPA, Boston (D. Thompson) USAC OE , Wai t ham ( W . La wl ass) MA DWPC, V/estboro KO/HR Heading File Cong. Ed Mar key I R;n 2100 A ^ JFK Federal 31dg. • Boston, MA 02203 • KCarr :j'J: 1-25-36 : I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ™ APPENDIX F • PERMIT/APPROVAL APPLICATIONS i i i i i i i i i i i i i NOTICE OF INTENT I DEQE Fria No. I (To be provided Dy DEQE) Commonwealth City/Town __ of Massachusetts I Applicant I Notice of Intent Under the I Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act, G.L. c. 131, §40 and I Application for a Department of the Army Permit Part I: General Information I 1. Location: Street Address. Lot Number I 2. Project: Type. Description I I I 3. Registry: County. Current Book. Page. I Certificate (If Registered Land), 4. Applicant. Tel. I Address. I 5. Property Owner. Tet. Address. I 6. Representative. Tel. Address. I 7. Have the Conservation Commission and the DEQE Regional Office each been sent, by certified mail or hand delivery. 2 copies of completed Notice of Intent, with supporting plans and documents? I Yes Q No C3 I 3-1 I 1 8. Have all obtainable permits, variances and approvals required by local by-law been obtained? Yes D No D Obtained: Applied For: Not Applied For: 1 1 1 9. Is any portion of the site subject to a Wetlands Restriction Order pursuant to G.L- c. 1 31 . §40A or G.L • c. 130. §105? Yes D No D 10. List all plans and supporting documents submitted with this Notice of Intent. Identifying 1 Number/Letter Title. Date 1 1 1 1 1 1 . Check those resource areas within which work is proposed: (aj D Buffer Zone 1 (b) Inland: D Bank* Land Subject to Flooding, D Bordering Vegetated Wetland ' O Bordering 1 D Land Under Water Body & Waterway D Isolated (c) Coastal: 1 D Land Under the Ocean • D .Designated Port Area* • D Coastal Beach* G Coastal Dune O Barrier Beach G Coastal Bank D Rocky Intertidal Shore" G Salt Marsh* 1•^p D Und Under Salt Pond * G Land Containing Shellfish * D Fish Run* *Ukely to involve U.S. Army Corps of Engineers concurrent jurisdiction. See Genera! Instructions for Completing Notice of Intent. 1 3-2 1 I Part II: Site Description Indicate which of the following information has been provided (on a plan, in narrative description or calcula- tions) to clearly, completely and accurately describe existing site conditions. I Identifying Number/Letter (of plan .narrative i or calculations) Natural Features: Soils i Vegetation Topography Open water bodies (including ponds and lakes) i Flowing water bodies (including streams and rivers) _ Public and private surface water and ground water supplies on or within 100 feet of site Maximum annual ground water elevations with dates and location of test i Boundaries of resource areas checked under Part 1, rtem 11 above Other i Man-made Features: Structures (such as buildings, piers, towers and headwalls) Drainage and flood control facilities at the site and immediately off the site, including i culverts and open channels (with inverts), dams and dikes Subsurface sewage disposal systems Underground utilities i Roadways and parking areas Property boundaries, easements and rights-of-way i Other Part III: Work Description Indicate which of the following information has been provided (on a plan, in narrative description or calcula- i tions) to clearly, completely and accurately describe work proposed within each of the resource areas checked in Part I, item 11 above. Identifying i Number/Letter (of plan, narrative or calculations) Planview and Cross Section of: i Structures (such as buildings, piers, towers and headwalls) Drainage and flood control facilities, including culverts and open channels (with inverts), i dams and dikes Subsurface sewage disposal systems & underground utilities Filling, dredging and excavating, indicating volume and composition o1 material i Compensatory storage areas, where required in accordance with Part III. Section 10:57 (4) of the regulations Other i Point Source Discharge Description oi characteristics o1 discharge from point source Iboth closed and open channel), when point of discharge falls within resource area checked under Part I, item i 11 above, as supported by standard engineering calculations, data and plans, including but not limited to the following: i 3-3 i I I 1. Delineation of the drainage area contributing to the point of discharge; 2. Pre- and post-development peak run-off from the drainage area, at the point of discharge, for at least the 10-year and 100-year frequency storm; I 3. Pre- and post-development rate of infiltration contributing to the resource area checked under Part I. item 11 above; i 4. Estimated water quality characteristics of pre- and post-development run-off at the point of discharge. P»rt IV: Mitigating Measures i 1. Clearly, completely and accurately describe, with reference to supporting plans and calculations where necessary: (a) Afl measures and designs proposed to meet the performance standards set forth under each re- i source area specified in Part II or Part III of the regulations; or (b) why the presumptions set forth under each resource area specified in Part (t or Part 111 ol the regula- i tions do not apply. D Coastal Resource Area Type: identifying number or letter i Q Mand of support documents i i i i D Coastal Resource Area Type: identifying number or letter i D Inland of support documents i i i i 3-4 i 1 , Q Coastal Resource Area Type: Identifying number or letter O Inland of support documents 1 1 1 1 1 2. Clearly, completely and accurately describe, with reference to supporting plans and calculations where _ necessary: I (a) all measures and designs to regulate work within the Buffer Zone so as to insure that said work does not alter an area specified in Part 1, Section 1 0.02(1 ) (a) of these regulations; or (b) if work in the Buffer Zone will alter such an area, all measures and designs proposed to meet | the performance standards established for the adjacent resource area specified in Part II or i Part III of these regulations. O Coastal ' Resource Area Type Bordered 6y 1 00-Foot Discretionary Zone: Identifying number or letter i O Inland ol support documents i • i i i • i i i i I Part V: Additional Information for a Department ol the Army Permit I 1. COE Application No., 2 (tp be provided by COE) (Name of waterway) I 3. Names and addresses 0f property owners adjoining your property: I I I I 4. Document other project alternatives (i.e., other locations and/or construction methods, particularly those that would eliminate the discharge of dredged or filt material into waters or wetlands). I 5. 8'/i" x 11" drawings in planview and cross-section, showing the resource area and the proposed activ- tty within the resource area. Drawings must be to scale and should be clear enough for photocopying. I Certrfcator is required from the Dvtson of Water Pollution Control before the Federal permit can be esued. Certification may be obtained by contacting the Diveon of Water PoGuton Control, 1 Winter Street Boston. I Massachusetts 02108. Where the actMty will take place witun the area under the Massachusetts approved Coastal Zone Management Program, the applicant certifies that hs proposed actr^ty conrtpies wflh and will be conducted I in a manner that is consistent with the approved program. Information provided will be used in evaluating the application for a peimrt and s made a matter of pubic I record through issuance of a pubhc notice. Dscbsure of ths information e voluntary, however if necessary information e not provided, the applcaton cannot be processed nor can a permit be ssued. I I hereby certify under the pains and penalties of perjury that the foregoing Notice of Intent and accompanying I plans, documents and supporting data are true and complete, to the best of my knowledge. • I Signature of Applicant Date Signature of Applicant's Representative Date r/\ DM "Exception le ENC Form 4345 •ppto*»d by HQUSACE. 6 N«T IflSI" I FORM NED 100 (TEST) "Thii document coat'in* • ivint Department of the Arir>> and Slut* of M*»«*chvicltt •pphetiiei \ PUI AY H v for • permit to «bi»in prrmmion l« pffform •tiivitivi in L'nittrt Stctti ••l*r* Thr Offter I of M»nt(*m»nt *nd Bud|«t (OMB) h»i »pprovtd lhn»( qumlion* rrquirtd by (h* US Armji Corpt of Engmcrr* OMB Ngmbtr 0102-0036 and tipirition d*ir of .10 Srpirmbtr 19B3 «ppli**". Tnii • littmfnl will bt •*( in 6 point t>pf I 3-6 1 I i i ii i i CHAPTER 91 WATERWAYS i i LICENSE APPLICATION i i i i i i i i i i i i i I I THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS I TO THE DEPAR3KOT OF'ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ENGINEERING: (Great Ponds) The Petition of I municipality. , in the County of •ad Cownonweelth aforesaid, shoveth: I That said Petitioner desires to I la and over tb* waters of located ac I in cht of in the County of and Commonwealeh aforesaid, cbat land above the I natural bigb vatar mark and In front of which aaid atructura would stand, it ownad by I MAKE ~ ADDRESS and chat cba plan* hertvich show in datail, cba location, diaftnciona and aasnar of I construction of aaid proposed structure. I Tha use of the proposed structure/fill is . I Wherefore said Petitioner asks chat a license be granted co I to build and maintain said structure in accordance with said plans, subject to the provisions of the ninety-first chapter I of the General Laws, and of all laws which are or may be in force applicable thereto. p*ee Applicant's Telephone No. I Signature: Engineer's telephone So. I Addresss I I 11 I I I I I * WATER QUALITY _ CERTIFICATION • APPLICATION I i i i i i i i i i i i i I 314 CMR: DIVISION C1" WATER POLLUTION CONTROL I 314 CMR 9.00: CERTIFICATION FOR DKr.PGlNG. fiRLPGED MATCR1A! DISPOSAL AND FILLING IN WATERS I Section 9.01: General Provisions 9.02: Submission of Application 9,03: Criteria for Evaluation of Application I 9.04: Water Quality Certification 9.05: Miscellaneous Provisions 9.90: Appendix A - Standard Application form I 9.91: Appendix B - Supplemental Information form 9.01: General Provisions (1) Statutory Authority - These regulations are adopted by the I Division pursuant to Section 27(12) of the Massachusetts Clean Waters Act, M.G.L. c, 21. s. 26-53. (2) Scope and Purpose ' (al These regulations are promulgated In order to establish pro- I cedures, criteria and standards for the uniform and coordinated administration of water quality certification of dredging and dredged material disposal and filling projects in waters of the Commonwealth. To ensure coordination between these regulations and the relevant I policies, laws or programs of other EOCA agencies, the Division will issue a certification to such agencies regarding the consistency of any project ^th these regulations and the policies, plans and standards of tne Division. I These regulations are intended to encompass drpdning oroig^g in the waters or wetland areas of the Commonwealth which are also subject to the jurisdiction 01 eiiner a tederal agency under Section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341, or .the Department under M.G.L. c.,131 s. 40 or M.G.L. c 91. I (b)Relationship ID Section 4D1 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1341). Section 4QT provides that any applicant Jor a federal license or permit to conduct any activity which may result in a discharge into ihe navigable waters I of a State must provide the Federal licensing agency with a certi- I fication form that state's water pollution control agency that the proposed discharge will not violate applicable federal or state dis- charge limitations or water quality standards. Projects involving I dredging, disposal of dredged material, and filling in navigable waters are subject to several federal licensing and/or permitting requirements and by their very nature involve discharge to the navigable waters. Thus, such federally licensed projects generally require a Section 401 certification by the approhate state water pollution control agency. The Division Is responsible for issuing Section 401 certifications for federally licensed activities with discharges to the waters of the Commonwealth. (M.G.L. c. 21. s. 27). These regulations establish the procedures whereby persons in- tending to dredge, dispose of dredged material or fill in the waters of the Commonwealth may apply tor a Section 401 certification and the criteria to be applied by the Division in reviewing such ap- plications. These regulations also address the requirements of Section 43 of the Massachusetts Act relative to these activities. (c) Relationship of M.G.L. c. 21. s. 43 to Section 401 M.G.L. c. 131. s. 40 (Wetlands Protection Act) and M.G.L. c. 91 (Water- ways).Projects subject to M.G.L. c. 131, s. 40 and M.G.L. c. 91 will in many cases result in the discharge of pollutants into the waters of the Commonwealth and as such require a permit from the Director pursuant to Section 43 of the Massachusetts Act. Section 43(2). however, authorizes the Director to exempt discharges from this permit requirement by the promulgation of a regulation. .7/1/79 Vol. 12 - 534® I I 314 CMR: DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL 9.01: continued Insofar aa federally licensed prefects are regulated by the Di- I vision through the Section 401 certification process, these projects are hereby exempted from the permit requirements of M.G.L. c. 21. s. 43, provided that such projects need either a Wetlands or Waterways permit. I Projects involving dredging, dredged material disposal and filling activities In wetlands subject to M.G.L. c. 131. s. 40 must obtain an Order of Conditions from the local Conservation Commission or a Superseding Order from the Department if the local order is ap- i pealed by any party, including the Department. If the dredging project is below the mean high water mark or in certain rivers, streams or ponds, a license or permit must be obtained from the Department's Division of Waterways pursuant to c. 91. For any project subject to M.G.L. c. 131. s. 40 or M.G.L. c. 91. and not i also subject to Section 401, the Division will supply a water quality certification to the Department. Insofar as the state-licensed projects are also regulated by the Division through a certification process, these projects are hereby i exempted from the permit requirements of M.G.L. c. 21, s. 43, provided that such projects need either a Wetlands or Waterways permit. Projects which are neither licensed by the federal government. i norbv the'"Departmentare not subject to these regulations^ (d) Relationship to the Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Program. T These regulations insofar as they apply to projects (n the i coastal zone are intended to be consistent with and form part of the Commonwealth's Coastal Zone Management Program (here- inafter "C2M Program"), as it has been promulgated and defined by the regulations and amendments issued pursuant to M.G.L. c. 21A and entitled "Establishment of the Coastal Zone Management i Program by the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs" (hereinafter "CZM Regulations". 301 CMR 10.00). These re- gulations of the Division, however, are adopted independently of and do not depend for their force and effect on the CZM Pro- i gram or the CZM Regulations. The CZM Regulations establish the CZM policies, which are part of the CZM Program, as state environmental policy, which the i Division recognizes and shall carry out in accordance with M.G.L. c. 21A, s. 2. The interpretation and application of these Water Quality Certification regulations insofar as they apply to projects in the coastal zone shall be consistent with the i policies and Policy Appendix of the CZM Program to the maximum extent permissible by law. The policies listed below, which are further clarified in the CZM Regulations, incorporate the general criteria of the CZM Regulations for determinations made by the Division, but the provisions of the more specific regulations i contained in these regulations shall govern. Should the Secretary find through the conflict resolution procedures of M.G.L. c. 21A and/or 301 CMR 10.06(20)-10.06(31) that the Water Quality Certification conflicts with CZM policies, the i findings of the Secretary shall apply. 2. In order to enhance the quality and value of water re- sources , to establish a program (or prevention, control and abatement of water pollution and to regulate the discharge of i pollutants into the waters of the Commonwealth, the envir- onmental policy of the Division shall be. but need not be limited to: a. Protecting ecologically «in*tttcant reaourrg an»»g (salt i marshes, shellfish beds, dunes, beaches, barrier beaches. and salt ponds) for their contributions to marine productivity and value as natural habitats and storm buffers, so far as they relate to water quality impacts; i 1/1/79 Vol. 12 - 534^5) i I 314 CMR: DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL I 9.01: continued b. Protecting complexes^ of marine resource areas of unique productivity (Areas for Preservation or Restoration (APRs) I and Areas of Critical Environmental Concern CACECs_p and ensuring that activities in or impacting such complexes are designed and carried out to minimize adverse effects on marine productivity, habitat values, water quality and storm I buffering values of the entire complex: C. Supporting jutammp^j of th» flfltJQnal wa^cr quality goals for all waters of the coastal zone through coordination with existing water quality planning and management activities and I ensuring that all activities conditioned by the Division are consistent with federal and state effluent limitations and water quality standards; and d. Ensuring that dredging and disposal of dredged material minimize adverse elfects on water Quality T physical jsroccsses,, I marine prodUctivTfv^and jyjjl^ichealth. (e) Relationship to the_Massac~hu5eUs Environmental Policy Act (MEPA). M.G.L. c. 30 s. 61-62H. these regulations arc intended to coordinate wafer quality certifications with the review procedures I of EOEA agencies and the public under MEPA. (All projects which are not categorically excluded under regulations adopted under MEPA will follow the procedures detailed in 314 CMR 9.02(2). While these regulations address certain obligations of the ap- I . plicant pursuant to MEPA. they in no way relieve ihe applicant of his responsibility to ascertain and comply with such obligations himself under any applicable MEPA regulations. I • (3) Definitions - As used in these regulations, the following words have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise: Applicant - A person conducting any activity or the construction o( I any project which involves dredging, dredged material disposal or filling in any waters of the Commonwealth. Application and Application Form - The application appended to these I regulations. Certification - The document issued by the Division signifying com- I pliance or non-compliance with these regulations. Coastal Zone - The area defined by 301 CMR 10.03 of the CZM Re- gulations. I Department - The Department of Environmental Quality Engineering. Director - The Director of the Massachusetts Division of Water Pollu- tion Control, whose authority, powers and duties are established in I M.G.L. c. 21, s. 26-53. Division - The Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control, established pursuant to M.G.L. c. 21. s. 26. I Environmental Impact Report or EIR - The report described in MEPA and the MEPA regulations. Environmental Notification Form or ENF - The Form set out in Ap- pendix A to the MEPA regulations. Environmental Monitor - The publication described in 301 CMR 10.14(1). High Energy Sites - Locations in the open ocean where the average movement of the water in contact with the bottom exceeds 0.3 feet per second; suitable only for unconsolidated material. I 7/1/79 Vol. K - 534 I I I 314 CMR: DIVISION Or WATER POLLUTION CONTROL 9.01: continued I Low Energy Sites - Locations in the open ocean where the average movement of the water In contact with the bottom is less than 0.06 feet per second. Massachusetts Act * The Massachusetts Clean Waters Act, M.G.L. c. I Zl, •- 26-53. MEPA - The Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act. M.G.L. c. 30, s. I 61-62H, as amended. MEPA regulations - The regulations adopted by the Secretary to im- plement MEPA. (301 CMR). i Permit or Section 43 permit - A permit issued by the Director pursuant to M.G.L. c. 21. 8. 43. Person * Any agency or political subdivision of the Commonwealth or I the Federal government, public or private corporation or authority, individual, partnership or association, or other entity, including any officer of a public or private agency or organization. Project - The subject of an application filed pursuant to these re- i gulations, including the methods of dredging or filling, transporting and disposing of dredged material. Sandy Sites - Locations In the open ocean where the composition of a i boticci sample contains no more than 20\ (by weight) of particles less than ,064 mm in diameter. Silty Sites - Locations in the open ocean where the composition of a i bottom sample contains more than 2H (by weight) of particles less than .064 mm in diameter. Secretary - The Secretary of the Executive Office of Environmental AUairs. . Standard Application Form - Part I of the application appended as Appendix A to these regulations. Supplemental Information Form - Part II of the application in Appendix \ B of these regulations. Waters of the Commonwealth • All waters within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth, including, without limitation, rivers, streams, lakes, i ponds, springs, impoundments, estuaries and coastal waters and ground-waters. i (4) Sampling Methods - For the purpose of collecting, preserving and analyzing samples in connection with these regulations, the following methods shall be used: (t) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Methods for Chemical i Analysis of Water and Wastes, "EPA-625/6/74-003. July 1974, Na- tional Environmental Research Center, Analytical Quality Control Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio. (Available from the Office of Technology Transfer, Washington, D.C. 20460). (b) American Public Health Association, Standard Methods tor i the Examination of Water and Wastewater. 14lh Ed., American water Works Association, Water Pollution Control Federation. APHA, New York. 1971. (c) American Society for Testing Materials, 1974 Annual of i ASTM Standards. Part 31. Water. 1974, Philadelphia. Where a method Is not given in these publications or a method given in these publications ts not appropriate, any other equivalent i method aporoved by the Director shall v used. 7/1/79 Vol. 12 - 534<12l i >^ 314 CMR; DIVISION Of WATER POLLUTION CONTROL 9.02: Submission of an Application (1) Application Form - The application appended In these icyululions is hereby adopted and Incorporated as part of these regulations. The application consists of two parts: a "Standard Application Form"; and a "Supplemental Information Form". Copies of the application are available from the Director. Applicants need lo complete only the Standard Application Form until informed that additional information is I required . (2) Categorically Excluded Projects - For projects categorically ex- eluded under the MEPA regulations, applicants shall file a completed i Standard Application Form with the Division or with the Division of Waterways or the Wetlands Division, as appropriate. Upon receipt or referral of the application the Director will review it to determine its completeness and the need for the Supplemental Inform.iiion form. If i the Director deems the application^ incomplete, he shall so miufy iho apftljqant within 30 days of his receipt of the application. The ap- plication will "not te processed T»y the division unuT thtTmddpnuacie:: identified by the Director have been corrected by the applicant unless the applicant fails to correct the inadequacies identified by the i Director within 30 days of receiving notice of such inadequacies or requests that the application be processed as submitted.. In such case the Division will proceed to process the application. The insufficiency of the information in the application may result in, and form the basis i for. a denial of the certification. (3) Projects not Categorically Excluded (al For all projects which are .not categorically excluded under the i reulations th' e applicant haii sulwii io ihi- MKHA~ "cprnp i etc c Stan d a r d_ pp I i c a li on Torrn wi 1 h '. h e L NT an d s h jfl sj m- fftantously Id \stribute copies ol the EM and inc standard "A"P- plication Form to ail COLA agencies on the dredging distribution list i maintained and available from the MEPA unit. (b) As provided by the MEPA Regulations, within 20 days of the publication of the notice of the Secretary's receipt of ihc ENf, EOEA agencies and the public may inform the Secretary of their opinion regarding the need for an EIR. If more information is i required in order to address issues raised regarding the project (whether under the scope of review of the Division or not), a scoping session may be held by the MEPA Unit to determine the issues which need to be addressed. Based upon the scoping i session, the Supplemental Information Form may be required. It is intended that questions regarding disposal alternatives, dredging techniques, and the appropriateness of the disposal classifications will be evaluated by the Division in concert with the MEPA process. i (c) The Division shall art on q^ water quality _certificviUun ap- plication within 90 days of the publication of none** 01 im- ovail- ability of the final EIR. within 90 .days of publication of notice in the Environmental Monitor that an EIR is not required . or within jn, i days of the compjetic-n of the full application, whichever is latest. 9.03 Criteria for the Evaluation of Applications (1) General * The criteria contained in this part are adoptfd as i interim guidance for the evaluation of dredging, dredge material disposal and filling projects in the waters of the Commonwr.Uth. In the opinion of the Division, these criteria represent the best in- formation currently available for evaluation of such projects in i Massachusetts waters. As additional information becomes available, these criteria will be modified to reflect the latest and best data and evaluation procedures. i The criteria contained in the following set, ions form the Uiiii.-; lor the evaluation of dredging projects and shall be presumed to be ap- i 7/1/79 VoL 12 - S i i 314 CMR: DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ii i 9.03: continued proprlate unless other information is presented for a particular pro- ject. In the case of projects subject to the ME PA process, additional i Information may be generated relative to the expected impacts from the j dredge spoil, the options available for disposal techniques, or alter- native sites. i (2) Classification of Dredge or Fill Material - On the basis of the application forms, the MEPA process, and any other information pre- sented to the Division, the Division will classify the dredge or fill material into one of three categories and will impose such conditions on i the project as may be necessary. The categories will generally be determined by the chemical constituents (see Table I) of the material, but the material will also be subdivided Into one of three physical i types (Table II). (3) Table I Classification of Dredge or Fill Material By Chemical Constituents i All units are in parts per million Category One Category Two Category Three Arsenic (As) < 10 10-20 > 20 i Cadmium (Cd) < 5 5-10 > 10 Chromium (Cr) < 100 • 100-300 . > 300 Copper (Cu) <200 200-400 ;> 400 Lead (Pb) < 100 100-200 > 200 i Mercury (Hg) < 0.5 0.5-1.5 -, 1.5 Nickel (Ni) < 50 50-100 > 100 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB) < 0.5 0.5-1.0 > 1.0 Vanadium (V) < 75 75-125 ^ 125 I Zinc (2n) < 200 200-400 > 400 • Category One materials are those which contain no chemicals listed in Table I in concentrations exceeding those listed in the first column. I Category Two materials are those which contain any one or more of the chemicals listed in Table I in the concentration range shown in the second column. I Catergory Three materials are those materials which contain any chemical listed in Table I in a concentration greater than shown in the i third column. Other Important man-induced chemicals or compounds not Included in Table I which are known or suspected to be in the sediments at the dredge site will of course be given weight in the classification of the material and the choice of dredging and disposal methods. When the i Division has reason to suspect the presence of any other toxins due to a nearby discharge, additional testing for that element may be re- quired. i (4) Table II Classification of Dredge or Fill Material By Physical Characteristics J i Type A Type B Type C Percent silt-clay < 60 60-90 > 90 Percent water < 40 40-60 / 60 i Percent volatile solids (NED methods) < 5 5-10 > 10 Percent oil and greases i (hexane extract) < 0.5 0.5-1.0 > 1.0 i 7/1/79 Vol. 12 - 5 I 314 CMR: DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL i 9.03: continued Type A materials are those materials which contain no substances listtd I InTi II exceeding the amounts indicated tn the first column. Type B materials are those materials which contain any one or more of the substances listed In Table II in the concentration range shown in i the second column. Type C materials are those materials which contain any substance listed in Table II in a concentration greater than shown in the third i column. When the Division has reason to suspect that biological contaminants are present (for example, because of the physical parameters) ad- i ditional testing may be required. (5) Dredging, filling and Disposal Techniques - Table ill identifies the normally approvable techniques for dredging or filling, the normally approvable methods of placing or disposal of the material and the i normally approvable types of disposal sites. The table should be i used in concert with Section 25-26 of the Waterways Regulations. i i i i i i i i i i 7/1/79 Vol. 12 - 534- i f 314 OCR: DrVlSION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL I 9.03: continued I Table II! I Normally Approvable Dredging, Handling and Disposal Options I I CHEMICAL TYPE (TABLE I) Category One Category Two Category Three 1 PHYSICAL TYPE (TABLE ID A B C ABC ABC Dred tint Methods Hydraulic X X X XXX X X X Mechanical X X X XXX X X X i Disposal Methoda t Hydraulic: Sldecast X X 0 000 0 0 0 Hydraulic: Pipeline X X X XXX X X X i Mechanical: Sidecast X X 0 000 0 0 0 Mechanical: Barge X X X XXX X X X Placement i Land or In-harbor disposal with bulk- heading: X <•) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) (a) U> i Open ocean disposal at i high energy, sandy sites X 0 0 000 0 0 0 Open ocean disposal at low energy, allty Sites 0 X (b) 0 (b) (b) (b) (b) (h) Unconflned In -harbor X o o 000 0 P 0 i Beach Replenishment X 0 0 000 0 0 0 Ocher Conditions Tl»tn| and Placeewu to i Avoid Fisheries Impacts (spavninf and runnlnf i periods and areas) (c) (c) (c) (c) (c) (c) (c) Legend: X • normally approvable 0 • Wot nornally approvable i (•) - formally Approvable but control of effluent will be required (b) • ApprovabU only after bioaasay, perfcnted In accordance with established ETA procedures, i indicates no significant biological Impact. A statistically comparable project which haa successfully passed the bioassay test may be substituted. If a significant Mologlcal i Impact is found, this raterlaI is unsuitable for open vatcr disposal. i fe) • Required In all case*. i 7/1/79 Vol. 12 - 534 i I 314 CMR; DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL t 9.04: Water Quality Certification (1) Water Quality Certification - The Division will certify to the appropriate federal or stale agency whether or not the proposed I project or the project as subsequently modified, together with any conditions thereto, will ensure the maintenance or attainment of the Massachusetts Water Quality Standards in the affected waters of the Commonwealth end will minimize the impact of the project on the en- i vironment. i Copies of the certification will be forwarded to the applicant and surh other persons and agencies requesting a copy. The certification as issued will contain: — the name and address of the applicant; « the federal license or permit application identification number, i if applicable; -- a statement that there is reasonable assurance that the project or activity will be conducted in a manner which will not violate applicable water quality standards; i -- any conditions deemed necessary by the Director to insure: maintenance or attainment of applicable water quality standards, minimization of any damage to the environment which may result from the project, or compliance with any applicable provisions of Massachusetts law which the Director is required or authorized i to address; and -- a statement that this certification does not relieve the applicant of the duty to comply with any oiher statutes or regulations. i (2) Notice and Hearing - Public notice of the pendency of the Water Quality Certification snail be provided as part of the Section 6(5J notice of the regulations for the Administration of Waterv*jys Licenses. The Division will participate in any hearings resulting from ihc Wau-r- i ways process if the water quality certification is dl issue. All issuer related to the water quality certification must br raised at such hearing. i 9.05: Miscellaneous Provisions (1) enforcement - Failure to comply with these regulations shull be enforced as provided in M.G.L. c. 21, s. 42. i (2) Severability - Should any provision of these regulations be hHd invalid, ihe^ remainder shall not be affected thereby. (3) Other^ Regulations - Nothing in these regulations shMl be con- sir ue3as nullifying any regulation of anoiner agency of the Com- 1 monwealth limiting the use of the waters and/or adjacent lands for other purposes. . (4) Waiver - The Division may waive certain testing requirements in I Class A waters if, on the basis of the history of the area and/or samples of shellfish or sediment taken by the Division, the Department . or the Division of Marine Fisheries within the last 3 years, the area to I be dredged is known to fall into Category One. (5) Emergency Action - In the rare situation where immediate action by an agency or person is essential to avoid or eliminate an immediate threat to the public health or safety, or a serious and immediate threat I to natural resources, 4 project may commence without a certification, provided that the agency or person must have obtained the prior approval of the Director. In all cases an application will be required within 10 days of the commencement of the project and the applicant I shall commence full compliance with the provisions of these regulations. I 7/1/79 Vol. 12 • 534(1?} I I 314 CMR: DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL I 9, OS: continued An emergency action taken under this section prior to the submission I of an application shall be calculated to minimize damage to the en- vironment without compromising the end sought to be attained in the emergency action. Where the reasons for undertaking the emergency action no longer exist, any emergency action taken under this section I shall cease until the provisions of thse regulations and any other laws and regulations concerning the project have been complied with. (6) Effective Date - These regulations shall take effect September 15, 1978. Any application submitted to the Division prior to September I 15. 1978. shall be considered under the standards and criteria in . effect prior to the adoption of these regulations. i 9.90: Appendix A * Standard Application Form ._^ Standard Application i 1) Nu* find Address of Applicant: i Telephone Number: i Ma** .ind AJdrea* of Authorized Aftnt, If any: i Telephone Number: Description of frggpsed Dredging i A) Describe In detail the proposed project or activity, including the location, the pvirp«*t and Intended use nf the project. Identification »<* the waters of the Comnonwea 11h Affected by the project, and the i water quality classification applicable to those waters. i i i i i Date Activity to covswnce __.___ Date Activity Co bt completed I) Attach • Blan(t) of the proposed project drawn at follows: i 7/1/79 Vol. 12-534(18) i 314 CXR: DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL 9.90: continued i Vicinity Hap. Identify tht up or chart fro* which the vicinity map was t*ken and ahov the following: I Location of the. activity aiti includlni latitude and — longitude and rlv« mile, it known. i ——— Has* of waterway. All applicable political (county, borough, tovn, city. etc.) —— boundary lines. Kaaa of and distance to local town, commit?, or other i — identifying location, tfaaes of all roadt in th* vicinity of the altt. I —— Graphic scale. i —— Horth arrow. View. Tht plan vltw of th« prooo*ed activity should th* follovtn|: i • Cxiatinf ahortlinia. i . Ebb and flood In tidal waters and dlrerttcn of flew in river*. " • North arrow. i • Graphic or numerical acale. Mean high and low water linea It the proposed actlvtcv — — Is located In tidal arua. i Ordinary high water line and ordinary low water line if — — the proposed activity la on a lake or ordinary high water If on a atrea*. i — — Water depths around th* project. ' Principal dimensions of the structure or work and extent ~" of encroachment beyond the applicable high water line. i • __ Uaterward dimension from an existlnf permenert fixed i structure or object. i i i 7/1/79 Vol. 12 - 534 i I I 314 CUR: DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL i 9.90: continued i distance between proposed activity and navigation channel, vhere applicable. I Harbor lines, if established sad if known. Location of structures, if any. In navigable waters {lately adjacent to the proposed activity. I ___ Location of any wetlands, avmmps, marshe*. etc. Identify. _ Proximity to any designated areas of critical environmental concern/Areae for Preservation or teatoration (ACCC/ATR) i (Sea C2M regulations) Elevation and/pf Section Viev. The elevation and/or aaction view i of the propoaad project ahould ahov tha follovingi Same, vatec elevationa aa i& the plan view. i _._.. Depth at vatervard face of pro%o«ed work. Show dredging grade. i _ Graphic or nuaxcrlcal scale. ^^_ Croaa-aection of excavation Including approximate side i alopee. C) fhysicJtl Description 1. What is the lenftS, width, depth and volume of the i propoaad project? Length yUs. Vidth yds. Depeh yds. Volume cu. yes. i 2. Is the proposed project considered (a) a n«u project or (b) maintenance of aa existing project! 3. Describe in complete detail the physics! dredging i operation including descriptions of the type of dredge equipment, i.e., hopper dredge, hydraulic 'dredge, etc., tha type of transportation to be used ' from the dredge site to the disposal aite. the method of release of the dredgsd material into the disposal I alte, and the aaae of the contractor it other than i the applicant. I i 7/1/79 Vol. 12 - -«.—. i -/ i 3H CMR: DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL I 9.90: continued i i i D) Historical Fam«ttri 1. To tht b*st of your knowledge, do*s the proposed project i •re* have any past history of: _«_ a) chemical or oil apllls or discharge? Yes No b) upstream or on-site Industrial or municipal discharge Yes No i c) chronic pollutant loading from port or harbor use and/or other indirect i sources of pollutants? Yes No To expedite processing for any affirmative jnsver, provide as ouch historical information as you have, including dates, amounts, i concentrations, etc., of such spills or discharge. 2. <->iat is the expected frequency of maintenance dredging of i this project? Explain. i i i i i i 7/1/79 i Vol. 12 - 534(£) i I 314 CMR: DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL II I 9.90: continued I 4) 0«»crlptlon of _ H't_«_tiit__tft_bji Dredged A) Grain Sl» Analysis I A complete train site analysis of th* uteri*! CD (M dredged i* required. A single pooled representative s*«pl* will be ! analyzed initially. Based on th* lit* and location of th« project and the rttulti of thia initial analysis, the Division •ay tequire additional samples to b« analysod i Sisa Fraction Z of total by weight eo«rii« xravtl 6* •• flna RfJivtl 2-64 •• tund .063-2 — Milt .1)04-06? • I rlay .004 •• I 1) Chcaieal Analysis of Stdiaont A eoaplita bulk analysis of I 9.90: continued I I 5) Description of the Disposal Site for pred_gej__Materla_lL. A) Location of proposed disposal site end tts physical boundaries, I) Has tht tic* bitn designated by the scat* or E.P.A. as * dredge I disposal SUB? " Tee ___ No . If yes. supply my available documentation a* to effects of other authorifed dumpings that have been made in the dumping I •r*a (e.g., h*avy awtal background reading and organic carbon content). I If no, give a description of the characteristics of the proposed disposal slta and an explanation as to why no previously designated alts is feasible. i C) Is anticipated disposal site located within a designated ncean sanctuary sa establish** by federal law or C. L. c. UU, ft 13? I T«» Bo _ If yas, which sanctuary? D) Zf disposal is anticipated to occur on land, indicate drainage characteristics from the results of test pits, borings and i percolation tests as applicable. E) Mow long Is disposal sit* estimated to be in use? Indicate the duration of this disposal action and anticipated future i usa of sits. F) Include plans of proposed site as described in It*« Mb) above, unless ocean sice is proposed. If land disposal is proposed, include plans for affluent control at the disposal i site. I . I \«V- I I I 7/1/79 Vol. 12 - 534 I I I 314 CMR: DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ' i 9.90: continued i i ( i i i i i i i i I i i i | 7/1/79 Vol. 12 - 534.54} I I 314 CMR: DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL I 9.90: continued i * Apfil Irattw In lu-rehy •ndf Tor Uatrr Qua I tty Certification rnnrernlnc I ht- iM*tfvliU*M diMii-rlhiit herrln. I rvMlfy tlmt 1 am rnmlltnr with i Itn* Irtforwrit Inn rtmtMmul fn chtM .-ippf Irntton, and Ch«f to clip host iif *y knowlttlfti* mwl hel \m( nurh informition In true, complete, nnd iu-Rwr.it*. I further certify that I po*«e*» the authority to undertake i the prnpo»«d aetlvitlta. i i Date Signature of Applicant or Authorised Agent The Application ""*< *• «Il"«d by th« applicant: however. It may be i hy n duly nuthprttcd Bftent (naatad tn Iten 2) if thla form !• accompanied by n •catrment by Che applicant deeiitnaclng the agent and agreeing to i furnish upon request, euppleneatal Information in support of the application, i i i ii i j i i i 7/1/79 Vol. 12 - i 314 CMR: DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PIVISIOH of wrt* ?oLumo* COHTIOU Application for Certification (or Or«d(in|. Dr*4f,e Material Disposal and UUlot Project!. Part t " SuppJ Mtn t al 1) H*mm and Mdraaa of Applicant: 2) tOEA No. I 3) Location of frojtcc: Analrtia of Drad|« Slta S«di»«nt. I *> A) A eo*platf bulk analytts of tht **ttria} to b* drcdeed Is tn b* eoaplttcd for __ _ rcprtaentitivt aaMpla(s) taken a* specified i by the Dlvialon bale*. i Saapllnf Instruction!: Analr«eA are to be completed and reportrJ, Including test i and person performing te*t, for the following; Anmonln Z Total TXM i Z Suspended tollda Phenol Z Volatile eollda Phnnphorua Z Uater Sulflde Z Oil and PCS'* _ Htreurjr (ppa) Pesticide* i Cadflua (upeclfy If present) Uad _!_ Other Arsenic Chroalua Copper Nickel Vatieditm I I Vol. 12 • I 7A/79 I 314 CKR: DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL t 9.91: continued i I) llochevleal Analysis TX« applicant will Supply th« followitiR analytical rttultt I h*aH on « statistically representative iinjlt (Initially) »* tfco Mterisl to to 4r*d|td. i 1. liolottenl Oiyfttii DMund 2. Chc«U«l Orj**n Dvaand i 1. Liquid Pha»t Itotfar *. S«np«m*#d Parttewlac* FKatt i 5. Solid fh«.« *. lloaecuanilation rocanelal P»tieldss i Mercury ! Cndvitm FttroUu* Ottwr 7. tlucrlats T«*t Rtiult* * 5) th.it I am ra»lt(ir with tht InFornmt inn cnntainrH tn thlf . and that tn the beat oF my knowledft and belle! such I ta true,, rovplats, and accurate. I Signature of Applicant or Authorized A|ant ! i * i i ! 7/1/79 Vol. 12 - 534 APPLICATION FOR I DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT i i i i i i i i i i t i I APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT OMB APPROVAL NO, 0702-0036 I (33 CFR 325} Expires 30 June 1986 The Department of the Army permit program is authorized by Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 103 of the Marine, Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act. These taws require permits authorizing » activities in or affecting navigable waters of the United States, the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, and the transportation of dredged material for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters. Information provided on this form will be used in evaluating the application for a permit. Information in this application is made a matter of public record through issuance of a public notice. Disclosure of the information requested is voluntary; however, the data requested are necessary in order to communicate with the applicant and to evaluate the permit application. If necessary information is not provided, the permit application cannot be processed nor can a permit be itcued. IOne set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this application (see sample drawings and instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned. ^ APPLICATION NUMBER (To )>• Mfifnta by Corp*) 3. NAME, ADDRESS, AND TITLE OF AUTHORIZED AGENT i l* NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT Telephone no. during business hours A/C ( ) rJtc«Jdcnc«j A/C 1 1 fOfftetl to »et In mv beh»lf ei mv Telephone no. during bunlness hourt •gem In the processing of thii permit application and to furnish, upon request, supplement*! Information In support of the application. iA/C ( ) fRtmUm**»t SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE "- A/C ( 1 /OffiMi DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTIVITY I. ACTIVITY I I s. PURPOSE i » :. DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL I i ™GG FOFORR M 4345, Apr 83 EDITION OF 1 OCT 77 IS OBSOLETE (Proponent: DAEN-CWO-Nt t5. NAMES AND ADDRESSES Of ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS, LESSEES, ETC., WHOSE PROPERTY ALSO ADJOINS THE WATERWAY 6. WATERBODY AND LOCATION ON WATERBODY WHERE ACTIVITY EXISTS OR IS PROPOSED [. LOCATION ON LAND WHERE ACTIVITY EXISTS OR IS PROPOSED ADDRESS: STREET, ROAD, ROUTE OR OTHER DESCRIPTIVE LOCATION COUNTY STATE ZIP CODE LOCAL GOVERNING BODY WITH JURISDICTION OVER SITE 8. fi any portion of the activity for which authorization it sought now complete? Q YES Q NO If aniwer i* "Yes" give reasons, month and year the activity wat completed. Indicate the exfffting work on the drawings. Lin all approval* or certification! and denial* received from other federal, internate, *tate or local agencie* fof eny structure*, construction, discharge* or other ectlvltl** described in thi* application. ISSUING AGENCY TYPE APPROVAL IDENTIFICATION NO. DATE OF APPLICATION DATE OF APPROVAL DATE OF DENIAL 10. Application I* hereby meda for a permit or permit* to authorize tha ectivitle* described herein. I certify that I am familiar with the Information contained in thi* application, end That lo the ben of my knowledge and1 belief tuch information I* true, complete, end *eeur*te. I further certify that I posse** the authority to undertake the proposed ectivitie* or I am acting »• the duly euthorized egent of the applicant. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT DATE SIGNATURE OF AGENT DATE The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity (applicant) or it may be signed by a duly authorized agent if the statement in Block 3 has been filled out and signed, 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of The United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. Do not send a permit processing fee with this application. The appropriate fee will be assessed when a permit is issued.