Si'fx

*„ 1* HOU ^

T40. iFm* \r B5Bif7% E U •*" Of HER

DIVISION CF^TER IQ& CONTROL thomas c. mcmahon, director SDMS 3ccID 212411 HOUSATONIC RIVER

1974

WATER QUALITY ANALYSIS

Raymond M. Wright Junior Sanitary Engineer

Steven A. DeGabriele Aquatic Biologist

Water Quality Section Division of Water Pollution Control Massachusetts Water Resources Commission

Westhorough,- Massachusetts May 1975

COVER October Mountain overlooking the outlet to Woods Pond, Lenox/Lee, Massachusetts

Approved by: Alfred C. C.,Holland Purchasing Agent TABLE OF CONTENTS

ITEM PAGE

Acknowledgments 4

Foreward 5

List of Tables 6

List of Figures 7

Background Information 8

Introduction 8

Socio-Economic Background Q

Historical 9

Present 11

Basin Description 11

Present Water Use 16

Water Supply 21

Present Water Quality 34

Waste Discharges 34

Results of Water Quality Surveys 45 Housatonic River Basin Surveys 45 Housatonic River 51

Housatonic River Biological Water Quality Assessment 85

Future Conditions 98 Pollution Abatement Program 98 Status of Planning 101

Regional Planning Commission Activities 101

Basin Planning 102 Other Planning Activities 103

I , Conclusions 105 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

HEM PAGE

Recommendations for Future Study 109

List of General References 110

List of Biological References 113

Appendix I: 1-A

Survey Procedures

Microscopic Examination

Biological Sampling Methods

ApDendix II: 2-A

Water Quality Criteria

ApDendix III: 3-A

Biological Data

Appendix IV: 4-A

Massachusetts Water Pollution Control Program ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The Division of Water Pollution Control wishes to thank those whose efforts have made the 1974 Housatonic River Survey and this report possible. The following groups and individuals have been particularly helpful:

George Minasian and the staff of the Lawrence Experiment Station who per­ formed the analyses on the samples from the surveys.

Mark Schleeweis of the Division of Water Pollution Control, Western Regional Office, who provided data pertaining to the ongoing planning activities.

Henry Loring and the staff of the Lee Sewage Treatment Plant who provided space for the field laboratory during the surveys.

Walter Nowak of the Division of Water Pollution Control, Western Regional Office, who transported the samples to Lawrence.

James Thayer and John Foster of the General Electric Company who spent time and energy sampling their outfalls. FOREWARD

There has been a great deal of improvement in the area of wastewater treatment in the Housatonic Basin between 1969 and 1974. However, the most critical problems have yet to be solved. These problems dominate the water quality of the Housatonic throughout most of its length and overshadow the benefits from the recent improvements.

This report contains an analysis of the 1974 Housatonic River Water Quality Survey along with comparisons to 1969 results. The purpose of this report is. to present the water quality of the Housatonic, to make conclusions from available data, and to make recommendations for further study. LIST OF TABLES

NUMBER TITLE PAGE

1 Housatonic River Basin Cities and Towns, Land Area­ 12 Population

2 Lakes, Ponds, and Reservoirs of the Housatonic Basin 17 in Massachusetts

3 Housatonic River Basin Classification 22

4 Municipal Water Supplies 29

5 Industrial Water Supplies 33

6 Housatonic River 1974 Waste Discharges 35

7 Summary of Results - 1974 Waste Discharge Surveys 37

8 Location of Sampling Stations 47

9 Average Stream Flows cfs - 1969 and 1974 Surveys 50

10 Summary of Average Dissolved Oxygen, Minimum Dissolved 52 Oxygen, and Dissolved Oxygen Maximum 24-Hour Variation

11 Summary of Total Coliform - Geometric Mean, Average 57 Five-Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand, and Average Suspended Solids

12 Average Total Phosphorus and Nitrification - Average 63 Ammonia-N and Average Nitrate-N

13 1974 Biological Study - Physical Characteristics by 86 Station

14 1974 Biological Study - Tributaries to the Housatonic 88 River - Physical Characteristics by Station

1J Population Projections - Housatonic River Basin 100

lb Number and Kinds of Benthic Organisms per Square Foot in 3-B the Housatonic Basin

17 Numoer and Kinds of Benthic Organisms per Square Foot in 3-T Tributaries to the Housatonic River LIST OF FIGURES

NUMBER TITLE P\GE

1 Housatonic River Basin - Classification Map 25

2 Housatonic River Profile 26

3 Location of Major Wastewater Discharges 36

4 Location of Sampling Stations 46

5 Average Dissolved Oxygen - July 1969 and June and 54 August 1974

6 Minimum Dissolved Oxygen ­ July 1969 and June and 55 August 1974

7 Dissolved Oxygen Maximum 24-Hour Variation ­ July 1969 56 and June and August 1974

8 Total Coliform ­ Geometric Mean ­ July 1969 and 59 June and August 1974

9 Average Five-Day Biochemical Oxygen Demand ­ July 1969 61 and June and August 1974

10 Average Suspended Solids - July 1969 and June and 62 August 1974

LI Average Total Phosphorus - July 1969 and June and 65 August 1974

12 Nitrification - Average Ammonia-N and Average Nitrate-N ­ 66 June 1974

13 Nitrification ­ Average Ammonia-N and Average Nitrate-N ­ 67 August 1974

14 Housatonic River - Kinds of Benthic Organisms 89

L5 Housatonic River - Distribution of Benthic Organisms 91 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

INTRODUCTION

The Housatonic River rises in western Massachusetts and travels south 131 miles through Connecticut to Long Island Sound. The total watershed area is 1,950 square miles, of which approximately 500 square miles are in Massachusetts.

The Housatonic River in Massachusetts consists of the main stem, East, West and Southwest Branches, and many major tributaries, including the Williams and Green Rivers. The East Branch begins in the Town of Washington and flows north through Hinsdale and west into Dalton. In Dalton it meets the first of thirteen dams located in Massachusetts. This dam produces Center Pond. The outlet from Center Pond continues west into Pittsfield. The West Branch has its origins in the northwestern corner of Pittsfield at the outlet from Pontoosuc Lake. From here, the West Branch flows south joining the outlet of Onota Lake and eventually meeting the Southwest Branch.

The Southwest Branch rises in Richmond and Hancock and flows east into Pittsfield. It continues in Pittsfield until joining the West Branch and ­ together they flow to the confluence with the East Branch.

From this confluence the main stem flows south into Lenox. Here it slows as it nears Woods Pond. The outlet to Woods Pond enters Lee and turns west into Stockbridge. From Stockbridge it again bends south into Great Barring- ton and the inlet to Rising Pond. The main stem is met by the southeasterly flowing Williams and Green Rivers in Great Barrington. The stream flow slows considerably as the Housatonic enters Sheffield and begins to meander the remaining distance to Connecticut. The Housatonic watershed in Massachusetts includes portions of 24 towns with the Pittsfield area being the major population center (57,020). Resxalts from the 1970 census showed 100,064 people living in the Massachusetts portion of the Housatonic Basin. This is projected to increase to approxi­ mately 120,000 people by 2010.

The Housatonic River has a maximum east-west width of 19 miles and a maximum length in a north-south direction of 38 miles in Massachusetts. The valley is bordered on the west by the Taconic Range and on the east by the Berk­ shire Hills. The valley is relatively steep and narrow at the headwaters of its branches but broadens and flattens as it nears Connecticut. The Housa­ tonic drops approximately 380 feet from its headwaters in Lanesborough to the Massachusetts-Connecticut state line. From its headwaters in Dalton, the river is continually used as an assimi­ lating vehicle for treated industrial and domestic wastes. The major discharges come from paper manufacturers and sewage treatment facilities . SOCIO-ECONOMIC BACKGROUND

Historical

Analysis of soil data indicates that the formation of the Housatonic Valley occurred approximately 12,000 years ago with the recession of the last ice sheet.

The first recorded evidences of man'£5 appearance in the valley date back to the early 17th century. The first inhabitants of this region are believed to have been members of the Mohican family of the great Algonquin race. These Indians migrated to this area because they had been forced out of the Hudson Valley. In the late 17th century, nine tribes of Indians lived in the lower Housatonic Valley, which includes the portion of the basin in Connecticut, and only one tribe in the upper Housatonic Valley, which comprises the Massa­ chusetts portion of the basin. The Upper Housatonic tribe was originally called the Wusadenuk (Beyond-the-Mountain-Place). This name after many misspellings developed into Housatonuck and finally Housatonic.

The first settlement by the white man in the Massachusetts portion of the Housatonic Basin occurred near the Housatonic Indian village in Stockbridge (1690-1700). The period of time following the white man's entrance into the valley is referred to as the Christianity Era. During this period daily life revolved around the church. Expansion to the north by the white settlers was slow due to the northern tribes' repeated attempts to retain their land by force. In 1724 the territory surrounding Stockbridge, which comprises one quarter of Berkshire County, was bought from Chief Konkapot of the Housatonic Indians for 460 English pounds, three barrels of hard cider, and thirty quarts of rum. Later in the century, the Indians of the county lost the remaining land to the white man in a similar manner.

In the early 19th century, the natural resources of the valley were dis­ covered and moves were made to exploit these findings. The major resources included iron ore, marble, limestone, and excellent water power. Foundries for the processing of the iron ore sprang up around rich deposits. The grade of iron ore being mined in the basin was said to be one of the finest in the world. The marble and limestone quarries produced a product so highly valued that it was used in the construction of Saint Patrick's Cathedral in New York City, the City Hall in Philadelphia, and the extension to the Capitol Building in Washington.

These industries flourished until the mid-19th century when many inter­ acting forces brought about their decline. Of these, the increase of compe­ tition proved to be the most decisive. With the introduction of the new Bessemer process, the iron ore industry no longer needed the high quality grade ore that the valley supplied. The demand for the valley's marble and limestone product began to diminish due to the introduction of a so-called "cheaper" and "better" grade marble and limestone from Vermont and Sweden.

Also contributing to the decline of these industries was the area's inadequate transportation, which caused increases in prices and delays in delivery. Extensive transportation systems were sought by the county as early as 1808. At this time, the construction of a canal from Albany to Boston was encouraged by industries in Berkshire County, but the Massachusetts Assembly voted it down. The railroad became the prime mover of products both in and out of the basin. The Hudson and Berkshire Railroad had a line as far east as West S^ockbridge. The development of the county would have been drastically accelerated if the plans for a railroad system from Boston to New York City vLa Pittsfield had been successful. However, the completion of the Boston- H.irtford-New York line caused the abandonment of the plan. Later in the 19th century, a line was completed from Albany to Boston via Pittsfield. This helped to establish Pittsfield as a manufacturing center and the shipping distribution point for the county but did not adequately supply a direct southern route to New York City for the area's goods.

Another industry which grew alongside the iron and quarry operations and fared far better than either of them was the paper industry. As early as 1801, Wisvall, Crane, and Willard built the first mills along the East Branch in Dalton. Dalton, along with Lee, are the two towns in the basin most noted for their paper mills. Early in the 19th century, Crane Paper Company of Dalton received a contract from the United States Government for currency paper, a contract it still holds today. By 1840, Lee was producing one- fifth of the country's paper with a high of 25 operating mills in 1857.

The Berkshire farmer has been struggling with the land for over 200 years. His yields have been small due to the rocky soil and rolling hills, but he has endured far better than many of the industries of the region. In some of the more fertile areas of the valley in Sheffield and Great Barrington, extensive agricultural farming and dairying are still being carried on today.

With the advent of industry, especially paper mills, the Housatonic became a receptacle for industrial wastewater. This, along with the rapid increase of domestic sewage, soon produced an upper Housatonic not fit for anything except waste assimilation. In 19A6, Chad Powers Smith wrote a book entitled The Housatonic - Puritan River. In one of his latter chapters, Mr. Smith gives a visual account of the Housatonic's condition. The following is a quote from that chapter:

On the other hand, there were the mills making their visible and sometimes colorful contributions of industrial wastes, the blue dye spreading down out of Dalton, the horrid big water lilies of soapsuds drifting in obscene stateliness down from the paper mills in Lee through the place of the Stock- bridge meadows.

The Housatonic, long a river of beauty which had drawn thousands to its banks, by 1946 had surrendered this beauty to become a transport system for the by­ products of man's industry and growth.

10 Present

Although today the Housatonic Valley is no longer the growing industrial center it once was, the population of the basin still relies heavily on the manufacturers for job opportunities. The Pittsfield area is a prime example of the importance of an industry to the growth of surrounding communities. Over 11,000 people are employed at the industrial complex of the General Electric Company (G.E.). Because of the successful establishment of this centrally located industry, people have established residence in neighboring communities and easily commute daily to Pittsfield. Besides G.E., the paper companies continue to play an important role in the economy of the basin. They provide thousands of job opportunities as well as producing a wide variety of paper products for export from the valley. These companies, how­ ever, have found it necessary to consolidate their production due to economic pressures. This has resulted in the abandonment of dams, diversions, and many obsolete mills.

Residents in the basin have looked to tourist trade as a supplement to their economy. Thousands of tourists are drawn annually to the world-famous Tangle- wood Festival. This open-air festival occurs during the summer months in the Town of Lenox. Its most famous features are the concerts given annually by the Boston Symphony Orchestra. In addition to the summer appeal of the basin," the development of ski resorts has stimulated year-round tourism.

Improvements to transportation have made it easier for tourists to reach the valley. The most important additions to the road system leading to and from the basin have been the completion of the Massachusetts Turnpike and improve­ ments to Routes 7 and 20. The prime mover of goods both into and out of the basin has become the Penn Central Railroad.

In the last 20 years, the emphasis in the valley concerning the condition of the Housatonic River has switched from one of apathy to action. The millions of gallons of wastewater no longer flow untreated to the Housatonic as they did for over a hundred years. Treatment facilities have been built at most domestic and industrial wastewater sources. Those communities that do not have a centralized sewer system have plans for one or are using subsurface disposal systems.

BASIN DESCRIPTION

Hydrology

The Housatonic River was formed between 10 and 12 thousand years ago after the recession of the area's last ice sheet. As the glacier receded north, the melt water filled with sand, gravel, silt, and clay flowed south. The flow was blocked by glacial debris just south of the Massachusetts-Connecti­ cut state line. As the lake filled, the Housatonic River succeeded in forming a southwestern outlet. This is the course the Housatonic presently takes as it enters Connecticut.

11 TABLE 1

HOUSATONIC RIVER BASIN CITIES AND TOWNS

LAND AREA - POPULATION

POPULATION MUNICIPALITY INCORPORATED OR LAND AREA AREA IN BASIN 1950 1960 1970 ESTABLISHED (sq. mi.) (square miles)

Alford 1775 11.57 11.57 212 256 302 Dalton 1784 21.79 18.50 4,772 6,436 7.505 Egremont 1775 18.77 18.77 731 895 1,138 Great Barrington 1761 45.45 45.45 6,712 6,624 7,537 Hinsdale 1804 21.16 21.16 1,560 1,414 1,588 Lanesborough 1765 21.16 17.20 2,069 2,933 2,972 Lee 1777 26.51 26.51 4,820 5,271 6,426 Lenox 1775 21.48 21.48 3.627 4,253 5,804 Monterey 1847 26.55 26.45 367 480 600 New Marlborough 1775 47.85 47.85 898 1,083 1,031 Pittsfield 1761 40.70 40.70 53,348 57,879 57,020 Richmond 1785 18.95 18.75 737 890 1,461 Sheffield 1733 47.82 47.82 2,150 2,138 2,374 Stockbridge 1739 22.84 22.84 2,311 2,161 2,312 Tyringham 1762 18.77 18.77 235 197 234 Washington 1777 38.20 15.20 281 290 406 West Stockbridge 1774 18.34 18.34 1,165 1,244 1,354

499.00 95,995 94,444 100,064 TOTAL

*Includes in Massachusetts portions of Becket, Hancock, Mount Washington, Otis, Peru, Sandisfield, and Windsor and in New York portions of Austerlitz, Canaan, and Hillsdale. The average annual rainfall in the valley is 43.5 inches. Forty-seven percent of this is lost to evaporation or transpiration. There are seven active rain­ fall gaging stations in the basin. The major ones are located in Pittsfield at the municipal airport, in Dalton at the municipal power house, and in Stockbridge at the Stockbridge Water Company. The other stations are located in the towns of Peru, Washington, and South Egremont.

In general, rivers under extreme high flow conditions can cause considerable property damage and loss of life. It is essential that these conditions be estimated to allow for the establishment of necessary precautions. Estima­ tions can be made if considerable past flow data is available. In reference to the Housatonic Basin in Massachusetts, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) has established two gages. Both of these gages monitor the Housatonic River. The Coltsville gage in Pittsfield monitors the East Branch, while the second gage in Great Barrington records flow on the main stem. A gage that had been operable on the Green River in Great Barrington was recently dis­ continued.

Since 1900, accurate accounts have been kept of floods in the valley. The largest flow ever recorded on the Housatonic River was caused by prolonged rainfall from a hurricane in September 1938. Records at the two gaging stations in Massachusetts recorded flows of 6,400 cubic feet per second (cfs) ­ at Coltsville and 11,520 cfs at Great Barrington. These were approximately 50 and 23 times higher than the respective gages' average flows. Other more recent floods have occurred in 1948 and 1955.

In order to keep communities informed of the development of dangerous high flows, a flood warning system has been developed. It is operated jointly by the U.S. Weather Bureau in Burlington, Vermont, and the River Forecast Center in Hartford, Connecticut. These departments monitor the USGS gages in the basin during potential flood periods and relay the information to local organizations.

Due to the damages incurred from flood waters on the Housatonic River, an extensive study was conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in 1941 and again in 1964 (13,14). Numerous reservoir sites in the upper Housa­ tonic Valley were investigated. However, no projects were implemented because there was a lack of economic justification. There were, however, many communities and industries which required individual flood control structures which could not be federally funded. Through the Massachusetts Department of Public Works, flood controls, including channel and dam improve­ ments, dam removals, bank revampment, and construction of bridges with greater waterway capacity, were undertaken in the Housatonic Basin. Specif­ ically, the areas that underwent improvement for flood protection in the upper Housatonic were the East and West Branches within the city limits of Pittsfield, the riverbanks above and below the Pioneer Mill of Crane Paper Company, the Columbia and Eagle Mills of P.J. Schweitzer Paper Company, the Willow Mill of Hurlbut Paper Company, and the dam at the outlet to Goose Pond. More recently, multi-purpose reservoirs have been completed in the Town of Lee. The intent of these reservoirs is not only to supply tribu­ tary flow regulation but also to provide recreational areas.

13 Flood damages occur more frequently in towns such as Pittsfield and Great Barrington which lie within the lowlands directly adjacent to major rivers. Losses due to flooding may be limited by the development of flood plain zoning as well as by the construction of flood control structures. Some communities in the basin have adopted flood plain zoning, and many others are working towards its acceptance.

East Branch Housatonic River

The East Branch begins at the outlet to the beaver-built Muddy Pond in the Town of Washington. A short distance downstream of the pond's outlet, the river enters Hinsdale and continues in a northerly direction into a natural swamp. Within this swamp the East Branch converges with Bennet Brook, which has its origin at the outlet to Ashmere Lake. In Hinsdale the Housatonic meets the first of 13 dams (HD01) it must pass over as it travels through Massachusetts. From this dam, the East Branch winds its way north at a very high velocity towards the Town of Dalton. The river falls approximately 280 feet in a distance of 3.6 miles.

In Dalton the river slows and turns west as it nears the inlet to Center Pond. Center Pond, which is the first of three major impoundments along the Housatonic, was formed by the construction of a dam (HD02) located near the center of the town. This dam and the next dam (HD03) 200 yards down­ stream were built by the Byron Weston Company and are still controlled by it: today. HD03, unlike HD02, has very little impounding effect on the river. Below these dams, during the height of the area's industrial develop­ ment, the flow of the East Branch was impeded by a series of five more dams in less than two miles. Four of these five dams are still present today (HD04-HD07). These dams are owned and maintained by the Crane Paper Company of Dalton. HD04 is located off Housatonic Street just upstream from the first Crane mill. HD05, HD06, and HD07 are located behind the Pioneer, Bay State, and Government Mills respectively. These dams at one time were used by Crane to divert water for supply or for power production.

Just prior to reaching HD07, the East Branch crosses into Pittsfield. Approximately 200 yard's downstream of the Government Mill dam, the river passes by the Coltsville USGS gage. From the gage, the East Branch flows in a southwesterly direction into the Pittsfield business district. The river is met on the right by the southerly flowing Unkamet Brook and the outlet from Silver Lake. The depth of the river averages around 2.5 feet a;? it travels at a moderate velocity- the remaining distance to the con­ fLuence with the West and Southwest Branches.

West Branch Housatonic River

The headwaters of the West Branch rise in the northern corners of Lanes- borough and are collected into Pontoosuc Lake. Pontoosuc Lake borders the Lanesborough-Pittsfield town line with the outlet of the lake flowing south into Pittsfield. Below this outlet the West Branch converges with the easterly flowing stream from Onota Lake. From here it flows in a south­ easterly direction into the Pittsfield business district. A short di&tance

14 below this district, the West Branch converges with the Southwest Branch.

Southwest Branch Housatonic River

The Southwest Branch has its origins in the many mountain streams of Hancock and Richmond. These headwater streams are collected into Richmond Pond, which borders the Richmond-Pittsfield town line. The outlet of this pond begins the Southwest Branch. This river flows through Pittsfield in a northeasterly direction. In Pittsfield it converges with the West Branch and together they flow to the confluence with the East Branch.

Main Stem Housatonic River

From the confluence of the three branches in Pittsfield, the main stem begins to wind its way south towards Lenox. After passing under Holmes Road, the main stem does not return to any roadway for approximately five miles. In this section the river twists and turns. A number of deep pools are formed at these bends. The shoreline remains very heavily wooded with only an occasional glimpse of housing. The velocity of the river remains relatively swift with an average depth of three to four feet. The main stem leaves Pittsfield and enters Lenox before reaching New Lenox Road.

The effects from the Woods Pond dam (HD08), which is still 4.4 miles down­ stream, can be felt a short distance below New Lenox Road. During periods of high flow the water backs up from Woods Pond and forms coves and bays off the main stem. As the river returns to average flow conditions, the normal banks, which were breached at high flow, prevent the backwater from complete­ ly draining back into the river and, therefore, produce stagnant pools. The Woods Pond dam was built by the Smith Paper Company, which has since become P.J. Schweitzer Paper Company. The pond at one time was extensively used by the local residents for recreation. However, after many years of nutrient, organic, and solids additions from upstream wastewater discharges, the pond has lost most of its appeal as a recreational water body. , Due to the heavy sludge accumulation and algal production, the pond is in an advanced eutro­ phic stage. A canoeing trip at an earlier date would have shown at the inlet a wide open pond with a small string of islands. Today, the area between the first island and the western shore has been filled in by sludge deposits. The first third of the pond is no longer wide open but has become an extension of the inlet channel. There is every evidence here that the pond is dying. The dam at the outlet is no longer used for its original purpose. The diversion (HD08A) it created runs to an abandoned mill and from there flows through open sluice gates back to the river. The pond and the channel below it are the town line for Lenox on the west and Lee on the east. This channel is a fast, rapid section with high surface aeration. Below this point, the river winds its way between the two towns, past the villages of Lenox Station and Lenoxdale, where it leaves Lenox for the last time.

In Lee, the river slows at it nears the dam (HD13) at the Columbia Mill of the P.J. Schweitzer Paper Company. Just below this dam the main stem enters the Lee business district where it passes over the remnants of a recently

15 removed dam. The westerly flowing Goose Pond Stream converges with the Housa­ \^' ^ tonic just below Lee Center. In southern Lee, Hop Brook meets the main stem and together they swing to the west. The shoreline through most of southern Lee is lightly wooded with a minimum amount of development. Just before leaving the town, the river is slowed down by the dam (HD09) at the Willow " Mill of the Hurlbut Paper Company.

The Housatonic winds its way west through the center of Stockbridge. The outlet tributary from Stockbridge Bowl enters from the north. In west Stockbridge, the velocity of the main stem is slowed by the dam (HD10) in Glendale Village. This dam at one time routed a major diversion through a plant for its conversion to power. This has not been in use for many years. The gates on the dam are wide open in order to cause as little restriction as possible on the river's flow. From this dam the river swings south again arid enters Great Harrington.

In Great Barrington, the river immediately enters the Village of Housatonic. The dam (HDll) at the village's entrance marks the beginning of a once- productive industrial alley. Today, the abandoned plants and warehouses of the Monument Mills line both sides of the river for one-half mile. Just out­ side this village, the Housatonic begins to slow up as it nears the dam (HD12) at: the Rising Paper Company. The diversion created by this dam flows directly under the paper mill and reenters the Housatonic a short distance downstream* Below this dam, the Housatonic is monitored by a second USGS gage at Division Street. In the Village of Duesenville, the Housatonic River is met by the Williams River, which is the first of two major tributaries to converge with ^ y the main stem in Great Barrington. The second tributary, the Green River, enters after the Housatonic has made its way through the Great Barrington business district and past the Great Barrington Fairgrounds located on the western shore. Both tributaries flow generally in a southerly direction to their confluence with the Housatonic.

The Town of Sheffield is very much like Great Barrington in that most of the central area is located in the flat, broad flood plain of the Housatonic. The elevation change is very gradual and, therefore, causes slow velocities. In the lower half of Sheffield, the Housatonic begins to meander. These meanders cause backwater pools during periods of high flows. The winding shoreline also supports dairy and agricultural farming. The main stem receives substantial flows from Hubbard Brook and the Konkapot River in this town. From Sheffield, the Housatonic winds its way out of Berkshire County, Massachusetts, and into Litchfield County, Connecticut.

PRESENT WATER USE

With the loss of many older industries, the economic importance of developing further tourist interest in the area has become essential. Berkshire County has more than 25 percent of the state's forests and parks and over 100 reser­ voirs, ponds, and lakes. In respect to the availability of these water bodies, the Housatonic River Valley in Massachusetts has an advantage over other areas in the county. It has over 5000 acres of surface water bodies including lakes,

16 TABLE 2

LAKES, PONDS, AND RESERVOIRS OVER 10 ACRES

OF THE HOUSATONIC BASIN IN MASSACHUSETTS

COMMUNITY SURFACE WATER ACRES USE

Beeket Greenwater Pond 88 Flood control, recrea­ tion, stocked

Dalton Center Pond (Weston Pond) 30 Industrial, recreation

Egremont Mill Pond (Smiley Mill Pond, 20 Private property Robinson Pond)

Prospect Lake (Winchell Pond) 55 Recreation

Great Beinecke Pond 10 Private property Barrington Benedict Pond 35 Recreation, stocked

Long Pond 113 Public water supply ­

Mansfield Pond 25 Recreation

Warner Mountain Pond 20 Bog

Hinsdale Ashmere Lake 217 Recreation, stocked

Belmont Reservoir (Steam 13 Public water supply Sawmill Brook) ,

Cleveland Reservoir (Cleveland 145 Public water supply Brook Reservoir)

Muddy Pond 28 Recreation

Plunkett Reservoir 73 Recreation, stocked

Upper Sackett Reservoir 20 Public water supply

Windsor Reservoir (Cady Brook 62 Public water supply Reservoir)

Lanesborough Pontoosuc Lake 480 Recreation, stocked

Lee Goose Pond 225 Recreation, stocked

17 TABLE 2 (Continued)

COMMUNITY SURFACE WATER ACRES USE

Lee (cont.) Upper Goose Pond (Long Pond, 42 Recreation, stocked Lower Lake May)

Laurel Lake (Scotts Pond) 170 Recreation, stocked

Upper Reservoir (Lahey Reser­ 26 Public water supply voir, Codding Brook, Upper Reservoir)

Lenox Reservoir (Lower Root 11 Public water supply Reservoir)

Upper Lenox Reservoir 16 Public water supply

Woods Pond 120 Recreation

Monterey Lake Buel (Six Mile Pond) 196 Recreation, stocked

Lake Garfield 203 Recreation, stocked

Reservoir below Lake Garfield 11 Public water supply (Sandisfield Road Pond)

Steadman Pond 13 Private property

Stevens Pond (Switzers Pond) 30 Private property

Mount Garret Pond 10 Private property Washington Plantain Pond 61 Private property

Ashford Cookson Pond 17 Private property

East Indies Pond (East Pond, 69 Recreation, stocked Moalpin Pond)

Harmon Pond 23 Recreation

Harnett Pond 32 Private property

Thousand Acre Swamp Pond 155 Recreation, stocked

Wahly Pond 18 Private property

Otis Hayes Pond 53 Recreation

Peru Garnet Lake 20 Private property

18 TABLE 2 (Continued)

COMMUNITY SURFACE WATER ACRES USE

Pittsfield Goodrich Pond (Sylvan Lake) 13 Recreation

Morewood Lake (Melville Pond, 20 Private property Lily Pond)

Onota Lake 617 Recreation, stocked

Pecks Pond 13 Private property

Silver Lake 24 Industrial

Richmond Cone Brook Pond 20 Private property

Richmond Pond 218 Recreation, stocked

Sheffield Coombes Dam Pond 10 Private property

South Faun Lake 18 Swamp

Mill Pond (Curtis Pond) 107 Recreation

Threemile Pond 20 Private property

Trout Dam Pond 12 Private property

Stockbridge Lake Agawam 13 Swamp

Lake Averic (Echo Lake, Mountain 38 Public water supply Mirror Lake)

Lily Pond 14 Swamp

Mohawk Lake (Hogar South Pond) 14 Recreation

Stockbridge Bowl (Lake Mahkeenac) 372 Recreation, stocked

Washington Ashley Lake 111 Public water supply

Clapp's Pond (Mud Pond) 12 Public water supply

Farnham Reservoir 42 Public water supply

Felton Lake (Felton Pond) 12 Recreation

Finerty Pond (Basin Pond) 23 Public water supply

Halfway Pond 10 Recreation

19 TABLE 2 (Continued)

COMMUNITY SURFACE WATER ACRES USE

Washington Mud Pond 11 Private property (cont.) Muddy Pond 26 Recreation

Sandwash Reservoir 64 Public water supply

West Stock- Card Pond (Mirror Lake) 12 Recreation bridge Cranberry Pond 20 Industrial, recreation

Crane Pond (Crane Lake) 28 Recreation

Mud Ponds (Richmond Ore Bed Pond) 19 Industrial

Shaker Mill Pond 20 Recreation

20 ponds, and reservoirs as compared with the county's total of 8,153 acres. In Table 2 there is a listing of all the lakes in the basin over 10 acres In ""•" size (24).

Besides these large water bodies, the management of the streams in the basin is important . The Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Game controls the management of many of these streams. There are an estimated 79 streams, of which 44 are stocked with trout. Most of these streams have their origins high in the Taconic Mountains or Berkshire Hills. The extreme flow in the spring, along with the low flow in the summer, prevents many of the streams from being stocked.

The county's potential water recreational facilities have not been developed to their fullest. The ease of accessibility seems to present one of the biggest problems. If increased tourist trade is desired, then adequate routes to recreational water bodies and streams, along with public access ways along the shores, are necessary.

The Housatonic River and its major tributaries provide the valley with the greatest potential for recreation. However, at the present time, domestic and industrial wastewater discharges have produced sections of river unfit for anything but waste assimilation. There is an extensive program for pollution abatement underway in these areas. When scheduled abatement is completed, the river will meet its assigned classification. The water use classifications for the Housatonic and its major tributaries are described in Table 3 and shown in Figure 1. The classifications range from "A", which designates a drinking water supply, to a "U", which denotes a reach that does not meet the criteria for any assigned classification and is, therefore, considered unsatis­ factory.

WATER SUPPLY

Bf.Tksh.ire County acquires its water from both public and private supplies. An estimated 22 MGD is supplied to individuals and industries from public systems. In addition to the public service, the industries use approximately 45 MGD from private sources (36). There are also a few water companies for the public and many individual on- lot sources in rural areas.

At the present time, the major source of water supply for the public systems is from surface water bodies (see Table 4). The majority of these water bodies are artificial reservoirs which were built for the sole purpose of supplying drinking water. In communities where changes in elevation are significant, reservoirs have been built in the higher areas in order to supply residents with a gravity flow distribution system. Where this type of distribution system was not possible, communities looked to other locations outside the town that could supply water via gravity flow or they constructed pumping stations to assure adequate pressure to meet emergency requirements. In all cases, the public water supplies are chlorinated before distribution.

Due to the county's glacial history, there are vast subsurface reservoirs that are not being used to their fullest capacity. In fact, the ground water

21 TABLE 3 HOliSATONIC RIVER BASIN CLASSIFICATION ANTICIPATED PRESENT BOUNDARY PRESENT USE FUTURE USE CONDITION CLASSIFICATION East Branch from its source Fish & wildlife propagation, Bathing, fish & to Old Windsor Road, Dalton fishing wildlife propa­ gation, fishing East Branch from Old Windsor Fish & wildlife propagation, Same Road, Dalton, to confluence fishing, industrial cooling with West Branch, Pittsfield & processing, assimilation

West Branch from its source Fish & wildlife propagation, Same B to southern boundary of fishing Waconah Park in Pittsfield

West Branch from Waconah Fish & wildlife propagation, Same Park to confluence with fishing East Branch, Pittsfield

Southwest Branch from its Fish & wildlife propagation, Same source to Cadwell St., fishing Pittsfield

Southwest Branch from Fish & wildlife propagation, Same Cadwell St. to East Branch fishing of the Housatonic,Pittsfield

Housatonic River from Canoeing, fish & wildlife Same U Pittsfield to confluence with propagation , industrial cooling Kampossa Brook, Stockbridge & processing Housatonic River from con­ Canoeing, fish & wildlife Bathing, canoeing, C fluence with Kampossa Brook, propagation, fishing fish & wildlife propa­ Stockbridge, to the Mass.­ gation, fishing Conn. state line Goose Pond Brook from its Bathing, recreational boating, Same B source to outlet of Goose fish & wildlife propagation Pond, Tyringham TABLE 3 (Continued)

ANTICIPATED PRESENT BOUNDARY PRESENT USE FUTURE USE CONDITION CLASSIFICATION

Goose Pond Stream from Industrial processing and Same outlet of Goose Pond to cooling confluence with Housa­ tonic River, Lee

Green River from N.Y.-Mass. Fish & wildlife propagation Same C&B state line "to Housatonic River, Great Barrington

Cleveland Brook from its Water supply Same source to outlet of Cleveland Brook Reservoir, Dalton

Ashley Brook from its source Water supply Same to outlet of Ashley Reservoir, Washington

Hathaway Brook from its Water supply Same source to confluence with Sackett Brook, Washington

Ravine Reservoir and Woolsey Water supply Same Reservoir and those tribu­ taries thereto in Lenox

Sackett Brook from its Water supply Same source to outlet of Sackett Reservoir

Windsor Reservoir to its Water supply Same outlet and those tributaries thereto in Windsor and Hinsdale TABLE 3 (Continued)

ANTICIPATED PRESENT BOUNDARY PRESENT USE FUTURE USE CONDITION CLASSIFICATION

Mill Brook from its source Water supply Same to outlet of Mill Brook Reservoir, Washington

Other streams in the Housatonic Watershed unless otherwise denoted above 7^ LANESBoaouol H I /Lytl NAMCOG

WASHINGTON

HOUSATONIC R.

POND STREAM \ BECKCT

Watershed Location

CONKlECTICUT

WATER USE CLASSIFICATION

CLASSIFICATION MAP — —CHANGE IN CLASSIFICATION HOUSATONIC RIVER BASIN

FIGURE 25 1500 EAST BRANCH

1350 HOUSATONIC RIVER PROFILE

0) > 1200 0) ENTER POND

o O) V) c HD04 o 1050 HDO HD06 WEST BRANCH o c WOODS POND 33 0) m > o GOOSE POND STREAM ON -Q ro o 900 STOCKBRIDGE BOWL 0>

ISING POND

WILLIAMS R. 750 GREEN R.

HUBBARD BROOK

KONKAPOT R UJ _j UJ 600 63 RIVER MILES

SAMPLING STATIONS ft © (S)®© ©(TYeY? available is many times greater than the surface sources. However, only 1.2 r percent of all the water supplied from the public systems in the basin comes '*""" from wells (28). Industries, which have sought a private source of water, for the most part use individual drilled wells and do not rely on public systems (see Table 5).

To understand why there is so much ground water available in the county, one must look at the area's formation over 12,000 years ago. At this time, the last ice sheet to cover Berkshire County was receding north. The meltwater streams, which were filled with glacial debris, flowed south. In the early days of this recession, the glacial streams were not hindered in their southern journey. However, due to the accumulation of glacial debris just below the Massachusetts-Connecticut state line, the streams were eventually prevented from flowing south and a glacial lake began to form. The lake continued to grow until the Housatonic produced an outfall on the lake's western side.

There are two types of deposits caused by the glacier's recession and the lake formation: consolidated and unconsolidated. Unconsolidated deposits are made up of either gravel, sand, silt, or clay with the gravel and sand deposits producing the greatest yields due to their large size and greater permeability. Most of the sand and gravel settled out in the glacial streams, while the slower settling silt and clay settled out in the lake. The higher" yielding wells due to the sand and gravel deposits are found in the northern' Housatonic Valley above the main body of the glacial lake, in tributary valleys near their junction with the Housatonic, and in certain areas near the Massachusetts-Connecticut state line where sand and gravel deposits were '(*«*>* formed before the lake developed. These last deposits are usually found under deep layers of silt and clay.

The second type of deposit formed during this period is consolidated materials. The cracks, fissures, joints, and solution cavities of these materials are another source of ground water. The consolidated materials typical of this area are gneiss, quartzite, schist, and carbonate. The gneiss and quartzite are located in the Berkshire Hills to the east, the schist in the Taconic range to the west, and the carbonate (limestone and dolomite) in the central valley of the Housatonic. These carbonate deposits have caused relatively high background alkalinity concentrations in the streams within the county. The consolidated ground water sources most common to the basin are solution cavities in limestone deposits. Their yields have been as high as 1700 gallons per minute (GPM) , with a county average of 9 GPM (36).

Besides these two major sources of ground water, there are other types of deposits that produce water supplies. These, however, usually have low yields which are not enough to supply a community or industry. They are, however, sufficient to supply individual homes and are, therefore, used extensively in rural areas where there is no central distribution system.

Restrictions due to limited water supplies hinder the growth of a community. Berkshire County, as can be seen by the population projections presented in Table 15, will have considerable growth in the future. With the inflxix of

27 people, new and improved water supplies must be sought. There have been numerous studies to determine potential surface and ground water sources. An investigation by the Water Resources Commission in 1967 found that 86 percent of the population was supplied from public sources (36). It is expected that most of the remaining 14 percent will be supplied by public distribution systems in the future. The findings also suggest that the supply needed in the future would derive in a larger part from the develop­ ment of ground water.

28 t

TABLE 4

MUNICIPAL WATER SUPPLIES

HOUSATONIC RIVER (10) ESTIMATED SAFE COMMUNITY LOCATION SOURCE AUTHORITY YIELD (MGD)

Alford No public water system: individual on-lot water supplies

Dalton Dalton Anthony Brook Reservoir Dalton Fire District 0.10

Hinsdale Cleveland Brook Reservoir Dalton Fire District 1.48 via Pittsfield trans­ mission line

Dalton Egypt Brook Reservoir Dalton Fire District 0.19

Hinsdale Windsor Reservoir Dalton Fire District 1.65

Dalton Brattle Brook (spring) New Junction Water Co. (private)

Egremont Egremont Karner Brook Reservoir South Egremont Water Co. 0.16 (private)

Dug out well Kingsley Hall School (private)

The majority of the town is supplied by individual on-lot wells and springs.

Great Great East Mountain Reservoir Gt. Barrington Fire District °-07 Barrington Barrington Green River Gt. Barrington Fire District 9-80

Long Pond Housatonic Water Works Co. 0.60

Egremont Karner Brook Reservoir South Egremont Water Co. 0.16 (private) TABLE 4 (Continued) ESTIMATED SAFE COMMUNITY LOCATION SOURCE AUTHORITY YIELD (MGD)

Hancock No public water system: individual on-lot water supplies

Hinsdale Belmont Reservoir Hinsdale Fire District 0.17

Lanesborough Lanesborough Drilled Well #1 Lanesborough Fire and 0.86 Water District

Lanesborough Drilled Well #2 Lanesborough Fire and 1.15 Water District

Lee Lee Vanetti and Upper Reservoir Lee Water Department 1.12

Washington Mountain Brook Reservoir Lee Water Department 0.41

Lenox Washington Mill Brook and Farnham Reservoir Pittsfield Water System

Lee Vanetti and Upper Reservoir Lee Water Department 1.12

Lenox Lower and Upper Root Reservoir Lenox Water Department

Monterey Monterey Drilled Well #1 Monterey Water Co. 0.01

Drilled Well #2 Monterey Water Co. 0.01

Small Springs Reservoir Monterey Water Co.

Mount Washington No public water system; individual on-lot water supplies TABLE 4 (Continued) ESTIMATED SAFE UOMMUNliY LOlAllUIN SOURCE YIELD (MGD)

New Marlborough New Marl­ Spring Mill River Water Co. borough Spring and Drilled Well Southfield Water Trust

On-lot wells Private

Peru No public water system; individual on-lot water supplies

Pittsfield Washington Mill Brook Reservoir (Sandwash & Pittsfield Water System 2.8 Farnham Reservoirs)

Hinsdale Cleveland Brook Reservoir Pittsfield Water System 7.9

Hinsdale, Ashley System (Sackett Reservoir, Pittsfield Water System 1.2 Dalton, and Lower Ashley Reservoir, and Washington Ashley Lake)

Pittsfield Onota Lake Pittsfield Water System 3.0

Richmond No public water system; individual on-lot water supplies

Sheffield Sheffield Springs and Drilled Wells Sheffield Water Co. 0.20

Stockbridge Stockbridge Lake Averic Stockbridge Water Co. 0.50

Gt. Barrington Long Pond Housatonic Water Works Co, 0.60

Lenox Lower and Upper Root Reservoir Lenox Water Department 0.64 TABLE 4 (Continued) ESTIMATED SAFE COMMUNITY LOCATION SOURCE AUTHORITY YIELD (MGD)

Stockbridge Lee Vanetti and Upper Reservoir Lee Water Department 1.12 (continued) Stockbridge Drilled Wells Mah-Kee- Nac Water Co.

Springs Hill Water Co.

Tyringham No public water system; individual on-lot water supplies

Washington No public water system; individual on-lot water supplies

West Stockbridge W. Stockbridge Lenox Mountain Reservoirs and West Stockbridge Water Co. 0.24 Springs

OJ Private NJ On-lot wells i Gt. Barring- Long Pond Housatonic Water Co. 0.60 ton

Windsor No public water system; individual on-lot water supplies TABLE 5

INDUSTRIAL WATER SUPPLIES

HOUSATONIC RIVER (10)

COMMUNITY INDUSTRY SOURCE LOCATION

Dalt.on Crane Paper Company Private artesian Dalton, Hinsdale, wells and Cleveland and Pittsfield Brook Reservoir

Byron Weston Mills Drilled wells Dalton

Grea.t Rising Paper Company Drilled wells Great Barrington Barrington

Lee Hurlbut Paper Company* Three drilled wells Lee

P.J. Schweitzer Paper Co.* Four drilled wells Lee

Pittsfield General Electric Company Drilled wells Pittsfield

Model Dairy Drilled wells Pittsfield

Pittsfield Coal & Gas Drilled wells Pittsfield

Pittsfield Milk Drilled wells Pittsfield

New England Cold Storage Drilled wells Pittsfield

Sheffield Custom Extrusion, Inc. Drilled wells Sheffield

Hurlbut, Schweitzer, and Westfield River Paper Companies rely on river water as a supplement in their paper process.

33 PRESENT WATER QUALITY

WASTE DISCHARGES

The majority of the wastewater discharges in the Housatonic Basin were most recently sampled during the week of May 27, 1974. One discharge from the General Electric Company, along with the outlet of Silver Lake, was sampled during the week of August 5, 1974. In all, 21 separate discharges were sampled (see Table 6). The locations of these discharges are shown in Figure 3. The results of this survey were published by this Division in a report entitled The Housatonic River 1974 - List of Wastewater Discharges Part B. A summary of these results can be found in Table 7. Previous discharge data were published by this Division in February 1970 under the title Housatonic River 1969 Part A & B.

Untreated or poorly treated domestic and industrial discharges have long rendered major portions of the Housatonic unfit for anything but waste assimi­ lation. Today the Housatonic is showing some signs of improvement. Every point source of pollution is receiving secondary treatment or the equivalent thereof. However, the largest discharges, in Pittsfield, which dominate the appearance and condition of the downstream reaches of the river, are not provided with adequate facilities, either in capacity or quality of treat­ ment. This overshadows the effects of the advancements in pollution abatement at some of the downstream discharges. These discharges are presently under . implementation to provide facilities with greater capacity and a higher quality effluent. These plans as well as other plans for future abatement will be discussed in a later section. The following is an in-depth description of the discharges, their location, and their present treatment facilities.

The first source of pollution on the East Branch is the raw domestic waste discharges from the Town of Hinsdale. The town is poorly suited for sub­ surface disposal. This results in direct discharges to the river. Only the area near the center is sewered, resulting in a series of individual outfalls as the East Branch travels north towards Dalton.

Si-ice the completion of its first major sewage collection system in 1963, DaLton has been transporting its domestic sewage south to the Pittsfield Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The majority of the houses bordering the East Branch have been sewered. The capacity of the present Dalton-Pittsfield interceptor line is estimated at 5.3 million gallons per day (MGD).

There are five operating mills of the Crane Paper Company located in Dalton. The process wastewater from these mills is collected at a privately owned and operated treatment facility located in Dalton along the East Branch. This treated wastewater does not include the concentrated pulp-cooking liquors or the industry's domestic sewage. These wastes are discharged into the muni­ cipal system. The treatment process in use by this company includes chemical addition, mixing, flocculation, and final settling. This plant sometimes operates at a flow which is greater than its design capacity, resulting in the discharge of a poor grade effluent. One of the more detrimental character­ istics of this effluent is its high color and turbidity.

34 TABLE 6

HOUSATONIC RIVER 1974

WASTE DISCHARGES

NUMBER DISCHARGE

HC01 Crane Paper Company

HC02 General Electric Company (GE002)

HC02A Silver Lake

HC03 General Electric Company (GE005)

HC04 General Electric Company (GE006)

HC05 General Electric Company (GE009)

HC06 General Electric Company (GE010)

HC07 Pittsfield Wastewater Treatment Plant (trickling filter)

HC08 Pittsfield Wastewater Treatment Plant (filter beds)

HC09 Pittsfield Wastewater Treatment Plant (secondary treatment bypass)'

HC10 North Lenox Sewage Treatment Plant

HC11 Lenox Center Sewage Treatment Plant

HC12 Lenoxdale Sewage Treatment Plant

HC13 P.J. Schweitzer Paper Company (Greylock)

HC14 P.J. Schweitzer Paper Company (Columbia)

HC15 Lee Sewage Treatment Plant

HC16 Hurlbut Paper Company (Laurel)

HC17 Hurlbut Paper Company (Willow)

HC18 Stockbridge Sewage Treatment Plant

HC19 Rising Paper Company

HC20 Westfield River Paper Company

35 THE HOUSATONIC Hancock / RIVER BASIN 1974 WEST BRANCH Windsor ran* P«p«r Co.

SOUTHWEST BRANCH, EAST BRANCH

T ( iSsnt.

WILLIAMS /? /Slockbr.dfl Schw»lli»r Paper Co. HOUSATONIC R.

dV Rlvir Paper Co

GREEN R. \ \ Laurel Mill Hurlburt Paptr Co. Willow Mill Hurlbut Paper Co. Rising Paper co. ^^ Tyringham Barrington Monterey

KONKAPOT R.

New Marlborough

CONN,

LOCATION OF

FIGURE 3

36 TABLE 7

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

1974 WASTE DISCHARGE SURVEY

DISCHARGE HC01 HC02 HC02A HC03 HC04 HC05 HC06 5/27­ 8/6­ 8/6­ 5/27­ 5/27­ 5/27­ 5/27­ DATES OF COLLECTION 5/31 8/10 8/10 5/31 5/31 5/31 5/31

BOD5 (Ibs/day) 2193 36 81 62 91 39 325

Suspended Solids (Ibs/day) 1482 281 128 58 13 23 5.5

pH (standard units) 7.0-7.2 3.7-6.2 9.0 10.2-10.4 6.3-6.4 6.6-7.0 4.8-6.5

Total Alkalinity (mg/1) 82 75 63 22 18 13

U) •-J Total Solids (Ibs/day) 20,632 1708 3811 1469

Ammonia-N (Ibs/day) 0.0 1.0 0.5 0.1 1.0 0.5 0.1

Nitrate-N (Ibs/day) 42 43 6.5 3.5 7.0 2.0 1.5

Total Phosphorus (Ibs/day) 7.0 2.0 1.0 1.5 151 16 0.5

Flow (MGD) 7.13 1.30 2.57 1.31 0.55 0.61 0.32 { A

TABLE 7 (Continued)

DISCHARGE HC07 HC08 HC09 HC10 HC11 HC12 HC13 5/27­ 5/27­ 5/27­ 5/27­ 5/27­ 5/27­ 5/27­ DATES OF COLLECTION 5/31 5/31 5/31 5/31 5/31 5/31 5/31

BOD (Ibs/day) 1627 359 3779 158 30 2.5 220

Suspended Solids (Ibs/day) 1976 446 1284 80 13 3.0 525

pH (standard units) 7.2-7.4 7.2-7.5 7.3-7.6 7.0-7.4 7.6-7.7 7.6-8.6 6.9-7.4

Total Alkalinity (mg/1) 186 215 219 224 188 174 152

Total Solids (Ibs/day) 25,391 5333 16,034 867 1929 233 8970

OJ Ammonia-N (Ibs/day) 401 87 404 20 8.0 0.1 0.5 00 Nitrate-N (Ibs/day) 366 4.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 6.0 0.5

Total Phosphorus (Ibs/day) 186 38 139 7.0 9.5 2.0 35

Flow (MGD) 7.0 1.5 4.41 0.15 0.75 0.08 2.10 TABLE 7 (Continued)

DISCHARGE HC14 HC15 HC16 HC17 HC18 HC19 HC20 5/27­ 5/27­ 5/27­ 5/27­ 5/27­ 5/27­ 5/27­ DATES OF COLLECTION 5/31 5/31 5/31 5/31 5/31 5/31 5/31

BOD5 (Ibs/day) 572 20 280 150 6.0 2048 39

Suspended Solids (Ibs/day) 129 7.0 129 200 15 5046 34 pH (standard units) 6.0-6.4 7.3-7.8 7.4-7.9 6.5-6.8 7.3-7.6 6.9-7.2 7.3-7.7

Total Alkalinity (mg/1) 16 142 198 18 250 73 143

Total Solids (Ibs/day) 10,617 1278 6036 2485 586 11,644 328

Ammonia-N (Ibs/day) 4.5 7.5 6.0 12 7.5 0.0 13

Nitrate-N (Ibs/day) 3.0 9.0 6.5 3.5 3.5 4.0 0.0

Total Phosphorus (Ibs/day) 1.0 3.0 2.0

Flow (MGD) 5.17 0.47 1.3 2.0 0.15 1.8 0.12 This facility is located in a critical water quality area because of the nearness of the outfall to the headwaters. This results in a low dilution factor and, therefore, a low assimilative capacity. The present average flow from the treatment plant is 6.5 MGD. During the 7-day, 10-year low flow in the East Branch, this flow would come very close to doubling the flow in the river. In fact, even during average conditions, the discharge from the treatment facility is a major contributor to the instream flow. Dae to its critical location in the basin, the Crane Paper Company is under considerable pressure to produce an effluent of very high quality.

There have been some changes in the treatment facility since 1969. The major improvement was the construction of a chemical addition tank. A comparison between the 1969 and 1974 discharge data indicated the expected reduction in the suspended solids but did not show the expected decrease in 6005. In fact, the BOD- load in the effluent had increased. The following is a brief summary of the waste discharge results:

CRANE PAPER CO. WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EFFLUENT

Parameter 1969 1974

BOD5 (Ibs/day) 1674 2193 Suspended Solids (Ibs/day) 3879 1482

The BOD increase is attributed to the increase of flow and, therefore, an increase in the BOD5 loading on the plant. The increase In flow did not show the same effect on the suspended solids data because of the chemical addition process. This process is geared to remove suspended solids more readily than BOD5 and, therefore, had more than offset the increase in solids loading due to the flow increase.

The last contributor of wastewater to the East Branch before its confluence with the West and Southwest Branches is the General Electric Company (G.E.) of Pittsfield. In 1969, the major problems in the Housatonic which were attributed to G.E.'s outfalls were in the areas of oil, phenol, and total phosphorus concentrations. In 1969 there were 6 significant outfalls. The treatment being provided consisted of only one oil separator and a detention pond. Since 1969, the company has spent millions of dollars in developing facilities for the reclamation and treatment of these pollutants. Today, the company has five major discharges, which either enter the East Branch directly or travel via Unkamet Brook or Silver Lake to the river. Four of these dis­ charges are run through oil separators prior to release, while the fifth flows through a detention pond. The four oil separators have tie-ins with the local stormwater systems,so the flows vary according to rainfall. On the average, the total flow of the five outfalls has been estimated at 4.1 MGD.

The following is a brief summary of the total load from the major G.E. out­ falls recorded during the waste discharge surveys of 1969 and 1974:

G.E. WASTEWATER DISCHARGES

Parameter 1969 1974

BOD (Ibs/day) • 3852 600 Suspended solids (Ibs/day) 1143 230

40 As can be seen, there was a reduction in suspended solids and BODg from 1969 to 1974. This can be attributed to a number of factors. The first is the construction of the oil separators. These separators, although designed specifically to remove oil, do retain the wastewater for a short period of time and, therefore, cause slight reductions in other parameters. Secondly, the elimination of a number of minor processes, which contributed to the wastewater flow, reduced the loading on the river. Finally, there were the contributions from the attached stormwater runoff systems. These contri­ butions are quite possibly the most significant source of pollutants. In August 1969 when the waste discharge samples were taken, the area had just undergone a considerable rainfall. This is reflected in the high concentrations of pollutants. Correspondingly, in May 1974 during the second discharge sur­ vey, there had been no recent rainfall, which was reflected by low effluent concentrations. In reference to the water quality surveys, the August 1969 survey was the only one which had substantial rainfall. Therefore, the August effluent values were expected to be higher than the values during the three other relatively dry weeks of survey.

Between 1969 and 1974, G.E. built a phenol recovery unit. This unit handles all the major sources of phenol from G.E. The phenol which is not reclaimed is sent to the Pittsfield WWTP. Due to the unit's high degree of recovery, the amount of phenol entering the municipal system is far below the maximum allowable amount agreed upon.

Additional results of the 1969 surveys indicated that G.E. was one of the two major dischargers of total phosphorus into the river. During 1974, there was no type of phosphorus removal system on line, but since then a small movable reactor system has been placed into operation. This is an interim system, pending final design and construction of the permanent facility.

The first evidence of pollution on the West Branch is in and around Pontoosuc Lake. The northern half of the lake is in the Town of Lanesborough. Lanes- borough has no public sewerage system and only half the town is suited for subsurface disposal. Malfunctioning septic tanks around the northern end of the lake, along with pollution from the town's center, are the major causes of the lake's eutrophic condition. The houses in Pittsfield which surround the southern end of Pontoosuc Lake are connected to the Pittsfield municipal system. No problems have been reported from this area.

The residential and commercial sections which border the West Branch to its confluence with the Southwest Branch are all connected to the municipal system. The sewage collection system also extends out along the Southwest Branch to the town line.

Approximately three miles below the confluence of the branches, the Housa­ tonic receives the treated effluents from the Pittsfield WWTP. The original facility was built at Holmes Road in 1910. At that time, the treatment consisted of intermittant sand filters. In 1936, the first major additions took place in the form Of a fixed-nozzle trickling filter and additional sand beds. Up until 1963, the primary settling of the raw wastewater took place at Pomeroy Avenue prior to discharge to the Holmes Road facility. In 1963, the building of primary facilities at the Holmes Road location brought on

41 the abandonment of the Pomeroy Avenue operation.

The WWTP does not adequately treat the incoming flow. The trickling filter has a capacity of 7.0 MGD and the sand beds a capacity of 1.5 to 3.0 MGD. Due to significant infiltration, the plant usually exceeds its secondary treatment capacity. The result is a discharge of wastewater directly after primary treatment. There are no chlorination facilities at any of the out­ falls. The only changes in this municipal system since the surveys of 1969 were the expansion of the sewage collection system and the acceptance of pretreated wastewater from G.E. The facility itself has remained the same.

A comparison of the 1969 and 1974 waste discharge data shows that the most significant change in the effluent's characteristics was the decrease in the total phosphorus concentration. This was not attributed to any form of treatment at the Pittsfield WWTP. It was instead traced back to the influent concentrations. The influent concentration of phosphorus in 1974 was approximately half of what it was in 1969. The results of the 1974 waste discharge survey will be further discussed in the station-by-station water quality analysis to follow. A further reduction in the phosphorus concentration occurred in August 1974 due to the operation of an interim phosphorus-removal system. This system was started up on Tuesday of the sampling week. Its removal efficiency was reflected in the instream samples at HS11A and HS12. The operation of the system was halted shortly after its first week of operation due to sludge-handling problems.

The first of three treatment plants in Lenox is located just over the Pittsfield-Lenox town line. This small primary facility was built in 1963 tD handle a maximum of 0.27 MGD from the Village of New Lenox. At the present time, it is operating at one-third its design capacity in the winter and one-half its design capacity in the summer. The plant's waste­ water is run through a comminuter and settling tank with no chlorination before discharge. Since secondary treatment is now required, this plant is not providing adequate treatment.

The Lenox Center plant is located at the outlet to Woods Pond. It was recently upgraded in 1970 from a primary facility with no chlorination to a secondary facility with aeration tanks and final chlorination. The design capacity of this plant is 0.91 MGD. The quality of the effluent in many respects is far better than what is normally expected from this type of treatment.

The third Lenox plant is located in the Village of Lenoxdale. It was also upgraded in 1970 with the construction of aeration tanks and chlorination facilities. The design capacity is 0.28 MGD. The effluent is of the same high quality as the Lenox Center plant.

In the northern section of Lee, the Housatonic was subjected to seven indi­ vidual, untreated outfalls from the P.J. Schweitzer Paper Company in 1.969. Since 1969, the paper company has constructed two treatment plants. One of these plants is located at the Greylock Mill. This facility treats the Greylock Mill's process wastewater along with the paper company's concen­ trated cooking liquors in a single secondary treatment unit. During the

42 summer months and other low flow periods, additional treatment is supplied in the form of spray irrigation. The process wastewater from the Niagara, Eagle, and Columbia Mills is treated at the second plant located near the Columbia Mill. This facility provides the equivalent of secondary treat­ ment in the form of chemical addition with final settling. Both plants dis­ charge below the dam located at the Columbia Mill.

The following are the results for the P.J. Schweitzer Paper Co. from the waste discharge surveys of 1969 and 1974. From these results the improve­ ment caused by the two treatment facilities on the industry's waste discharges is clearly evident. The figures are the total of both outfalls.

P.J. SCHWEITZER PAPER CO. DISCHARGES

Parameter 1969 1974

BOD5 (Ibs/day) 6429 792 Suspended solids (Ibs/day) 8309 304

Between the treatment facilities at P.J. Schweitzer and the municipal treat­ ment facility for the Town of Lee, the Housatonic receives the treated effluent from the Westfield River Paper Company via Goose Pond Stream. This wastewater flows through a series of four lagoons, one of which is aerated. Since 1969, some of the individual outfalls from the main plant have been connected to the lagoon system. The system is subjected to substantial run­ off entry which causes high discharge flows. The outfall after leaving the final lagoon cascades down a steep hill before reaching Goose Pond Stream.

The Lee Sewage Treatment Plant, which is located just below Goose Pond Stream's confluence with the Housatonic, began operation in 1968. At the present time the sewage collection system for the Town of Lee serves only about half the town's population. Since the secondary facility was designed for the majority of the town's population, the plant is being operated at a flow far below its design capacity. The longer retention time within the plant and subsequently longer treatment interval is reflected in the plant's high quality effluent. The process in use is extended aeration, and the plant's design capacity is 1.2 MGD.

The Hurlbut Paper Company also discharges wastewater to the Housatonic in Lee. This company has two mills, Willow and Laurel, which both have treat­ ment facilities. These facilities provide equivalent secondary treatment in the form of flocculation with final clarification. Although completed in 1969, the treatment facilities were not in operation at the time of the 1969 waste discharge sampling. The importance of these two treatment facili­ ties can be seen by comparing the discharges without treatment in 1969 with the treated discharges in 1974.

HURLBUT PAPER CO. - EFFLUENTS

Parameter Laurel Willow 1969 1974 1969 1974 BOD5 (Ibs/day) 1995 280 1202 150 Suspended solids (Ibs/day) 9567 129 4719 200

43 The Stockbridge Sewage Treatment Plant is a very old, inadequate facility. - , The process in use includes a dosing tank and a series of sand and wash beds with no chlorination. There are two direct outfalls from these beds to the Housatonic. The effluent from the sand beds is of a superior quality. The wash beds, on the other hand, are subjected to the more highly concentrated wastewater from the dosing tanks. These beds often short-circuit, causing the direct discharge of poorly treated wastewater. The sewerage system, which was originally constructed in 1899, presently reaches only those houses in and around the center of town. There are water quality problems in other parts of Stockbridge which are not serviced by this collection system. For example, Stockbridge Bowl, which lies a few miles north of the center, has been subject to yearly algal problems. These problems have been directly associated with malfunctioning subsurface disposal systems.

In 1969, there was no municipal treatment facility in Great Harrington, but 4 there were three separate sewage collection systems. These systems were "~~ — located in the villages of Risingdale and Housatonic and in the commercial center of Great Barrington. In all, there were over 20 raw waste outfalls along the Housatonic. Shortly after the 1974 surveys, construction of a treatment facility and interceptor to tie in the three collection systems wa:s completed. The facility presently provides for secondary treatment and chlorination. It is located just outside the Great Barrington commercial ^ center on the east bank of the Housatonic.

In addition to domestic wastewater, the new facility in Great Barrington handles the untreated process wastewater from the Rising Paper Company. This company is located in the Village of Risingdale. In 1969 and 1974, it %^ discharged its untreated wastewater into a diversion from the Housatonic just below the dam at the outlet to Rising Pond.

The Town of Sheffield is the last town in Massachusetts through which the Housatonic passes before entering Connecticut. There has been no move towards a centralized sewage treatment facility in the town. A number of problems have been cited concerning the inadequacy of this town's subsurface disposal systems, but these are presently being handled individually.

44 RESULTS OF WATER QUALITY SURVEYS

Housatonic River Basin Surveys

The Massachusetts portion of the Housatonic River Basin underwent two extensive surveys during the summer of 1974, June 10-14 and August 5-9. Samples were taken every four hours at 32 sampling stations along the main stem and its tributaries (see Table 8) beginning at 2 a.m. Tuesday and ending around 7 a.m. Friday. During the August sampling week, Station •HS09A was substituted for HB01 and grab samples were taken at HSllA and HS17A. Dissolved oxygen samples were collected on each sampling run. Com­ posite samples were collected on Tuesday and Thursday of the above-mentioned weeks for general water quality analysis. Bacteriological samples were taken during the 2 p.m. sampling run on Tuesday and Thursday. A micro­ scopic analysis was conducted on all 32 stations in June and again at six stations in August. Twice during each survey, USGS gage readings along with manual flow measurements of the major tributaries were taken. All the data cited above was published by this Division under the title Housa­ tonic River 1974 Part A.

la addition to the above analyses, two other studies were completed during 1974. They included a macroinvertebrate study and a baseline study on the major lakes in the Housatonic Basin. The macroinvertebrate study was done during the June survey at all 32 sampling stations. The results of this study may be found elsewhere in this report. The bulk of the lake baseline survey data was also acquired during the 1974 water quality surveys. These data were published under a separate title, Baseline Water Quality Surveys of Selected Lakes and Ponds in the Housatonic River Basin 1974.

The last survey of this magnitude done on the Housatonic River was conducted by this Division in 1969. There were 14 major stations sampled and an additional 20 secondary stations. The 14 major stations had basically the same analyses done as were accomplished on the 32 sampling stations in 1974. The matchup of the 1969 and 1974 stations is presented in Table 8. These locations will provide the principal comparisons between the two years.

In analyzing chemical data on a river, it is essential to know the flow both during the time of sampling and that expected during critical periods. It is assumed that the critical conditions will occur during low flow periods. It is at this time that the river can assimilate the least pollu­ tional load. The flow which occurs during a 7-day period every 10 years is used in most analyses. This value is calculated from flow records com­ piled over many years. In reference to that part of the Housatonic Basin in Nassachusetts, the United States Geological Survey Gages supply these necessary data.

Daring both years of surveys, samples were taken during two summer months rn hopes of getting low flow conditions. In Table 9, the flows for each of the four weeks are presented. The flows for the August 1974 survey were the averages from the first half of the week, while the other three sarveys were the weekly averages. In addition, the 7 day-10 year figures

45 WASHINGTON

HOUSATONIC ff.

POND STREAM \ BECKET

SANDISFIELD KONKAROT R.

LOCATION OF SAMPLING STATIONS

FIGURE 4 46 TABLE 8

HOUSATONIC RIVER 1974 AND 1969 SURVEY

LOCATION OF SAMPLING STATIONS

STATION NUMBER 1974 1969 LOCATION RIVER MILE MAIN EAST HOUSATONIC RIVER STEM BRANCH

HS01 1 Bridge on Washington State Road, Hinsdale 55.4, 13.6

HS02 2 At intersection of Old Dalton Road and Route 8, 55.4, 11.1 Hinsdale

HS03 Bridge on Orchard Street, Dalton (Inlet to 55.4, 8.3 Center Pond)

HS04 Bridge on Route 8, Dalton (Outlet to Center Pond) 55.4, 7.5

HS05 Bridge on South Street, Dalton 55.4, -6.0

HS06 Bridge on Hubbard Avenue, Pittsfield (USGS Gage 55.4, 5.1 at Coltsville)

HS07 Bridge on Radar Tower Road, Pittsfield 55.4, 4.3

HS08 Bridge on Newell Street, Pittsfield 55.4, 2.0

HS09 Bridge on Lyman Street, Pittsfield 55.4, 1.4

HS09A Bridge on Elm Street, Pittsfield 55.4, 1.0

HS10 Bridge on Pomeroy Avenue, Pittsfield (above the con­ 55.4, 0.3 fluence with the West Branch Housatonic River)

H'Ul Bridge on Pomeroy Avenue, Pittsfield (below the con­ 54.7 fluence with the West Branch Housatonic River)

HS11A Offshore below Pittsfield WWTP 50.4 HS12 Bridge on New Lenox Road, Lenox 49.5 HS13 7 Off October Mountain Road, Lee (inlet to Woods Pond) 46.5

HSU 8 Off Woodland Street, Lee (outlet to Woods Pond, 45.1 above dam HDD8)

HS15 Bridge on East Street, Lenox (Lenoxdale Village) 43.8

HS16 Bridge on Golden Hill Road, Lee 42.9

47 TABLE 8 (Continued)

STATION NUMBER 1974 1969 LOCATION RIVER MILE

HS17 9 Bridge on Route 102, Lee 40.0

HS17A Off Meadow Street, Lee 36.5

HS18 10 Off Willow Street, Lee (Above dam HD09) 35.5

HS19 11 Bridge on Glendale Middle Road, Stockbridge 28.9

HS20 Bridge on Route 183, Great Barrington (Housatonic 25.7 Village - inlet to Rising Pond)

HS21 12 Off Route 183, Great Barrington (railroad bridge 24.7 at outlet to Rising Pond, Risingdale Village)

HS22 Bridge on Division Street, Great Barrington 23.9 (USGS Gage at Great Barrington)

HS23 Off Main Street, Great Barrington 19.3

HS24 13 Bridge on Brookside Road, Great Barrington 17.1

HS25 Bridge on Boardman Street, Sheffield 11.4

HS26 Bridge on County Road, Sheffield 9.0

HS27 14 Bridge on Andrus Road, Sheffield 2.0

TRIBUTARIES TO THE HOUSATONIC RIVER

WB01 West and Southwest Branch Housatonic River ­ Bridge 55.4, 0.6 on Route 7/20 (South Street, Pittsfield)

GP01 Goose Pond Stream ­ Bridge on Tyringham Road, Lee 40.0, 0.1

WR01 Williams River ­ At the intersection of Division 23.3, 1.0 Street and Route 41, Great Barrington

GR01 Green River - Bridge on Route 7, Great Barrington 15.9, 0.1

HB01 Hubbard Brook - Bridge on Route 7, Sheffield 9.0, 1.0

48 arid the yearly averages are presented for each gage to allow for comparisons. It should be noted that during each week of sampling, the quantity of water "*•*''' was a good deal higher than the low flow. Therefore, results from these surveys should reflect better conditions than would be found during low water conditions. This is a very important fact to keep in mind whpn reading the water quality analysis. The August 1969 survey was preceded by a heavy rainfall. The flows, as can be seen in Table 9, were still affected by the ensuing runoff. Because of the high runoff, the results from this survey were not used in the analysis. The June 1974 survey also had a rainfall preceding it. This rainfall, however, was moderate and did not cause the high flows recorded in August 1969. Any effects on the water quality that were believed to be a direct result of this rainfall are mentioned in the analysis. The hydrographs during the other two weeks of survey, July 1969 and August 1974, were similar. These flows, though higher than the 7 day­ 10 year figure, were far below the yearly averages.

Besides a basic understanding of the appropriate flow regimes, there are a number of other areas which need explaining or emphasis before the water quality analysis can be seen in the proper perspective.

The procedure used in the water quality surveys has evolved over many years. This, along with a brief history of the Division, has been presented in Appendix I. Directly following that section is a listing of several water quality parameters and their definitions. These parameters will be mentioned frequently in the water quality analysis. Also within the appendix is a detailed description of the biological sampling methods. These methods are an important addendum to the biological analysis. ^, In order to understand the water quality of the Housatonic, a basic knowledge of algae and their common characteristics is necessary. In general, algal Information often is not extensive enough to stand on its own. Instead, it is used to support other data. Algae in large enough quantities may create an artificial BOD in laboratory tests and also may dominate suspended solids results. Algal populations spread out over a greater depth, especially in impoundments and slow reaches, where velocity and light penetration permit; therefore, surface sampling does not always yield a representative sample. The importance of these factors along with their applicability to the water quality of the Housatonic will be discussed in the water quality analysis. As previously mentioned, there was a complete microscopic analysis done in June 1974 but not in August 1974. Information concerning algal activity in August must be sought from other data such as the daily dissolved oxygen variations. Specific information pertaining to the types of algae and proto­ zoa commonly found in fresh water streams may be found in Appendix I.

One of the major outputs from the following analysis is the determination of whether the present treatment facilities are adequately allowing the Housatonic to meet its assigned classification. The water quality criteria for each classification may be found in Appendix II.

Appendix III has a complete breakdown of the Biological Data that was collected in 1974 and used in the following analysis.

49 TABLE 9

AVERAGE STREAM FLOW CFS

1969 and 1974 SURVEYS

HOUSATONIC RIVER

7 DAY, AVERAGE JULY AUGUST JUNE AUGUST 10 YEAR WATER BODY MONITORED LOCATION RIVER MILE ANNUAL DISCHARGE 1969 1969 1974 1974 LOW FLOW

East Branch Housatonic Village of 55.4, 5.1 109 22 73 49 47 13* River Coltsville, Pittsfield

Housatonic River Great 23.9 509 139 529 287 186 65.4* Barrington Ln O 15.9, 3.0 79.8 16 44 ­- ­- 2.6** Green River Great Barrington

* From USGS data up to and including 1967.

** From G.R. Higgens, Yield of Streams in Massachusetts. A summary of the data used in the general analysis is presented in Tables 10-12 and graphed in Figures 5-13.

Housatonic River

Station HS01 was located on the East Branch off Washington State Road in Hinsdale. At this point the East Branch had not received any point discharges of pollution. The samples were taken immediately after the river left its swampy headwaters. Overall, this station reflected a water quality commonly found in "clean water" streams. The only exception to this was the unusually high coliform counts which were consistant for both 1969 and 1974 surveys. These concentrations could possibly be due to contamination from septic disposal systems in the Ashmere Lake area. This contamination could reach the Housatonic via Bennet Brook. Further investigation is needed on this brook before the coliform concentrations are understood. The dissolved oxy­ gen (D.O.) fluctuations were far higher in August 1974 than any of the other survey periods. This is most likely attributed to the natural activity of the algal population in this section stimulated by the higher water tempera­ tures, slow moving swamp, and late summer conditions. The background alka­ linity is characteristic of the surface water bodies in this county. These values are higher than the majority of the rivers in the Commonwealth. This is easily explained by referring to the county's glacial history (see Water Supply). The total phosphorus concentrations in both 1974 surveys were low and considered background as compared to the unusually high levels dis­ covered at this station in 1969. The East Branch at HS01 was meeting the water quality criteria for its B classification.

The effects of the raw wastewater discharges from Hinsdale were monitored at Station HS02, located off Old Dalton Road in Hinsdale. The river's flow characteristics had changed considerably from HS01. The river was now flowing over a shallow, rocky riverbed at a very high velocity. The un­ treated sewage from the town center and outlying houses was reflected in the increase in suspended solids (S.S.), total phosphorus, and total coli­ form data. D.O. fluctuations decreased between Stations HS01 and HS02 due mainly to the change in velocity, which hindered the river's ability to support substantial algal populations. The violations in the coliform standards for the river at HS02 prevented the East Branch from meeting the water quality criteria for its B classification.

The: backup caused by the Center Pond dam was noticeable at Station HS03 at Orchard Street in Dalton. Other than the raw outfalls in Hinsdale, the East Branch *iad not as yet received any point discharges of pollution. As expec­ ted, the total coliform levels, along with total phosphorus concentrations, showed slight decreases. The 2.8 miles from HS02 to HS03 are a fast, turbulent stretch of river through a very heavily wooded area. The river picks up considerable debris in this section which eventually settles out in Center Pond. The decomposition of this matter is the major loading in this river segment. The higher BOD and S.S. concentrations in June 1974 were attributed to suspended matter picked up by the runoff from a moderate rain­ fall which preceded the survey. The microscopic analysis indicated that increases in algal populations seemed to have been stimulated by the slow­

51 TABLE 10

SUMMARY OF AVERAGE DISSOLVED OXYGEN, MINIMUM DISSOLVED OXYGEN, AND DISSOLVED OXYGEN MAXIMUM

24-HOUR VARIATION DISSOLVED OXYGEN MAXIMUM AVERAGE DISSOLVED OXYGEN MINIMUM DISSOLVED OXYGEN 24-HOUR VARIATION (mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) STATION July iy69 June 1974 August 1974 July 1969 June 1974 August 1974 July 1969 June 1974 August 1974

HS01 8.2 8.3 9.4 6.9 7.1 5.6 2.6 1.7 6.9

HS02 7.9 8.8 8.5 7.0 7.5 7.5 NONE 1. 2 2.2

HS03 9.2 9.1 8.8 7.7 7.1 6.6 3.7 2.7 3.6

FS04 8.7 9.6 8.6 7.4 7.6 4.8 1.3 3.4 3.2

HS05 8.6 8.3 7.3 6.9 1.2 0.8

Ul S3 Hsoe^ 8.3 7.6 7.4 6.9 NONE NONE

HS07 7.5 6.4 6.3 5.3 NONE SLIGHT

HS08 5.7 4.7 4.8 3.2 SLIGHT 2.2

KS09 5.5 4.6 4.2 2.8 SLIGHT 2.9

HS10 2.3 5.1 4.5 1.3 4.1 2.8 1.6 1.7 3.0

HSU 3.7 6.3 5.2 1.7 5.2 3.7 2.7 2.0 3.4

HS12 4.9 4.4 3.3 2.7 1.9 SLIGHT

HS13 3.9 4.0 2.6 3.0 2.8 1.5 SLIGHT SLIGHT SLIGHT

HS14 8.8 6.6 9.0 5.5 3.7 3.0 7.1 6.9 12.9 TABLE 10(Continued) MAYTMTTM AVERAGE DISSOLVED OXYGEN MINIMUM DISSOLVED OXYGEN 24-HOUR VARIATION (rag/1) (mg/1) (mg/1) STATION July 1969 June 1974 August 1974 July 1969 June 1974 August 1974 July 1969 June 1974 August 1974

HS15 7.0 6.8 5.9 4.9 2.5 4.6

KS16 7.3 6.9 6.0 5.3 3.2 4.7

HS17 7.4 7.4 6.7 5.1 5.6 4.6 3.5 2.1 4.9

HS18 6.8 7.3 8.2 4.9 5.1 4.3 3.1 4.7 7.9

HS19 7.2 7.7 8.2 6.1 6.3 5.8 1.6 2.2 5.2

HS20 8.4 8.2 7.7 6.6 0.7 2.7

HS21 10.0 8.5 12.2 7.3 6.8 7.3 7.9 3.0 11.4

HS22 7.8 8.0 7.0 6.3 1.6 3.0

HS23 7.6 8.2 6.2 6.4 2.9 3.7

HS24 7.5 7.4 8.1 5.6 5.8 5.9 3.0 3.0 5.2

HS25 7.7 8.9 6.2 6.1 2.2 6.1

HS26 7.6 8.6 6.2 4.6 1.9 5.4

HS27 10.7 8.2 10.7 8.1 7.2 7.9 6.0 2.4 5.6 AVERAGE D. 0. for JULY 1969 and JUNE and AUGUST 1974

o c 0> 3 E m

UJ o oX

Q UJ

O CO CO o 18

HUBBAN D BKOOK— RIVER MILES STOCKBRIOGE BOWL — GREEN R.— wrcT noAMru GOOSE POND STREAM—i WILLIAMS R. 1 KONKAPOT R. 1

i i 1 1 i 1 1 i ni i 11 Illl 1 ' I I 1 111 1 1 1 1 1

SAMPLING STATIONS CO 09) MINIMUM D.O. for JULY 1969 and JUNE and AUGUST 1974

o c 0> 3) E m

LJ CD >• X o o LJ > O CO CO 0 63 54 18 0

HUBUAN a BKUUK— RIVER MILES STOCK8RIOGE BOWL — GREEN R.— GOOSE POND STREAM—i , , WILLIAMS R. r KONKAPOT R.

i—i i i— i n i n i _| |_H LJ 1 1—\­ 1

SAMPLING STATIONS 0 (2) (3Y4Y5X6X7Y8Y9WIOXIOOIAXIZ) Q3»5AL5J(!9 (! 09) maximum 24 HOUR D.O. VARIATION for JULY 1969 and

JUNE and AUGUST 1974

o c Z) m

HUBBARO BROOK—i RIVER STOCKBRIOGE BOWL GREEN R. 1 GOOSE POND STREAM

SAMPLING STATIONS (I TABLE 11

SUMMARY OF TOTAL COLIFORM - GEOMETRIC MEAN, AVERAGE FIVE-DAY

BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND, AND AVERAGE SUSPENDED SOLIDS

AVERAGE FIVE-DAY TOTAL COLIFORM GEOMETRIC MEAN BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND AVERAGE SUSPENDED SOLIDS (coliform/100 ml x 103) (Ibs/day) (Ibs/day) STATION July 1969 June 1974 ' August 1974 July 1969 June 1974 August 1974 July 1969 June 1974 August 1974

HS01 0.8 0.8 0.4 50 161 201 95 356 161

HS02 41.4 15.0 27.1 55 143 144 98 448 340

HS03 10.6 2.0 0.5 46 246 111 105 769 355

H304 2.5 0.4 0.2 133 407 368 336 1443 614

FS05 0.3 0.1 524 479 1321 737

HS06 1.2 2.0 1993 2959 1346 1491

HS07 2.0 2.5 1737 2180 1357 1181

HS08 5.6 4.0 2267 2567 2093 1518

HS09 5.1 2.5 2244 2559 2746 1119

HS10 28.5 100.0 4.0 1309 2128 2095 1785 3108 1611

HSU 4.2 3.5 5.7 1724 2553 2037 1854 4777 2384

HS12 92.2 36.3 3794 2594 7782 5477

HS13 29.8 72.7 30.0 1746 3889 2549 2372 8412 4353

HSU 5.1 25.1 1.2 2876 4367 7415 5340 12476 15527 TABLE 11 (Continued)

AVERAGE FIVE-DAY TOTAL COLIFORM GEOMETRIC MEAN BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND AVtKAGt bUbftNDED bULJ-Db (coliform/100 ml x 1C3) (Ibs/day) (Ibs/day) STATION July 1969 June 1974 August 1974 July 1969 June 1974 August 1974 July 1969 June 1974 August 1974

HS15 33.8 3.2 4626 5800 16823 10634

HS16 24.9 6.0 4581 5420 13318 15346

HS17 115.0 9.4 2.4 7175 5261 6703 9455 17156 14209

HS18 5.3 11.8 3.3 3682 4853 5400 5814 12758 13501

HS19 0.9 13.2 1.7 3916 4863 5575 7470 12462 16138

HS20 7.2 2.7 4736 5319 17112 16253

HS21 2.2 3.9 7.8 4966 5357 6526 8376 15611 15327

HS22 11.9 3.8 6171 7792 23142 22478 Ul CO HS23 7.3 34.6 4956 7554 19142 30551

HS24 46.0 16.3 44.6 6040 5194 7350 8795 19389 28398

HS25 6.8 7.5 4524 8158 21678 38282

HS26 5.6 5.5 5912 10327 22885 35857

HS27 0.7 2.6 0.5 7363 5886 10082 14617 21021 32146 o, <0 o>

101x7] TOTAL COLIFORM GEOMETRIC MEAN for

JULY 1969 and IO J JUNE and AUGUST 1974

STATIONS I through 14 T] O O 2 C 10 3) m e Ul o VD oo O O 3 — I03

tr. O LL _l O O 10 TOTAL COLIFORM GEOMETRIC MEAN for

JULY 1969 and

JUNE and AUGUST 1974 STATIONS 15 through 27

O c 3J m oo o o average 5 DAY BOD 10 for JULY 1969 and JUNE and AUGUST 1974

31 CD c 3J m 10

54 45 36 27 18

HUBBAN J BKOOK RIVER MILES STOCKBRIDGE BOWL — GREEN R.— WF'VT RRAMPH GOOSE POND STREAM—i WILLIAMS R. KONKAPOT R.

1 1 Mill 1-44-I- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -J 1 1 1 —1 . 1 1 \­ 1 09) SAMPLING STATIONS (tj •*~> 10"

average

o c SUSPENDED SOLIDS 3D m KJ for JULY 1969 and

C/) JUNE and AUGUST 1974 O

Q 10' UJ O z UJ Q_ C/) ID IOC

HUBdAN

1 M—t —M U44­1 II 1 1 1 1 1 II -1 M-l —4 1 1 1 L 1

SAMPLING STATIONS (I 09) TABLE 12

AVERAGE TOTAL PHOSPHORUS AND NITRIFICATION - AVERAGE AMMONIA-N AND AVERAGE NITRATE-N

FOR JUNE AND AUGUST 1974

AVERAGE AMMONIA-N AVERAGE AMMONIA-N AVERAGE TOTAL PHOSPHORUS AND AVERAGE NITRATE-N AND AVERAGE NITRATE-N (Ibs/day) JUNE 1974 (Ibs/day) AUGUST 1974 (Ibs/day) STATION July 1969 June 1974 August 1974 NH-, NOo

HS01 6 2 2 2 17 2 9

FS02 6 5 5 2 18 4 25

HS03 7 4 3 2 21 3 30

HS04 11 6 7 7 37 11 53

HS05 8 7 0 39 7 37 cr> — U) 10 10 5 78 0 74 H£06 — 11 11 3 81 5 53 HS07 — 12 11 64 87 33 55 HS08 — HS09 134 128 54 100 30 64 — HS10 359 189 225 44 101 42 64

HS11 289 164 143 66 247 39 87

428 271 642 778 778 576 HS12 — HS13 680 451 299 769 718 1088 559

HSU 479 664 602 541 624 703 317 c 4

TABLE 12(Continued)

AVERAGE TOTAL PHOSPHORUS AVERAGE AMMONIA-N AVERAGE AMMONIA-N (Ibs/day) AND AVERAGE NITRATE-N AND AVERAGE NITRATE-N STATION July 1969 June 1974 August 1974 June 1974 (Ibs/day) August 1974 (Ibs/day)

HS15 378 212 494 736 251 709

HS16 362 379 447 852 144 718

HS17 545 412 321 320 915 51 656

HS18 465 305 297 250 970 71 630

HS19 411 304 284 213 1064 39 587

HS20 320 246 138 1069 10 497

HS21 336 153 227 153 918 20 297

HS22 308 240 77 1080 30 399

HS23 311 267 68 1025 22 333

HS24 445 282 245 86 1039 22 445

HS25 226 276 75 1131 50 376

HS26 229 244 76 1141 57 286

HS27 363 231 234 84 1151 58 0 > —680 average 600 -602 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS for JULY 1969 and 500 JUNE and AUGUST 1974

400

JULY 1969—

•o 300 O to c .0 a) m — CO 200 or o

CO o 100 Q_ -I

63 54 45 36 27 18 9 0 HUBBAR D BROOK— RIVER MILES STOCKBRIOGE BOWL — GREEN R.— VA/rCT QQAM^U ­ ... -.­ GOOSE POND STREAM—| WILLIAMS R. KONKAPOT R.

1 1 Mill 1 II 1 i 1 1 1 1 i 1 II I I -1 I-W —i—i— 1 h 1 1 SAM"' 'NO STATIONS <&<&k & 09) NITRIFICATION average AMMONIA- NITROGEN vs. average NITRATE-NITROGEN for JUNE 1974 800 J200

C 30 m ON

63 54 36 27 18 0 HUB8AR D BROOK— RIVER MILES STOCKBRIDGE BOWL— GREEN R.— \A/F"*^T RR A Mr* 1-1 — ­ GOOSE POND STREAM—i , , WILLIAMS R. KONKAPOT R.

i I I 1 1 i 1 || | | -1 Ui-l —1 1 1 1 1

SAMPLING STATIONS (\j 1088

1000 NITRIFICATION average AMMONIA- NITROGEN

vs. average NITRATE- NITROGEN 800 800 for AUGUST 1974

600 o c 2) W m .0

04 400 UoJ o or

200

HUHdAK D b«UUK RIVER MILES STOCK8RIOGE BOWL —i GREEN R.— \A/F*^T ROAWPH GOOSE POND STREAM —i WILLIAMS R. KONKAPOT R.

t 1 i i t 1 1 i n i i II 1 1 I 1 I ' ' -1 U4-I —t 1 1 U 1 STATIONS (T) fe) <®m ® down of the river as it neared Center Pond. This increase in algae was further reflected in the rise of the daily dissolved oxygen fluctuations. The algal respiration at night caused D.O. lows which neared this section's minimum allowable concentrations. Just upstream of HS03 where the East Branch flowed under Old Windsor Road, there was a change in classification to C. The East Branch at HS03 was meeting the assigned water quality cri­ teria for this classification.

Station HS04 was located at the outlet to Center Pond in Dalton center prior to the river's exit over the dam. A further reduction of the total coliform counts at HS04 supported the fact that there were no known point sources of domestic waste entering Center Pond. The further decomposition of collected vegetation is the probable cause of slight increases in BOD and NH^. Green algae, which normally seek mature impoundments, were found ir the microscopic analysis. The algal population in general was stimulated by a rise in temperature of over four degrees. Although there were no changes in the sources of pollution above Center Pond, the July 1969 survey results in general indicated cleaner water than the 1974 survey results. This was attributed to the lack of rainfall during the month preceding the July 1969 survey. The low runoff failed to bring the major contribution of vegetative matter to Center Pond that is carried during periods of higher runoff. During both 1969 surveys, the coliform counts met the criteria for a Class B stream. D.O. values continued to approach minimums at night due to algal respiration. This section is classified C, and the water quality met this classification during both surveys.

The next set of samples was taken at Station HS05, located off South Street in Dalton. Between HS04 and HS05 there are no known sources of pollution. This section does, however, receive a number of cooling water discharges from various Crane Paper mills. The water quality of the East Branch con­ tinued to reflect unpolluted conditions. Coliform counts averaged near 300 coliforms/100 ml., which was lower than the background concentrations at HS01. D.O. fluctuations decreased, as did the algal population. In particular there were no longer any Green algae and only small amounts of Diatoms present. While there were reductions in most parameters, a BOD increase of approximately 100 Ibs/day occurred during both 1974 sur­ veys. The origin of this increase was unknown. The river continued to easily meet the water quality criteria for this area's C classification.

Just below HS05, the East Branch receives the treated effluent from the Crane Paper Company's wastewater treatment plant. From the industry's out­ fall, the river flows approximately 100 feet into Pittsfield before reaching the impoundment behind the Government Mill dam. A short distance below this dam the East Branch passes under Hubbard Avenue (Station HS06). The size of the VWTP's flow makes the quality of the treated effluent very important. In August 1974, for example, the instream flow at Hubbard Avenue was approxi­ mately one-fourth treated wastewater. The effluent had many characteristics typical of paper waste. For instance, the effluent was nutrient deficient and there were lags in the BOD exertion. In June 1974, the total coliform increased from 300 coliforms/100 ml at HS05 to 1,200 coliforms/100 ml at

68 HS06, and in August 1974, the total coliforms increased from 100 coliforms/ 100 ml at HS05 to 2,000 coliforms/100 ml at HS06. A mass balance between upstream loadings and the discharge loadings indicated that major settling took place behind the dam. Also from this balance it was determined that very little BOD from the paper waste had been exerted. There was no D.O. fluctuation at HS06, which corresponded with the microscopic findings of a very small algal population. Algal growth was hindered by the nutrient deficiency of the paper waste along with the interference of light penetration due to the added color and turbidity from Crane's effluent. Although there were no D.O. violations during the 1974 survey, there was a potential at this point for major D.O. violations if the BOD present had been exerted and had not been delayed. This will be substantiated by further analysis at downstream stations.

Station HS07 was located at the first bridge upstream of the Unkamet Brook convergence. There was BOD exertion between HS06 and HS07. This demand on the free oxygen caused numerous violations of the minimum D.O. criteria. The individual low was 5.3 mg/1 with an average of 6.4 mg/1 in August 1974. S.S. continued to settle out between the stations. There was no significant change in the majority of the parameters due mainly to the absence of a point source of pollution in this stretch. There were, however, unaccounted for increases in total coliform. The algal population had begun to overcome the paper waste dominance. This resulted in the reappearance of slight D.O. fluctuations. The D.O. violations that prevented this station from meeting its C classification were due predominantly to the exertion of the BOD from the Crane Paper Co.

The next station, HS08, was located off Newell Street bridge below the entrance of Unkamet Brook. This brook carries the General Electric outfalls from an oil separator and a chemical pond. A mass balance between these discharges and the instream loads showed the expected increases in BOD, total phosphorus, and nitrate-nitrogen. There was an increase of S.S. not caused by the G.E. outfalls. This increase could have been attributed in part to the recent construction of a temporary diversion a short distance upstream. This diversion, which was built to allow for the construction of a subsurface pipe installation, caused erosion and suspension of fine-grained particles. There were jumps in total coliform and ammonia-nitrogen which could not be attributed to any point source or area disturbance. To determine the sources of these additions, further investigation is necessary. The D.O. concentrations continued to decline to the low averages of 5.7 mg/1 in June 1974 and 4.7 mg/1 in August 1974. These D.O. violations were the major reason the East Branch failed to meet the water quality criteria for its assigned C classification at this station.

There were three major outfalls from the G.E. Company below HS08 which could not be isolated individually due to their inaccessibility. The next station, HS09, was located at Lyman Street just below these outfalls. There was an oil film visible in June 1974 at this station. This oil was not believed to be coming from the G.E. outfalls. It has instead been traced to seepage from a former burial site for used oil equipment which is on G.E.'s property, T_his oil filni» besides limijting J.ight_£gn,etration and, therefore, algal growth^JLovers the~suFFace transfer of oxygen vital to the life of the river. Inthe June 1974 survey, the death of the algal pojjuJLation^and the resulting doubling of amorphous matter may have been caused by inter­ ference fxanLJLhi.s, pil__film. BOD continued to be exerted. This contributed to the continued violations of the D.O. criteria. The instream total phos­ phorus concentration Increased due to the~~G7ET~butfalls. The discharge of phosphorus from G.E. was the second largest addition of this parameter on the river. The in-plant sources of this phosphorus were a number of batch operations. The phosphorus was discharged at irregular__intervals_resulting in variations of instream"~concentrations in downstfeam" reaches. The celifornT "coTmts decreased between HSu8"1md~T:[S09. The East Branch continued to violate its assigned water quality criteria at this station.

To assure that HS09 was a representative sample of the three G.E. outfalls, a station was established during the August 1974 survey at Elm Street approximately 0.4 miles downstream from HS09. Results from this station confirmed the fact that the three outfalls were completely mixed at HS09.

Station HS10 was located at Pomeroy Avenue just above the West and Southwest Branches' confluence with the East Branch. In June 1974, the coliform counts for both days took unaccountable jumps to 50,000/100 ml and 200,000/100 ml. ' There were also slight increases in August 1974, but nothing to compare with- June. Additional investigations to determine the sources of these colLforms are needed. The recently added phosphorus had begun to stimulate the pro­ duction of algae, which in turn had increased the D.O. fluctuation. BOD continued to be exerted, and D.O. violations remained consistant, with no signs of recovery. Since 1969 there has been considerable effort on the part of G.E. to control their major problems. These problems, however, were not in organics or solids and therefore were not readily observed by the standard sampling. The oil discharges had been provided with treatment by 1974, and visual observations at these outfalls during the surveys indicated the success of the treatment facilities. The phenol discharges had all but be-.en eliminated (see Waste Discharges). The other major problem, the total phosphorus discharge, although not treated as yet, had been reduced from 1969 loadings. The following table illustrates the additions of this parameter for the three surveys:

Total Phosphorus (Ibs/day) Instream

Station July 1969 June 1974 August 1974

HS04 11 6 7 HS10 359 189 225

As the East Branch neared its convergence with the other two branches, its water quality remained in an unsatisfactory condition, caused for the most part by Crane Paper Company and to a lesser degree by G.E. and various non- point sources.

70 The West and Southwest Branches were sampled before their confluence with the East Branch. This sampling station, WB01, which was located at South Street in Pittsfield, was set up to provide data on these branches' contri­ butions to the main stem's loadings. There was a major difference in the flows at WB01 for the 1974 surveys. In August 1974, the stream flow was approximately 17 cubic feet per second (cfs), while in June the flow was around 90 cfs. The June 1974 results reflect the moderate rainfall pre­ ceeding the survey. There was no outstanding change in the condition of the West and Southwest Branches between 1969 and 1974. The water quality at WB01 was meeting the criteria for a Class C stream. There were, however, indications of parameter levels higher than background concentrations. Coliforms, for instance, varied from a low of 300 coliforms/100 ml in June 1974 to a high of 5,500 coliforms/100 ml in August 1974. These increases were not attributed to any known point source. There were also significant levels of nitrate-nitrogen in the West and Southwest Branches in June 1974. The high concentration of blue-green algae at WB01 suggested the possibility that ammonia-nitrogen was being converted to nitrate-nitrogen in one of the branch's upstream reaches.

Station HSll, which was located at Pomeroy Avenue, was established to pro­ vide a clearer picture of the water quality below the confluence of the three branches. there were the expected rises in ammonia-nitrogen, nitrate- nitrogen, and S.S. The exertion of part of the BOD loading occurred between HS10 and HSll. The algal population from the western branches caused an increase in the diurnal fluctuation. The continued violations in the D.O. concentrations prevented the main stem at HSll from meeting the water quality criteria for its assigned C classification.

A set of grab samples were taken in August 1974 at Station HS11A. This station was located below the trickling filter outfall of the Pittsfield WWTP. Grab samples are not as reliable as 24-hour composites and, there­ fore, they were used merely to confirm the fact that the plant's discharges had mixed by this station. One interesting result of the HS11A data was the reduction in the instream total phosphorus on Thursday during the August 1974 week of sampling. On Tuesday, the concentration was 0.50 mg/1, while on Thursday, the level had been reduced to 0.26 mg/1. This reflected the operation of the interim phosphorus removal system (see Housatonic River Water Quality Surveys, elsewhere in this report).

The first time the effects caused by the Pittsfield WWTP could be monitored was at Station HS12 off New Lenox Road in Lenox. Considerable settling had taken place between the Pittsfield WWTP and HS12. From the nitrate-nitrogen and ammonia-nitrogen data there was no strong indication of nitrification. High coliform concentrations reflected the absence of chlorination facilities at the plant. Even after the large nutrient additions there was only limited algal activity by HS12. The growth of algae was hindered by two factors. These were the heavily tree-lined banks which limited the hours of sunlight on the river's surface and the additions of color and turbidity from the treatment plant which limited light penetration and, therefore, restricted algal growth to the surface area. The total phosphorus load during both 1974 surveys was consistantly lower than the 1969 instream results. This

71 was expected from comparing the two years' waste discharge data. In 1969, Pittsfield was found to be discharging 723 Ibs/day total phosphorus, while 1974 resuits showed effluent loadings of only 363 Ibs/day. The following is a brief summary of the instream total phosphorus increases caused by the Pittsfield WWTP: Total Phosphorus (Ibs/day) - Instream Station July 1969 June 1974 August 1974

HSU 289 184 143 HS12 428 271 HS13 680 451 299 The smaller amounts of total phosphorus at stations HS12 and HS13 in August 1974 were attributed to the operation of the interim phosphorus removal system at the Pittsfield plant. The lower loadings in 1974 at HSll were due to the reduction in G.E.'s phosphorus contribution. There was no appreciable D.O. fluctuation, and the demand for oxygen kept concentrations in violation of the minimum criteria throughout a 24-hour period. Due to major D.O. and coliform violations, the Housatonic did not meet the water quality criteria for its C classification at HS12. HS13 marks the entrance to Woods Pond. Over the many years of inadequate treatment of upstream discharges, large quantities of solids have settled out in this section. The bulk of the settling occurred here because of the low velocities in the pond. During periods of moderate to high runoff, cluups of the accumulated bottom sludge rise. This resuspension is most, prevalent during higher flows because of the greater scouring effect these velocities have on the bottom deposits.

Even though the tree-lined shores and high suspended solids limited algal activity, there was an overall increase in the algal population. This population increase was not reflected in D.O. fluctuations. Another factor contributing to this condition was the shock effect from the Pittsfield WWTP. During average flows like those occurring in 1974, the time of travel from the last outfall to HS13 placed the greatest demand for oxygen in this area during the algae's most productive photosynthetic period. This would cause a D.O. depression where normally a rise occurs. It was very possible thai; without the oxygen production during the day by photosynthesis, instream D.O. values would have gone to zero. The North Lenox STP, which entered at the beginning of this segment, was not reflected in the data. Although the primary effluent was rich in organics, solids, and nutrients, the upstream discharges dominated the water quality at this point and overshadowed the smaller outfall.

BOD and coliform decreased between HS12 and HS13. Nitrate remained un­ changed indicating the nitrification process was not occurring in any signifi­ cant: amount. Ammonia, on the other hand, increased in this segment. There wen; two probable sources for this rise. These were the conversion of total nitrogen from the primary overflow at the Pittsfield plant to ammonia and the resuspension of ammonia-bearing materials.

72 In reference to some parameters, the Housatonic's condition had grown worse since 1969. For example, there were increases of instream loadings of BOD and ammonia resulting in D.O. concentrations as low as 1.5 mg/1. This was to be expected if one looks carefully at the changes in the upstream dis­ charges. The major improvements at Crane were in part offset by their increase in wastewater flow. Although the effluent quality improved, their effluent loading remained approximately the same. The major contributions to the Housatonic's problems from G.E. were oil, phenol, and total phosphorus. Since their contribution to the organic, solids, and nitrogen concen­ trations was small, improvements at this industry would not be directly reflected by these parameters. The Pittsfield WWTP had undergone no improvements other than the interim phosphorus removal system in August. This plant, like Crane, also had increases in their effluent flow. How­ ever, an increase in flow at the Pittsfield plant has a more significant meaning. Flows over 8.5 MGD are discharged to the river directly after primary treatment. Therefore, increases in flow mean the Housatonic re­ ceives an inadequately treated effluent. The river was not meeting Class C criteria at HS13 due to continual violations of the established criteria for minimum D.O. levels.

On the other hand, some changes at the upstream discharges have resulted in improvement to water quality as far down as HS13. For instance, before the completion of the oil separators at G.E., oil film could be noted at this station. In addition, the reductions in instream phosphorus loadings due to the effluent reductions at the sources were clearly apparent.

The river was next monitored at HS14 just prior to the Woods Pond outlet. Besides the inlet-outlet samples, the pond underwent a baseline lake survey conducted by this Division. The results of this additional survey will be noted briefly in this report.

Woods Pond is an artificial impoundment created by the Smith Paper Company (presently P.J. Schweitzer Paper Co.). This pond is the eventual catch basin for all the upstream discharges. Years of solids and nutrient additions have caused the acceleration of this pond's death. Presently, the impound­ ment is in an advanced eutrophic stage. There are a number of interrelating factors which have caused this condition. Some of the more important ones include phosphorus and nitrogen additions, which stimulate algae growth; sludge accumulation, which fills in an already shallow pond; and shallow waters, which allow for light penetration to bottom vegetation and also allow for an increase in water temperature, which in turn stimulates algae production.

The data at HS14 from June 1974 were not an accurate representation of the conditions within the pond. As previously mentioned, the shallowness throughout much of the impoundment had allowed light to penetrate to the bottom. This in turn distributed the algal population throughout the pond's depth. The type of sampling technique used was a bucket drop off the shore. In most cases this technique may be adequate. However, in the case of this impoundment, it was proven inadequate.

73 The pond has two outlets: the overflow at the dam site and the flow through the diversion gates. The flow going over the dam was predominantly the same surface water sampled at HS14. The diversion, on the other hand, had its gates opened below the surface of the pond. This resulted in a completely mixed outfall from all depths of the impoundment.

Between these outlets and Station HS15, the Housatonic received the discharge from the Lenox Center Treatment Plant, which adds very little to the Housa­ tonic 's pollutional load. Therefore, samples taken at HS15 were in fact the accurate representation of the Woods Pond outlet which had been sought at HS14. For the June 1974 Woods Pond analysis, HS15 will be analyzed along with HS14. The following is a brief summary of the June 1974 survey data:

WOODS POND

June 1974 - Ibs/day

Parameter HS13 FS14 HS15

BOD 3889 4367 4626 Suspended Solids 8412 12,476 16,823 Total Phosphorus 451 364 378 Ammonia-Nitrogen 769 541 494 Nitrate-Nitrogen 718 624 738 D.O. - Average 24-hour Variation Slight 6.9 1.7

MICROSCOPIC ANALYSIS

Areal Standard Units/ml

Organism HS13 HS14 HS15

Algae Bacillariophyceae (diatoms) 29 47 Cyanophyceae (blue-greens) 88 306 Chlorophyceae (green) 153 47 835 Protozoa Mastigophora (flagellates) 6 71 Infusoria (ciliates) 12 488 Amorphous Matter 11,172 9849 11,760

According to the microscopic analysis, there were very little algae present at: HS14. However, the daily D.O. fluctuation rose from slight variations at HS13 to 6.9 mg/1 at HS14. This indicated substantial algal activity. HS15 is> in a relatively fast stretch of river which is not conducive to supporting substantial algal populations. The D.O. variation confirmed this with a sharp reduction to 1.7 mg/1. From this it can be concluded that the algae population reflected in the HS15 microscopic analysis was in fact that popu­ lation which was present at HS14 and had flowed down to HS15 after passing through the diversion's gates. This theory is further supported by increases in the instream loads of BOD, total phosphorus, nitrate-nitrogen, and especially suspended solids. Since there was no source for the 250 Ibs/day increase in BOD and there are no known non-point sources in this area, the

74 increase was attributed to algal interference. In a similar manner, major algal populations caused jumps in the suspended solids load which occurred between these two stations. Algae use phosphorus and nitrate to grow and multiply. Nitrate, especially, can be stored to excess in certain types of algae. It is logical to assume that if the algal population center was not sampled, there would be a resulting decrease in both parameters. With the reappearance of the algae at HS15, the reappearance of the phosphorus and nitrate should occur. Nitrate reflected this far better than the phosphorus. There are two possible reasons for the failure of phosphorus to reappear. The first is the death and eventual settling of algae containing phosphorus, and the second is phosphorus uptake by bottom sediments and/or vegetation within the pond.

Another important factor that can be seen from this data concerns the ammonia loads. Ammonia was on a steady decline from HS13 to HS15. The most probable cause of this decline would be ongoing nitrification. The expected rise in nitrate seemed to fall short. However, the additional nitrate could easily have been used up in the same manner as the phosphorus concentrations, through bottom uptake by sediments and/or vegetation or algal death and eventual settling. Nitrification of the ammonia is further supported by the appearance of blue-green algae at HS15.

The problem that occurred in June 1974 did not reoccur in August. The samples taken in August at HS14, after a comparison with HS15 results, seemed to be representative of the condition in Woods Pond. According to data, the pond was in the midst of an algal bloom. The D.O. fluctuations increased from slight at HS13 to 12.9 mg/1 at HS14. The D.O. high was 19.2 mg/1 and the low was 3.0 mg/1. The suspended solids instream load increased due to algal interference from 4353 Ibs/day at HS13 to 15,527 Ibs/day at HS14. Also due to algal presence, BOD instream loads increased from 2549 Ibs/day at HS13 to 7415 Ibs/day at HSU. A direct count of the algae, proto­ zoa, and amorphous matter was not possible. Therefore, the microscopic data could not be used as evidence to support the presence of the bloom. Even though there is no supporting microscopic data, other recorded data, along with visual observations during that week, were enough to confirm the presence of the bloom.

Agair; as in June 1974, there was strong indication of ongoing nitrification. The ammonia instream loading dropped from 1088 Ibs/day at HS13 to 251 Ibs/day at HS15. The corresponding increase in nitrate did occur but only slightly.

There were no major differences between the 1969 and 1974 data at HS14. There were increases in many of the parameters in 1974, but this was expected due to increases in upstream loadings, major algal interference, and additions of five more years of poorly treated wastewater. In general, this area has become the most critical in terms of water quality on the entire Housatonic. The D.O. standards were continually violated. Coliform counts often remained well above the suggested 5,000 coliform/100 ml maximum. As far as aesthetics, the area has lost most of its potential as a recreational water body. Besides unsightly sludge banks, bottom weed growth, surface algal bloom, and high color content, the pond often gives off an unpleasant odor. Major changes

75 must take place within its shores as well as at upstream discharges before it will even come close to meeting the water quality criteria for its assigned C classification.

HS15, as previously mentioned, is the next station downstream of Woods Pond. Because the August 1974 samples at HS14 were accurate, reductions in the water quality parameters could be seen between HS14 and HS15. The only effect from the Lenox Center STP outfall that could be seen in the data was an increase in the coliform counts. In August 1974 these increases, how­ ever, did not push instream counts above the suggested maximum of 5000 coliform/100 ml. The supersaturation state which occurred within the pond had been knocked out by the turbulence from the dam, the diversion gates, and the subsequent rapid section below the dam. The high velocity provided adequate surface aeration which improved the D.O. concentrations and helped stimulate the exertion of oxygen-demanding processes. Violations in the D.O. criteria which prevented the river from meeting its C classification still remained.

Just below HS15, the river receives the treated effluent from the Lenoxdale ST13. In 1969, this section of river also received the untreated outfall from the Niagara Mill of P.J. Schweitzer. Presently, however, this mill discharges its effluent to a privately owned and operated treatment plant. Soon after flowing past this mill, the Housatonic begins to slow as it nears the impoundment behind the P.J. Schweitzer dam. At the Golden Hill Road crossing, samples were taken in 1974 and labelled HS16. The contributions from the Lenoxdale STP, like the Lenox Center STP, were minor. The upstream discharges as well as the effects from Woods Pond were still controlling the water quality of the Housatonic. BOD exertion continued at a moderate rate, allowing for D.O. averages to climb. In fact, in June 1974, the D.O. minimum for this section was not violated. However, there were D.O. violations in August 1974 which occurred predominantly at night and were due in part to algal respiration. Coliform values declined in June, while ammonia and nitrate data indicated slight nitrification. Due to continued D.O. violations, the Housatonic still failed to meet Class C criteria at this station.

From HS16 the Housatonic passes over the Schweitzer dam and heads south into the Lee business district. The river was next sampled at HS17 off the Route 102 bridge below the center of Lee. The two outfalls from the Schweitzer treatment plants discharged into the beginning of this section. During the June 1974 survey, a problem developed at these treatment plants which caused unnaturally high concentrations of BOD and suspended solids. Because of this, the following takes into consideration only data from August 1974.

BOD increased from the values at HS16 as expected. The exertion of this BOD was delayed due to the difficulty in bacterial breakdown of this paper waste. The sudden increase in the instream 7-Day BOD from 10.2 mg/1 at HS16 to 15.9 mg/1 at HS17 reflected this condition. Treated wastewater from a paper company often has high color content, caused by dissolved solids. The additions of these dissolved solids were reflected in the total solids rise from 240 mg/1 to 280 mg/1. Coliform had decreased to the point where

76 in August, values had dropped below the maximum allowable concentrations suggested for a Class C stream. Overall, there were no significant changes in the D.O. concentrations. Violations continued to occur at night during algal respiration. These violations, which prevented HS17 from meeting its assigned water quality criteria, were still attributed to loads from dis­ charges upstream of Woods Pond.

It is very difficult to show the improvement caused by the Schweitzer Paper Company's two new treatment plants because of the major algal inter­ ference in both BOD and suspended solids results. The following is a brief summary of the instream BOD and S.S. loadings above and below the Schweitzer mills:

P.J. SCHWEITZER PAPER COMPANY INSTREAM - 1969 vs. 1974 Ibs/day (mg/1) Parameter Station July 1969 August 1974

BOD5 HSU 2876 (6.3) 7415 (11.7) BOD5 HS17 7175 (12.9) 6703 (9.2) Susp. Solids HSU 5340 (11.7) 15,527 (19.5) Susp. Solids HS17 9455 (17.0) 14,209 (16.5)

In July 1969, there were sharp increases in BOD and S.S. from HSU to HS17 caused by the untreated paper wastewater, Lenoxdale primary STP, and Lenox Center primary STP. Due to the construction of secondary facilities at each of these outfalls, this increase was not apparent in 1974. The benefits from these facilities, however, were overshadowed by the poor quality of the water flowing from Woods Pond. At HSU in August 1974, BOD and S.S. concentrations were much higher than in 1969 because of algal interference. Although there was no microscopic analysis at HS17 in August 1974, one was done in June. This analysis showed that the bulk of the algal population from Woods Pond had been carried down to this station. It was concluded from this and other data that the same type of phenomenon also occurred in August. This resulted in a continuation at HS17 of major algal interference on BOD and S.S. con­ centrations. Just after passing under the Route 102 bridge, the Housatonic receives Goose Pond Stream from the east. This stream was sampled at Tyringham Road (Station GP01), approximately 0.1 miles above the stream's confluence with the main stem. From the samples collected, the water quality at this station reflected clean water conditions except in the Tuesday coliform counts for both 1974 surveys. The counts on both Tuesdays exceeded 8000 coliforms/100 ml. Additional investigations are necessary to determine the origin of these counts. The discharge from the Westfield River Paper Co.,

77 which is situated in an upstream reach of the stream, was not evident at GP01. In general, the stream was a welcome dilution to the waste-laden main stem. The water quality was meeting the criteria for a Class C stream.

As the main stem winds its way south from the Goose Pond Stream confluence, it receives the outfall from the Lee STP. From this outfall, the Housatonic remains away from any roadway as it swings west. A short distance past the Hop Brook entrance, the Laurel Mill of the Hurlbut Paper Company discharges its treated waste to the river. Approximately 100 yards downstream, grab samples were taken on Tuesday and Thursday during the August 1974 survey. These samples are not as reliable as 24-hour composites and wer* therefore used solely to determine if there was ongoing assimilation of the wastes in the river.

Shortly after HS17A, the river begins to slow as it nears the Willow Mill dam of the Hurlbut Paper Co. Station HS18 was located just above the dam. Neither the Lee STP nor the Laurel Mill plant is a major contributor to the river's pollution. From HS17 the river had begun the long process of assimilating the collected waste load. Both BOD and S.S. concentrations had decreased by HS18. The conditions within the impoundment encouraged algal activity. D.O. fluctuations increased during both 1974 surveys to a high of 7.9 mg/1 in August. Total phosphorus loadings had dropped from 412 Ibs/day at HS17 to 305 Ibs/day at HS18 in June, and from 321 Ibs/day at HS17 to 297 Ibs/day at HS18 in August. According to nitrogen data, nitri­ fication was occurring in June. The oxygen uptake during this assimilation caused violations of the minimum D.O. criteria which kept the Housatonic from meeting its C classification.

Below the daw, the Housatonic was met with the outfall from the Willow Mill plant. As the westward flow takes the river into Stockbridge, the gradient becomes more gradual and the stream classification changes from C to B. In southern Lee and parts of Stockbridge there are no sewerage systems. The seepage of domestic sewage from malfunctioning septic systems was reflected in the increase in coliform counts at HS19. This station was located at the Glendale Middle Road bridge. A reduction in D.O. fluctuations caused higher D.O.'s at night. For the first time since Dalton, the Housatonic was not in violation of the minimum allowable D.O. standard. With the change in classification, however, the coliform criterion had become more stringent. The coliform level at HS19 did violate the criteria for a Class B stream. The river continued the slow process of assimilation. This was reflected in decreases in BOD and S.S. In June 1974, there was a drop in ammonia- nitrogen and a corresponding rise in nitrate-nitrogen, suggesting ongoing nit rification.

There were two^ major differences at HS18 and HS19 between the 1969 and 1974 water quality "surveys. The first was an increase in algal activity in 1974. Higher D.O. concentrations during the day caused higher overall averages. The algae in turn continued to interfere with suspended solids concentrations. The; second was the lower phosphorus concentrations that were caused by lower loadings in discharges into upstream reaches.

78 After receiving the effluents from the Stockbridge STP via the tributary from Stockbridge Bowl, the river swings south again and enters Great Harrington. In both 1969 and 1974 there was no treatment facility in this town. The three villages were instead sewered directly to the river. Station HS20 was located at the Route 183 bridge in the Village of Housatonic. This station was upstream from most of the village's population and, therefore, did not accurately depict its total raw sewage flow. At Route 183 the Housatonic is a shallow, rapidly moving river which has recently left a mature impoundment located behind the abandoned Monument Mills. Due to the shallowness of the river, the bulk of the algal population was within one or two feet of the surface. Therefore, surface sampling at HS20 took a representative sample of algae. This in turn was reflected in the additional interference in the S.S. concentrations. Green algae were thriving in the upstream impoundment in June 1974 as can be seen in the sharp increase of their population at HS20. The fall over the dam and the following rapid section limited algal activities and prevented a supersaturation state. The HS20 D.O. values were higher than HS19 values with averages of 8.4 mg/1 for June and 8.2 mg/1 for August. The coliform counts, however, still prevented this section from meeting its B classification. Overall, the water quality of the Housatonic was improving due to the slow assimilation of the waste loads.

Staf-ion HS21 was located at the outlet to Rising Pond. Over many years this pond, like Woods Pond, accumulated major quantities of solids and organics from inadequately treated upstream discharges. The visual appear­ ance of the river reflected this. There were large clumps of sludge mixed with dead algae rising from the pond's bottom. This, along with an unpleasant odor, made the Housatonic aesthetically displeasing. The environment of the impoundment stimulated the growth of algae. D.O. fluctuations increased to bloom proportions in August. During this week, the D.O. concentrations varied from 19.3 mg/1 to 7.3 mg/1, with a high D.O. variation of 11.4 over one 24-hour period. The high oxygen production during the day managed to offset the algal respiration at night. D.O. values did not violate Class B criteria. Due to the clumping effect of floating solids and settling within the pond, the S.S. concentrations dropped at HS21. The rising sludge, although not vividly illustrated in the S.S. values, did show up in an increase of amorphous matter from 3969 areal standard units (ASU)/ 100 ml to 11,231 ASU/100 ml. Raw sewage discharges from the villages of Housatonic and Risingdale caused the BOD increases. The coliform counts at HS21 remained above the maximum allowable limit for a Class B stream.

The river was in basically the same condition in 1969 as it was in 1974. There were increases in algal activity within the pond to bloom proportions. The corresponding increase in BOD and S.S. occurred. The water quality at HS21 in 1969, like that in 1974, failed to meet Class B criteria due to high coliform levels and poor aesthetic qualities.

The Housatonic was next monitored at Station HS22, located 0.8 miles below the Rising Paper Company dam at the Division Street bridge. At the head of this section, the Rising Paper Company was discharging its untreated effluent into a small diversion of the Housatonic in both 1969 and 1974.

79 The large rise in BOD at HS21 was expected from studying a mass balance

The Williams River converges with the Housatonic approximately one-half mile below HS22. Station WR01 was established on the Williams River at the Route 41 bridge, one mile upstream from the confluence with the main stem. There were no signs of gross pollution at this station. Coliform counts did not reflect any domestic sewage discharges. In general, most of the parameters measured were at low levels which were comparable to clean water. There were, however, two exceptions to this. The pH and total alkalinity concentrations were unusually high even for Berkshire County. A journey up the river explained this condition. Near the headwaters in the Town of West Stockbridge, there are a number of limestone quarries along the shore. . * The runoff from these quarries is believed to have been the major contribu­ tor to the high alkalinity and pH. The results at WR01 were not indicative of upstream sewage discharges. There have been visual observations and verbal complaints about raw sewage entering the river in West Stockbridge. The relatively clean water conditions at WR01 were due to the ability of the Williams River to assimilate the West Stockbridge discharges. From the Williams River, the Housatonic flows into the business district of Great Barrington. At this point it received a number of untreated out­ falls from the sewage system in this town. HS23 was located at the bridge immediately upstream of the future treatment plant site. This bridge is located off Main Street in the southern section of town. The river at this point had grown shallow and swift, averaging 1.0 to 3.0 feet in depth. The algal population was now collected nearer the surface. This resulted in a more representative sample. The increase of the algal population within the sample was reflected by the rise in S.S. BOD was being exerted, causing a slight decrease in the D.O. concentrations. These reductions, however, were not large enough to cause violations of Class B criteria. Coliforms increased sharply in August but decreased in June. These levels, like the previous section, were still in violation of Class B criteria. Total phosphorus, nitrate-nitrogen, and ammonia-nitrogen all indicated decreases in concentrations due to the dilution from the Williams River.

The Housatonic was next monitored at Station HS24 on Brookside Road in Great Barrington. This section of river does not have any point sources of pollution. The station was established for two reasons: to provide back­ %w" ground data for future reference after t;he municipal STP is completed and

80 to isolate the Green River. The flow characteristics of the Housatonic began to change drastically at HS24. From this point to HS27, the river drops an average of 2 feet/mile as compared to the average of 15 feet/mile for the stretch of river between HS01 and HS24. As the river slows, it provides an excellent environment for algal production. Between the two 1974 surveys, August had the greater growth of algae. D.O. concentrations ranged from a high of 11.1 mg/1 to a low of 5.8 mg/1. There were no other significant changes in any of the parameters except total coliform. The coliform counts jumped to 16,300 coliforms/100 ml in June and 44,600 coli­ forms/100 ml in August. These increases were attributed to the sewage out­ falls below HS23. The Housatonic was not meeting the water quality criteria for a Class B stream at HS24.

The Green River converges with the Housatonic below HS24. Station GR01 was located on the Green River approximately 0.1 miles above the confluence. Results from both 1974 surveys indicated "clean water" conditions. This river was a welcome dilution to the Housatonic.

The Housatonic was next monitored at HS25, located at Boardman Street in Sheffield. There were no point sources of pollution in this section. In June, the algae had spread into lower depths, due in part to the very slow velocity and in part to the increase in light penetration. This was apparent in the decrease of the algal population in the microscopic analysis along with a sharp decrease in the protozoa present. The majority of the protozoa thrive in the zone directly below the bulk of the algae. Here they may easily take advantage of the dead and settling algae. It is logical to assume that if the algae sought a lower depth, the protozoa would follow. The D.O. fluctuation increased to a high of 6.1 mg/1 in August 1974. D.O. minimums again rose above the minimum allowable standard. Coliforms, though decreasing from the HS24 values, remained well above the maximum allowable value. There was an increase in the August S.S. concen­ trations between HS24 and HS25 from 25.5 mg/1 to 30.5 mg/1. Since there was no known point source in this section and algal activity according to D.O. fluctuations was on the rise, it is believed that this jump by over 10,000 Ibs/day in S.S. was caused by the presence of algae. This conclusion, how­ ever, cannot be substantiated by microscopic data. There was no signifi­ cant change in any nutrients from HS24 to HS25.

By HS26, the Housatonic was well into the Sheffield meanders. This station was located off County Road just above the Hubbard Brook confluence. The word "ir.eanders" is very appropriate for the Housatonic in Sheffield because the river wanders south through a series of twists and curves at a very slow velocity. High flow periods cause backwater pools to form at these bends. As the flow drops dack to normal, much of the backwater is prevented from returning to the river, forming stagnant pools. County Road is situated near the center of Sheffield. The town has no central treatment plant. There have been a number of problems cited concerning the inadequacy of their subsurface systems. This is one of two probable sources of pollution in this area. The other stems from agricultural runoff. From lower Great Barring- ton, the broad valley bordering the river is used extensively for farming and the grazing of cattle. The effects from this second source of pollution

81 are not easily isolated. The BOD at HS26 increased during both 1974 surveys. The algal activity in August, according to the D.O. fluctuations, decreased slightly. There was a comparable decrease in S.S. concentrations from 30.5 mg,/l to 25.0 mg/1. In addition, there was no significant change in the nutrient concentrations. Coliform counts did not reflect the domestic sewage from Sheffield and instead continued to decrease. Coliform levels, however, remained in violation of their assigned criteria. In August there were, individual violations in the D.O. criteria which contributed to the Housa­ tonic's failure to meet its assigned B classification at HS26.

Hubbard Brook was sampled at Route 7 during the August 1974 survey. This brook flows to the Housatonic through the northern section of Sheffield center. Survey results at HB01 indicated probable domestic sewage contam­ ination. Coliform counts averaged 3400 coliforms/100 ml, with an individual high of 9,000 coliforms/100 ml. Ammonia-nitrogen levels averaged 0.06 mg/1 which was the highest average for any of the tributaries sampled. D.O. concentrations averaged around 7.1 mg/1 with an individual low of 6.2 mg/1. Hubbard Brook was not meeting Class B criteria in 1974.

The final sampling station was located on Andrus Road in southern Sheffield. This station, HS27, was 2.0 miles from the Massachusetts-Connecticut state line. The flow characteristics had not changed from those described at: HS25 and HS26. This section of river was subject to the same sources of pollution mentioned at HS26. The D.O. concentrations at Andrus Road were well above the minimum criteria. There was little change in the water quality from that of HS26 except for coliform counts. A further reduction dropped the levels to 2600 coliforms/100 ml in June and 500 coliforms/100 ml in August. The following is a summary of the loadings at HS27:

HS27 - WATER QUALITY

Ibs/day (mg/1)

Parameter June 1974 August 1974

BOD5 5886 (2.8) 10,082 (6.9) Suspended Solids 21,021 (10) 32,146 (22) Ammonia-Nitrogen 84 (0.04) 48 (0.02) Nitrate-Nitrogen 1151 (0.5) 0.0 (0.0) Total Phosphorus 231 (0.11) 234 (0.16) Total Coliform* 2600 500 Dissolved Oxygen: Average 8.2 10.7 Minimum 7.2 7.9

*Colifonns/100 ml.

As can be seen from this data, the Housatonic was very close to meeting Class B criteria as it left the state.

82 In summary, since 1969 there have been steps taken to abate the water pollution entering the Housatonic River with the construction of new and improved treatment facilities. However, the improvements from these facilities could .not readily be seen due to the overshadowing effect of the inadequately treated discharges in upstream reaches.

The most dominant factor in the Housatonic River in 1974 was the large- scale algal population present from HS14 to HS27. This population was stimulated by the impoundments and abundance of nutrients, which together provided an excellent habitat for rapid growth. Of the three surveys analyzed, August 1974 had the largest growth of algae, with blooms oc­ curring in Woods Pond, Rising Pond, and the meanders in Sheffield. The algal activities in June 1974 and July 1969 were similar. The popula­ tions interfered in some instances with BOD results and were continually reflected in the S.S. data.

There is a certain amount of stream pollution which cannot be attributed to direct discharges. These additions have become known as non-point sources of pollution. This type of pollution may be caused by stormwater runoff, agricultural runoff, landfills, development, or inadequate sub­ surface disposal. In the preceding analysis, there were a number of areas cited where additions of BOD, coliform, oil, S.S., or ammonia-nitro­ gen were not attributable to any point sources. Further investigations may find the above-mentioned non-point sources as the cause of these additions. A quantitative analysis of these additions could not be done in most cases due to the interference of point sources and/or algal popu­ lations. The impact of the non-point sources will be intensively examined in the Housatonic River Basin Part D , which will be published soon.

Nitrogen data indicated that nitrification did occur in the Housatonic River at various locations below the Pittsfield WWTP. Specifically, it was found that the process had occurred between stations HS13-14, HS15-16, HS17-18, and HS18-19.

The Housatonic continually violated its assigned water quality criteria throughout most of its length. The following is a brief summary of these violations including the station at which the violations occurred and the probable cause:

On the East Branch, there were four major problem sources. The first was the raw sewage outfalls in Hinsdale, which caused coliform violations at HS02. The other three included the Crane Paper Company and, to a lesser degree, General Electric and various non-point sources. Their combined effect caused D.O. violations from HS07 to HS11. Between HS11 and HS12, the conditions in the Housatonic became dependent on the quality of the effluents from the Pittsfield WWTP. The discharges from this facility along with the loadings not yet assimilated from the East Branch created a critical situation in the section of river above Woods Pond as well as within the pond itself. Violations in coliform and D.O. levels occurred frequently at HS12, HS13, and HS14. The oxygen demand leaving the pond as well as the smaller contributions from discharges below HS14 caused the continuation of the D.O. violations as far down as HS18.

83 Just as the river showed signs of meeting the water quality criteria for a Class C stream, the classification changed to B. Along with this change came stricter water quality requirements. Domestic waste seepage from the southern Lee and Stockbridge area kept coliform counts above the maximum allowable for a Class B stream. With the additions of the direct raw sewage outfalls from Great Barrington and Sheffield, coliform violations continued until HS27. At this station, the Housatonic had most of the upstream loadings under control. The base criteria were either met or were very close to being met. One of the major problems as the Housatonic left Massachusetts was the high visual turbidity caused by the large algal popu­ lation. Data collected from the five major tributaries indicated that all except Hubbard Brook were meeting their assigned classification at the point of their confluence with the main stem.

84 Housatonic River Biological Water Quality Assessment

A biological study was conducted on the Housatonic River and its major tribu­ taries in June 1974. Sampling stations on the main stem were located from the source of the East Branch (Station HS01) in Hinsdale to Andrus Road (Station HS27) in Sheffield. Major tributary streams were sampled just up­ stream of their confluence with the Housatonic River. Weather conditions were generally favorable for biological sampling with predominantly warm and sunny days.

The Housatonic watercourse was characterized by shallow depth and rapid flow at: its headwaters and evolved into a deeper, slower flowing river interrupted by several large impoundments in downstream reaches. The variation in depth and rate of flow coupled with the natural differences in substrate was re­ flected in the benthic communities encountered. Major changes in benthic community composition were also observed due to the discharge of both treated and untreated domestic and industrial pollutants into the river.

Habitat sampling at Stations HS03, HS09, HS10, HSU, and HS12 yielded no organisms. This absence of organisms was also reflected in the smaller number of types found in the dredge samples. These organisms consisted predomi­ nantly of tolerant oligochaetes.

Due to similarities in physical and chemical parameters, several rough zones• of benthic water quality response can be established. The first biological zone occurred on the East Branch of the Housatonic River from Station HS01, Washington Street, Hinsdale, to Station HS07, Radar Tower Road, Pittsfield. This zone can be characterized by rapid flow due to a large drop in elevation. The substrate ranged from silt, sand, and gravel to a gravel, cobble, boulder type, while the sample depth ranged from 1.0 to 2.0 feet (see Table 13). Both the kinds and distribution of aquatic organisms (see Figures 14 and 15) seem to illustrate the suitability of this zone for maintaining healthy, endemic benthic communities. Many intolerant or "clean water" kinds were found, including stoneflies, mayflies, caddisflies, and intolerant midges of the subfamily Orthocladiinae (see Table 17).

Stations HS01 and HS02 were representative of the favorable conditions of this first biological zone. A large percentage of the benthic community at these two stations was composed of intolerant organisms found both in habitat and dredge samples. Station HS01 yielded many facultative kinds, although these organisms consisted of only three percent of the total population. This indicates that a minor stress condition existed at this point. Station HS02 contained mostly intolerant kinds (76 percent) and offered no apparent benthic distress. The best "clean water" station on the Housatonic main stem was HS05, South Street, Dalton. Intolerant forms made up 88 percent of the total population and were distributed among 13 kinds. This station would be the best choice for comparative evaluation on the main stem Housatonic.

A downward trend in community composition occurred at Station HS03, the inlet to Center Pond. This shift to tolerant types, especially midges, is due to the

85 TABLE 13

HOUSATONIC RIVER 1974 BIOLOGICAL STUDY

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS BY STATION

RIVER SAMPLE STATION MILE DESCRIPTION SUBSTRATE TYPE DEPTH (ft.)

HS01 55.4,13.6 Washington State Road, Hinsdale Sand-Silt-Gravel 1.5

HS02 55.4,11.1 Intersection of Old Dalton Road and Route 8, Rock-Coarse Gravel- 1.0 Hinsdale Sand

HS03 55.4,8.3 Orchard Street, Dalton (inlet to Center Pond) Cobble-Gravel-Sand 1.5

HS05 55.4,6.0 South Street, Dalton Boulder-Cobble-Gravel 1.0

HS06 55.4,5.1 Hubbard Ave., Pittsfield (USGS Gage at Coltsville) Rubble-Gravel-Sand 1.0-1 .5

HS07 55.4,4.3 Radar Tower Road, Pittsfield Cobble-Silt-Sand-Gravel 1.0-2 .0

00 ON HS08 55.4,2.0 Newell Street, Pittsfield Boulder-Rubble-Gravel- 1.0-2 .5 •\ Coarse Sand

HS09 55.4,1.4 Lyman Street, Pittsfield Boulder-Rubble-Gravel-Sand 1.0-3 .0

HS10 55.4,0.3 Pomeroy Ave., Pittsfield (above the confluence Rubble-Gravel-Sand 0.5-3 .0 with the West Branch Housatonic River)

HSU 54.7 Pomeroy Ave., Pittsfield (below the confluence Sand-Gravel 1.5-2 .0 with the West Branch Housatonic River)

HS12 49.5 New Lenox Road, Lenox Sand-Muck 4.0

HS13 46.5 Off October Mountain Road, Lee (inlet to Woods Pond) Rubble-Boulder- Sand­ 7.0-8 .0 Clay-Organic Matter

HS14 45.1 Off Woodland Street, Lee (outlet to Woods Pond) Muck-Organic Matter 1.0-15.0 c

TABLE 13 (Continued)

RIVER SAMPLE STATION MILE DESCRIPTION SUBSTRATE TYPE DEPTH (ft.)

HS15 A3. 8 East Street, Lenox (Lenoxdale Village) Boulder-Rubble-Gravel 1.0-3.0

HS16 42.9 Golden Hill Road, Lee Boulder-Rubble-Gravel­ 1.0-4.0 Sand-Organic Matter

HS17 40.0 Route 102, Lee (upstream) Boulder-Gravel-Sand­ 1.0-4.0 Detritus

HS18 35.5 Willow Street, Lee (above Dam HD09) Gravel-Coarse Sand­ 6.0-8.0 Clay-Silt-Organic Matter

HS19 28.9 Glendale Middle Road, Stockbridge Boulder-Rubble-Gravel- 0.5-4.0 Sand-Silt

HS20 25.7 Route 183, Great Harrington (Housatonic Rock-Coarse Sand-Gravel 1.0-3.0 Village - Inlet to Rising Pond) oo HS21 24.7 Off Rt. 183, Great Harrington (railroad bridge at Sand-Gravel-Muck- 2.0-35.0 outlet to Rising Pond, Risingdale Village) Organic Matter

HS22 23.9 Division St., Great Harrington (USGS Gage at Boulder-Rubble- 10.0-15.0 Great Harrington) Gravel

HS23 19.3 Off Main Street, Great Harrington Boulder-Rubble-Gravel- 1.0-3.0 Sand-Silt

HS24 17.1 Brookside Road, Great Harrington Gravel-Coarse Sand- 1.0-10.0 Rubble-Boulder

HS25 11.4 Boardman Street, Sheffield Clay-Silt-Sand-Gravel- 4.0-15.0 Organic Matter

HS26 9.0 County Road, Sheffield Rubble-Gravel-Sand- 1.0-5.0 Mud-Clay

HS27 2.0 Andrus Road, Sheffield Organic Matter-Gravel- 1.0-12.0 Coarse Sand-Clay c

TABLE 14

1974 BIOLOGICAL STUDY

TRIBUTARIES TO THE HOUSATONIC RIVER

PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS BY STATION

RIVER SAMPLE STATION MILE DESCRIPTION SUBSTRATE TYPE DEPTH (ft.)

WB01 55.4,0.6 West and Southwest Branch Housatonic River, Boulder-Rubble-Gravel- 1.0-2.0 Route 7/20 (South Street, Pittsfield) Sand

GP01 40.0,0.1 Goose Pond Stream, Tyringham Road, Lee Rubble-Gravel-Sand 0.5-1.5

WR01 23.3,1.0 Williams River, at intersection of Division Boulder-Rubble-Cobble- 2.0 Street and Route 41, Great Barrington Gravel

GR01 15.9,0.1 Green River, Route 7, Great Barrington Rubble-Gravel-Sand-Clay 1.0-3.0

00 00 HB01 9.0,1.0 Hubbard Brook, Route 7, Sheffield Sand-Clay-Silt -Detritus 0.5-3.0 HOUSATONIC RIVER 20 KINDS OF BENTHIC ORGANISMS

STATIONS I through 14

CD C 3J m in - c E = *

—27

HOUSATONIC RIVER KINDS OF BENTHIC ORGANISMS

STATIONS 15 through 27

o c. 20 m £ O oO Si o HOUSATONIC RIVER

3 U o u. DISTRIBUTION OF BENTH ic dIRGj Nl

Intoleron l / 100 W S5 "'" ^ V, / 1 90 •4 / <" fl 1 [ / 1 eO_ / ffl C-,

/ ? • ^0_ / CD c / • • ;o m_ . . m *

/ I f f ^ \ 7 i 3 / ^ ^0_ ^\ / • ! ; N #

1 / ^ JJP_ '•f- /' (f \ U4 ? / a • A 2 20 W • | $ f / % /" : ; Hf' ^;^ ^J ^ / U 10 •^ • O 1 ? : ^ • / cc y J' zrS&S/? s/7 ^ / / / / -/ / r / / / ^y / x £ o / / / / / 1 / / ^ ( 5 I HOUSATONIC RIVER

c o O li DISTRIBUTION OF BENTHIC ORGANISMS

STATIONS 15 through 27

o c 30 m

o back flow from Center Pond which acts as a settling area for organic matter from upstream areas. Station HS06 also shows a similar, though less signifi­ cant downward trend to tolerant types of organisms. This trend may be a response to the pollutional loading of the Crane Paper Company. The stress at HS06 on the benthic community does not as yet appear to be severe. However, this organic load which the river receives offers little nutritional value to aquatic organisms and a BOD lag may affect the amount of dissolved oxygen available to the benthic communities at subsequent stations.

Station HS07 does not lend itself to a rigorous community examination as it was rechanneled prior to the 1974 biological sampling. Although organisms were taken in both dredge and habitat samples, a stable community was not established. Therefore, any inferences to water quality from these data might prove transitional and misleading.

A second general zone of benthic water quality response was evident from Station HS08, Newell Street, to Station HSU, Pomeroy Avenue in Pittsfield. The sample depth in this zone ranged from 1.0 to 3.0 feet and a general rubble, gravel, and sand substrate was encountered. Surface observation revealed oil on both the water surface and in the substrate. The benthic communities showed a dramatic shift in both kinds and distribution to the tolerant range in this zone. The predominant organism types were found to be oligochaetes of the family Tubificidae. This shift in community composition reflects the stress which the organic and inorganic pollutants place upon the intolerant and facultative organisms. The oxygen demand of organic loading, together with oil seepage and high phosphorus levels from the General Electric plant discharges, have produced an environment which is not suitable for the in­ tolerant and facultative organisms found in the headwater reaches.

Station WB01, on the West Branch of the Housatonic River, was sampled 0.6 miles above its confluence with the main stem. The benthic water quality response at this station was facultative to tolerant. The kinds of benthic organisms were distributed fairly evenly, but 61 percent were tolerant types. This points to some stress which has influenced the aquatic community, although more samples would have to be taken to draw a definite conclusion.

The third zone of benthic water quality response extends from Station FS12, New Lenox Road, Lenox, to Station HS22, Division Street, Great Barrington. This zone is characterized by a slowing and widening of the river with a substantial increase in depth at various points. A variety of substrates, from sand to boulder, was encountered. Also, for the first time, the river was found to have appreciable amounts of organic matter in the substrate compo­ sition.

Sampling of Station HS12 resulted in the collection of over 5,000 tolerant organisms, mostly from the family Tubificidae. In fact, no organisms of the intolerant or facultative types were found in the dredge samples. This shift to 100 percent tolerant forms is an indication of the gross organic pollution which results from the discharges of the Pittsfield WWTP and, to a lesser degree, the pollutional load from the East Branch discharges which had not yet

93 been exerted. The influence of the Pittsfield WWTP discharges is a major factor contributing to the benthic community make-up in this entire zone.

Stations HS13 and HS1A, the inlet and outlet of Woods Pond in Lee, also had 100 percent tolerant organisms, predominantly representatives of the family Tubificidae. It can be noted, however, that the total number of organisms decreased, which is attributable to the impoundment that acts as a sort of settling area for the suspended matter carried by the river. The reduction in the number of tolerant oligochaetes may also be a reflection of the decreasing influence of organic pollution on the benthic community.

There was a shift in both types and distribution of organisms at Station HS15, with 12 intolerant types and 62 percent of the population within the intolerant range. The majority of these organisms were intolerant midges of the sub-family Orthocladiinae. Also found were caddisflies in the larval, pupal, and adult stages of development. The habitat sample, on the other hand, included facultative snails and three types of tolerant leeches. This shift in community composition is somewhat unexpected and may be due to unique factors which favor the proliferation of the intol­ erant midges. Further study is necessary to fully understand this occurrence.

At Station HS16, just above the Schweitzer Paper Company impoundment, a shift occurs to a nearly 100 percent tolerant type distribution within the benthic community. A plausible reason for this shift is the settling of pollutants due to the reduction in water velocity. This contention is rein-" forced by the substrate composition which shows sand and organic deposits not encountered at the previous station. The deposition of these materials may result in a habitat suitable only to tolerant organisms. The benthic community at Station HS17, which was similar in depth and substrate type to Station HS16, was again predominantly composed of tolerant oligochaetes.

Goose Pond Stream, Station GP01, enters the Housatonic River below Station HS17. The substrate was a rubble, gravel, sand type, while the sample depth ranged from 0.5 to 1.5 feet. Sample analysis revealed a healthy benthic community with 12 types of intolerant organisms and 97 percent of the commun­ ity within this tolerance range. Large numbers of mavflies. caddisflies, and intolerant midges were found in the dredge samples, while habitat samples revealed the presence of two additional types of caddisflies.

Station HS18, which was sampled above dam HD09, had a sample depth of 6.0 to 8.0 feet. The substrate was diverse, containing gravel, coarse sand, clay, silt, and organic matter. Analysis of the dredge samples showed 99 percent of the organisms were of the tolerant type. Habitat sample analysis yielded tolerant organisms such as rove beetles and tolerant midges also. It is probable that this dam allows the settling of organic and inorganic pollutants which prohibit all but the tolerant organisms from inhabiting this area.

The Housatonic River slows before Station HS19, Glendale Middle Road, Stock- bridge, allowing further settling of the river's suspended material. The benthic community at Station HS19 makes a slight recovery at this point

94 showing a reduction in the number and kinds of oligochaetes present and a slight shift to 44 percent of the organisms within the intolerant-facultative range. The majority of these organisms sampled were members of the midge family Chironomidae.

Station HS20, the inlet to Rising Pond, Great Barrington, shifts back in both distribution and kinds to the tolerant range. The majority of the organisms sampled were oligochaetes and tolerant midges. This shift could be the result of the discharge of organic pollutants from the Stockbridge STP which does not provide very effective treatment of its wastewater. The pollutional effects of raw sewage discharges from Housatonic Village in Great Barrington could also stress the benthic community. Lastly, the natural effects of scouring due to the rapid flow at this station could limit the bottom community.

The outlet to Rising Pond, Station HS21, was sampled at a depth of 2.0 to 35.0 feet. The substrate was composed of sand, gravel, muck, and organic matter. The dredge samples revealed nine kinds of tolerant organisms and nearly a 100 percent distribution of these types. Extensive organic pollu­ tion is indicated by the large number (2,633) of tolerant organisms. This impoundment appears to serve as a catch basin for paper wastes and domestic sewage. The bottom community reflects the pollutional influences of these wastes.

Station HS22, Division Street, Great Barrington, had a sample depth of 10.0 to 15.0 feet and a boulder, rubble, and gravel type substrate. Analysis of dredge samples revealed a great reduction in the number of tolerant organ­ isms from the preceding station. However, there were still seven kinds and 82 percent of the organisms in the tolerant range. This is most likely due to the influence of water from Rising Pond and the untreated paper effluent of the Rising Paper Company which adds to the pollutional load in the river.

The final zone of benthic water quality response begins after Station HS22 and extends to Station HS27, Andrus Road, Sheffield. Included in this zone are three major tributaries. This zone is characterized by a shift from a predominantly tolerant type to a more facultative and intolerant type benthic condition. The Housatonic River increases in depth and begins to meander within this zone (after Station FS23).

The Williams River, Station WR01, was the first station investigated in the zone. The sample depth was 2.0 feet, and the substrate was varied, with boulder, rubble, cobble, and gravel present. The Williams River was the most diverse station sampled in the Housatonic River Basin, yielding 44 total kinds of organisms or 30 intolerant, 10 facultative, and 4 tolerant types. The distribution shows 71 percent of the organisms were intolerant types. The dredge sample included water mites, mayflies, stoneflies, caddisflies, crane flies, midges, and beetles as well as facultative and tolerant members within these same orders. This healthy benthic community reflects the favorable water quality of the Williams River.

95 Station HS23 was an area of tremendous current resulting in a scouring of the substrate which was composed of boulder, rubble, gravel, sand, and silt. The sample depth was 1.0 to 3.0 feet. Only 11 organisms were found in the dredge sample, but these included seven kinds, nonetheless. The distribution of organisms fell within all tolerances, with 28 percent of the organisms being intolerant types and 36 percent each being facultative and tolerant types. Habitat samples yielded mayflies, caddisflies, sow bugs, and beetles. The stress which the current places on the benthic community makes it difficult to assess the water quality from biological parameters alone.

The Housatonic River begins to meander below this point and also increases in depth. Station HS24 had a sample depth from 1.0 to 10.0 feet and a gravel, coarse sand, rubble, and boulder type substrate. The benthic community distribution fell within all tolerances, with the major portion (49 percent) found to be tolerant types. The kinds, however, were evenly dis­ tributed within the tolerances. The variability of types may be due to the effect of settling suspended material caused by the decrease in river velocity. This condition appears to favor tolerant forms but does not exclude the survival of facultative and intolerant forms.

The Green River, Station GR01, entered the main watercourse of the Housa­ tonic River just below Station HS24. The sample depth of this tributary was from 1.0 to 3.0 feet, while the substrate type was composed of rubble, gravel, sand, and clay. Analysis of dredge samples showed a relatively even number of kinds and distribution within each tolerance type. These figures may be misleading, however, because only six organisms were found. In order to get a clearer understanding of the benthic community composition, it would be advisable to initiate a more intensive biological study of this river.

Stations HS25, HS26, and HS27 appear to be similar in substrate, flow, and depth. The substrate was generally composed of gravel, sand, clay, arid organic matter, while the sample depth ranged from 1.0 to 15.0 feet. Both the kinds and distribution of aquatic organisms fell predominantly within the facultative to tolerant range. However, examination of habitat samples reveals that many intolerant types were also present, including stoneflies, mayflies, caddisflies, and damselflies. This indicates that although the benthic community is predominantly tolerant-facultative, the presence of many intolerant forms signifies a recovery in the water quality. The presence of these intolerant forms may indicate a recolonization of this area which was previously unsuitable for "clean water" types. It may be inferred from these data that the pollutional load of the river was decreasing in this zone.

Fubbard Brook, Station HB01, enters the main stem Housatonic River just after Station HS26. The sample depth ranged from 0.5 to 3.0 feet, while the substrate was composed of sand, clay, silt, and detritus. A "kinds" amalysis showad that 3 intolerant, 3 facultative, and 4 tolerant types were present. The distribution, however, showed 81 percent of the benthic community was comprised of tolerant types. The habitat samples revealed

96 many intolerant kinds, including water mites, mayflies, stoneflies, dobson­ flies, caddisflies, and riffle beetles. It may be concluded that some pollutional effect is felt by the benthic community in Hubbard Brook; how­ ever, this does not exclude many of the intolerant types which occur in "clean water" environments. The most probable sources of pollution in Hubbard Brook are malfunctioning subsurface disposal systems in the Town of Sheffield and agricultural runoff from farmlands and adjacent areas.

In the final analysis, the Housatonic River has many and varied sources of pollution which place stress upon the endemic benthic populations. In many cases, treatment to reduce or eliminate domestic and industrial pollutants would result in the reestablishment of many facultative and intolerant organisms necessary to maintain a dynamic river ecosystem.

97 FUTURE CONDITIONS

POLLUTION ABATEMENT

Since 1969 important steps have been taken to abate the water pollution problems in the Housatonic River Basin. The major work completed was at the General Electric Company in the area of oil and phenol removal and at the P.J. Schweitzer Paper Company. Other projects completed between 1969 and 1974 which benefitted the river were additions to the Crane Paper Co. facility, expansion of the Lenox Center and Lenoxdale plants to secondary treatment with chlorination, operational level attainment at the two Hurl- but treatment plants, and expansion of the sewage lines in Pittsfield and Lee.

Since the August 1974 sampling, further progress in pollution abatement has occurred. The new secondary facility in Great Barrington was completed in the fall of 1974. This plant handles the raw sewage from the three major population centers in the town along with the paper wastewater from the Rising Paper Company. The General Electric Co. has put in a small, compact reactor unit designed to remove phosphorus. This unit is an interim system which will be replaced with a permanent facility upon final evaluation of its removal capacity.

Even though a great deal of work was completed in this basin between 1969 and 1974, many of the major problems had not as yet been addressed. The Pittsfield WWTP was the dominant discharge contributing to many of these problems. The plant does not treat its entire influent flow with secondary treatment. Its loading to the stream is, therefore, higher than a standard secondary facility. Substantial BOD and NH3 loadings create oxygen demands in downstream reaches which cause violations in assigned criteria. There are also major suspended solids additions which have settled out in massive quantities within Woods Pond. Plans have been completed and construction recently begun at the Pittsfield plant to correct these problems. The additions will include enlargement of the secondary capacity as well as facilities to cause in-plant nitrification. Chlorination facilities will also be built at this plant to improve the coliform counts within the river.

One problem at the Pittsfield facility which has yet to be studied is the benefit accrued from limiting phosphorus discharges. Phosphorus and nitro­ gen are usually the limiting nutrients in algal production. Since nitrogen is found naturally in streams and runoff, phosphorus removal is suggested where nuisance growths of algae persist. These nuisance blooms occur regularly within Woods Pond as well as in downstream reaches. The elimina­ tion of phosphorus is a costly process, and direct benefits from its removal must be shown before removal is required.

The question has been raised whether phosphorus removal at Pittsfield is juiBtified solely on the condition of Woods Pond, since Woods Pond is in such an advanced stage of eutrophication and 1969 samplings indicated there were already high background concentrations of phosphorus. With this in mind, the Division set out to analyze the effects of phosphorus removal at

98 Pittsfield through operation of an interim facility at the plant in August and September 1974. The sludge production proved too much for the plant to handle and caused sporadic operation of the interim unit over the two months. Since this special study could not be completed, another has been planned for the summer of 1975. This study will be jointly organized with the Division, the Federal Environmental Protection Agency, and the State of Connecticut. The final outcome of this study will be a determination of the benefits to Woods Pond, the meanders in Sheffield, and the impoundments along the Housa­ tonic in Connecticut caused by phosphorus removal at Pittsfield.

Included in the upgrading of the Pittsfield facility is the expansion of the collection system to the outlying towns of Hinsdale, Lanesborough, and North Lenox. The Hinsdale interceptor will be an extension of the Dalton system. At the present time, this expansion is under construction. The violations in coliform standards in the area will be eliminated upon comple­ tion of this interceptor. The proposed sewage lines to North Lenox have been approved and are awaiting construction. After the completion of this addition, the North Lenox primary facility will be abandoned. The expansion of the Pittsfield system to Lanesborough has been bogged down by opposition. If and when this addition is completed, the benefits will be specifically felt in and around Pontoosuc Lake.

Other municipalities with abatement plans in various stages include Lee, Stockbridge, and West Stockbridge. Lee has continually expanded its sewage system each year. The newest expansion is planned to take into account those residents in the southern Lee area. Stockbridge's treatment facility is inadequate. Plans are continuing for the development of a new facility. Along with this construction will be the expansion of their sewage system to other parts of the town. The plans for abatement of domestic pollution along the upper reaches of the Williams River in West Stockbridge have not gained the town's support and, therefore, remain in preliminary stages.

Other abatement plans which will follow in the next few years involve the General Electric Company, Westfield River Paper Company, and Crane Paper Company. All three have strict NPDES permit requirements which will call for additions and/or modifications to their present facilities.

Non-point sources of pollution as yet have not been specifically addressed in this basin. The type of survey used to date was designed to analyze both point sources and tributary additions. At the present time, the inadequate facilities on the river, specifically the Pittsfield WWTP, dominate the water quality and make the smaller contributions from other sources difficult to evaluate. With the expected construction over the next few years at industries and municipal facilities, the non-point sources within this basin should become apparent. The Division wilj. address the non-point sources in the next water quality survey in 1979. In the meantime, a large part of the Housatonic Basin will come under a Section 208 Areawide Wastewater Management Plan (see Regional Planning Commission Activities). Included among the goals of this plan are the evaluation of available non-point source data and sug­ gested alternative pollution abatement action. The 208 plan is scheduled to be completed in two years.

99 TABLE 15

POPULATION PROJECTIONS

HOUSATONIC RIVER BASIN

MUNICIPALITY 1970 POPULATION 1980 PROJECTION 1990 PROJECTION

Alford 302 240 250 Dalton 7.505 8,430 8.940 Egre.mont 1,138 1,530 1,980 Great Barrington 7,537 7,750 8,180 Hinsdale 1,588 1,580 1,680 Lanesborough 2,972 4,780 6,120 Lee 6,426 6,900 7,480 Lenox 5,804 5,600 6,330 Mont:erey 600 820 1,060 Nev; Marlborough 1,031 1,240 1,330 P.ittsfield 57,020 56,480 56,230 Richmond 1,461 1,580 1,960 Sheffield 2,374 2,750 3,130 Stockbridge 2,312 2,760 3,020 Tyringham 234 260 270 Washington 406 320 340 West: Stockbridge 1,354 1,530 1,680

TOTAL 100,064 104,550 109,980

Projections by Curran Associates, Consulting Engineers, Northampton, Massachusetts. The above projections do not include seasonal residents. The following are the total projections with the seasonal residents included:

1980 - 130,520 1990 - 140,260

100 The Housatonic has not shown the improvements which were expected from 1969 to 1974. As previously mentioned within this report, this was attri­ buted in part to inadequately treated upstream discharges which had, in fact, increased their loadings on the river. There is one other major problem which needs careful study before the Housatonic will reach the clean water conditions which are being sought. This problem lies in the many impound­ ments along the river from Lenox to Great Harrington, especially Woods Pond. The accumulation of waste for over a hundred years has rendered these impoundments useless. Woods Pond, for instance, has acted more like a primary settling tank for domestic and industrial waste than a recreational facility for the public. Even with improvements to point sources, the accumulation of waste has been so great that it will take a very long time for the ponds to ever reflect these controls. Conditions in these impound­ ments have decayed to such an extent that remedial action must be taken at these points, not just at the wastewater sources. This problem will be addressed in both the 208 plan and the 1979 survey.

STATUS OF PLANNING

Understanding and improving the water quality of the Housatonic as well as preventing its further degradation is a complex undertaking. The Water Quality Management Plan for the Housatonic Basin being developed by this Division will attempt to do this. As the basin plan is formed, detailed consideration will be necessary to integrate completed studies in such areas as solid waste disposal, transportation, land use, water supply, and water- related recreation into the basin planning process.

Regional Planning Commission Activities

The Berkshire County Regional Planning Commission (BCRPC) was formed in May 1966 under Chapter 40B of the General Laws of Massachusetts and its area of jurisdiction has been officially designated as covering all of Berkshire County (32 municipalities). There are three river basins within this juris­ dition: the Housatonic, Hoosic, and Farmington.

The BCRPC has had several studies prepared involving the Housatonic River. Among these studies were the report on Water Supply and Sewerage, Berk­ shire County, Massachusetts, Inventory and Future Needs Stage I and The Regional Plan, Stage II which were completed in December 1969 and June 1970, respectively, and also the recently completed Regional Plan for Solid Waste Management, Central Region. All of these were prepared by Curran Associates, Inc., of Northampton. The reports present long-term proposals for sewage disposal, water supply sources,and solid waste disposal for the county.

The Commission is also participating in a state-sponsored regional housing needs survey which is designed to help distribute housing within the communi­ ties. As a result of this study, the Berkshire Housing Development Corporation, which was formed by the Commission, is in the process of supplying decent, safe, and sanitary housing to the region.

Two other duties of the BCRPC are in the fields of regional transportation and A-95 review capacity. There has recently been a two-year study funded

101 by the federal government concerning transportation development in which the Commission will participate. The A-95 review capacity is for the entire county. The BCRPC has exercised this capacity by reviewing a number of projects in the basin as an A-95 review agency.

The Commission has recently been granted a contract by the Environmental Protection Agency in the field of areawide wastewater management planning (Section 208 of PL92-500). This planning effort will involve Dalton, Great Barrington, Hinsdale, Lanesborough, Lee, Lenox, Monterey, Pittsfield, and Stockbridge. This plan, as described in the following section, will eval­ uate many specific problems of the area, suggest alternatives, and prcvide a vehicle for implementation of the accepted plan.

Basin Planning

The Housatonic River Basin Water Quality Management Plan currently being prepared will take the information contained in this report together with proposals from the aforementioned planning efforts and set forth a basin- wide pollution abatement strategy. This is one of three types of plans required by the 1972 amendments to the Federal Clean Waters Act. The other two types of plans are facilities plans and areawide wastewater manage.ment plans. These plans are often referred to by the sections of the federal act in which their requirement is set forth. The designations are as follows:

Section 201 - Facilities Plans Section 208 - Areawide Wastewater Management Plans Section 303 - Basin Plans

The basin plan sets forth the needs for the other types of plans. Briefly, the content of 201 and 208 plans is:

201 - This type of plan will be prepared for each municipal waste treatment facility, just as engineering reports have been pre­ pared in the past. The 201 plan will be broader in scope, including cost effectiveness analysis, evaluation of alterna­ tive flow and waste reduction measures, evaluation of alternative waste treatment management techniques, environmental assessment including social and economic impacts, identification of best practical waste treatment technology, and an infiltration- inflow study of existing-sewer systems. Both a facilities plan and a basin plan will have to be completed before a municipal project can receive a federal construction grant.

208 - Such planning areas must be designated by the Governor. Area­ wide planning is intended to provide a mechanism for effective implementation of the planned abatement measures in complex situations involving numerous municipal and industrial point source and non-point source pollution control problems. A 208 plan would deal primarily with institutional arrangements and other nonstructural measures such as land use zoning to prevent over-development in sensitive areas.

102 A facet common to all three types of plans is public participation. Programs to involve the general public in the decision-making process are an integral part of the requirements for these plans. The public can offer value judg­ ments, identification of environmental issues and goals, evaluation of alternative strategies, and help in implementing organizational and financial arrangements.

The basin plan begins with an analysis of existing water quality. All of the data on waste discharges and water quality discussed in this report has been used to develop a computer simulation model of the Housatonic River. Using this model, the various pollution problems can be rated according to their impact on water quality. The model can then be used to evaluate alternative pollution abatement strategies. Various types of treatment can be simulated at each source. Several sources can be combined to simulate a regional treat­ ment plant. Proposed facilities from existing engineering reports are evaluated. Population and land use projections from regional planning agencies are used to predict future waste flows. The end result is a recommended scheme of treatment facilities in the basin together with the degree of treat­ ment required at each in order to meet water quality standards. Non-point source problems are identified and abatement measures set forth where possible. Basin planning is an ongoing process; after the initial submission to the Environmental Protection Agency, each plan will be updated periodically as abatement projects are completed.

Other Planning Activities

There are other groups within this county whose activities directly affect the water quality of the Housatonic River. Among these groups are the Housatonic River Watershed Association and the Berkshire Natural Resources Council. The watershed association is primarily active in building public support for a cleaner Housatonic River. The Berkshire Natural Resour-es Council is active in stimulating development of local and regional ~ig, which will help in eliminating pollution to the lakes and streams w .1 the basin.

The newly formed Lake Section in the Division of Water Pollution Control has recently completed preliminary investigations on seven major lakes of the basin. The lakes which came under this baseline study included Woods Pond, Stockbridge Bowl, Lake Buel, Lake Garfield, Laurel Lake, Goose Pond, and Pontoosuc Lake. The data along with the conclusions drawn are presently being published under the title Baseline Water Quality Surveys of Selected Lakes and Ponds in the Housatonic River Basin 1974. In addition to this study, Pontoosuc Lake has recently been added to the list of lakes and ponds which will undergo intensive surveys during 1975 and 1976.

Other studies which have been completed or are in the process of being com­ pleted include such areas as flood control by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, potential reservoir sites by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Ground­ water Favorability Maps by the U.S. Geological Survey.

At the present time, the Department of Environmental Protection for the State

103 of Connecticut is working on a water quality management plan for the Hcusa­ tonic within its state boundaries. There has been coordination between Massachusetts and Connecticut as this plan has been developing. Further coordination between the states will occur as the Housatonic Basin Plan Part D is developed in Massachusetts.

104 CONCLUSIONS

1. The "clean water" stations sampled in the Housatonic Basin showed a higher concentration of total alkalinity than many of the rivers in the Commonwealth.

2. Even though ground water supplies are much larger than the surface water supplies, the surface sources are being used at the present time to a much greater extent by the public systems.

3. Due to heavy rains preceding the August 1969 survey, the water qualitv of the Housatonic during this week was not representative of average conditions.

4. Algal populations interfered in some instances with BOD results and were continually reflected in the suspended solids data.

5. The 1974 Biological Study offers baseline data which may be used as a basis of comparison for future biological studies.

6. Recolonization by intolerant-type organisms may occur if pollutants are reduced or eliminated.

7. Background phosphorus concentrations at HS01 were typical for a clean water stream. This was unlike the unusually high phosphorus concen­ trations found in the 1969 surveys.

8. Untreated sewage outfalls in Hinsdale caused violations in the total coliform criteria at HS02.

9. Th edeterioration of the water quality within Center Pond is due mainly to the decay of natural debris which flows into the pond from upstream.

10. The East Branch at Stations HS01, HS03, HS04, and HS05 was meeting the water quality criteria for its assigned classification. 11. Station HS05 had the best "clean water" benthic community on the main stem.

12. Substantial settling of Crane Paper Company wastewater occurred behind the Government Mill Dam.

13. The wastewaters from Crane Paper Company, P.J. Schweitzer Paper Company, Hurlbut Paper Company, and Rising Paper Company were nutrient deficient and had a lag time in the BOD exertion.

14. At HS06 and HS07, algal growth was hindered by the nutrient deficiency of the paper waste and the limited light penetration due to the added color and turbidity from Crane Paper Company's effluent.

15. The major improvements to the Crane treatment system were in part offset by their increase in wastewater flow.

105 16. The oil film present at HS09 was caused by seepage from a former burial site for used oil equipment - not General Electric's outfalls.

17. Although the General Electric outfalls contributed the second largest addition of phosphorus to the Housatonic, the loading had in fact decreased by almost one-half since 1969.

18. Since the General Electric contributions to the organic, solids, and nitrogen concentrations were small, the improvements at this industry were not reflected by these parameters.

19. The major causes of the Housatonic's failure to meet its C classifi­ cation from HS06 to HSll were the inadequately treated discharges from Crane Paper Company and, to a lesser degree, General Electric and various non-point sources.

20. Th eEast Branch, due to its limited dilution capacity, is not capable of assimilating a poorly treated waste.

21. The West Branch was not a "clean water" tributary at WB01. There was an indication of upstream pollution.

22. The Pittsfield WWTP does not provide its entire wastewater flow with secondary treatment.

23. The Pittsfield WWTP exerted a major influence on the benthic communities at Stations HS12 through HS21.

24. Even though the contribution of phosphorus from the Pittsfield WWTP to the Housatonic had decreased by one-half since 1969, it still remained the largest contributor in Massachusetts.

25. The interim phosphorus removal system at the Pittsfield WWTP had a significant effect on the instream phosphorus concentrations at stations HS11A and HS12 in August 1974.

26. The absence of chlorination facilities at the Pittsfield WWTP was reflected in high coliform counts at HS12.

27. Algal activity was hindered at HS12 and HS13. Further investigation is necessary before determination of the causes is completely understood.

28. Th eadverse effects from the inadequately treated North Lenox STP discharge were overshadowed by upstream discharges.

29. Due t oWoods Pond, major settling took place between HS12 and HS13. These settled solids in turn were resuspended during periods of moderate to high flows.

30. Woods Pond acts as a settling tank for upstream wastewater discharges. This pond is in an advanced eutrophic state.

106 31. Nitrification occurred in Woods Pond and subsequent reaches. 32. There was substantial algal activity in Woods Pond during both 1974 surveys. The algal populations reached bloom proportions in August 1974.

33. The supersaturation states within Woods Pond and Rising Pond were knocked out by the turbulence from the respective dams and subsequent rapid sections below the dams.

34. Th ePittsfield WWTP, the East Branch outfalls, and the effects from Woods Pond control the water quality of the Housatonic through most, of Massachusetts.

35. Th eHousatonic did not meet its C classification from the Pittsfield WWTP to the confluence with Kampoosa Brook in Stockbridge.

36. Improvements due to the completion of treatment facilities at P.J. Schweitzer Paper Company could not be seen due to the dominance of upstream discharges and algal interference.

37. The Lenox Center, Lenoxdale, and Lee STP's add very little to the Housatonic's pollutional load.

38. Th edischarge from Westfield River Paper Company was not evident at GP01_

39. Th elack of complete sewage systems in southern Lee, Stockbridge, Great Barrington, and Sheffield was reflected in the high instream coliform counts.

40. Th eWilliams and Green Rivers had assimilated any waste loads by the time they reached the Housatonic.

41. From HS24 to HS27. the Housatonic drops on the average of 2 feet/mile. This slight gradient causes what is referred to as the "Sheffield meanders."

42. Th every slow travel time through the meanders along with substantial nutrient concentrations stimulated algal activity.

43. Hubbard Brook had been subjected to pollution in an upstream reach and was not meeting its B classification at HB01.

44. As th eHousatonic neared the state line at HS27, it showed signs of recovery and was very close to meeting its B classification.

45. Th eWilliams River had the most diverse benthic community in the entire basin.

46. Th eHousatonic River did not meet its B classification from the conflu­ ence with Kampoosa Brook in Stockbridge to the Massachusetts-Connecticut state line.

107 47. Tributaries exerted little influence on the benthic communities of the main stem.

48. Since 1969, there has been a concerted effort on the part of many communities and industries to improve the Housatonic River. For the most part, these efforts have been overshadowed by larger inadequately treated discharges in upstream reaches.

49. Further Water Quality Management Planning, in coordination with other pertinent planning activities, will be included in the Housatonic River Basin water quality management plan which is currently being prepared by this Division.

108 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE STUDY

Another major survey is scheduled for the Housatonic River Basin during the sunnier of 1979. It is hoped that this survey will provide the following information:

1. Assess the improvements to the water quality due to the completion of the following projects:

a. Expansion and upgrading of the Pittsfield WWTP and its collection system. b. Additions and/or modifications to the Crane Paper Company's WWTP. c. Additions to General Electric's wastewater treatment program. d. Upgrading to the Westfield River Paper Company's treatment facility. e. Expansion of the Lee sewerage system. f. Operational level attainment at the new Great Harrington STP.

2. Provide data necessary to determine the need for further remedial action.

3. Determine what impact, if any, on the water quality can be attributed to non-point sources of pollution.

The following special studies will provide needed information in specific areas:

1. The evaluation of Woods Pond and possible remedial alternatives for its cleanup are needed.

2. The problem of poorly functioning septic tanks and other non-point sources should be evaluated in Sheffield and West Stockbridge to determine if a centralized treatment system is necessary.

3. A general evaluation of the dams along the Housatonic should be initiated to determine the advantages and disadvantages of their presence.

4. Sampling of the new Great Harrington treatment facility to provide data on the removal efficiency is needed.

5. Monitoring of public and private solid waste disposal should be done to assure that proper landfill techniques are in operation or are in the planning stages.

6. Lake sampling should be continued and expanded in the basin.

7. Follow-up biological surveys, both microscopic and macroscopic, should be initiated with particular emphasis at HS07, HS15, and the Green River.

8. Intensive water quality surveys on the West and Southwest Branches as well as the Green and Williams Rivers and Hubbard Brook should be undertaken.

109 LIST OF GENERAL REFERENCES vi^^i/ 1. Berkshire County Industrial Development Commission, Berkshire County Manufacturers. Pittsfield, Massachusetts, March 1968.

2. Camp, Dresser and McKee, Inc., Consulting Engineers, Additions and Modifications to the Pittsfield Wastewater Treatment Plant. Boston, June 1971.

3. , Report on Secondary Sewage Treatment Facilities for North Lenox. Boston, March 1970.

4. , Wastewater Collection for the West Area, City of Pittsfield. Boston, July 1971.

5. Carpenter, Phillip L., Microbiology. Philadelphia: Saunders Company, August 1967.

6. Chesebrough, Eben, and Arthur Screpetis, Baseline Water Quality Surveys of Selected Lakes and Ponds in the Housatonic River Basin 1974. Westborough: MDWPC, 1975.

7. Clark, John W., Warren Viessman, Jr., and Mark J. Hammer, Water Supply and Pollution Control . Scranton, Pa.: International Textbook Company, 1971.

8. Cooperman, Alan N., Russell A. Isaac, and William R. Jobin, Housatonic ^ ^ River Study 1969 Part C. Boston, February 1971.

9. Curran Associates, Inc., Engineers, Regional Plan for Solid Waste Management, Berkshire County, Massachusetts, Central Region. Prepared for the Berkshire County Regional Planning Commission, Pittsfield, Massachusetts, April 1972. 10. , Water Supply and Sewerage, Berkshire County, Massachusetts, Stage I - Inventory and Future Needs. Prepared for the Berkshire County Regional Planning Commission, Pittsfield, Massachusetts, December 1969.

11. , Water Supply and Sewerage, Berkshire County, Massachusetts, Stage II - The Regional Plan. Prepared for the Berkshire County Regional Planning Commission, Pittsfield-, Massachusetts, June 1970.

12. Department of Agriculture, A Study of Potential Reservoir Sites in the Housatonic Basin. June 1969.

13. Department of the Army, New York District, Corps of Engineers, House of Representatives - Document No. 338 - Housatonic River Connecticut, Massachusetts and New York, pertaining to flood control. May 1941.

14. , House of Representatives - Document No. 324 - Housatonic River Connecticut, Massachusetts and Nev York, pertaining to flood control. 1964.

110 15. Environmental Protection Agency, Proposed Criteria for Water Quality ­ Volume I. Washington, B.C., October 1973.

16. Federal Water Pollution Control Administration, New England River Basins Interstate Waters, Southern Area. June 1967.

17. , Water Quality Criteria. Washington, D.C., April 1968.

18. Haas, Glenn S., Arthur J. Screpetis, and Robert Gray, Jr., Millers River Study: 1973 Water Quality Analysis Part C. Westborough: Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control, October 1974.

19. Linsley, Ray K., and Joseph B. Franzini, Water Resources Engineering. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1964.

20. Massachusetts Department of Commerce and Development, City and Town Monograph for the following towns and cities:

a. Alford, Egremont and Mount Washington - October 1973. b. Becket - July 1973. c. Berkshire County - January 1974. d. Dalton - October 1973. e. Great Barrington - October 1973. f. Hancock, New Ashford and Richmond - October 1973. g. Hinsdale - July 1972. h. Lanesborough - December 1972. i. Lee - May 1972. j. Lenox - July 1972. k. Monterey, New Marlborough and Tyringham - April 1971. 1. Pittsfield - April 1973. m. Sheffield - May 1971 n. Stockbridge - December 1973. o. Washington - May 1971. p. West Stockbridge - May 1971.

21. Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control, Housatonic River Study Part A: Data Record on Water Quality and Part B: List of Wastewater Discharges. Boston, February 1969.

22. , Housatonic River 1974 Water.Quality Survey Data Part A. West- borough.

23. f Housatonic River 1974 List of Wastewater Discharges Part B. West- borough.

24. McCann, James A. and Leo M. Daly, An Inventory of the Ponds, Lakes and Reservoirs of Massachusetts, Berkshire and Franklin Counties. Water Resources Research Center, University of Massachusetts at Amherst.

25. McCarry, Charles, Home to the Enduring Berkshires. Washington, D.C.: National Geographic Magazine, August 1970.

Ill 26. Money, Sail, The Animal Kingdom. Toronto: Bantam Books, August 1972.

27. Norvitch, Ralph F., Ground-Water Favorability Map of the Housatonic River Basin, Massachusetts. United States Geological Survey, 196>6.

28. Norvitch, Ralph F., Donald F. Farrell, Felix H. Pauszek, and Richard G. Petersen, Hydrology and Water Resources of the Housatonic River Basin, Massachusetts. United States Geological Survey, 1968. 29. Oglesby, Ray T., Clarence A. Carlson, and James A. McCarren, River Ecology and Man. New York: Academic Press, 1972.

30. Resources Agency, State Water Resources Control Board, State of California, Water Quality Criteria. Revised 1963.

31. Smith, Chad Powers, The Housatonic, Puritan River. New York: Rinehart and Company, Inc., 1946.

32. Technical Planning Associates, Inc., Berkshire County Massachusetts The Regional Plan. Prepared for the Berkshire County Commissioners and the Massachusetts Department of Commerce. New Haven, Connecticut, December 1959.

33. Tighe and Bond, Inc., Engineers, Preliminary Report Great Barrington. Holyoke, August 1970.

34. , Report on Sewerage and Sewage Treatment, Lanesborough, Massa­ chusetts. Holyoke, December 1969.

35. , South Lee Sewer Study - Sanitary Sewer Systems Improvements. Holyoke, September 1974.

36. Water Resources Commission, A Special Report Relative to the Water Supply of Berkshire County. Boston, January 1967.

37. Whitman and Howard, Inc., Engineers, Proposed Sewage for Stockbridge, Massachusetts. July 1973. 38. Wright, Raymond M., Hoosic River 1974 Water Quality Analysis Part C. Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control, Westborough, April 1975.

112 LIST OF BIOLOGICAL REFERENCES

•t 1. American Public Health Association, 1971, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 13th ed., American Public Health Association, New York, 874 pp.

2. Beck, W.M. and E.G. Beck, 1966, Chironomidae (Diptera) of Florida, Part I, Pentaneurini: (Tanypodinae), Bull. Fla. St. Mus., Vol. 10, No. 8, pp. 305-379.

3. Borror, Donald J. and Dwight M. DeLong, 1971, An Introduction to the Study of Insects, 3rd ed., Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, xiii + 812 pp., 653 f,

4. Brown, H.P., 1972, Aquatic Dryopid Beetles (Coleoptera) of the United States, U.S. EPA Series Biota of Freshwater Ecosystems, SN5501-0370, Identification Manual No. 6, ix + 81 pp., 198f.

5. Burch, J.B., 1972, Freshwater Sphaeriacean Clans (Mollusca: Pelecypoda) of North America, U.S. EPA Series Biota of Freshwater Ecosystems, SN5501-0367, Identification Manual No. 3, viii + 31 pp., 34f.

6. Burch, J.B., 1973, Freshwater Unionacean Clams (Hollusca; Pelecypoda) of North America, U.S. EPA Series Biota of Freshwater Ecosystems, SH5501-00588, Identification Manual No. 11, xi + 176 pp., 154f.

7. Burks, B.D., 1953, The Mayflies, or Ephemeroptera of Illinois, 111. Nat. Hist. Surv. Bull., 26 (1): 1-216, 395f.

8. Brinkhurst, R.O., 1965, Studies of the North American Aquatic Oligochaeta, Part II, In Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. of Phila., 117 (4): 117-172.

9. Brinkhurst, R.O., and B.G.M. Jamieson, 1971, Aquatic Oligochaeta of the World, Univ. of Toronto Press, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

10. Chu, H.F., 1949, How to know the Immature Insects, Wm. C. Brown Co. Publishers, Dubuque, Iowa, 234 pp., 601f.

11. Eddy, S. and A.C. Hodson, 1950, Taxbnomic Keys to the Common Animals of the North Central States, Burgess Pub. Co., Minneapolis, Mn., 161 pp., 765f.

12. Environmental Protection Agency, 1973, Biological Field and Laboratory Methods for Measuring the Quality of Surface Waters and Effluents, Cornelius I. Weber, ed., EPA Natl. Res. Center, Cincinnati, Ohio, EPA - 670/4-73-001.

13. Ferris, V.R., J.M. Ferris, and J.P. Tjepkema, 1973, Genera of Freshwater Nematodes (Nematoda) of Eastern North America, U.S. EPA Series Biota of Freshwater Ecosystems, Identification Manual No. 10, ix + 38 pp., I4f.

14. Hamilton, A.L., O.A. Saether, and D.R. Oliver, 1969, A Classification of the Nearctic Chironomidae, Fish. Res. Bd. Can., Tech. Rept. 129, 42 pp.

15. Harden, P.H. and C.E. Mickel, 1952, The Stoneflies of Minnesota (Plecoptera). Univ. Minn. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech., Bull., 201: 1-84.

113 16. Hilsenoff, W.L., 1970, Key to Genera of Wisconsin Plecoptera (Stonefly) Nymphs, Ephemeroptera (Mayfly) Nymphs, Trichoptera (Caddisfly) Larvae, Res. Kept. No. 67, Wis. Dept. Nat. Res., Madison, 68 pp.

17. Hilsenoff, W.L., 1970, Corixidae (water boatmen) of Wisconsin, Wis. Acad. Nat. Sci., Arts and Letters, Vol. 58: 203-235.

18. Hobbs, Horton H. Jr., 1972, Crayfishes (Astacidae) of North and Middle America, U.S. EPA Series Biota of Freshwater Ecosystems, SN5501-0399, Identification Manual No. 9, x + 173 pp., 115f.

19. Holsinger, John R., 1972, The Freshwater Amphipod Crustaceans (Gammaridae) of North America. U.S. EPA Series Biota of Freshwater Ecosystems, SN5501-0369, Identification Manual No. 5, viii + 89 pp., 32f.

20. Hynes, H.B.N., 1970, The Ecology of Running Waters, Univ. Toronto Press, 555 pp.

21. Jaques, H.E., 1951, How to know the Beetles, Wm. C. Brown Co. Publishers, Dubuque, Iowa, 372 pp., 827 f.

22. Johannsen, O.A., 1934-37, Aquatic Diptera. Entomological Reprint Specialists, Los Angeles, Ca.

23. Keup, Lowell E., W.M. Ingram, and K.M. Mackenthun, 1967, Biology of Water Pollution, A Collection of Selected Papers on Stream Pollution, Wastevater, and Water Treatment. FWPCA, USDI, Cincinnati, Ohio, 290 pp.

24. Klcmm, D.J., 1972, Freshwater Leeches (Annelida: Hirudinea) of North America, U.S. EPA Series Biota of Freshwater Ecosystems, SN5501-0391, Identification Manual No. 8, viii + 53 pp., 28f.

25. Mackenthun, Kenneth M. and William Marcus Ingram, 1967, Biological Associated Problems in Freshwater Environments, FWPCA, USDI, Cincinnati, x + 285 pp.

?6. Mackenthun, K.M., 1969, The Practice of Water Pollution Biology. FWPCA, USDI, Washington, D.C., xi + 281 pp.

27. Mason, William T. Jr., 1968, An Introduction to the Identification of Chironomid Larvae, Division of Water Pollution Surveillance, FWPCA, USDI, Cincinnati, 90 pp. (Revised 1973) .

28. Needham, J.G. and P.R. Needham, 1962, A Guide to the Study of Freshwater Biology, Holden-Day, Inc., San Francisco, x + 108 pp.

29. Needham, J.G., J.R. Traver, and Yin-Chi Hsu, 1935, The Biology of Mayflies, Comstock Pub. Co.., Ithaca, N.Y., xiv + 759 pp., 168f., 40 pi.

30. Pennak, R.W., 1953, Freshwater Invertebrates of the United States, Ronald Press Co., New York, ix + 769 pp.

31. Roback S.S., 1957, The Immature Tendipedids of the Philadelphia Area, Acad. Nat. Sci., Philadelphia,Mono., No. 9, 148 pp.

114 32. Ross, H.H., 1944, The Caddisflies, or Trichoptera. of Illinois, Bull. 111. Nat. Hist. Surv., 23: 326 pp.

33. Usinger, R.L., ed.,1963, Aquatic Insects of California. Univ. of California Press, viii + 508 pp.

34. Ward, H.B. and G.C. Whipple, 1959, Fresh-water Biology, 2nd ed., W.T. Edmondson, ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, xx + 1248 pp.

35. Williams, W.D., 1972, Freshwater Isopods (Asellidae) of North America, U.S. EPA Series Biota of Freshwater Ecosystems, SN5501-0390, Identification Manual No. 7, ix + 45 pp., 36f.

115 APPENDIX I

I-A RESULTS OF WATER QUALITY SURVEYS

SURVEY PROCEDURES

The present pi eg ram of water quality surveys on Massachusetts waters had its origin with the Department of Public Health, Division of Sanitary Engineering, in the early 1960's. That Division, which at the time had the responsibility for water pollution control in the Commonwealth, began the practice of intensive sampling of a particular waterbody over a one or two-week period. Under this method, samples were collected every six hours over two twenty-four hour periods during a week. Surveys were conducted during the summer and early fall in order to observe conditions of low flow when pollution effects are most pronounced. Usually, the survey was performed once early in the summer, then repeated a month or more later. This enabled data from the first survey to be analyzed in order to determine if additional sampling stations were required. In addition, it assured that all samples on a particular waterbody would not be collected when an industry which discharged wastes to that waterbody was on its summer shutdown.

Sampling locations were chosen in order to assess the effects of natural and man-made factors on water quality. In the case of a river, samples were usually taken above and below each major waste discharge. Additional samples were taken to assess the effects of tributary streams, dams and their impoundments, swamps, and rapids sections. Dissolved oxygen samples were collected and fixed in the ­ field. Other samples were collected for chemical and bacterial analyses. The four chemical samples collected each day at each station were combined to produce one 24-hour composite sample. Chemical and bacterial analyses were performed at the Department of Public Health's Lawrence Experiment Station. Analytical methods followed the procedures set forth in the current edition of Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater by the American Public Health Association.

The original purpose of the sampling program was to examine and assess the quality of Massachusetts waters. Chemical analyses included pH, alkalinity, 5-day biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), and suspended solids. Bacterial samples were, collected for coliform analysis. Microscopic examinations and sediment analyses were also performed. In later years, other tests were added, such as phosphates, the nitrogen series, and 2-, 3-, and 7-day BOD's.

In 1967, the Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control was established by an act of the legislature. Among the responsibilities of the new division was "to examine periodically the water quality of the various coastal waters and rivers, streams, lakes and ponds of the Commonwealth and publish the findings. This formalized the survey program which became a function of the Division' s Water Quality Section. That section has continued the survey program each year since and published the results of all surveys on Massachusetts rivers back to :.964.

Under a Division Research and Demonstration Project, work was begun on a computer model for river analysis in 1969. Prior to this, some stream analysis had been performed on survey results, but the complexity of the calculations involved had limited its use by an engineer with a slide rule. The use of the computer model

I-B allows that same engineer to evaluate all the factors influencing water quality, establish natural stream characteristics, and predict the effects of future waste loads and treatment schemes.

The model requires additional data, however, and the scope of the survey program had to be expanded. Light and dark bottle studies to evaluate photosynthesis by algae were added to the surveys in 1969. Long-term BOD's were performed on the samples. Time of travel studies had to be performed under various flow conditions. A better understanding of basin hydrology and river geometry was required.

Basin planning requirements under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 called for an accelerated modeling program by the Commonwealth. In order to collect all the necessary data and develop models for each of the major drainage basins, the Division was awarded a state grant to hire additional personnel. This has enabled the Water Quality Section to conduct eighteen major river surveys during the summers of 1973 and 1974, as well as most of the addi­ tional studies needed to complete all river basin plans during 1975.

In order to understand the data obtained from water quality surveys, some back­ ground knowledge of stream analysis is required. The primary emphasis in stream surveys and subsequent computer analysis is on studying the dissolved oxygen (D.O.) This parameter refers to the uncombined oxygen in water which is available to aquatic life. D.O. is affected by numerous factors, including physical characteristics of the stream (velocity, width, and depth), decomposition of wastes, temperature, and aquatic organisms. The study of the D.O. in a stream, therefore, involves a comprehensive analysis of several parameters. Samples from stream surveys are analyzed for the following:

BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (BOD) is a measure of the amount of oxygen required by bacteria to decompose organic matter. BOD is gradually exerted, usually in two stages. In the first stage, carbonaceous matter is stablized; nitrogenous sub­ stances are broken down in the second. The exertion of both stages may require thirty days or more. Through repetition, the 5-day BOD has become the standard test in sanitary engineering. It is usually assumed that the 5-day BOD includes only carbonaceous decomposition; in some cases, however, this may not be the case. Long-term BOD's, with readings at several intervals, are necessary to fully define the two stages.

SUSPENDED SOLIDS are the portion of the total solids which can be removed through filtration. The behavior of suspended solids in a stream is used to predict the settling of wastes. Where wastes settle out, bottom sludge deposits accumulate. Such deposits exert high oxygen demands.

NUTRIENTS are compounds which act as fertilizers for aquatic organisms. Small amounts are necessary to keep the ecological balance of a waterbody, but excessive amounts can upset the balance by causing nuisance growths of algae. Carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus are the nutrients which are predominant in waterbodies. Carbonaceous compounds are measured in the BOD test. Separate analyses are per­ formed to measure the total phosphorus and forms of nitrogen. Nitrogen, besides acting as a nutrient, can exert a significant oxygen demand. Nitrogen appears in waterbodies as organic nitrogen, ammonia, nitrite, and nitrate. The conversion

I-C of one pound of ammonia to nitrite, and ultimately to nitrate, requires 4.57 pounds of oxygen. The progress of nitrification is usually predicted by ob­ ^•** serving the disappearance of ammonia and the appearance of nitrate.

LIGHT AND DARK BOTTLE STUDIES are conducted to determine the effects of algae on D.O. Five D.O. bottles are filled with water from the depth being studied (usually three depths at each station). Two of the bottles are either painted or taped to prevent light penetration. The two dark bottles and two clear bottles are suspended at the sampling depth and left for 24 hours. The fifth sample is fixed and the D.O. is measured. The difference between the initial D.O. and the D.O. remaining in the dark bottles after 24 hours represents algal respiration. The difference between the D.O. in the light and dark bottles after 24 hours represents production of oxygen.

COL[FORM BACTERIA are found in abundance in the intestinal tract of warm-blooded animals. They are not harmful in themselves, but their presence indicates that pathogenic bacteria may also be present. Since their presence can be detected by relatively simple test procedures, coliform are used to indicate the extent of bacterial pollution. Fecal coliform make up about 90 percent of the total col[form in fecal matter. Non-fecal coliform may originate in soil, grain, or decaying matter.

pH measures the hydrogen ion concentration on an inverse logarithmic scale ranging from 0.0 to 14.0. pH values under 7.0 indicate acidic solutions: values over 7.0 indicate alkaline solutions. Low pH values often indicate pollution from heavy metals, which can be toxic to aquatic life.

\*ft MICROSCOPIC EXAMINATION

Microscopic examination of surface water is important for the complete under­ standing of water quality. Free-floating algae and protozoa (the plankton) are identified and classified, and total surface area is measured. The results of the analyses are reported in areal standard units per milliliter. One areal standard unit is equal to 400 square microns, a micron being one thousandth of a millimeter and a common unit in microscopic work. The significance of these tiny plants and animals is inversely proportional to their size. They form the bast: of the food chain for aquatic life and their distribution sets the trend for the entire aquatic community.

Algae_ are found almost everywhere on earth, but they are primarily aquatic organisms. The measure of dissolved gases being primary to the study of water quality evinces the importance of algae. These tiny plants can cause daily (diurnal) fluctuations of dissolved oxygen, absorb carbon dioxide, and carry on nitrification. In an evolutionary sense it is instructive to note that they were primarily responsible for the oxygenation of the earth's atmosphere. In a process known as photosynthesis, they utilize carbon dioxide and energy from the sun and produce molecular oxygen as a by-product. In the absence of the sun's rays, survival is maintained by reversing the process, and absorbing oxy­ gen (respiration), but net production of oxygen usually exceeds loss. Surface area and not number of individuals is counted, for it is this aspect that facilitates absorption of gases and solar energy. Relative abundance of algae points to individual water quality criteria. Overabundance (algal blooms) can q ? deplete dissolved oxygen values at night or supersaturate water during the day.

I-D Removal of carbon dioxide from the carbonate system decreases the water's acidity and raises the pH. Blooms are indicative of an overabundance of organic nutrients such as ammonia and phosphorus and hint at possible types of pollutants. Under- abundance of algae can be the result of toxic substances in the waterbody in­ cluding certain metals.

Identification is as important as quantification. Individual types of algae can be the perpetrators of tastes, odors, slimes, filter clogging, corrosive activity, and production of toxic substances. Beneficially, certain algae can cause the natural softening of water. Research shows that individuals or groups of indi­ vidual algae can serve as indicators of ranges of temperature, acidity, alkalinity, and hardness. Furthermore, individual types can suggest specific types of indus­ trial wastes such as paper mill Whitewater, phenols, oil, salt brine, distillery wastes, and a number of individual metals.

Classification of algae is not in general agreement and differing systems exist. Generally, classification stems from the pigments produced, kinds of foods stored, and methods of reproduction. Water quality analysis of fresh water adequately covers the subject by listing three major groups:

Bacillariophyceae or diatoms are widely distributed in both fresh and salt water. This group of algae is distinguished by cell walls made of silica. In fresh waters of temperate climates they are often the predominant algae of the spring and fall. These vernal and autumnal diatom blooms generally mark the beginning and end of the algal growing year in these regions. Deposits of silica shells from these organisms (Diatomaceous earth) are industrially used as a filtering agent and a mild abrasive. Oil droplets stored by diatoms are rich in vitamins A and D which are eventually passed up the food chain to man. Some species are listed as filter-clogging algae, and blooms can impart a fishy odor to surface waters.

Cyanophyta are commonly known as blue-green algae. The name is misleading because their primitive structure is more akin to bacteria than other forms of algae. Their numbers increase during the late summer months and often form blooms. Many species of this group are used as hot temperature indicators, contrasted to cer­ tain species of diatoms which are low temperature indicators. At least 13 species of this group have been identified as producing toxic substances that may create health hazards for man and beast. Like their bacterial cousins, blue-green algae play an important role in nitrification. Even in moderate amounts some species can impart a grassy or musty odor to water and, when abundant, turn to a septic odor and give the water a sweet taste. Nevertheless, they are an important part of the aquatic community often involved in symbiotic relationships with other organisms (i.e., making calcium soluble for mollusks) and can even cause the natural softening of water.

Chlorophyta are the green algae common in the early summer and fall. This diverse group is more closely related to higher plants, and their nutritional needs are more highly developed. This factor usually excludes them from temporary pools or newly formed waterbodies, for their existence is dependent on a well-developed aquatic micro-community. In general they are indicators of medium temperatures, and many species are used as indicators of clean water. Under proper conditions they have the ability to bloom and give a grassy odor to water. Filamentous

I-E forms can clog filters or attach to reservoir walls. Green algae also include the species that may form part of the future food supply for man. Water quality finds itself in a de facto involvement in this research for food because scientists find the controlled conditions of the sewage treatment plant ideal for their algal experiments.

Protozoa are unicellular microscopic members of the animal kingdom. Many are piginented and some are able to form colonies visible to the naked eye. Breathing oxygen and feeding on bacteria, algae, or other protozoa, they form the second level of the aquatic food chain. They are helpful organisms in decomposition but., like algae, they can affect the water's color, taste, and odor. Often they are found in close association with higher organisms involved in social nutritional situations known as commensalism, mutualism, and parasitism. Some of these close relations can cause disease in man and animals. Water quality analysis Is inte'rested in three major groups of protozoa classified by type of motility.

Sarcodina are those protozoa that use pseudopodia (temporary extensions of cyto­ plasm) to capture prey and for locomotion. To this group belongs the well-known Amoeba. Some fresh water species build shells of calcium carbonate and geologi­ cally are major builders of limestone. Others are sensitive to small temperature changes and their numbers fluctuate accordingly. Parasitic roles of this group find some as harmless inhabitants of the colon of man while others are the cause of amoebic dysentery.

Mastigophora is the taxonomic grouping of flagellated protozoa. In water quality analysis, it is convenient to place other flagellates more properly identified as algae in this group, such as dinoflagellates and euglenoids. These algae do not usually play a photosynthetic role in fresh water but can be used as indicators of water quality parameters similar to flagellate protozoa. For example, the eugle­ noids, like other flagellates, are indicators of hardwater lakes. They might otherwise be spread through a myriad of taxonomic groupings if not included with Mastigophora. Euglenoids also reveal high acidity and chromium pollution. Proto­ zoan flagellates include many parasitic organisms and may cause disease in man, animals, or plants. Even in moderate quantities many species are responsible for water odors. Aromatic oils secreted produce four wide ranges of smells (violet, cucumber, musty, and fishy) and give spicy or bitter tastes to water supplies.

Infusoria (Ciliofora) is the largest group of protozoa. They all possess bristle- like structures called cilia used in locomotion. Like other protozoa, most are free-swimming and solitary organisms widely distributed in both fresh and salt waters. Again, water quality problems may arise as a result of their parasitic nature. Some species are particularly pathogenic to fresh water fish and can be disastrous to fish hatcheries. Amorphous matter is a count of organic and inorganic debris floating in the sample including dead organisms. It can often be related to the light penetration of a waterbody (limiting algal growth) and the suspended solids analysis.

Rotifera and Crustacea marking the boundary between the microscopic and visual realms are the third level of the aquatic food chain. Rotifers are minute ani­ mals which possess a wheel-organ structure used for locomotion and to create feeding currents. About 1,500 species are known and their distribution is world-

I-F wide. Crustacea found in fresh water microscopic samples include the cladocera, ostracoda, and copepoda. Common names for these organisms are fairy shrimps, tadpole shrimps, water fleas, and clam shrimps. Their size and speed make living samples difficult to identify or measure under the magnifications used in the microscopic analysis. Therefore, recently, just the class of organism and the total number have been reported instead ot total A.S.U.s.

BIOLOGICAL SAMPLING METHODS

During the period of June through August 1974, this division initiated an intensive biological sampling program with the objectives of: 1) providing accurate taxo­ nomic baseline data of macroinvertebrate communities for future comparative evaluation of water quality; 2) providing a useful third parameter in assessing water quality, in addition to the physical-chemical approach; and 3) establishing reliable and consistant methods of both sampling and identifying benthic organisms so that a biological approach to water quality might serve as an accurate and useful indicator.

The study of benthic organisms offers several advantages over a purely physical- chemical x^ater quality sampling methodology. These benthic communities being for the most part sedentary and incapable of moving great distances by self-locomotion are a useful tool for detecting environmental perturbations resulting from intro­ duced contaminants. Because of exhibiting a relatively long life span, their characteristics are a function of the past and present, including reaction to infrequently discharged wastes such as toxic substances. Being sensitive to stress, such contaminants could cause macroinvertebrate populations to reduce their numbers or biomass which in turn could reduce the number of kinds of organ­ isms. Detecting contaminants by periodic chemical sampling would be difficult in this case.

Also, benthic organisms exhibit a relatively long-term retention of contaminants like pesticides, metals, and radioactive materials. Such contaminants may be so infrequently discharged that it becomes difficult to find them in detectable con­ centrations. Chemical analyses of selected macroinvertebrate fauna could show the presence of these contaminants.

Biological water quality can be expressed both quantitatively and qualitatively. Each has its own requirements, advantages, and limitations. The quantitative approach is essentially an estimation of the numbers of biomass of the various com­ ponents of the macroinvertebrate community per unit area in all or a portion of the available habitats in the ecosystem being studied (artificial habitats in­ cluded), and provides information on species composition, species richness, and distribution of individuals within the species.

A quantitative benthic study requires the use of a sampling device that takes a standard unit area or volume of habitat and a measure of precision of the estimates obtained, i.e., replicate sampling in each habitat. This technique provides a measure of productivity, a measure of estimate precision, and the attachment of probability statementst thus providing 'objective comparisons. But most importantly, it enables data of different investigators to be compared.

I-G Unfortunately, no sampling device is at present adequate in taking reliable samples in all habitats. Only selected portions of the environment may be sampled. In addition, the sampling precision is often so low that an indeter­ minate number of replicates is needed, causing a drain on available time limits and resources.

The qualitative approach offers an estimate on the richness of species and leads to r.he determination of the presence or absence of organisms per habitat. In this case, a knowledge of the available habitat types and suitable collecting tech­ niques is needed in order to reach a high level of expertise.

This mode of sampling gives the collector a wide latitude in collecting tech­ niques and leaves all habitats relatively unrestricted for sampling. The processing of qualitative samples is also considerably shorter than that involved in quantitative samples.

Unfortunately, this data also has limitations. The skill of the investigators will differ, so comparison of data is difficult. The drift of organisms into a sample area may bias data and render comparison of data still less useful, and no standing crop or productivity data can be generated from qualitative data.

There are several other variables to be considered in biological sampling which affect both quantitative and qualitative data. The first is the wide seasonal variations that aquatic macroinvertebrates exhibit. This drastically alters the species present, distribution, abundance, and comparison of data taken during different seasons. At some seasons of the year, various stages of organisms shift from aquatic to terrestrial life forms.

Second are the effects of the abiotic components of the environment such as substrate type, current velocity, and depth. The effects of the physical habi­ tat can very often cause differences that are unrelated to the effects of intro­ duced contaminants. This renders comparisons of unlike habitats with unequal sampling effort useless and misleading.

In the analysis of data, quantitative and qualitative techniques differ great­ ly. Data from quantitative samples may be used in two instances: 1) to obtain the total standing crop of individuals or biomass or both per unit volume or unit area and 2) to obtain numbers or biomass, or both, of individual taxa per unit area or volume. The presentation of this data may follow a simple tabular form, pictoral line and bar graphs, or histograms. Diversity indices also can measure the environmental quality and the induced stresses on the community structure of benthics. These indices basically contain the two components of species richness and distribution of individuals among the species.

In qualitative data evaluation, the analysis can follow an indicator-organism scheme or a reference station method. In the first method, individual taxa are classified on the basis of their tolerance or intolerance to various levels of contaminants. In the latter method, a comparison of fauna in "clean water" is made with those of a fauna inhabiting an area of stress. This method can show gross to moderate organic contamination on macroinvertebrate populations,. But to detect finer changes, a quantitative analysis must be conducted. It is possible to show qualitative data on the presence or absence of tolerant and intolerant taxa and richness of species by employing line and bar graphs, pie diagrams, histograms, or pictoral diagrams.

I-H Organisms' tolerance to organic wastes can be evaluated by using the following classification which has been set up arbitrarily:

Tolerant: Organisms frequently associated with gross organic contamination and generally capable of thriving under practically anaerobic conditions.

Facultative: Organisms having a wide range of tolerance and frequently associated with moderate levels of organic contamination.

Intolerant: Organisms that are not found associated with even moderate levels of organic contaminants and generally intolerant of even moderate reductions in dissolved oxygen.

Methodology

The methodology which this Division has employed in conducting biological sampling has been based heavily upon existing time limits and available resources, i.e., manpower and equipment. A typical sampling routine can best be explained as follows:

1. With the use of a one-square-foot Petersen dredge or a one-square-foot Surber sampler, depending on depth, flow, and substrate, one set of four hauls is taken. The hauls follow a random transect whereby each bank and two quarter points are dredged.

2. The obtained substrate is placed into a basin and mixed thoroughly into a slurry from which one-quarter of the total sample is sectioned out and re­ tained. The remainder is qualitatively examined and discarded.

3. The retained sample portion is then passed through a standard U.S. no. 30 brass sieve (0.595 mm openings). What remains is placed in a container, fixed, and brought back to the laboratory for analysis.

4. At the same time the dredge samples are taken, all available habitats are sampled by the use of D-nets and by hand. These collected specimens are brought back to the laboratory and incorporated into the taxonomic listing per station. This offers well rounded baseline data.

5. In the laboratory the substrate is placed, a portion at a time, onto white porcelain pans and the benthics are manually picked and separated according to order.

6. Later identification is made by the use of a 10X-60X stereomicroscope and a 10X-100X-430X Bausch and Lomb Dynazoom compound scope.

7. Identifications are made to a minimum taxonomic level of genus in most cases and to species if available resources permit. The use of all per­ tinent keys and reference materials is employed to offer the most accurate identification possible.

8. Benthic samples taken by dredging methods are the only samples treated in analyses. All graphics and discussions, unless otherwise stated, apply only to these samples. The habitat data supply important baseline taxonomy but are not recorded per unit area and, at times, were taken with unequal effort. Therefore, these data are not amenable to quantification.

I-1 APPENDIX 2

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS WATER RESOURCES COMMISSION DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL

RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MINIMUM WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE QUALITY AND VALUE OF WATER RESOURCES

The Division of Water Pollution Control, acting under the authority " of Sections 27 (5) and (12) of Chapter 21 of the General Laws and other Acts relating thereto enabling, hereby adopts and established the following Rules and Regulations to restore, maintain, and enhance the quality of the waters of the Commonwealth; to designate the uses for which the various waters of the state shall be maintained and pro­ tected; to prescribe the water quality standards required to sustain the designated uses; and prescribe regulations necessary for implement­ ing, achieving and maintaining the prescribed water quality.

Filed with Secretary of State May 2, 1974

„„,'

2-A FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MINIMUM WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND FOR THE PROTECTION OF THE QUALITY AND VALUE OF WATER RESOURCES

REGULATION I Definitions

The terms used in the following regulations are defined as follows:

1. Appropriate Treatment - means that degree of treatment required for the waters of the Commonwealth to meet their assigned classifications or any ternxs, condi­ tions, or effluent limitations established as part of any permit to discharge issued under the provisions of the Massachusetts Clean Waters Act, or any ef­ fluent standard or prohibition established by the Division under authority of Section 27 (6) of the Massachusetts Clean Waters Act.

2. Division - means the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Division of Water Pollution Control.

3. Person - means any agency or political subdivision of the Commonwealth, public or private corporation or authority, individual, partnership or association, or other entity, including any officer of a public or private agency or organiza­ tion, upon whom a duty may be imposed by or pursuant to any provision of Sec­ tions 26-53 inclusive, of Chapter 21 of the General Laws.

4. Sewage - means the water-carried waste products or discharges from human beings, sink wastes, wash water, laundry waste and similar so-called domestic waste,

5. The "Waters of the Commonwealth" and "Waters" - means all waters within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth, including, without limitation, rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, springs, impoundments, estuaries, coastal waters, and ground waters.

6. Fresh Waters - means waters not subject to the rise and fall of the tide.

7. Salt Waters - means all waters subject to the rise and fall of the tide.

8. Cold Water Stream - means a stream capable of sustaining a population of cold water fish, primarily Salmonids.

9. Seasonal Cold Water Stream - means a stream which is only capable of sustaining cold water fish during the period of September 15 through June 30.

10. Waste Treatment Facility - processes, plants, or works, installed for the purpose of treating, neutralizing, stabilizing or disposing of wastewater.

11. Pollutant - means any element or property of sewage, agricultural, industrial, or commercial waste, run-off, leachate, heated effluent, or other matter in whatever form and whether originating at a point or non-point source, which is or may be discharged, drained or otherwise introduced into the waters of the: Commonwealth.

12. Discharge - means the flow or release of any pollutant into the waters of the

2-B Commonwealth.

13. Wastevater - means sewage, liquid or water-carried waste from industrial, commercial, municipal, private or other sources.

14. Zone of Passage - means a continuous water route of the volume, area and quality necessary to allow passage of free-swimming and drifting organisms with no significant effect produced on the population.

2-C Regulation II - Water Quality Standards

1 - The: Water Quality Standards adopted by the Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control on March 3, 1967 and filed with the Secretary of State on March 6, 1967 are hereby repealed, except that existing "River Basin Classifications" based on the 1967 Standards will remain in full force and effect until reclassified in accordance with the following standards.

2 - To achieve the objectives of the Massachusetts Clean Waters Act and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 and to assure the best use of the waters of the Commonwealth the following standards are adopted and shall be applic­ able to all waters of the Commonwealth or to different segments of the same waters:

3 - Fresh Water Standards Class A - These waters are designated for use as sources of public water supply in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 111 of the General Laws.

Water Quality Criteria

Item Criteria

1. Dissolved oxygen Not less than 75% of saturation during at least 16 hours of any 24 hour period and not less than 5 mg/1 at any time. For cold water streams the dissolved oxygen con­ centration shall not be less than 6 mg/1. For seasonal cold water streams the dissolved oxygen con­ centration shall not be less than 6 mg/1 during the season.

2. Sludge deposits-solid refuse- None allowable floating solids-oil-grease-scum

3. Color and turbidity None other than natural origin.

4. Total Coliform bacteria per 100 ml. Not to exceed an average value of 50 during any monthly sampling period.

5. Taste and odor None other than of natural origin.

6. PH As naturally occurs.

7. Allowable temperature increase None other than of natural origin.

8. Chemical constituents None in concentrations or combin­ ations which would be harmful or offensive to humans, or harmful to animal or aquatic life.

2-D 9. Radioactivity None other than that occurring from natural phenomena.

Class B - These waters are suitable for bathing and recreational purposes, water contact activities, acceptable for public water supply with treatment and disin­ fection, are an excellent fish and wildlife habitat, have excellent aesthetic values and are suitable for certain agricultural and industrial uses.

Item Criteria

1. Dissolved oxygen Not less than 75% of saturation during at least 16 hours of any 24 hour period and not less than 5 mg/1 at any time. For cold water streams the dissolved oxygen con­ centration shall not be less than 6 mg/1. For seasonal cold water streams the dissolved oxygen con­ centration shall not be less than 6 mg/1 during the season.

2. Sludge deposits-solid refuse- None other than of natural origin floating solids-oil-grease-scum or those amounts which may result from the discharge from water treatment facilities providing appropriate treatment. For oil and grease of petroleum origin th maximum allowable concentration is 15 mg/1.

3. Color and turbidity None in such concentrations that would impair any uses specifically assigned to this class.

4. Colifonn bacteria per 100 ml Not to exceed an average value of 1000 nor more than 1000 in 20% of the samples.

5. Taste and odor None in such concentrations that would impair any uses specifically assigned to this class and none that would cause taste and odor in edible fish.

6. PH 6.5 - 8.0

7. Allowable temperature increase None except where the increase will not exceed the recommended limit on the most sensitive re­ ceiving water use and in no case

2-E exceed 83° F in warm water fisher­ ies, and 68°F in cold water fish­ eries, or in any case raise the normal temperature of the receiving water 'more than 4°F.

8. Chemical constituents None in concentrations or combin­ ations which would be harmful or offensive to human, or harmful to animal or aquatic life or any water use specifically assigned to this class.

9. Radioactivity None in concentrations or combin­ ations in excess of the limits specified by the United States Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards.

Class 31 - The use and criteria for Class Bl shall be the same as for Class B with the exception of the dissolved oxygen requirement which shall be as follows for this class:

Item Criteria

1. Dissolved oxygen Not less than 5 mg/1 during at least 16 hours of any 24 hour period, nor less than 3 mg/1 at any time. For seasonal cold water fisheries at least 6 mg/1 must be maintained during the season.

Class C - These waters are suitable for recreational boating and secondary water contact: recreation, as a suitable habitat for wildlife and fish indigenous to the region,, for certain agricultural and industrial uses, have good aesthetic values, and under certain conditions are acceptable for public water supply with treatment and disinfection.

Item Criteria

1. Dissolved oxygen Not less than 5 mg/1 during at least 16 hours of any 24 hour period, nor less than 3 mg/1 at any time. For seasonal cold water fisheries at least 6 mg/1 must be maintained during the season.

2. Sludge deposits-solid refuse- None other than of natural origin floating solids-oil-grease-scum of those amounts which may result

O-T from the discharge from waste treatment facilities providing appropriate treatment. For oil and grease of petroleum origin the maximum allowable concentra­ tion is 15 mg/1.

3. Color and turbidity None allowable in such concentra­ tions that would impair any uses specifically assigned to this class.

4. Coliform bacteria None in such concentrations that would impair any usages specific­ ally assigned to this class, see Note 1.

5. Taste and odor None in such concentrations that would impair any uses specifically assigned to this class, and none that would cause taste and odor in edible fish.

6. pH 6.0 - 8.5

7. Allowable temperature increase None except where the increase will not exceed the recommended limits on the most sensitive receiving water use and in no case exceed 83°F in warm water fisheries, and 68°F in cold water fisheries, or in any case raise the normal temp­ erature of the receiving water more than 4°F.

8. Chemical constituents None in concentrations or combin­ ations which would be harmful or offensive to human life, or harm­ ful to animal or aquatic life or any other water use specifically assigned to this class.

9. Radioactivity None in such concentrations or combinations in excess of the limits specified by the United States Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards.

2-G Note I - no bacteria limit has been placed on Class "C" waters because of the urban runoff and combined sewer problems which have not yet been solved. In waters of this class not subject to urban runoff or combined sewer discharges the bacterial quality of the water should be less than an average of 5,000 coliform bacteria/100 ml during any monthly sampling period. It is the objective of .the Division to eliminate all point and non-point sources of pollution and to impose bacterial limits on all waters.

Class Cl - The use and criteria for Class Cl shall be the same as for Class C with the exception of the dissolved oxygen (and temperature) requirements which shall be as follows for this Class:

Item Criteria

1. Dissolved oxygen Not less than 2 mg/1 at any time,

Salt Water Standards

Class SA - These are waters of the highest quality and are suitable for any high water quality use including bathing and other water contact activities. These waters are suitable for approved shellfish areas and the taking of shellfish without depur­ ation, have the highest aesthetic value and are an excellent fish and wildlife habitat,

Water Quality Criteria

Item Criteria

1. Dissolved oxygen Not less than 6.5 mg/1 at any time.

2. Sludge deposits-solid refuse- None other than of natural origin floating solids-oil-grease-scum or those amounts which may result from the discharge from waste treat­ ment facilities providing approp­ riate treatment. For oil and grease of petroleum origin the maximum allowable concentration is 15 mg/1.

3. Color and turbidity None in such concentrations that will impair any uses specifically assigned to this class.

4. Total Coliform bacteria per 100 ml Not to exceed a median value of 70 and not more than 10% of the samples shall ordinarily exceed 230 during any monthly sampling period.

5. Taste and odor None allowable

6. pH 6.8 - 8.5

2-H 7. Allowable temperature increase None except where the increase will not exceed the recommended limitr on the most sensitive water use.

8. Chemical constituents None in concentrations or combina­ tions which would be harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which would make the waters unsafe or unsuitable for fish or shellfish or their propagation, impair the palatability of same, or impair the waters for any other uses.

9. Radioactivity None in concentrations or combina­ tions in excess of the limits specified by the United States Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards.

Class SB - These waters are suitable for bathing and recreational purposes including water contact sports and industrial cooling, have good aesthetic values, are an excellent fish habitat and are suitable for certain shell fisheries with depuration (Restricted Shellfish Areas).

Item Criteria

1. Dissolved oxygen Not less than 5.0 mg/1 at any tim

2. Sludge deposits-solid refuse- None other than of natural origin floating solids-oils-grease-scum or those amounts which may result from the discharge from waste treat­ ment facilities providing adequate treatment. For oil and grease of petroleum origin, the maximum allow­ able concentration is 15 mg/1.

3. Color and turbidity None in such concentrations that would impair any uses specifically assigned to this class.

4. Total Coliform bacteria per 100 ml Not to exceed an average value of 700 and not more than 1000 in more than 20% of the samples.

5. Taste and odor None in such concentrations that would impair any uses specifically assigned to this class and none that would cause taste and odor in edible fish or shellfish.

6. pH 6.8 - 8.5

2-1 7. Allowable temperature increase None except where the increase will not exceed the recommended limits on the most sensitive water use.

8. Chemical constituents None in concentrations or combinations which would be harmful to human, animal or aquatic life or which would make the waters unsafe or unsuitable for fish or shellfish or their propagation, impair the palatability of same, or impair the water for any other use.

9. Radioactivity None in such concentrations or combin­ ations in excess of the limits specified by the United States Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards.

Class SC - These waters are suitable for aesthetic enjoyment t for recreational boating, as a habitat for wildlife and common food and game fishes indigenous to the region, and are suitable for certain industrial uses.

Item Criteria

1. Dissolved oxygen Not less than 5 mg/1 during at least 16 hours of any 24 hour period nor less than 3 mg/1 at any time.

Sludge deposits-solid refuse- None other than of natural origin or floating solids-oil-grease-scum those amounts which may result from the discharge from waste treatment facilities providing appropriate treatment. For oil and grease of petroleum origin the maximum allowable concentration is 15 mg/1

3. Color and turbidity None in such concentrations that would impair any uses specifically assigned to this class.

4. Total Coliform bacteria None in such concentrations that would impair any uses specifically assigned to this class. See- Note 2

5. Taste: and odor None in such concentrations that would impair any uses specifically assigned to this class and none that would cause taste and odor in edible fish or shellfish

6. pH 6.5 - 8.5

7. Allowable temperature increase None except where the increase will not exceed the recommended limits on the most sensitive water use.

2-J 8. Chemical constituents None in concentrations or combinations which would be harmful to human, anim or aquatic life or which would make waters unsafe for fish or shellfish or their propagation, impair the palatabilit} of same, or impair the water for any other use.

9. Radioactivity None in such concentrations or combin­ ations in excess of the limits specified by the United States Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards.

Note 2: no bacteria limit has been placed on Class "SC" waters because of the urban runoff and combined sewer problems which have not yet been solved. In waters of this class not subject to urban runoff or combined sewer discharges, the bacterial quality of the water should be less than an average of 5,000 coliform bacteria/100 ml during any monthly sampling period. It is the objective of the Division to eliminate all point and non-point sources of pollution and to impose bacterial limits on all waters.

2-K Regulation III - General Provisions

1. It Ls recognized that certain waters of the Commonwealth possess an existing quality which is better than the standards assigned thereto.

A. Except as otherwise provided herein, no new discharge of wastewater will be permitted into any stream, river or tributary upstream of the most upstream discharge of wastewater from a municipal waste treatment facility or municipal sewer discharging wastes requiring appropriate treatment as determined by the Division. Any person having an existing wastewater discharge shall be required to cease such discharge and connect to a municipal sewer unless it is shown by said person that such connection is not available or feasible. Existing dis­ charges not connected to a municipal sewer will be provided with the highest and best practical means of waste treatment to maintain high water quality. New discharges from a municipal waste treatment facility into such waters will be permitted provided that such discharge is in accordance with a plan developed under the provisions of Section 27(10) of Chapter 21 of the General Laws (Massachusetts Clean Waters Act) which has been the subject of a Public Hear­ ing and approved by the Division. The discharge of industrial liquid coolant wastes in conjunction with the public and private supply of heat or electrical power may be allowed provided that a permit has been issued by the Division and that such discharge is in conformance with the terms and conditions of the permit and in conformance with the water quality standards of the receiving waters.

B. Except as otherwise provided herein, no new discharge of wastewater will be permitted in Class SA or SB waters. Any person having an existing discharge of wastewater into Class SA or SB waters will be required to cease said discharge and to connect to a municipal sewer unless it is shown by said person that such connection is not available or feasible. Existing discharges not connected to a municipal sewer will be provided with the Highest and best practical means of waste treatment to maintain high water quality. New dis­ charges from a waste treatment facility into such waters will be permitted provided such discharge is in accordance with a plan developed under the provisions of Section 27(10) of Chapter 21 of the General Laws (Massachusetts Clean Waters Act) which has been the subject of a Public Hearing and approved by the Division. The discharge of industrial coolant wastes in conjunc­ tion with the public and private supply of heat or electrical power may be allowed provided that a permit has been issued by the Division and that such discharge is in conformance with the terms and conditions of the permit and in conformance with the Water Quality Standards of the receiving waters.

2. The latest edition of the Federal publication "Water Quality Criteria" will be considered in the interpretation and application of bioassay results.

3. The latest edition of Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Waste­ water, American Public Health Association, will be followed in the collection, preservation, and analysis of samples. Where a method is not given in the standards methods, the latest procedures of the American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) will be followed.

2-L 4. Th eaverage minimum consecutive 7-day flow to be expected once in 10 years shall be used in the interpretation of the standards.

5. In the discharge of waste treatment plant effluents into receiving waters, consideration shall be given both in time and distance to allow for mixing of effluent and stream. Such distances required for complete mixing shall not effect the water use classifications adopted by the Division. However, a zone of passage must be provided wherever mixing zones are allowed.

6. There shall be no new discharges of nutrients into lakes or ponds. In ad­ dition, there shall be no new discharge of nutrients to tributaries of lakes or ponds that would encourage eutrophication or growth of weeds or algae in these lakes or ponds.

7. Any existing discharge containing nutrients in concentrations which encourage eutrophication or growth of weeds or algae shall be treated to remove such nutrients to the maximum extent technically feasible.

8. These Water Quality Standards do not apply to conditions brought about by natural causes.

9. All waters shall be substantially free of products that will (1) unduly affect the composition of bottom fauna, (2) unduly affect the physical or chemical measure of the bottom, (3) interfere with the spawning of fish or their eggs.

10. No person shall discharge any pollutants into any waters of the Common­ wealth which shall cause a violation of the standards.

11. A person shall submit to the Division for approval all plans for the con­ struction of or addition to any waste treatment facility and no such facil­ ity may be constructed, modified or enlarged without such approval.

12. Cold water and seasonal cold water streams shall be those listed by the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Game.

13. Whoever violates any provision of these regulations shall (a) be fined not less than two thousand five hundred dollars nor more than twenty-five thou­ sand dollars for each day of such violation or its continuance, or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both; or (b) shall be sub­ ject to a civil penalty not to exceed ten thousand dollars per day of such violation, which may be assessed in an action brought on behalf of the Commonwealth in any court of competent jurisdiction, pursuant to Section 42 of Chapter 21 of the Massachusetts General Laws.

14. The Division and its duly authorized employees shall have the right to enter at all reasonable times into or on, any property, public or private, for the purpose of inspecting and investigating conditions relating to pollution or possible pollution of any waters of the Commonwealth, pursuant to Section 40 of Chapter 21 of the Massachusetts General Laws.

2-M 15. If any regulation, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase or word of these regulations shall be declared invalid for any reason whatsoever, that deci­ sion shall not affect any other portion of these regulations, which shall remain in full force and effect and to this end the provisions of these regulations are hereby declared severable.

2-N APPENDIX III

3-A TABLE 16

NUMBER AND KINDS OF BENTHIC ORGANISMS PER SQUARE FOOT IN THE HOUSATONIC RIVER

STATION NO. HS01 HS02 HS03 HS05 HS06 HS07 HS08 HS09 HS10 HS11 HS12 HS13 HSU

SENSITIVE ORGANISMS

Hydracarina­ (water mites)

Arthropoda Insecta Ephemerop tera­ (mayflies) Siphlonuridae — Siphlonurus quebecensis Baetidae Baetis sp. — 53N 29N 2N *N Baetis intercalaris Baetis rusticans *N Heptageniidae Heptagenia sp. — Stenonema sp. — Stenonema nepotellum IN Ephemeridae — Hexagenia bilineata IN Hexagenia limbata *1N — Ephemera simulans IN Ephemera varia *N — Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies) Zygoptera (damselflies) Coenagrionidae Argia sp.

Plecoptera (stoneflies) *A Perlidae Acroneuria sp. *N Perlesta sp. Paragnatina sp. *N *N TABLE 16 (Continued)

STATION NO. FS15 HSio HSi7 HSiS HSi9 HS20 HS21 HS22 HS23 HS24 HS25 HS26 HS2/

SENSITIVE ORGANISMS (Continued)

Hydracarina­ 1A 1A (water mites)

Arthropoda Insecta Ephemerop tera­ (mayflies) Siphlonuridae Siphlonurus quebecensis *N Baetidae — *1N *N Baetis sp. *N Baetis intercalaris *N — Baetis rusticans Heptageniidae Heptagenia sp. *N Stenonema sp. *N *N *N Stenonema nepotellum *N Ephemeridae Hexagenia bilineata Hexagenia limbata Ephemera simulans Ephemera varia

Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies) Zygoptera (damselflies) Coenagrionidae Argia sp. *N

Plecoptera (stoneflies) Perlidae Acroneuria sp. Perlesta sp. *N *N Paragnatina sp. -­- *N *N TABLE 16 (Continued)

STATION NO. HS01 HS02 HS03 HS05 HS06 HS07 HS08 HS09 HS10 HSU HS12 HS13 HS14

Coleoptera (beetles) Elmidae (riffle beetles) Stenelmis sp. 1L 4L,1A Ancyronyx sp. Microcylloepus pusillus 1L Oulimnius latiusculus 1L Psephenidae (water pennies) Psephenus sp. 2L

Neuroptera (dobsonflies, alderflies) Sialidae (alderflies) Sialis sp. — — — *A

Trichoptera (caddisflies) Philopotamidae Chimarra sp. 1L *A Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche sp. 1P,3L Hydropsyche betteni Hydroptilidae Hydroptila sp. 2L Limnephilidae Pycnopsyche sp. 2L *L Limnephilus sp. Leptoceridae Athripsodes sp.

Diptera (true flies) Tipulidae (crane flies) 1L,1P Antocha sp. 4P,5L Tipula sp. IP c

TABLE 16 (Continued)

STATION NO. HS15 HS16 HS17 HS18 HS19 HS20 HS21 HS22 HS23 HS24 HS25 HS26 HS27

Coleoptera (beetles) Elmidae (riffle beetles) — Stenelmis so. — Ancyronyx sp. 1L Microcylloepus pusillus — Oulimnius latiusculus Psephenidae (water pennies) Psephenus sp.

Neuroptera (dobsonflies, alderflies) Sialidae (alderflies) — — — — — Sialis sp.

Trichoptera (caddisflies) Philopotamidae Chimarra sp. Hydropsychidae Hydropsyche sp. 8P,1L,1A — *1P,*L *L Hydropsyche betteni *A *A — Hydroptilidae Hydroptila sp. Limnephilidae Pycnopsyche sp. *L Limnephilus sp. IP Leptoceridae Athripsodes sp. *L —

Diptera (true flies) Tipulidae (crane flies) — Antocha sp. Tipula sp. ~~ ~ ~ TABLE 16 (Continued)

STATION NO. HS01 HS02 HS03 HS05 HS06 HS07 HS08 HS09 HS10 HSU HS12 HS13 HS14

Simuliidae (black flies)l IP Simulium sp. 1L Chironomidae (midges) Chironominae Tribelos sp. 3L 2L Xenochironomus xenolabis Pseudochironomus sp. 1L 1L Paratendipes sp. 16L Stictochironomus sp. *53L 3L Microtendipes sp. 4L 1L Calopsectra sp. IP 2L Orthocladiinae Orthocladius sp. IP 1L 0. obumbratus IP 0. carlatus Trichocladius extatus 3P Eukiefferiella sp. 8L Brillia sp. — 2L 16L.2P 4L,*P 1L Cardiocladius sp. 3L 1L Psectrocladius sp. 1L 2L 2L 1L P. simulans 1L Cricotopus sp. — *14L,11P -­ 58L,1P 23L.2P *4L 1L IP 1L C. bicinctus 4P C. fugax C. slossonae Cricotopus sp. 2

Mollusca Gastropoda (snails) Prosobranchia Bulimidae Amnicola sp. 1A

SUBTOTAL ORGANISMS 59 104 29 113 59 11 3 0 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL KINDS 6 11 7 13 10 5 3 0 0 0 0 TABLE 16(Continued)

KS15 KS16 K317 KS18 KS19 KS20 FS21 HS22 KS23 KS24 K325 KS26 HS27 Simuliidae (black flies) Simulium sp. Chironomidae (midges) Chironominae Tribelos sp. Xenochironomus xenolabis 2L Pseudochironomus sp. *A Paratendipes sp. Stictochironomus sp. Microtendipes sp. Calopsectra sp. 30L 4L Orthocladiinae Orthocladius sp. 1L — 0. obumbratus 33P 0. carlatus IP Trichocladius extatus Eukiefferiella sp. Brillia sp. 1L *L *L Cardiocladius sp. 1L Psectrocladius sp. 1L 1L 1L P. simulans Cricotopus sp. 42L,*A 5L 1L 8L 1L 1L,1P 7L 1L C. bicinctus *87P 2P C. fugax IP C. slossonae 2P — Cricotopus sp. 2 HP

Mollusca Gastropoda (snails) Prosobranchia Bulimidae Amnicola sp. 13A 2A 3A

SUBTOTAL ORGANISMS 203 2 8 1 11 3 1 2 3 39 0 0 6 SUBTOTAL KINDS 1 2 121 3 2 1 2 2 4 0 0 3 TABLE 16(Continued)

STATION NO. HS01 HS02 HS03 HS05 HS06 HS07 HS08 HS09 HS10 HS11 HS12 HS13 HS14

FACULTATIVE ORGANISMS

Nematoda (nematodes) 2A 5A 1A 1A 1A 2A

Annelida 1, Oligochaeta*(aquatic earthworms) Naididae Nais communis 2A 1A 1A Nais bretscheri Specaria josinae

Arthropoda Crustacea Isopoda (sow bugs) Asellidae Asellus sp. Asellus communis

•* Amphipoda (scuds) Talitridae Hyalella azteca 5A Gammaridae Gammarus sp.

Decapoda (crayfish) Astacidae *I,*A — Orconectes sp. Insecta Ephemeroptera (mayflies) Ephemerellidae Ephemerella sp. *A 2N Ephemerella dorthea IN Ephemerella aestiva Ephemerella temporalis *N e

TABLE 16 (Continued)

KS15 KS16 KS17 HS18 HS19 HS20 KS21 HS22 HS23 KS24 HS25 HS26 HS27

FACULTATIVE ORGANISMS

Nematoda (nematodes) 1A 1A 1A 1A

Annelida i Oligochaeta (aquatic earthworms) Naididae Nais communis O A Nais bretscheri 1A 1A 2A 2A ISA Specaria josinae 1A

Arthropoda Crustacea Isopoda (sow bugs) Asellidae Asellus sp. 3A *A 1A *A * Asellus communis 2A

Amphipoda (scuds) Talitridae Hyalella azteca *A *A Gammaridae Gammarus sp. 1A 1A

Decapoda (crayfish) Astacidae 1A *A *A Orconectes sp. *A

Insecta Ephemeroptera (mayflies) Ephemerellidae Ephemeral la sp. *A Ephemerella dorthea Ephemerella aestiva *N Ephemerella temporalis TABLE 16 (Continued)

STATION NO. HS01 HS02 HS03 HS05 HS06 HS07 HS08 HS09 HS10 HS11 HS12 HS13 HS14

Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies) Anisoptera (dragonflies) Aeschnidae Aeschna sp. *N

Zygoptera (damselflies) Coenagrionidae *N Ischnura sp. *N *A Enallagma sp.

Hemiptera (true bugs) Corixidae Sigara sp. Palmacorixa nana 1A

Coleoptera (beetles) Haliplidae (crawling water beetles) Haliplus sp.

C-. Peltodytes sp. *A Dytiscidae (predacious water beetles) Laccophilus sp.

Trichoptera (caddisflies) Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche .sp. 1L 1L

Diptera (true flies) Ceratopogonidae (biting midges) Probezzia sp. 1L Empididae (dance flies) Clinocera sp. 1P,*A Hemerodromia sp. 2L.1P 1L.1P TABLE 16 (Continued)

STATION NO. HS15 HS16 HS17 HS18 HS19 HS20 HS21 HS22 HS23 HS24 HS25 HS26 HS27

Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies) Anisoptera (dragonflies) Aeschnidae Aeschna sp.

Zygoptera (damselflies) Coenagrionidae Ischnura sp . *N Enallagma SP • *N

Hemiptera (true bugs) Corixidae Sigara sp. *A Palmacorixa

Coleoptera (beetles) Haliplidae (crawling water beetles) Haliplus sp . *A Peltodytes sp. *A Dytiscidae (predacious water beetles) Laccophilus sp. *A

Trichoptera (caddisflies) Hydropsychidae Cheumatopsyche sp. 1L 3P *P

Diptera (true flies) Ceratopogonidae (biting midges) Probezzia sp. Empididae (dance flies) Clinocera sp. 2P Hemerodromia sp. IP 1L *L TABLE 16(Continued)

STATION NO. HS01 HS02 HS03 HS05 HS06 HS07 HS08 HS09 HS10 HS11 HS12 HS13 HS14

Roederiodes sp. IP Chironomidae (midges) Tanypodinae Procladius sp. 1L Chironominae Polypedilum sp. 2L 17L 12L 2L 4L Zj. fallax 1L 3L P. ophioides sp. Rheot any tarsus sp. 1L 1L

Mollusca Gastropoda (snails) Pulmonata Lymnaeidae Lymnaea (Pseudosuccinea) sp. Planorbidae Gyraulus sp. - Ancylidae Ferrissia sp.

Pelecypoda Sphaeriidae Pisidium sp. 1A Unionidae Ligumia recta 1A

SUBTOTAL ORGANISMS 12 23 17 12 10 0 0 0 0 SUBTOTAL KINDS 7 4 5 4 0 0 0 0 C (

TABLE 16 (Continued)

STATION NO. HS15 HS16 HS17 HS18 HS19 HS20 HS21 HS22 HS23 HS24 HS25 HS26 HS27

Roederiodes sp. *A — Chironomidae (midges) — Tanypodinae Procladius sp. 2L *L Chironominae — Polypedilum sp. IP 2L 26L,3P 13L 3L P. fallax IP P. ophioides sp. -— 2L P.heotanytarsus sp. —

Mollusca Gastropoda (snails) Pulmonata Lymnaeidae ~— Lymnaea (Pseudosuccinea) sp. *A *A Planorbidae Gyraulus sp. *A * Ancylidae Ferrissia sp. *8A 1A 1A

Pelecypoda LA — Sphaeriidae Pisidium sp. — Unionidae 4A Ligumia recta

SUBTOTAL ORGANISMS 9 1 105 1 4 34 8 4 9 2 1 3 7 SUBTOTAL KINDS 7 1 1 0 4 6 2 2 2 4 1 1 2 TABLE 16 (Continued)

STATION NO. HS01 HS02 HS03 HS05 HS06 HS07 HS08 HS09 HS10 HSU HS12 HS13 HS14

TOLERANT ORGANISMS

Annelida Oligochaeta (aquatic earthworms) Lumbriculidae Tubificidae Limnodrilus claparedianus 1A 3A 1A 4A 2A 16A L. hoffmeisteri — — 14A 9A 7A 3A 2A 16A 19A 161A 42A 5A L. spiralis 4A 2A 11A 9A 75A 170A L. udekemianus — — — — 2A 1A 3A 49A 248A ISA L. profundicola Tubifex tubifex 1A 1A 1A 269A 37A 5A Isochaeta sp. 2A 2A Undetermined immature forms With capilliform setae 31 21 101 6561 281 181 Without capilliform setae II 61 251 21 81 31 141 1421 37881 5631 301 Undetermined form With simple pointed setae 1A 32A - Branchiobdellidae Cambarincola sp.

Hirudinea (leeches) Glossophiidae Helobdella stagnalis 1A 1A H. elongata Glossiphonia complanata Erpobdellidae Erpobdella sp.

Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera (true bugs) Gerridae (water striders) Gerris sp. Veliidae (broad-shouldered water striders) Rhagovelia sp. T—, Microvelia sp. C TABLE 16(Continued)

HS15 KS16 KS17 KS18 KS19 HS20 HS21 HS22 HS23 HS24 HS25 HS26 KS27

TOLERANT ORGANISMS

Annelida Oligochaeta (aquatic earthworms) Lumbriculidae 1A Tubificidae Limnodrilus claparedianus 6A 8A 70A L. hoffmeisteri 26A 53A 3A 22A 1A 2A 273A 6A 1A 4A 2A L. spiralis 7A 5A 8A 6A — — 172A 11A — 2A L. udekemianus 29A 8A 5A 2A L. profundicola 1A 5A Tubifex tubifex 27A Isochaeta sp. 5A 1A 4A Undetermined immature forms With capilliform setae 41 31 911 II II II Without capilliform setae 491 2811 151 1111 91 721 19891 191 21 771 21 31 71 Undetermined forms — u> - With simple pointed setae 2A 1 2A — o Branchiobdellidae Cambarincola sp. *A

Hirudinea (leeches) Glossophiidae Helobdella stagnalis *A 1A H. elongata 2A Glossiphonia complanata *A Erpobdellidae Erpobdella sp. *A

Arthropoda Insecta Hemiptera (true bugs) Gerridae (water striders) — Gerris sp. *A Veliidae (broad-shouldered — water striders) Rhagovelia sp. *A Microvelia sp. *A TABLE 16 (Continued)

STATION NO. HS01 HS02 HS03 HS05 HS06 HS07 HS08 HS09 HSlO HS11 HS12 HS13 HS14 Mesoveliidae (water treaders) Mesovelia sp. *N

Coleoptera (beetles) Hydrophilidae (water scavenger beetles) Tropisternus sp. — Staphylinidae (rove beetles)

Diptera (true flies) Chironomidae (midges) Tanypodinae — Pentaneurini 1L 2L 3L 2L *L Pentaneura sp. — Pentaneura sp. 8 P. melanops P. flavifrons — Chironominae — Chironomus sp. 3L,1P,1A 1L -— *P Cryptochironomus sp. *4L 7L — C. fulvus —

Mollusca Gastropoda (snails) Pulmonata Physidae — Physa sp. 1A *A 1A Planorbidae Helisoma sp. 1A 1A

SUBTOTAL ORGANISMS 2 10 30 3 44 10 18 8 83 232 5199 859 80 SUBTOTAL KINDS 2 3 51 6 364 8 7 888 ( C < TABLE 16 (Continued)

STATION NO. HS15 HS16 HS17 HS18 HS19 HS20 HS21 HS22 HS23 HS24 HS25 HS26 HS27

Mesoveliidae (water treaders) Mesovelia sp.

Coleoptera (beetles) Hydrophilidae (water scavenger beetles) Tropisternus sp. *A *A Staphylinidae (rove beetles) *A *A Diptera (true flies) Chironomidae (midges) Tanypodinae — Pentaneurini 8L 6L 10L *L *L Pentaneura sp. *p — Pentaneura sp. 8 15P — P. melanops 3P — P. flavifrons 3P IP IP Chironominae ------— Chironomus sp . --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ *5L --­ --­ *P --­ --- Cryptochironomus sp. --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ 1L 2L C. f ulvus --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ IP --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ —

Mollusca Gastropoda (snails) Pulmonata Physidae --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ --- Physa sp. *A *A *1A 1A --­ *A 1A Planorbidae --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ --- Helisoma sp . --­ --­ --­ --­ --­ --­

SUBTOTAL ORGANISMS 115 379 42 151 20 86 2633 45 4 85 3 4 12 SUBTOTAL KINDS 879 636 9 7 3 4 2 2 4 TABLE 16(Continued)

STATION NO. HS01 HS02 HS03 HS05 HS06 HS07 HS08 HS09 HS10 HS11 HS12 HS13 HSU

UNIDENTIFIED TO TOLERANCE

Arthropoda Insecta i^piicmcj. up i_ci d v may j. -LACS ,/ Heptageniidae 2N ­ ­ _ _

Diptera (true flies) Chironomidae 4L ­ ­ *A ­ ­ IP ­ Orthocladiinae 1L — _ 9P _ —

Mollusca Gastropoda (snails) Pulmonata Planorbidae

GRAND TOTAL ORGANISMS 73 137 76 128 113 23 23 10 83 235 5189 859 80 GRAND TOTAL KINDS 15 18 17 20 20 10 11 6 8 9 8 8 8

KEY: * = Denotes organisms taken for baseline data* n°t incorporated into totals as are dredge samples.

Stages of development: I = immature, L = larvae, N = nymphs or niads, P = pupae, A = adults.

Oligochaete identifications performed by Lawler, Matusky and Skelly Engineers, Nyack, New York. TABLE 16 (Continued)

STATION NO. HS15 HS16 HS17 HS18 HS19 HS20 HS21 HS22 HS23 HS24 HS25 HS26 HS27

UNIDENTIFIED TO TOLERANCE

Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera (mayflies) Heptageniidae

Dipter.a (true flies) ,Chironomidae 1L,*P,1A­ *A *P IP IP Orthocladiinae

Mollusca Gastropoda (snails) Pulmonata r xciiiui. uj-Ucic Art — — — — — — — —

OJ GRAND TOTAL ORGANISMS 327 382 51 152 36 103 2637 55 11 173 5 17 25 C/3 GRAND TOTAL KINDS 27 9 12 7 10 14 12 13 7 12 3 3 9

KEY: * = Denotes organisms taken for baseline data; not incorporated into totals as are dredge samples.

Stages of development: I = immature, L = larvae, N = nymphs or niads, P = pupae, A = adults.

^Oligochaete identification performed by Lawler, Matusky and Skelly Engineers, Nyack, New York. TABLE 17

NUMBER AND KINDS OF BENTHIC ORGANISMS PER SQUARE FOOT

IN TRIBUTARIES TO THE HOUSATONIC RIVER

STATION NO. WB01 GP01 WR01 GR01 HB01

SENSITIVE ORGANISMS

Hydracarina (water mites) 2A *A

Arthropods Insecta Ephemeroptera (mayflies) Siphlonuridae Isonychia sp. IN Baetidae 4N IN Baetis sp. *N 16N *31N Baetis intercalaris *N *17N *6N Baetis rusticans *N u> Heptageniidae H Heptagenia sp. AN Heptagenia maculipennis *N Stenonema sp. *N Stenonema nepotellum *7N Epeorus sp. 2N

Plecoptera (stoneflies) IN 5N Perlidae Acroneuria sp. 6N Perlesta sp. IN *N Neoperla sp. 2N Paragnetina sp. *N

Coleoptera (beetles) Elmidae (riffle beetles) 9L Stenelmis sp. 1A.6L Microcylloepus pusillus 1L Macronychus glabratus 1L *A Psephenidae Psephenus sp. *L TABLE 17 (Continued)

STATION NO. WB01 GP01 WR01 GR01 HB01

SENSITIVE ORGANISMS

Neuroptera (dobsonflies, alderflies) Corydalidae (dobsonflies) Nigronia sp. *L

Trichoptera (caddisflies) Rhyacophilidae Rhyacophila fuscula *L Psychomyiidae IP Hydropsychidae Hydropsy che sp. *L *1L 4P,*1L Hydroptilidae Hydroptila sp. *L 1L Limnephilidae *L . Pycnopsyche sp. *L

Diptera (true flies) Tipulidae (crane flies) Antocha sp. 1L.5P Pedicia sp. *L Psychodidae (moth flies) The Ima tos copes sp. 1L Chironomidae (midges) Chironominae Tribelos sp. *L Paratendipes sp. *L Microtendipes sp. 1L 1L Calopsectra sp. 1L 2L 1L 3L Phaenopsectra obediens *L Orthocladiinae Orthocladius sp. 10P CK. obumbratus sp. 19P 2P Trichocladius sp. 1L Eukiefferiella sp. 2L '4L TABLE 17 (Continued)

STATION NO. WB01 GP01 WR01 GR01 HB01

SENSITIVE ORGANISMS

E. brevinervis IP Brillia sp. 1L *L Psectrocladius sp. 1L *3L Cricotopus sp. *3L,3P *229L 38L Cricotopus sp. 2 4L C. bicinctus 42P 3L,2P C. junus 3L Corynoneura sp. 2L Metriocnemus lundbecki 2P

Mollusca Gastropoda (snails) Prosobranchia Valvatidae Valvata sp. 1A „ Bulimidae Amnicola sp. 2A

SUBTOTAL ORGANISMS 7 350 161 2 6 SUBTOTAL KINDS 2 16 30 2 3

FACULTATIVE ORGANISMS

Nematoda (nematodes) 3A 2A

Nematomorpha Gordioida Gordiidae Gordius sp. *A .4F

TABLE 17 (Continued)

STATION NO. WB01 GP01 WR01 GR01 HB01

FACULTATIVE ORGANISMS

Annelida Oligochaeta (aquatic earthworms) Naididae Nais bretscheri 1A

Arthropoda Crustacea Decapoda (crayfish) Astacidae *A

Insecta Ephemeroptera (mayflies) Ephemerellidae Ephemerella sp. *N 3AN Ephemerella walkeri *N *N Ephemerella aestiva *N i Ephemerella simplex *N Ephemerella cornuta IN Ephemerella def iciens iN Tricorythidae Tricorythodes sp. 2N

Odonata (dragonflies and damselflies) Anisoptera (dragonflies) Gomphidae '—~ • • "•"" Lanthus sp. *N —~ Gomphus sp. —­ *A Coleoptera (beetles) Elmidae (riffle beetles) Dubiraphia sp. —— 1L 1L

Diptera (true flies) Ceratopogonidae • -'— (biting midges) TABLE 17 (Continued)

STATION NO. VB01 GP01 WR01 GR01 HB01

FACULTATIVE ORGANISMS

Culicoides sp. *L Palpomyia sp. 4L Empididae (dance flies) IP Clinocera sp. IP *A Hemerodromia sp. 1L 4P Chironomidae (midges) Chironominae Polypedilum sp. IP 2L *4L *2L P_._ fallax 4P Rheotarytarsus sp. *L

Mollusca Pelecypoda Sphaeriidae 1A CIO Unionidae 1A X

SUBTOTAL ORGANISMS 3 10 54 SUBTOTAL KINDS 3 4 10

TOLERANT ORGANISMS

Annelida Oligochaeta (aquatic earthworms) Naididae Ophidonais serpentina 1A Tubificidae Limnodrilus hoffmeisteri 7A L. udekemianus 1A Undetermined immature forms With capilliform setae II II Without capilliform setae 141 31 271 TABLE 17(Continued)

STATION NO. WB01 GP01 WR01 GR01 HB01

TOLERANT ORGANISMS

Arthropods Insecta Hemiptera (true bugs) Veliidae (broad-shouldered *A water striders)

Coleoptera (beetles) Hydrophilidae (water scavenger beetles) Hydrobius sp. *L

Dlptera (true flies) Chironomidae (midges) Tanypodinae Pentaneurini 1L *5L,2P Chironominae « Cryptochironomus sp. *L 4L Cryp to chi ronomus sp. C 2L C. stylifera IP

SUBTOTAL ORGANISMS 16 1 12 2 39 SUBTOTAL KINDS 3 1 4 1 4

UNIDENTIFIED TO TOLERANCE

Arthropoda Insecta Ephemeroptera (mayflies) 15N 1A Heptageniidae 3N TABLE 17 (Continued)

STATION NO. WB01 GP01 WR01 GR01 HB01

UNIDENTIFIED TO TOLERANCE

Diptera (true flies) Chironomidae 1P.5A *P, 1A Tanypodinae IP Chironominae IP 2P IP Orthocladiinae 1L IP

Mollusca Gastropoda (snails) 1A

GRAND TOTAL ORGANISMS 26 361 227 6 48 GRAND TOTAL KINDS 8 17 44 4 10

I N 'KEY:

* = Denotes organisms taken for baseline data; not incorporated into totals as are dredge samples,

Stages of development: I = immature, L = larvae, N = nymphs or niads, P • pupae, A = adults.

1Oligochaete identifications performed by Lawler, Matusky and Skelly Engineers, Nyack, New York. APPENDIX IV

SELECTED INFORMATION

MASSACHUSETTS WATER POLLUTION CONTROL PROGRAM

Historical Background 1884 - 1974

1884 - The Massachusetts General Court established a State Board of Health to examine and advise on public health problems relating to water. 1945 - Massachusetts Department of Public Health was established and authorized to adopt water pollution regulations. 1956 - The Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1956 gave the Commonwealth's water pollution control program strong financial support.

1965 - Federal Water Quality Act of 1965 established Federal Water Pollution Control Administration and required water quality standards. 1966 - Federal Clean Water Restoration Act appropriated $3.9 billion in con­ struction grant. Massachusetts General Court passed: a) the Massachusetts Clean Waters Act, which established a Division of Water Pollution Control in the Department of Natural Resources. The Division was given the responsi­ bilities of establishing Water Quality Standards and the classification of all the waters in the Commonwealth (Chapter 685). b) an act providing for an accelerated water pollution control program (Chapter 687).

c) an act relative to the exemption from taxation of certain property used for the abatement or prevention of water pollution (Chapter 700). d) an act providing for an elective deduction and exemption under the business and manufacturing corporation excise for the con­ struction or improvement of industrial waste treatment facili­ ties (Chapter 701).

1967 - Massachusetts General Court passed: a) an act prohibiting the disposal of garbage and refuse in coastal or inland waters (Chapter 116). b) an act subjecting certain persons who discharge oil and petroleum products into certain inland waters and into tidal waters to tort liability in double damage (Chapter 507).

c) an act further regulating the deduction under the business and manufacturing corporation excise for the construction or im­ provement of industrial waste treatment facilities (Chapter 659). 4-A APPENDIX IV ! (CONTINUED)

1968 - Massachusetts General Court passed:

a) an act protecting the inland wetlands of the Commonwealth (Chapter 444).

b) an act relative to the borrowing and use of money by cities, towns and districts for water pollution control purposes (Chapter 598).

1969 - Massachusetts General Court passed:

a) an act relating to contracts by cities, towns and districts (Chapter 758).

b) an act increasing the penalty for discharging crude petroleum and certain other substances into waters or tidal waters (Chapter 384).

1970 - Massachusetts General Court passed:

a) an act increasing the penalty for the disposal of refuse or rubbish on or near highways or coastal and inland waters (Chapter 134).

b) an act providing that action required for the protection of certain fisheries in inland waters be assigned to the Director of the Division of Water Pollution Control (Chapter 136).

c) an act further regulating and controlling the disposal of sewage into the waters of the Commonwealth and regulating certain boating facilities (Chapter 693).

d) an act further regulating the administration of the Massachu­ setts Clean Waters Act (Chapter 704).

e) an act providing financial assistance for a water pollution abatement program for industrial wastes (Chapter 746).

f) an act providing for financial assistance to cities, towns and districts of the Commonwealth for water pollution control purposes (Chapter 747).

g) an act establishing a board of certification of operators of wastewater treatment facilities (Chanter 7R1). h) an act to abate oil pollution in the waters of the Common­ wealth (Chapter 827).

4-B APPENDIX IV (CONTINUED)

1971 - Massachusetts General Court passed:

a) an act prohibiting the burning of refuse, rubbish, or de­ molition debris within certain marine or shoreline boundaries of the Commonwealth (Chapter 304). b) an act establishing the Cape Cod Bay Ocean Sanctuary and the Cape and Islands Ocean Sanctuary (Chapter 742). c) an act authorizing the Commissioner of Public Health to issue cease orders to violators of pollution regulations (Chapter 806). d) an act providing for the permanent protection of the coastal marshes and inland wetlands of the Commonwealth (Chapter 839). e) an act establishing a system of scenic and recreational rivers and streams in the Commonwealth (Chapter 840). f) an act relating to the protection of flood plains (Chapter 1020). g) a resolve providing for an investigation and study by a special commission relative to the danger of pollution of groundwater supplies and the destruction of the environment by the use of chlorides or other chemicals to remove ice from public ways (Chapter 18). h) a resolve to provide for an investigation and study by a special commission relative to a program of pollution abate­ ment in Boston Harbor and redevelopment of'the waterfront (Chapter 44). i) a resolve to provide for an investigation and study by the Department of Natural Resources relative to the acquisition of certain land for conservation and recreation purposes (Chapter 54). 1972 - The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Amendments of 1972, (Public Law 92-500) were enacted. Massachusetts General Court passed: a) an act establishing a North Shore Ocean Sanctuary (Chapter 130). b) an act authorizing the Division of Water Pollution Control to enter into contracts for the development of comprehensive river basin, water quality management, or waste treatment management plans (Chapter 678). c) an act establishing a division of environmental protection within the office of the Attorney General, and directing the preparation of environmental impact reports (Chapter 781).

4-C APPENDIX IV (CONTINUED)

• d) an act relative to the protection of wetlands (Chapter 784).

e) an act further regulating the discharge of oil, heated effluent, poisonous or other injurious substances into coastal waters (Chapter 789). 1973 ­ Massachusetts General Court passed:

a) an act authorizing conservation commissions to enter upon certain wetlands to conduct examinations or surveys following notice of proposed alterations thereon (Chapter 163). b) an act further regulating the discharge of oil at oil ter­ minal wharves (Chapter 437).

c) an act further regulating the administration of the Massa­ chusetts Clean Waters Act (Chapter 546).

d) an act establishing the aquatic nuisance control fund for the control of aquatic nuisances in the waters of the Common­ wealth (Chapter 594).

e) an act making a corrective change in the law further regulat­ ing the Massachusetts Clean Waters Act (Chapter 739).

f) an act further providing for the financing of pollution control facilities in certain towns (Chapter 744).

g) an act providing for the emergency projects under the law relating to the protection of the inland wetlands of the Commonwealth (Chapter 769). (This act amends Chapter 784 of the Acts of 1972.) h) an act authorizing the Division of Water Pollution Control to require the formation of pollution abatement districts and the preparation of pollution abatement reports and plans (Chapter 1074).

i) an act providing for the installation and maintenance of waste oil retention facilities (Chapter 1162).

1974 ­ Massachusetts General Court passed: a) an act further regulating the administration of the Massachu­ setts Clean Waters Act (Chapter 26). (This deals with the administration of the permit program.)

b) an act providing for the enforcement of the Massachusetts Clean Waters Act by the Division of Water Pollution Control (Chapter 182).

c) an act protecting land and water on Martha's Vineyard (Chapter 637),

4-D