i i i DIAGNOSTIC / FEASIBILITY STUDY i FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF i RICHMOND POND i RICHMOND / PITTSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS i i i i i i i i i i BAYSTATE ENVIRONMENTAL i CONSULTANTS i NC i I I I I I DIAGNOSTIC/FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF I RICHMOND POND, I RICHMOND/PITTSFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS PREPARED FOR I THE TOWN OF RICHMOND AND THE CITY OF PITTSFIELD I AND THE I MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF WATER POLLUTION CONTROL I UNDER MGL CHAP. 628 I MASSACHUSETTS CLEAN LAKES PROGRAM I BY BAYSTATE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. I 296 NORTH MAIN STREET I EAST LONGMEADOW, MASSACHUSETTS I I APRIL 1990 I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction 1 I Data Collection Methods 2 Diagnostic Assessment 7 Lake Description 7 I Watershed Description 7 Watershed Geology and Soils 7 Historical Lake and Land Use 18 Flow and Water Chemistry 19 I Bacteria 31 Storm Water Assessment 32 Auxiliiary Surface Water Assessment 32 I Groundwater Investigations 32 Sediment Analysis 43 Phytoplankton . . • -50 I Macrophytes 50 Zooplankton 59 Macroinvertebrates 59 Fish 59 I Pond user and Residential Practices Survey 59 Comparison with Other Studies 66 Hydrologic Budget 66 I Nutrient Budgets 71 Diagnostic Summary 74 Evaluation of Management Options 77 Management Objectives 77 I Available Techniques 77 Evaluation of Viable Alternatives : 82 Recommended Management Approach 89 I Impact of Recommended Management Actions 89 Monitoring Program 90 Funding Alternatives 90 I Environmental Evaluation ' 91 Necessary Permits 91 Public Participation 91 Relation to Existing Plans and Projects 91 I Feasibility Summary 92 I References 93 I I I I I I Appendices 97 A: Field and Laboratory Methodology 97 I
B: Relevant Information from MDWPC 1976 109 • C: Relevant Information from BCRPC 117 D: Relevant Information from BEL 1980 127 • Relevant Information from MDFW 1981 185
Relevant Information from SCS 1983 189 | Calculations • 201 _ H: Environmental Notification Form 211 — Meeting Summaries and Comments from Interested Parties 223 •
i i i i i i i I TABLES I Page 1. Sampling Stations and Analysis Parameters . 3 2. Characteristics of Richmond Pond and its Watershed 9 I 3. Sub-Drainage Basins 14 4. Land Use 14 5". Soil Types 17 I 6. Flow Values 20 7. Ammonia Nitrogen 21 8. Nitrate Nitrogen 21 9. Kjeldahl Nitrogen 21 I 10. Orthophosphorus 22 11. Total Phosphorus 22 12. Total Nitrogen:Total Phosphorus Ratios 22 I 13. Temperature 23 14. Dissolved Oxygen 23 15. PH ' •-' 23 I 16. Percent Oxygen Saturation 26 17. Total Alkalinity 27 18. Total Suspended Solids 27 19. Chloride 27 I 20. Conductivity 28 21. Turbidity 28 22. Secchi Transparency 28 I 23. Chlorophyll 28 24. Fecal Coliform 29 25. Fecal Streptococci 29 26. Quality Control Program Samples 30 I 27. Characteristics of Storm Water Drainage Systems 34 28. Storm Data: July 14, 1987 35 29. Storm Data: February 2, 1988 36 I 30. Storm Data: March 24, 1988 36 31. Water Chemistry of Tributaries: September 17, 1987 38 32. Water Chemistry of Tributaries: February 2, 1988 38 33. Seepage Data: June 1987 40 I 34. Seepage Data: September 1987 . 42 35. Soft Sediment Volume 48 36. Chemical Characteristics of Richmond Pond Sediments 49 I 37. Phytoplankton Analyses 52 37. Phytoplankton Analyses 53 37. Phytoplankton Analyses 54 I 40. Key for Macrophyte Taxa 57 41. Zooplankton Analyses 60 42. Benthic Invertebrates ' "61 43. Fish Survey Results - 62 I 44. Questionnaire for Watershed Residents 63 45. Questionnaire Survey Results 65 46. Hydrologic Budget 70 I 47. Equations and Variables for Deriving Phosphorus Load Estimates 72 I 48. Phosphorus Load Based on Models . 73 I I I 49. Phosphorus and Nitrogen Budgets 75 50. -Lake Restoration and Management Options . 78 • 51. Options for Control of Rooted Aquatic Vegetation 81 | 52. Richmond Pond Drawdown Evaluation 84
FIGURES i Page I 1. Sampling Station Locations 4 2. Toptography of the Richmond Pond Watershed 8 • 3. Bathymetric Map 10 | 4. Hypsographic Curve 11 5. Drainage Pattern in the Richmond Pond Watershed 12 _ 6. Sub-Drainage Basins of the Richmond Pond Watershed 13 I 6. Land Use in the Richmond Pond Watershed 15 ™ 8. Soils of the Richmond Pond Watershed 16 9. Dissolved Oxygen - Temperature Curves 24 • 10. Dissolved Oxygen - Temperature Curves 25 | 11. Storm Water Drainage Systems of the Richmond Shores Area 33 12. Auxilliary Surface Water Sampling Stations 37 m 13. Location of Seepage Meters: June 1987 39 I 14. Location of Seepage Meters: September 1987 41 15. Ground Water Sampling Locations 44 16. Locations of Sampled Wells 45 I 17. Soft Sediment Depth 46 • 18. Underlayment Composition of Richmond Pond 47 19. Phytoplankton Density 51 • 20. Density of Bottom Coverage by Aquatic Macrophytes 55 | 21. Distribution of Aquatic Macrophyte Taxa 56 22. Typical Vegetative Transect 58 _ 23. Water and Nutrient Budget Schematics 67 • 24. Temporal Distribution of Precipitation 68 • 25. Distribution of Rainfall Among Storms 69 26. Application of Benthic Barrier 85 i i i i i i i i I INTRODUCTION I The establishment of the Massachusetts Clean Lakes Program under Chapter 628 of the Acts of 1981 enabled many municipalities and lake associations to acquire funding for study and restoration of I their lakes. As environmentally aware and concerned communities, the Town of Richmond and City of Pittsfield applied for a grant 'for a Phase I diagnostic/feasibility study of Richmond Pond, a I valuable water resource on the border between these two municipalities. After being awarded the grant, the City contracted Baystate Environmental Consultants, Inc. to conduct I the study. Concern over the present and future status of Richmond Pond prompted the request for a study. The water quality impacts of I man7 s activities in the Richmond Pond watershed were largely unquantified. Mitigation of any current negative influences on the pond and prevention of future degradation of this water I resource were desired. I I I I I I I I I I I I I DATA COLLECTION METHODS
The extensive previous studies of Richmond Pond were reviewed, I and historic conditions were discussed with municipal officials and other parties involved with the pond. Maps and reports • prepared by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and Soil I Conservation Services (SCS) were used to initially assess watershed characteristics. Of particular use were USGS Quadrangle Sheets from the 7.5 minute series, an independently I produced topographic map (Gregory 1967), the USGS-Massachusetts • Department of Public Works Bedrock Geologic Map {Zen, 1983), the Berkshire County soil survey report in preparation by SCS, and • aerial infrared photographs obtained from the National ' | Cartographic Information Center (1985). Areal measurements were made with a Planix Electronic Planimeter. I Determinations made from maps were verified-by field inspection — by- staff engineers, biologists, and a geo-hydrologist. • Historical lake and land use were investigated through • conversations with watershed residents, newspaper and technical I articles, previous reports and maps, state agency correspondence, and field inspection. " • A bathymetric map was generated from measurements made with an electronic fathometer attached to a boat making cross-lake transects. Soft sediment depth was assessed by driving a probe I to first refusal; these measurements were performed by SCUBA • divers in conjunction with the macrophyte survey. A comprehensive monitoring and investigative research program was | implemented to assess the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of Richmond Pond. Sampling stations were « selected from topographic maps and field inspection. These • stations are described in Table 1 and shown in Figure 1. The in- ™ lake stations were sampled with a Scott bottle at the surface and bottom, and at mid-depth when stratification occurred. Samples - • were collected eight times during a one-year period, as dictated • by the contract. Fifteen parameters were routinely assessed at regular sampling I locations (non-storm stations) (Table 1). Temperature and dissolved oxygen levels were measured with a YS1 model 57 meter, with vertical profiles obtained at the in-lake stations (0.5 m • intervals) . The pH was measured with an Orion model SA 250 pH • meter. Conductivity was assessed with a YSI model 33 S-C-T meter. Turbidity was measured with a Hach model 1860 • turbidimeter. A two-liter water sample was taken at each | "sampling location and transported to Berkshire Enviro-Labs in Lee, MA for analysis of suspended solids, total alkalinity, . chlorides, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, nitrate nitrogen, ammonium • nitrogen, total phosphorus, and orthophosphorus by accepted i™ i i 1 TABLE 1 SAMPLING STATIONS AND ANALYSIS PARAMETERS FOR THE 1 RICHMOND POND DIAGNOSTIC/FEASIBILITY STUDY RICHMOND/PITTSFIELD
1 Station No. Location RP-1 Mt. Lebanon Brook at Inlet to R.P. •1 RP-2 Unnamed southern tributary at inlet to R.P. RP-3 Unnamed eastern tributary at inlet to R.P. RP-3a Unnamed southeastern tributary at inlet to R.P. RP-4s In-lake station, deep hole, surface (0-3 ft) RP-4m In-lake station, deep hole, middle (15-20 ft) RP-4b In-lake station, deep hole, bottom (45-50 ft) RP-5 Outlet from Richmond Pond at Lakeside Camp RP-6 Drainage channel west of south inlet (Drainage area F) RP-7 Drainage channel entering south inlet (Drainage area G) RP-8 Drainage pipe east of south inlet (Drainage area H) RP-9 Drainage pipe just east of RP-8 (Drainage area I) RP-10 Drainage channel at edge of Camp Russell (Drainage area J) RP-11 Drainage channel in central part of Camp Russell (Drainage area K) RP-1 2 Drainage channel under railroad, near boat launch. (Drainage area A)
Parameters assessed by lab; 1 In- lake/out let: Total phosphorus Alkalinity Fecal coiiform Orthophosphorus Total suspended solids Fecal streptococci Ammonia nitrogen Chlorides Nitrate nitrogen 1 Total Kjeldahl nitrogen Storm drains: i All of the above, plus Cadmium Iron Zinc Chromium Lead Oil and grease Copper Manganese Parameters assessed by BEC: Temperature Conductivity Secchi disk transparency Dissolved oxygen Turbidity Chlorophyl 1 PH Flow Phytoplankton Rainfall Zooplankton (seasonal) i i 3 FIGURE 1 I SAMPLING STATIONS FOR THE RICHMOND POND DIAGNOSTIC/FEASIBILITY STUDY I I I I I I I I I I I I I N I I 0WATER QUALITY STATIONS I
llf SEDIMENT CHEMISTRY STATIONS I I I standard methods (e.g., Kopp and McKee, 1979; APHA et al., 1985). Separate bacterial samples were collected for fecal coliform and fecal streptococci analyses, also performed by Berkshire Enviro- Labs by standard methods (membrane filter technique). Missing data result primarily from site inaccessiblity.
Storm sampling was conducted on three dates. Composite samples were collected on one date and time series sampling was conducted on two dates. Flow was assessed at the storm drain stations using a pipe/weir equation (SCS 1975a), supported by visual estimates at the time of sampling. Rainfall was measured by a gauge near the ponds. In addition to the parameters routinely surveyed, composite samples were analyzed for oil and grease and seven heavy metals. Auxilliary sampling stations were selected on the tributaries and sampled twice, once in wet weather and once during a dry period. Water quality parameters were the same as for the routinely collected water samples. A 20 cm Secchi disk was lowered on the shady side of the boat to evaluate water transparency at the in-lake station. Analyses of chlorophyll concentration and features of the phytoplankton and zooplankton communities were made for that location as well. Phytoplankton samples were obtained from a depth-integrated composite sample for the in-lake station, while zooplankton samples were collected by oblique tow of an 80 micron mesh net. Phytoplankton samples were collected on all dates on which the in-lake station was sampled. Zooplankton samples were collected on two dates in spring. Phytoplankton samples were preserved with Lugol's solution and zooplankton samples were preserved with a formalin solution. Plankton samples were analyzed microscopically for species composition, relative abundance and biornass. The size distribution of the zooplankton was also assessed, and all data were recorded and tallied using a microcomputer routine developed by EEC and Cornell University personnel. Groundwater interaction with Richmond Pond was assessed through direct measurement of seepage into and out of the pond and sampling of wells and porewater (Mitchell et al. 1988, 1989). Seepage measures were accomplished with meters constructed from 208 liter barrels cut in half and modified to accept a fitting to which a bag with a predetermined volume of water was attached. The meter is set into the sediment, open end down. After several hours in situ, the bag will have accumulated detectable additional water if there is seepage into the open end of the barrel, and the bag loses water if there is seepage into the groundwater from the pond. Shoreline pits were dug to collect porewater samples. This approach was employed since the clay and muck soils around Richmond Pond did not allow easy porewater withdrawal by other means. These samples were supplemented by domestic well water samples. I Sediment samples were obtained by divers from several in-lalce stations (Figure 1) with manually operated probes which • facilitated cross-sectional sampling. Samples were analyzed by | Arnold Greene Testing Laboratories for total kjeldahl and nitrate nitrogen, total phosphorus, organic/inorganic fraction, heavy • metals (As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Hg, Mn, Ni, Pb, V, Zn), and oil and I grease. Macrophyte species composition and areal extent of cover were • assessed by divers swimming cross-lake transects. The • distribution of summer bottom cover was mapped, noting dominant species in each area. Qualitative notes were made on the • subsurface density, composition, and distribution of macrophyte | stands. Quantitative assessment of density was aided by measurements of the fresh weight of macrophytes harvested from _ 0.88 sq.m plots by divers. I Benthic macroinvertebrate composition was examined several times during this study, most carefully in association with the • macrophyte surveys. Samples collected with a D-net and an Ekman I dredge were analyzed in the field to the level of family, and a semi-quantitative assessment of abundance was made. • In addition to reviewing past surveys of the fish communities of Richmond Pond, BEC conducted a fish survey in cooperation with the MDFW in August of 1987. Evening electroshocking was I supplemented by gill nets with variable mesh size, which were set • overnight. Captured fish were placed in holding tanks until they could be measured, weighed and scale-sampled, after which they • were returned to the pond. Collected scales were assessed in the | laboratory to facilitate age and growth determinations. ' - A questionnaire was used to assess residential practices and lake I user preferences. Field verification was performed through * discussions with watershed association representatives at the pond. • i i i i i i i I DIAGNOSTIC ASSESSMENT 1 Lake Description Richmond Pond is situated on the border between Pittsfield and Richmond in Berkshire County, occupying an area of 82.6 ha (214 I ac) in hilly and largely forested terrain (Figure 2, Table 2). The pond has a mean depth of 3.7 m (12.1 ft), a maximum depth of '17.7 m (58 ft), and a volume of just over 3 million cu.m when I full (Table 2}. It has one deep hole which stratifies in summer, and a broad area of shallow flats to the west, which are exposed during annual drawdowns (Figure 3) . Over half the pond has a mean depth of less than 2 m (7 ft) , with the remaining portion of I the pond sloping rather steeply to its maximum depth (Figure 4). Watershed Description I The watershed of Richmond Pond covers 2040 ha (5039 ac) , or almost 25 times the pond area. There are two major tributary systems and two minor ones (Figure 5) , with several branches in each of the major tributary systems. The associated partitioning I of the drainage area among tributaries is depicted in Figure 6 and tallied in Table 3. I In addition to forest, the primary land use at over 62%, the watershed incorporates substantial quantities of low density residential land and wetland (Tables 2. and 4, Figure 7) . I Agricultural and open lands constitute the next most frequent land uses, but these are minimal by comparison with the top three uses. However, as different land uses contribute varied nutrient and sediment loads, and parcels near the pond have a greater I potential for impact than distant tracts, less common land uses may still be important in determining pond conditions. There is a high density residential area (Richmond Shores) along the I southwest shoreline of the pond, and nearby agricultural operations just west and slightly south of the pond (Figure 7); forested land is mostly on the steep slopes in the northwest and I southest portions of the watershed. Watershed Geology and Soils Richmond Pond in the Berkshire Mountains lies in a belt of I Cambrian and Ordovician limestones, some of which have been metamorphosed into marble (DWPC 1976). Such geology tends to confer high alkalinity and hardness to area lakes, and Richmond I Pond is no exception. Despite large wetland drainage, which tends to lower alkalinity and pH, Richmond Pond is typically a basic to circumneutral waterbody. Glacial activity modified the landforms in the area, and is probably responsible for the I formation of Richmond Pond. The soils of the Richmond Pond watershed (Figure 8, Table 5) are I quite variable in nature, ranging from well drained soils such as I those of the Stockbridge and Taconic-Macomber series to minimally I I FIGURE 2
TOPOGRAPHY OF THE RICHMOND POND WATERSHED
AFTER GREGORY 1967: USED BY PERMISSION OF AUTHOR I TABLE 2 I CHARACTERISTICS OF RICHMOND POND AND ITS WATERSHED
I COUNTY Berkshire TOVN Richmond/Pittsfleld LATITUDE 42 24'50' I LONGITUDE 73 19'30" AREA CKA) 82.6 (AC) 214.0 MEAN DEPTH CM) 3.7 I (FT) 12.1 MAXIMUM DEPTH CM) 17.7 (FT) 58.0 I VOLUME CCU.M) 3060000 (AC-FT) 2589 MEAN DETENTION TIME (DAYS) 48 (YRS) .13 I DETENTION TIME RANGE (DAYS) 14 - 122 (YRS) 0.04 - 0.33 MAXIMUM LENGTH (M) 1300 I (FT) 4190 MAXIMUM WIDTH (M) 1300 (FT) 4190 I SHORELINE LENGTH (M) 3800 (FT) 12500 I SHORELINE DEVELOPMENT 1.16 WATERSHED AREA (HA) 2040.0 (AC) 5039.0 I WATERSHED AREA/LAKE AREA 24.7 PRIMARY LAND USE (BY %) Forested SECONDARY LAND USE (BY %) Low density residential I TERTIARY LAND USE (BY %) Wetland I I I I I I I I FIGURE 3 I RICHMOND POND BATHYMETRIC MAP ( All contours given in meters) I I I I I I I I I I I I N I I t I I 10 I FIGURE 4 HYPSOGRAPHIC CURVE FOR RICHMOND POND On -2- -4- -Q- depth (m) -6- -8- x •10- fi. u a -12- •14-
•16- -18 Q 20 40 . 60 80 100 PERCENT OF AREA DEEPER THAR GIVER DEPTH FIGURE 5 I DRAINAGE PATTERN IN THE RICHMOND POND WATERSHED I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 12 I I FIGURE 6 I SUB-DRAINAGE BASINS OF THE RICHMOND POND WATERSHED I I I I I
I MT. LEBANON I BROOK I RICHMOND POND DIRECT DRAINAGE I MT. LEBANON BROOK NORTH BRANCH
I SCACE BROOK I DRAINAGE AREA A DRAINAGE AREA B I DRAINAGE AREA C DRAINAGE AREA D I DRAINAGE AREA E I I I I 13 TABLE 3 SUB-DRHIMRGE 8RSIHS IH THE RICHHOHD POND HHTERSHED
Tributary Syst«n flcros Hectares 7. of Total
Tributary ft 110.5 166.2 8.1 B 135.1 5-1.8 2-7 C 909.5 368.2 18.1 D 993.1 102.2 19.? E 386.6 156.5 7.7 Scftce Ok 537.0 238.2 10.7 North Branch 391.5 159.8 7.8 Ml. Lebanon Bk 1083.8 138.8 21.5 Direct Drainage 185.5 75.1 3.7
C*0 1902.9 3?.8 E*Scac«*M.Br. 2101.9 973.3 1?.? *Ht. Lebanon
Total 5036.2 2039.8 100.0
Hoto; Pond aroa not included
TABLE 4 LflNO USE IN THE RICHHOHD POND HftTERSHEO
Rrea Cha) par Drainage Basin
E* Scace Direct *N.Br. Zof Land Use Drainage R B C D E Scace N.Br. Ht.Leb. C*D t Ht.Leb. Total Total flori cultural livestock 0.0 3.6 0.0 1.9 29.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.5 0.0 38.1 1.9 orchard 0.0 0.0 0.0 23.1 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.1 0.0 25.1 1.2 crops 2.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 37.1 1.2 16.5 0.0 28.6 37.1 16.3 85.8 1.2 Cannerci al 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0-0 2.8 0.0 16.9 0.0 19.7 19.? 1.0 Forested 13.7 110. e 28.2 181.0 133.5 151-3 159.1 151.3 311.0 317.5 773.0 1273.2 62.5 Graveyard 0.0 o.o 1.2 0.0 .9 o.o 0.0 0.0 .1 .9 .1 2.5 .1 High Dens. R«s. 18.6 o.o 0.0 0.0 1.1 0-0 0-0 0.0 0.0 1.1 0.0 22.7 1.1 Lou Dans. Res. 15.8 8.5 23.3 69.8 79.0 1.0 38.7 8.5 37.1 118.8 88.3 281.7 13.9 Open Land 0.0 0.0 1.3 28.3 31.8 0.0 .8 0.0 12.5 60.1 13.3 71.7 3.6 Parfcs/Canps 11.9 3.6 0.0 2-0 0.0 0.0 O.O 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 20. S 1.0 Railroad 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 .1 5.6 .1 8.0 .3 Hqtlands ?.? 9.7 .8 55.8 78.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 31.9 131.1 31.9 181. S 9.2
Total 75.1 166.2 51.8 368.2 102.2 156.5 218.2 159.8 138.8 770.1 973.3 2039.8 100.0 I FIGURE 7 I LAND USE IN THE RICHMOND POND WATERSHED I I I I I AGRICULTURE: LIVESTOCK I AGRICULTURE: ORCHARD AGRICULTURE CROPS
I COMMERCIAL I FOREST GRAVEYARD I HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
I LAKE I OPEN PARK/CAMP I RAILROAD I WETLAND I I I I 15 FIGURE 8 SOILS OF THE RICHMOND POND WATERSHED I I I I I
16 I I I TABLE 5 SOIL TYPES FOUND IN THE RICHMOND POND WATERSHED I SYMBOL NAME/DESCRIPTION _ AmA AMENIA SILT LOAM; 0 TO 3 PERCENT SLOPES AraB AMENIA SILT LOAM; 3 TO 8 PERCENT SLOPES AraC AMENIA SILT LOAM; 8 TO 15 PERCENT SLOPES I AsB AMENIA SILT LOAM; 3 TO 8 PERCENT SLOPES, VERY STONY AsC AMENIA SILT LOAM; 8 TO 15 PERCENT SLOPES, VERY STONY FaC FARMINGTON LOAM; 3 TO 15 PERCENT SLOPES, ROCKY FcC FARMINGTQN-ROCK COMPLEX OUTCROP; 3 TO 15 PERCENT SLOPES FcD FARMINGTQN-ROCK COMPLEX OUTCROP; 15 TO 35 PERCENT SLOPES I FrA FREDON FINE SANDY LOAM FwC FULLAM-LANESBORO ASSOCIATION; ROLLING, VERY STONY HeA HERO LOAM; 0 TO 3 PERCENT SLOPES HoB HOOSIC GRAVELLY FINE SANDY LOAM; 3 TO 8 PERCENT SLOPES I HoC HOOSIC GRAVELLY FINE SANDY LOAM; 8 TO 15 PERCENT SLOPES KeA KENDAIA SILT LOAM; 0 TO 3 PERCENT SLOPES KeB KENDAIA SILT LOAM; 3 TO 8 PERCENT SLOPES KvA KENDAIA SILT LOAM; 0 TO 3 PERCENT SLOPES, EXTREMELY STONY KvB KENDAIA SILT LOAM; 3 TO 8 PERCENT SLOPES, EXTREMELY STONY I LdE LANESBORO-DUMMERSTON ASSOCIATION; STEEP, VERY STONY LtE LYMAN-TUNBRIBGE ASSOCIATION; STEEP, EXTREMELY STONY Lz LYONS MUCKY, SILT, LOAM PC PALMS AND CARLISLE MUCKS I PrB PITTSFIELD LOAM; 3 TO 8 PERCENT SLOPES PrC PITTSFIELD LOAM; 8 TO 15 PERCENT SLOPES PwE PITTSFIELD AND NELLIS LOAMS; 25 TO 35 PERCENT SLOPES. EXTREMELY STONY StB STOCKBRIDGE GRAVELLY SILT LOAM; 3 TO 8 PERCE/ST SUmS StC STOCKBRIDGE GRAVELLY SILT LOAM; 8 TO 15 PERCOT SIC2ES I StD STOCKBRIDGE GRAVELLY SILT LOAM; 15 TO 25 PERCENT SLOPES SvC STOCKBRIDGE GRAVELLY SILT LOAM; 8 TO 15 PERCENT SLOPES. VERY STONY SvD STOCKBRIDGE GRAVELLY SILT LOAM; 15 TO 25 PERCENT SLOPES, VERY STONY TmC TACONIC-MACOMBER ASSOCIATION; ROLLING. VERY STONY I TtaE TACONIC-MACOMBER ASSOCIATION; STEEP, VERY STONY TuC TUNBRIDGE-LYMAN ASSOCIATION; ROLLING, EXTREMELY STONY I Ud UDORTHENTS; SMOOTHED I I I I I I I 17 I pervious soils such as the Amenia and Kendaia silts which form hardpans, and organic muck soils in many wetland areas. Hardpan • layers create great difficulty for typical on-site wastewater | disposal systems, but tend to protect groundwater reserves tapped by deep wells. Slopes vary from nearly level to over 35%, » generally at the fringes of the watershed. Slopes near the pond I tend to be between 3% and 15%. Erosion potential is high in many ™ 'areas of the watershed, but vegetative cover minimizes losses in undisturbed areas. I Historical Lake and Land Use After the American Indians who hunted, fished and. farmed the area • extensively were pushed out, white settlers began more intensive | agriculture, resulting in much cleared land and the ubiquitous rock walls. The steep fringe of the watershed was less impacted, m but upland areas near the pond were largely in agricultural use I through the 1800's. There was a nearby Shaker Community in • Pittsfield which may have had some cultural influences on land use and practices in the Richmond Pond watershed. . • The railroad pushed through in the mid-1800's, built largely on wetland in this particular watershed, and creating an artificial M drainage boundary in some areas. Culverts allow most streams to I pass near their original courses, however. A dam at the present outlet was apparently built prior to 1800, but has been modified several times over the years. For the past few decades there I have been two spillways, one with a subsurface drain pipe to I facilitate drawdown. Flooding is rarely a problem around the pond, but a drawdown cannot be maintained by the existing structure during large storms. i A vacation community developed along the south-southwestern _ shoreline of the pond after World War II, and many of these I cottages have become permanent residences over time. Many tracts ' of land along the eastern to northern shoreline were spared major development by purchase by organizations (e.g., Boys Clubs, Girl • Scouts, religious groups) as camp facilities, and large lot | zoning in Richmond has restricted watershed development. There is a state-owned boat ramp and a town beach along the western g side of the pond. I Richmond Pond has become a major recreational resource in the region, supplying a variety of fishing experiences (it is trout- I stocked), power and non-power boating, and swimming. It has I apparently had nuisance aquatic plant growths for longer than anyone can remember, although the types of nuisances have varied • over time. I I I I 18 l I Flows and Water Chemistry I Water quantity and water quality data collected through the routine sampling program are presented in Tables 6-26 and Figures 9-10. The Lebanon Brook system was by far the greatest I contributor of water at an average of 15.5 cfs out of a total of 19.4 cfs (Table 6). The unnamed southwestern tributary, which •covered the second largest area, was the next greatest surface water source. The other sources were minor, suggesting that I pollutants would have to be found in very high concentrations in the minor water sources to constitute a significant load I (concentration times volume). Values for ammonium, nitrate and total Kjeldahl nitrogen (Tables 7-9) were generally low to moderate, except for ammonium nitrogen at mid-depth and deep water in Richmond Pond during I stratification. Lack of oxygen prevents conversion of ammonium to nitrate, allowing the build-up. I Total phosphorus concentrations were generally moderate or even high (Table 10) . As the total phosphorus level incorporates particulate phosphorus which may not be readily available to I support plant growth, orthophosphorus is often used as an indicator of phosphorus which is available. Orthophosphorus was often undetected, but was not negligible in most samples (Table 11). As this form of phosphorus can cycle rapidly, considerable I growth potential is suggested. There is a pronounced build-up of phosphorus in the hypolimnion (bottom waters) of the pond during stratification, very probably a result of chemically mediated I release of phosphorus from bottom sediments under anoxic conditions. Total nitrogen:total phosphorus ratios (Table 12) are strongly I indicative of phosphorus limitation of phytoplankton growth. Orthophosphorus levels are low enough to suggest that phosphorus could be the limiting agent in this system, as opposed to light I or other non-nutrient factors. It is logically assumed that much of the total phosphorus load settles out with particles shortly after entry to the pond, reducing the effective load to the water I column. This raises concern regarding the apparent phosphorus load to the sediments, which may fuel the abundant macrophyte growths. I Temperature exhibited a typical temperate zone seasonal pattern for a stratified lake (Table 13). Tributaries may have run slightly colder than average for Massachusetts, given the steep, I wooded slopes and potentially substantial groundwater seepage along tributaries. Oxygen levels were adequate for all desirable forms of aquatic life except in the hypolimnion of the pond during summer, when oxygen demand exceeded reaeration potential, I resulting in anoxia near the bottom (Table 14, Figures 9-10). I I I 19 I TABLE 6 I FLOW MAXIMUM 98.6 37.4 6.1 3.1 78.2 MINIMUM 4.6 .2 .5 .2 7.0 MEAN 24.4 10.7 2.4 1.2 31.9 I TIME WEIGHTED MEAN 26.3 11.5 2.6 1.3 33.1 I I I I I 20 I I I I TABLE 7 AMMONIA NITROGEN (HG/L) IN THE RICHMOND POND SYSTEM STATION RP-1 RP-2 RP-3 RP-3a RP-4S RP-4m RP-4b RP-5 I DATE 04/23/87 .16 .27 .16 .23 .27 .31 .16 06/05/87 .08 .15 .04 .12 .15 .15 .23 .12 07/07/87 .08 .18 .12 .05 .19 .15 .32 .15 08/11/87 .09 .24 .10 .06 .32 .39 .16 .32 I 10/20/87 .04 .04 .04 .05 .04 .52 .09 12/01/87 .02 .03 .01 .06 .09 .11 .07 02/02/88 .06 .11 .06 .12 .09 .11 .06 I 03/24/88 .01 .03 .01 .01 .06 .01 .01 MAXIMUM .16 .27 .16 .23 .32 .39 .52 .32 MINIMUM .01 .03 .01 .01 .04 .15 .01 .01 AR. MEAN .07 .13 .07 .09 .15 .23 .22 .12 I WTD. MEAN .06 .09 .05 .09 .14 .25 .22 .09 TABLE 8 I NITRATE NITROGEN (MG/L AS N) IN THE RICHMOND POND SYSTEM STATION RP-1 RP-2 RP-3 RP-3a RP-4s RP-4m RP-4b RP-5 DATE 04/23/87 .42 .37 .46 .94 .53 .50 .27 I 06/05/87 .11 .27 .15 .30 .11 .08 .12 .15 07/07/87 .16 .31 .11 .10 .15 .12 .28 .17 08/11/87 .22 .41 .10 .11 .30 .33 .56 .18 10/20/87 .08 .06 .04 .05 .05 .09 .04 I 12/01/87 .17 ,10 .12 ,17 .14 .10 .13 02/02/88 .43 .63 .20 .53 .21 .37 ,31 03/24/88 .61 .66 .80 .52 .76 .65 .73 MAXIMUM .61 .66 .80 .94 .76 .33 .65 .73 I ,04 MINIMUM .08 .06 .04 .05 .05 .11 .09 AR. MEAN .28 .35 .24 .31 .28 .19 .35 .25 TO. MEAN .34 .48 .22 .39 .26 .21 .34 .22 I TABLE 9 KJELDAHL NITROGEN (MG/L ASH) IN THE RICHMOND POND SYSTEM STATION RP-1 RP-2 RP-3 RP-3a RP-4s RP-4m RP-4b RP-5 I DATE 04/23/87 .29 .48 .35 .68 .72 .65 .47 06/05/87 .22 .34 .39 .35 .88 .69 1.02 .75 I 07/07/87 .25 .29 .37 .29 ,65 .59 .73 .69 08/11/87 .45 .65 .62 1.10 .85 .90 .99 1.25 10/20/87 .25 .20 .18 .20 .25 .75 .15 12/01/87 .10 .10 .10 .20 .20 .30 .40 02/02/88 .75 1.10 ,65 1.95 .30 .35 .15 I 03/24/88 .30 1.85 .30 .35 .20 .35 .40 MAXIMUM .75 1.10 .65 1.95 .88 .90 1.02 1.25 I MINIMUM .10 .10 .10 .20 .20 .59 .30 .15 AR. MEAN .33 .45 .37 .83 .52 .73 .64 .51 I WTD. MEAN .52 .69 .38 1.11 .48 .75 .62 .31 I I 21 I I TABLE 10 ORTHOPHOSPHORUS (UG/L) IN THE RICHMOND POND SYSTEM I STATION RP-1 RP-2 RP-3 RP-3a RP-43 RP-4m RP-4b RP-5 DATE 04/23/87 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 I 06/05/87 0 0 30 10 0 10 30 30 07/07/87 0 10 20 30 10 20 30 30 08/11/87 10 20 30 30 30 50 20 60 10/20/87 0 10 0 0 0 40 0 I 12/01/87 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02/02/88 0 30 20 50 20 0 20 03/24/86 30 30 - 10 20 30 60 20 I MAXIMUM . 30 30 30 50 30 50 60 60 MINIMUM 0 0 0 0 0 10 - 0 0 AR. MEAN 5. 12 14 19 11 27 22 20 WTO. MEAN 2 21 10 22 n 30 21 11 I TABLE 11 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS (UG/L) IN THE RICHMOND POND SYSTEM I STATION RP-1 RP-2 RP-3 R?-3a RP-4s RP-4m RP-4b RP-5 DATE I 04/23/87 10 10 30 10 10 20 10 06/05/87 40 30 60 50 50 30 50 60 07/07/87 50 20 70 90 50 50 70 60 06/11/87 50 40 70 130 80 80 100 120 10/20/87 30 20 10 10 10 110 10 I 12/01/87 10 10 10 10 10 20 30 02/02/88 80 100 50 260 30 40 20 03/24/88 30 30 10 20 20 20 10 I MAXIMUM 80 100 70 260 80 80 110 120 MINIMUM 10 10 10 10 10 30 20 10 AR. MEAN 38 32 39 72 32 53 54 40 WTD. MEAN 56 59 31 103 31 57 55 23 I TABLE 12 | TOTAL NITROGEN : TOTAL PHOSPHORUS RATIOS IN RICHMOND POND STATIOH DATE RP-4s RP-4m RP-4b i 04/23/87 276 127 06/05/87 44 59 57 07/07/87 35 31 32 08/11/87 32 34 34 10/20/87 66 i 17 12/01/87 75 44 02/02/88 38 40 03/24/88 117 110 i MAXIMUM 276 59 127 MINIMUM 32 31 17 AR. MEAN 85 41 58 i i i I TABLE 13 TEMPERATURE (C) IN THE RICHMOND POND SYSTEM I STATION RP-1 RP-2 RP-3 RP-3a RP-4s RP-4m RP-4b RP-5 DATE 04/23/87 6.2 8.0 10.0 6.0 10.5 2,4 10.5 06/05/87 9.8 15.0 14.0 7.9 17.8 8.2 3.5 16.9 I 07/07/87 17.6 18.5 14.5 13.1 9.0 9.2 4.0 18.2 08/11/87 14.0 15.9 12.7 10.3 18.2 7.3 3,2 18.2 10/20/87 5.0 5.9 7.0 6.5 6.8 3.9 7.3 12/01/87 -.3 -1.0 .2 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 I 02/02/88 1.0 .7 1.6 1.6 1.5 3.0 1.5 03/24/88 4.2 2.6 2.8 5.3 2.9 3.3 5.0 MAXIMUM 14.5 17.6 14.0 10.3 18.5 9.2 4.0 18.2 I MINIMUM 1.6 0.0 0.0 -.3 -1.0 .2 7.3 0.0 I TABLE 14 DISSOLVED OXYGEN (HG/L) IN THE RICHMOND POND SYSTEM STATION RP-1 RP-2 RP-3 RP-3a RP-4s RP-4ra RP-4b RP-5 I DATE 04/23/87 12.0 9.9 10.6 11.6 11.2 7.4 11.0 06/05/87 10. 5 8.9 9.5 11.9 8.8 12.0 3.7 8.9 07/07/87 8.4 7.4 8.3 10.3 9.4 12.5 .2 9.4 I 08/11/87 9.8 8.9 10.3 11.1 9.8 15.9 .4 9.5 10/20/87 12.9 12.8 11.7 12.5 12.2 .5 12.2 12/01/87 14.5 12.7 13.7 13.5 15.2 4.0 14.1 02/02/88 17.8 19.4 16.0 19.2 18.0 2.7 15.9 I 03/24/88 12.4 11.2 11.7 12.0 11.0 .8 11.5 MAXIMUM 17.8 19.4 16.0 19.2 18.0 15.9 7.4 15.9 MINIMUM 8.4 7.4 8.3 10.3 8.8 12.0 .2 8.9 I MEAN 12.3 11.4 11.5 12.8 11.9 13.5 2.5 11.6 TABLE 15 I PH CS.U.) IN THE RICHMOND POND SYSTEM STATION RP-1 RP-2 RP-3 RP-3a RP-4S RP-4m RP-4b RP-5 DATE I 04/23/87 7.3 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.2 7.5 06/05/87 7.3 7.7 7.5 7.6 7.7 7.5 7.2 7.5 07/07/87 7.4 7.4 7.6 7.7 7,7 7.6 7.1 7.7 08/11/87 7.4 7.6 7.7 7.6 7.6 7.2 7.2 7.7 10/20/87 7.3 7.4 7.4 7.5 7.5 7.2 7.5 I 12/01/87 7.3 7.5 7.7 7.9 7.7 7.7 7.7 02/02/88 6.8 6.7 7.0 6.9 7.2 7.0 7.2 03/24/88 6.4 6.5 6.7 6.5 6.9 6.7 6.9 I MAXIMUM 7.4 7.7 7.7 7.9 7.7 7.6 7.7 7.7 MINIMUM 6.4 6.5 6.7 6.5 6.9 7.2 6.7 6.9 I LOG MEAN 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.1 7.4 7.4 7.1 7.4 I I I I 23 FIGURE 9 RICHMOND POND T/DO PROFILES I DISSOLVED OXYGEN AND TEMPERATURE VERSUS DEPTH DISSOLVED OXYGEN AND TEMPERATURE VERSUS DEPTH I I I I I DISSOLVED OXYGEN AND TEMPERATURE VERSUS DEPTH DISSOLVED OXYGEN AND TEMPERATURE VERSUS DEPTH I "I 1 1 1 1 1 1 r I I I I 8-11-87 j 1 1 1 1 1—0 20 TEMPERATURE 1'C) I DISSOLVED OXYGEN AND TEMPERATURE VERSUS DEPTH DISSOLVED OXYGEN AND TEMPERATURE VERSUS DEPTH I I—| 1 1 1 1 \ 1 I 1 1 1 I I I I I 10-20-87 I J 1 L.—I 1 1 1 L_l I 1 1 __L I .-I 1 1 1 1 1 1 L 1 1 1 1 Teu«R»TUI»I I'M I 24 I FIGURE 10 RICHMOND POND T/DO PROFILES I DISSOLVED OXYGEN AND TEMPERATURE VERSUS DEPTH DISSOLVED OXYGEN AND TEMPERATURE VERSU3 DEPTH I I I 2-2-88 I -J 1 L. 1 1 '_'_!-' i— i i i i _ I — rCUFEHATURE CC) I I I I I I I I I I I I 25 TABLE 16 I PERCENT OXYGEN SATURATION IN RICHMOND POND I STATION RP-1 RP-2 RP-3 RP-3A DATE 04/23/87 97 84 94 93 I 06/05/87 93 88 92 100 07/07/87 82 78 79 89 08/11/87 95 90 97 99 I 10/20/87 101 103 96 102 12/01/87 98 84 94 97 02/02/88 125 135 114 137 86 I 03/24/88 95 82 95 MEAN 98 93 94 102 MAXIMUM 125 135 115 137 I MINIMUM 82 78 79 89 I PERCENT OXYGEN SATURATION IN RICHMOND POND STATION RP-4S RP-4M RP-4B RP-5 I DATE 04/23/87 100 54 99 I 06/05/87 93 102 28 92 07/07/87 100 109 2 100 08/11/87 104 132 3 101 I 10/20/87 100 4 101 12/01/87 104 27 96 02/02/88 128 20 113 03/24/88 82 6 90 I MEAN 101 114 18 99 MAXIMUM 128 132 54 114 I MINIMUM 85 102 2 90 I I I I I I 26 I I I I TABLE 17 TOTAL ALKALINITY CHG/L AS CAC03) IN THE RICHMOND POND SYSTEM STATION RP-1 RP-2 RP-3 RP-3a RP-4S RP-4m RP-4b RP-5 I DATE 04/23/87 78 80 110 198 96 98 78 06/05/87 74 105 96 111 100 87 101 110 I 07/07/87 80 100 117 94 97 80 100 105 08/11/87 81 113 100 97 92 80 100 113 10/20/87 96 174 137 272 93 111 96 12/01/87 63 136 138 261 106 106 97 I 02/02/88 46 104 120 98 61 147 75 03/2V88 69 161 142 162 65 143 69 MAXIMUM 96 174 142 272 106 87 147 113 I MINIMUM 46 80 96 94 61 80 98 69 MEAN 73 122 120 162 89 82 113 93 I TABLE 18 TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS CMG/L) IN THE RICHMOND POND SYSTEM STATION RP-i RP-2 RP-3 RP-3a RP-4s RP-4m RP-4b RP-5 ' I DATE 04/23/87 9.2 3.2 4.4 6.0 1.6 25.2 2.0 06/05/87 8.4 2.4 14.8 1.2 4.8 6.8 16.4 5.6 I 07/07/87 2.4 7.6 16.8 2.0 2.4 4.4 5.2 1.6 08/11/87 4.5 5.5 13.4 3.0 2.5 3.8 4.0 2.3 10/20/87 1.6 3.0 4.6 2.4 2.0 29.2 3.0 12/01/87 2.8 8.8 6.8 1.6 2.0 6.4 3.2 02/02/88 36.0 96.0 38.0 200.0 22.0 36.0 35.0 I 03/24/88 5.5 12.5 9.5 34,0 65.0 143.0 69.0 MAXIMUM 36.0 96.0 38.0 200.0 65.0 6.8 143.0 69.0 I MINIMUM 1.6 2.4 4.4 1.2 1.6 3.8 4.0 1.6 MEAN 8.8 17.4 13.5 31.3 12.8 5.0 33.2 15.2 I TABLE 19 CHLORIDE (HG/L) IN THE RICHMOND POND SYSTEM STATION RP-1 RP-2 RP-3 RP-3a RP-4s RP-4m RP-4b RP-5 I DATE 04/23/87 19 18 9 17 16 14 17 06/05/87 9 10 14 15 16 14 18 21 07/07/87 11 16 22 18 21 17 22 29 I 08/11/87 13 19 28 21 26 17 22 33 10/20/87 12 16 5 14 12 13 14 12/01/87 12 16 11 16 13 16 18 02/02/88 20 23 25 30 25 12 9 I 03/24/88 17 20 10 21 10 18 16 MAXIMUM 20 23 28 30 26 17 22 33 MINIMUM 9 10 5 14 10 14 12 9 I MEAN 14 17 16 19 17 16 17 20 I I 27 I TABLE 20 I CONDUCTIVITY CUMHOS/CH) IN THE RICHMOND POND SYSTEM STATION RP-1 RP-2 RP-3 RP-3a RP-4S RP-4m RP-4b RP-5 DATE I 04/23/87 186 225 205 380 210 205 205 06/05/87 156 190 205 405 200 200 205 190 07/07/87 178 240 184 360 158 189 196 146 I 08/11/87 203 189 400 201 157 200 205 153 10/20/87 270 425 310 585 260 290 270 12/01/87 139 241 214 397 193 199 180 02/02/88 103 168 188 207 95 252 151 03/24/88 175 280 285 305 140 285 210 I MAXIMUM 270 425 400 585 260 200 290 270 MINIMUM 103 168 184 201 95 189 196 146 MEAN 176 245 249 355 177 196 230 188 I TABLE 21 TURBIDITY (NTO) FOR THE RICHMOND POND SYSTEM I STATION RP-1 RP-2 RP-3 RP-3a RP-4s RP-4m RP-4b RP-5 DATE I 04/23/87 3.7 1.4 4.3 .8 1.5 22.5 2.9 06/05/87 1.2 1.2 1.6 .2 1.5 1.8 3.5 16.9 07/07/87 .3 .4 .7 .7 .7 .7 1.5 .9 08/11/87 3.2 2.2 .2 1.5 1.0 5.3 5.3 .6 10/20/87 1.4 1.7 1.7 .9 2.0 20.4 2.1 I 12/01/87 1.0 1.2 1.2 .5 1.6 2.1 2.8 02/02/88 26.0 17.0 7.0 57.0 .8 2.6 1.8 03/24/88 .9 2.3 2.6 11.5 3.3 2.6 1.8 I MAXIMUM 26.0 17.0 7.0 57.0 3.3 5.3 22.5 16.9 MINIMUM .3 .4 .2 .2 .7 .7 1.5 .6 MEAN 4.7 3.4 2.4 9.1 1.5 2.6 7.6 3.7 I TABLE 22 SECCHI TRANSPARENCY CM) IN THE RICHMOND POND SYSTEM STATION TABLE 23 I DATE CHLOROPHYLL (UG/L) IN THE RICHMOND POND SYSTEM 04/23/87 3.6 06/05/87 4.7 STATION RP-4 I 07/07/87 6.5 DATE 08/11/8? 4.2 10/20/87 3.6 04/23/87 1.5 12/01/87 3.2 06/05/87 2.0 02/02/88 6.0 07/07/87 4.1 I 03/24/88 08/11/87 7.8 3.6 10/20/87 1.7 12/01/87 2.6 MAXIMUM 6.5 02/02/88 .4 I MINIMUM 3.2 03/23/88 .6 MEAN 4.4 MAXIMUM 7.8 MINIMUM .4 MEAN 2.6 I I I 28 I I I I TABLE 24 I FECAL CQLIFORB (N/1QO ML) IN THE RICHMOND POND SYSTEM STATION RP-1 RP-2 RP-3 RP-3a RP-4s RP-5 DATE I 04/23/87 20 30 10 30 2 10 06/05/87 120 20 20 20 2 2 07/07/87 290 10 40 60 2 4 08/11/87 220 20 140 22 2 8 I 10/20/87 30 10 40 10 2 10 12/01/87 10 40 10 10 4 10 02/02/88 70 200 30 150 2 10 I 03/24/88 10 10 10 30 2 2 MAXIMUM 290 200 140 150 4 10 MINIMUM 10 10 10 10 2 2 I GEO.MEAN 49 24 25 28 2 6 TABLE 25 I FECAL STREPTOCOCCI (N/100 ML) IN THE RICHMOND POND SYSTEM STATION RP-l RP-2 RP-3 RP-3a RP-4s RP-5 DATE I 04/23/87 10 10 10 10 2 10 06/05/87 80 20 20 40 2 2 07/07/87 3800 30 240 170 2 250 08/11/87 520 26 380 102 4 24 10/20/87 30 10 10 10 2 10 I 12/01/87 12 82 40 16 6 10 02/02/88 110 40 70 700 2 10 I 03/24/88 20 10 10 60 4 2 MAXIMUM 3800 82 380 700 6 250 MINIMUM 10 10 10 10 2 2 I GEO.MEAN 77 22 39 51 3 11 I I I I I I 29 I I I TABLE 26 QUALITY CONTROL PROGRAM SAMPLES: SUMMARY STATISTICS I PARAMETER UNITS STD.ERR. AVG%DIF HAX.VALUE HIN.VALUE i• AMM-N (mg/1) 05 56.54 .85 .01 KITRATE-N (mg/1) ,02 81 .76 .55 .01 KNITRO (mg/1) .08 54.72 1.65 .25 ORTHO-P PftRftHETEft UNITS RP-1 RP-2 RP-3 RP-3ft RP-6 RP-7 RP-6 RP-9 RP-10 RP-11 t RP-12 TflLK <«g/l> 80 139 51 96 31 31 29 56 e? 51 217 TSS Cng/l> 57 23 600 881 118 1180 350 601 381 1511 2 flHH-N C«g/l> .13 .19 .21 .26 .23 .23 .19 .16 .13 .26 .08 NITRfiTE-N Cng/1) .82 .63 .72 .67 .91 .93 1.09 .76 .61 .83 .15 CHLORIDE Cng/U 9.9 11.0 17.6 11.0 13.2 19.8 98.9 22.0 11.0 11.3 17.1 ORTHO-P Cug/l> 50 80 50 21 280 230 200 230 160 500 0 TOTRL P Cug/l> 80 100 250 SO 330 650 120 270 350 1190 10 KNITRO Cng/lJ .66 .78 1.55 .90 2.15 5.25 3.95 2.50 3.50 9.8S .10 FEC.COLI Ct/lOOnl) 9900 170 7000 7600 12000 11000 1SOO 6500 6600 1000 10 FEC. STREP M denotes infinity for turbidity reading. * sanplad separately on 12/01/6?. TABLE 29 RICHMOND POHD STOfCH DflTfl 02/02/88 PftRHMETER UNITS RP-la Rp-lb RP-lc RP-2a RP-2b RP-2C RP-3 RP-3-a RP-6« RP-6b RP-6c R*»-*d RP-9a RP-9b FP-9c RP-9d RP-12 TflLK Oig/I> 16 16 15 101 92 90 120 98 36 3? to 57 105 90 116 101 132 TSS Cng/l> 36 91 96 96 71 98 38 200 836 801 676 t11 976 501 118 911 328 flHH-H Cng/13 .06 .06 .06 .11 .11 .11 .06 .12 .11 .12 .18 1.02 .16 .18 .18 .\? .10 NITRHrE-H Crtg/n .13 .13 .11 .63 .63 .61 .20 .53 .31 .32 .10 .50 .51 .53 .73 .57 1.11 CHLORIDE Gig/l) 19.8 22.9 25.0 30-2 36. S 36.5 30.2 29.2 9.1 52.1 63.5 62.5 61.5 ?2-9 71.9 71.9 70.8 ORTHO-P TABLE 30 RICHHJItD POKD STORtt DBTfl 03/21/88 PfiRftHETER UNITS RP-lfl RP-2fl RP-6fl RP-6B RP-6C RP-60 RP-9fl RP-9B RP-9C RP-9D RP-12 RP-ttELT Rp-RdORBIN roue WATER CHEMISTRY OF TRIBUTARIES UPSTREAM OF INLETS TABLE 31 * RICHMOND POND TRIBUTARIES 09/17/87 PARAMETER UNITS RP-A RP-B RP-C RP-D RP-E RP-F RP-G RP-H RP-I i TALK Crag/]) 109 105 89 84 75 45 95 94 161 TSS (mg/1) 2.4 2.0 .8 .8 2.8 2.4 1.6 3.8 .8 AHM-N (mg/l) .17 .18 ,18 .17 .15 .15 .16 .18 .18 i NITRATE-N (mg/l> .12 .09 .17 .36 .35 .14 .19 .11 .09 CHLORIDE Cmg/1) 6.8 12.1 4.4 .9 4.4 1.1 16.5 5.4 12.1 ORTHO-P TABLE 32 I RICHMOND POND TRIBUTARIES 02/02/88 * PARAMETER UNITS RP-A RP-B RP-C RP-D RP-E RP-F RP-G RP-H RP-I i TALK (mg/1) 46 20 29 28 24 6 18 96 90 TSS (mg/1) 36.0 19.0 14.0 8.0 15.0 19.0 27.0 15.0 43.0 AMM-N (mg/1) .06 .04 .03 .02 .02 .02 .02 .07 .04 NITRATE-N (mg/1) .43 .36 .41 .27 .40 .18 .52 .27 .63 CHLORIDE (mg/1) 19.8 11.5 10.4 14.6 14.6 15.6 19.8 19.8 25.0 i ORTHO-P (ug/I) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL? (ug/1) 80 140 170 160 90 30 170 30 160 KNITRO (mg/1 ) .75 1.15 1.60 1.15 1.00 .35 1.50 .40 1.75 FEC.COLI (#/100ral) 70 20 30 20 200 20 100 20 10 FEC.STREP (#/100ml) 110 20 110 20 130 10 70 30 240 i PH (S.U.) 6.8 6.9 6.8 6.9 6,8 6.5 6.7 6.7 7.2 COND I LOCATION OF SEEPAGE METERS IN RICHMOND POND I (06/18-20/87) I I I I I I I I I I I I 150 m I m^^^^m I 500 ft I I 39 I TABLE 33 I RlCltlOND PCND SEEPAGE DATA: 06/18-20/87 I Seepage Vol ume Dist. from time change Seepage Date Meter 8 shore (M) I LOCATION OF SEEPAGE METERS IN RICHMOND POND I (09/17/87) I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 41 TABLE 34 RICHMOND POND SEEPAGE DATA: 09/17/87 Seepage Vol ume Dist. from time change Seepage Date Meter S shore 09/1 7/S7 1 7.0 4.00 .15 3.60 2 8.0 4.00 -.26 -6.24 3 3.0 4.00 -.26 -6.24 4 6.0 4.00 .12 2.88 5 4.0 4.00 .08 1.92 6 3.0 4.00 .40 ?.60 RICHMOND POND SEEPAGE CALCULATION: 09/17/87 SEEPAGE LENGTH ALCNG DISTANCE FRCtt AREAL SEEPAGE TRANSECT CHETER rS) (L/SQ.iVD) SHORELINE 42 I of this size, at less than 0.5 cu.m/min of inflow and even less outflow. Compared with surface water inflows'^averaging over 19 I cu.m/min, these values are almost negligible. The silt hardpans in uplands and deep muck hydrosoils in the pond appear to seal off most interaction between the pond and groundwater. This will I minimize the impact of on-site wastewater disposal systems on Richmond Pond via groundwater, although surface breakout of 'septic system effluents and incorporation into stormwater runoff I is still a definite possibility. The low permeability of the soils made collection of LIP (Littoral Interstitial Porewater) samples difficult to I impossible. Instead, groundwater samples were collected by digging small seepage pits along the shoreline (Figure 15) and by collecting tapwater from domestic wells where available (Figure I 16) . Not all pits were successful in trapping groundwater, but those that did exhibited elevated nitrogen, phosphorus and conductivity values indicative of septic system influence. Well water, generally from wells drilled into soil or rock below area I hardpan layers, exhibited much more desirable water quality and no health hazards. I Sediment Analysis Soft sediment in Richmond Pond consists of peat, sand, silt and organic muck, with depths to well over 3 m (>10 ft) (Figure 17). I An upper layer of organic muck mixed with sands and silts coats most of the pond bottom at varying thickness, underlain by a variety of other sediments (Figure 18) . The underlayment indicates something of the history of the pond; the western area I was apparently meadow or emergent wetland prior to flooding, as indicated by the thick peat base. Gravel and cobble along the southern shoreline suggest the less organic origin of sediment in I this steeply sloping area. Organic muck depths in the central deep hole were too great to deterimne what lay beneath. The total volume of soft sediment is over 1.6 million cu.m, although areas with soft sediment depths less than 3 m (the pond periphery I and western shallow water area) contain only about 709,000 cu.m of this total. I Sediment cores were collected in three locations {Figure 1) to assess sediment quality. Resulting values (Table 36) indicate low levels of all metals, moderate organic content, relatively I low to moderate levels of oils and greases (presumed to be of largely natural origin), and moderate potential fertility (based on nitrogen and phosphorus). There would be no serious problem with the disposal of any material dredged from Richmond Pond, I based on these tests in relation to state criteria (MDWPC 1979). I I I I 43 FIGURE 15 I GROUND WATER SAMPLING LOCATIONS FOR RICHMOND POND I I I I 10 I RICHMOND POND GROUNDVATER DATA 12/01/87 I PARAMETER UNITS RP-GW1 RP-GW2 RP-GW3 RP-GW4 RP-GW5 AMM-N tmg/I ) ,33 .19 .02 .37 I NITRATE-N Cmg/1) .88 .87 .69 .73 TOTAL P (ug/1) 570 130 150 680 FEC.COLI (ft/lOOml) 60 10 10 10 PH CS.U.) 7.1 7.5 7.8 7.2 I COND (umhos/cra) 7700 451 569 473 PARAMETER UNITS RP-GW6 RP-GW7 RP-GW8 RP-GW9 RP-GW10 8 I AMM-N 0.5 I I I I N I 1 I I I 46 I I I FIGURE 18 UNDERLAYMENT COMPOSITION OF I RICHMOND POND I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 47 TABLE 35 SOFT SEDIMENT VOLUME IN RICHMOND POND | Soft Sediment Depth Range Volume Contained Within Range I (M) (CU.M) • 0.0 - 0.3 13,458 • 0.3 - 0.5 18,457 0.5 - 1.0 63,687 | 1.0 - 2.0 295,123 2.0 - 3.0 317,234 • >3.0 >964,198 i Total XL, 672,157 (707959 without the portion associated with depths >3.33 M> • i i i i i i i i 48 • I I I TABLE 36 CHEMICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF RICHMOND POND SEDIMENTS I Value Cmg/kg) at stations Parameter sampled in April, 1987 I RP-S1 RP-S2 RP-S3 Total Volatile Solids (%) 18.1 15.7 9.1 I Nitrate Nitrogen 29 10 8 Total Phosphorus 119 130 44 Total Kjeldahl-Nitrogen 8410 4670 3790 I Oil & Grease 3430 1390 1700 I Total Metals: Arsenic 9.2 7.4 9.4 Caomium 39.0 <3.4 <2.6 I Chromium 15 8 10 Copper 44 17 30 I Iron 38900 12100 17900 Manganese 1100 572 520 I Nickel 39 20 26 Lead 122 25 26 I Vanadium 17 10 9 Zinc 170 59 129 I Mercury <0.05 <0.03 <0.02 I I I I I I 49 I Phytoplankton « Cyanophytes (bluegreen algae) were the numerically dominant algal I group during this study, but when cell counts were converted to biomass, chlorophytes (green algae), chrysophytes (diatoms) and chrysophytes (golden algae) were the dominant groups (Figure 19, I Tables 37-39). All genera encountered were considered to be I .generally pollution tolerant, typical of eutrophying ponds. Although bloom-forming genera were present in most samples, • absolute quantities of phytoplankton were not extreme. There is I some suggestion that this system is on the border between mesotrophy and eutrophy. Macrophytes B Coverage by rooted aquatic plants (macrophytes) is extensive and relatively dense in Richmond Pond (Figure 20), with only areas • under water depths greater than about 7 m devoid of macrophytes. | Bottom cover is virtually complete under water less than 3 m deep, with variable surface cover over space and time. Swimming _ can be dangerous and power boating rather aggravating during much I of the summer. Abundant genera include Valisneria, Najas, B Elodea, Nitella, Myriophyllum, Megalodonta, Ceratophyllum, and Potamogeton (Figure 21). Including green and bluegreen algal • mats as macrophytes, 24 species were observed in Richmond Pond I (Table 40) . Macrophytes reach nuisance levels in much of the pond during the I summer, with some species of Potamogeton causing problems near bathing areas and the boat launch by late spring. There is a general succession of plant species over the course of spring and • summer, with the greatest nuisances created by mid-summer growths • of Valisneria americana, Myriophyllum spicatum and Potamogeton amplifolias. There is also some horizontal zonation, dependent • largely on water depth (Figure 22) . Although many of the | nuisance species are found at most water depths, Myriophyllum and Ceratophyllum are more prevalent at greater depths, presumably as « a consequence of annual drawdown impacts on these species. Seed- • producing genera such as Valisneria and Potamogeton are more B abundant in shallow water. Although macrophyte nuisances are common in Richmond Pond, it I should be remembered that these plants are important determinants of habitat quality for fish and waterfowl. The plant community • is currently too dense to be optimal, for these functions as well I as for recreation, but complete decimation of the macrophyte community would be inappropriate. The creation of greater "edge effect" would be desirable, by creating channels or open patches • within dense stands .of plants. • I I I 50 I I I FIGURE 19 I RICHMOND POND PHYTOPLANKTOH-CELL NUMBERS • Diatoms 0 CMoropbytes I H ttrysophyies 0 Cryptophytes Q Cyanopfcytes I B DitoftageTlate Eugifemphytes I 4 I I * O 9 I O 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 450 I Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. I DATE I RICHMOND POND PHYTOPLANICTON-CELL BIOMASS • Diatoms I B Chtorophytes H Ctirysophytes 0 Cryptophytes I D Cyanophytes B Dnofbgritete I EugWftophytes O I 10' I 10° 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 450 I Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. I DATE I 51 I TABLE 37 STATION RP-4 PHYTOPLANKTON ANALYSES I 040387 070787 OB1087 TAX ON CELLS/ML TAXON CELLS/ML TAXON CELLS/ML BACILLAR10PKYTA BACILLARIOPHYTA BACILLARIOPHYTA I Asttr-iantilt A. A Crclotttt* Iff.7 Oefotflla 6. A CycluttUa 23.1 Fragi laria 209 FragHaria 33 CHRYSOPKYTfl N*v i eu 1 1 1.1 Htloiira *.i Dinobrron 15.4 CRYPTOPHYTA CHRYSQPHYTA I CRYPTQPKYTA Crypt otnomi 22 Chrongl ina 1.1 Dlnobrron 71.3 Crrplononas 35.2 CYANOPHYTA CRTP70JWW CffHOPHTTA Aptitnoctpst 193 Chroococcut 303.8 Cryp tenon a» 37.4 34i.3 3353 I An ba*n> Mteroey»ti> Co losphitriun Id3 Oici llatorii 18! SO CYANQPHYTA Mt isnoo*dla 13.2 HI rocnti* 1474 PYRRHOPKYTA Anabatna 274.6 Oi il Ulorl* 5474 Oicit latoria 49.5 C*rat iun 2.2 PXRSWJPWflft I EUGLENQPtmft C*ri(luii 3.3 TOTAL 2324?-? Euglina ?.? G/nnodlniun I.I SACILLARIOPHYTA 214.7 PYRRHOPHYTA TOTAL 7748.4 CRYPTOPHYTA 22 I Ctritlun 2.2 BACILLARIOPHYTA IB. 7 CYANOPHYTA 22003.8 TOTAL 53S.3 CHRYSOPHYTA 13.4 PYRRHOPHYTA 2.2 BAClLLflRlOPHYlA 69. 3 CRYPTOPHY7A •33.2 I CHRYSOPHYTft ?2.4 CYANOPHTTA 7674.7 TAXON UG/L CRYPTOPHYTA 37.4 PYRRHOPHYTA 4.4 SACILLARIQPKYTA CYANCPHYTA 344.3 Crclottlli 14.5 I Fragi I aria 419 gUGL£NQPtflT» . 9.9 TAXON «6/L Nauicula 5.3 PTJWHOPWK* 2.2 BACILLARIOPHYTA CRYPTOPHYTA Cyclotclla «*.7 Cryptononai 22 I TAXON UG/U CHRYSOFHYTft CYANOPHYTA BACILLARIOPHYTA Dlnobrxon 44.2 Aphanocapia 5.9 Chroococcu* 122.3 Astrrion*11a 4.4 CBYPTOPHYTA Mieroeyst i» 33.3 CrClotrlla 57.7 0*ci llitorU 343 I Fragi 1 aria 66 Cryptononat 35.2 Meloiira 1.9 PYRHKOPKYTA CTANOPHYTA CHRYSOPKYTA Ctratlun s:s Anttrtrnt 133.6 Chronul Ina .2 Cotlotphatriun 4.9 I Dinobrxon 273.9 ntrisnoptdia 2.i TOTAL 1314.3 Mieracrtt is 14.7 CRVPTOPHYTA Oici 1 latoria 113.3 BACILLARIOPHYTA 440 Ccxp tonon** 43.9 PYRRHOPKYTA CRYPTOPHYTA 22 I CYANQPHYTA Ctrat iun 7?2 CYANOPHYTA 524.8 Gxnnodin iun 27.3 Anabama 117.9 PYRRHOPHYTA 328 Oicil UtOfii .9 TOTAL 1222.1 EUCLENOPHYTA •tt.7 I BAClLLPRIOPHYTA Eugltn* 4.9 . CHRYSOPHYTA 44.2 PYRRHOPHTTA CRYPTOPHYTA 33.2 Ciraliun 32Q CYAHOPKYTA 274.4 I TOTAL 1103.2 PYRRHOPKYTA 819.3 EACILLAaiDPKYTA 130,3 CHRYSOPHYTA 274.1 I CRYPTOPHnA 48.9 CYANQPHYTA 11B.9 EUGLENOPMTTA 4.? I PYRRHOPHYTA 323 I 52 I TABLE 38 PHYTOPLANKTON ANALYSES 102087 110 1 97 020288 TAXCN CELLS/ML TAXCN CELLS/ML TAXCN CELLS/ML 8AC1LLARIOPHYTA BAC1LLARIOPHYTA BAC1LLARIOPHYTA Htloiira 27 A*l*r iontl la 113.3 Attrrion*)U 7.2 Synedr* 4.3 Hrlaiiri S.B Frtgi Jtrii 4.3 Tabt 11 ari a 3.6 Sxntdn 7.7 CHLOROPKYTA CHLOROPHYTA CHLOROPHYTA Othtr grttn alga* 137.3 Othir grcfn algat 3114 Ottitr grttn algit 333.7 CRYPTOPHYTA CHRYSQPHYTA CKRYSDPHYTA Cryptonona* 3.4 Chronul In* .9 Chrctral ina 2.2 D i nobrron 3« CYftHOPHYTA CRYPTOPHYTA CRYPTOPHYTA 0»ci llatoria 234 Crxptonona* 33 Cryptofliona* 33.1 CYANOPHYTA TOTAL 404. B CYANOPHYTA Anabatna 22 BAC1LLARIOPHYTA 11.7 Anabatna 53.8 Oici 1 litort* 4422 QicillttorU 37BQ CHLOROPKYTA 157.3 TOTAL 3144.7 CRYPTOPHYTA 3.4 TOTAL 7342.? BACILLARIOPHYTA 12?. 9 CYWOPKYTA 234 BAC1LLARIOPHYTA 33.1 CHLOHOPHYTA 533.7 CHLQSOPHYTA 3114 CHRYSOPHYTA 2.2 TAXCN UC/L CHRYSOPHYTA 342.9 CRYPTOPHYTA 33 BAC1LLARIOPHYTA CRYPTOPHYTA 33.1 CYANOPHYTA •M-M ritltn'ontl t* 3.0 CYANOPHYTA 383S.B Fragi 1 ar ia 1.3 CHLOROPHYTA TAXW UO/L TAXCN UO/L Othtr grtfn alga* 137.3 BAC1LLARIOPHYTA BftCILLAHlQPHYTA CRYPTOPHYTA t Aittrionil it 77.3 S*»»^trfi 44. B Mtlosirt 21.1 Cfyptcnonat 3.4 *Tt«ft-« 3d S)-n«dr« il.4 Tabe 11 ar i * ID. a CYANOPHnA CHLOROPHYTA CHLOROPHYTA Otci 1 later ia 4.4 Othtr grttn alga* 535.7 Oth*r grtcn alga* 3114 CHRYSOPHYTA TOTAL 172.1 CKRYSOPHYTA Chronul Ina 2.2 BAC1LLARIOPHYTA 6.3 Chronul In* .1 Dinobryon 1024 CRYFTOPHYTA CHLOROPHYTA 137.3 CRYPTOPHYTA Crrptononai 33 CRYPTOPHYTA 3.4 Crrptoniona* 33.1 CYANOPHYTA ' CYANOPHYTA 4.4 CYflNOPHYTA Anaba*ni 48.2 Oicillatarla 68,4 Anabacna 172.7 Die i 1 1 atoria 73. i TOTAL B87.5 TOTAL 4533.4 BAC1LLARIOPHYTA 142.0 8ACILLAR10PHYTA 111.4 CHLOHOPKnA 535.7 CHLOROPHYTA 3114 CHHYSOPHYTA 2.2 CHRYSOPHnfl 1024.1 CRYPTOPHYTA 33 CBYPTOPKYTA 33.1 CYANOPHYTA 134.4 CYANOPHYTA 248.5 53 I TABLE 39 I PHYTOPLANKTON ANALYSES 032488 042339 I TAXQN CELLS/HL TAXON CELLS^II. CHLQRQPHYTA BACILLARIOPHYTA Othtr grttn alga* 30. A A*t*fion»l la 38 Crclotdla 3. S I CBYPTOPHYTA Fragilarii 34.1 Htlaiir* 17.1 Cryptononai 3.4 Sxntdri 32.3 Tibtllaria 9.3 TOTAL 36 CRYPTOPKTTA I CHLOROPHYTA 30.4 Crypt««on»» 33.2 CRYPTOPHYTA 3.4 CYANOPHYTA OlcMUtorlt - 2334 I TAXON UG/L PYBBHOPHYTA CHLOROPHYTA Ptr idinium 3. a Othtr gr»»n algat JO. A I TOTflL 234?. B CRYPTQPHYTA BACILLARIDPKYTA 134.3 Cryp tonona* 3.4 CHYFTOPHYTA 33.2 I TOTAL 3i CYANOPHYTA 2354 CHLOROPHYTA 30. 6 PYflflHOPHYTA 3.3 CRYPTOPHYTA S.4 I TAXON UG/L BAC1LLAR10PHYTA Atttriontlla 7.i Crclottlla ?.a Fragt lap i a I 72.2 Mtloiirt S.I Syntdr* 23B.-I TaOtllarla 23.3 CRYPTOPtTfTA I Cryp tenon as ii.S CYANOPHnA Oscillator la 47.1 I PYHHHOPKYTA Pfr idinium 17! TOTAL 443.9 I BACILLARIOPHYTA 381.3 CRYPTOPHYTft 44.3 CYOHOPKTTfl 47.1 I PYRRHOPHYTft 171 I I I I I I FIGURE 20 I BOTTOM COVERAGE OF MACROPHYTES IN I RICHMOND POND I I N I I I I I I I I Macrophyte Coverage I 75 - 1008 I 50 - 758 I 25 - 508 I Fresfc Weight: 0 - 7.7 Kg/5q.n 0 - 25S I I 55 FIGURE 21 DISTRIBUTION OF MACROPHYTE TAXA IN RICHMOND POND Nf Nf Nf EC EC V Ni V Nf P2 PI v My Nf V Nf P1 EC PI Mb P2 My Nf P4 Nf Ni P1 EC Nf Nf Mb EC Pa P4 Nf EC P3 P2 My Nf P2 Sp P2 Nf Pa Mb Ni P4 y P4 Pa Nf Ni Fc P4 P4 Mb P2 My P2 Pa P4 'Nu Ni My PI My Fc Pa My P2 V Nf Nf My Nf R4 Nf Cd BG P3 Pa Cd Mb V Nf Mb Pa P4 Pa Nf My 'Nu Cd Pa Nf BG EC Nf Hf My V Ni Pa P2 p2 C 56 I I TABLE 40 KEY FOR I DISTRIBUTION OF MACRQPHYTE TAXA I IN RICHMOND POND I I hacrophyte Taxonomic Composition Ap Alis ma plantaqo Nu Nuphar so. I AG Unidentified aquatic grass P1 Potamoqeton sp^ (small leaves) BG Blue-green algae (mats) P2 Potamogeton sp. (graminoid) Cd Ceratophullum demersum P3 PotamoQeton 3D. (lanceolate v/oval top leaves) I EC Elodeacanadensis P4 Potamogeton 3_p_, (similiar to Robbonsii) FC Filamentous chlorophytes Pa Potamooeton amolifolias I Lc Lobelia cardinalis Ph Phraqmites 3P. L9 Luthrumsalicaria Sa Saoittaria sp. Mb Meqalodonta beckii Sc Scirpussp. I huriophullum spicstum S p Sparqanium s\L N1 Nitella sp. T Tuphalatifolia I Nf Najas flexilis Y Valisneria americana I I I I I I I I 57 FIGURE 22 TYPICAL VEGETATIVE TRANSECT FOR RICHMOND POND 58 I Zooplankton I The zooplankton community was sampled twice, and exhibited low to moderate diversity and generally low biomass at the time of sampling. Samples were collected from open water, and may not be representative of the zooplankton community within plant stands. I The basic zooplankton groups were represented, and some large- .bodied Daphnia were present in late spring, suggesting some grazing potential and a possibly valuable fish food resource I base. Mean length for zooplankton was slightly smaller than desirable, but was not indicative of extreme predation levels by planktivorous fish. It is not clear whether the existing I zooplankton have cropped the phytoplankton to a generally low level, or the low phytoplankton biomass simply does not support greater zooplankton biomass. I Macroinvertebrates While benthic invertebrates were not especially abundant during summer underwater explorations, a wide variety of invertebrate I groups were encountered (Table 42). Five families of molluscs were represented, as well as a host of invertebrate families typically associated with plant stands. Low densities could have I been a function of fish predation of the time of year (winter biomasses are usually maximal). Fish I The results of the cooperative fish survey conducted by the DFW and EEC are presented in Table 43. Thirteen species were observed. Most individuals were small and young, but larger I specimens of many species were sighted by divers. Stocked trout, brown bullheads and indigenous white suckers were the only species represented by primarily large specimens in the electroshock and gill net samples. Growth rates, as compared to I state standards, were generally average to slightly above average. I White suckers dominated the biomass of captured specimens, followed distantly by yellow perch and stocked trout. Repeated attempts to gill net smelt failed, and no smelt were observed by I divers, indicating that these fish are rare to extinct in Richmond Pond. While there is good diversity in the fish community, the predominance of white suckers as a biomass component and the small mean size of captured fish suggest that I community structure is suboptimal for both fishing and promotion of clear water. •• I Pond User and Residential Practices Survey A questionnaire (Table 44) was distributed to many watershed residents to assess pond user preferences and residential practices with potential impact on Richmond Pond. The results I (Table 45) indicate that over half of the respondents are I seasonal residents, make daily or weekly use of the pond, and I I 59 TABLE 41 I ZOOPLANKTON ANALYSES I RICHMOND POND 042387 RICHMOND POND 040587 TAX ON tt/L TAX ON H/L ROT IF ERA ROTIFERA I Asplanchna .2 Asplanchna .4 Kellicottia 1.4 COPEPODA I COPEPODA Mesocyclops 4.6 Maup! i i 2.9 Mesocyclops 2.4 Dl apterous 2.2 CLADOCERA I Naupl i i 1.6 Chydorus .4 CLADOCERA TOTAL 8.1 Bosmina 1.4 I Daphnia galeata 6.8 ROTIFERA .2 Stda .4 COPEPDDA 7.5 TOTAL 16.6 I CLADOCERA .4 ROTIFERA 1 .8 COPEPODA 6.2 I TAX ON UG/L CLADOCERA 8.6 ROTIFERA I Asplanchna .2 TAXON UG/L COPEPODA ROTIFERA Mesocyclops I 5.8 Asplanchna .4 Naupl i i 11.4 Kell icottia .1 CLADOCERA COPEPODA I Chydorus 1 .2 Mesocyclops 3 Diaptomus 1.1 TOTAL 18.5 Naupl i i 4.2 I ROTIFERA .2 CLADOCERA COPEPODA 17.1 Bosmina 1.4 Daphnia gateata 39.A CLADOCERA 1.2 I Sida 8.7 MEAN LENGTH (MM) 0.5 TrtTAI 58.2 ROTIFERA .5 I COPEPODA 8.3 CLADOCERA 49.5 I MEAN LENGTH (MM) 0.7 I I I 60 I I I I TABLE 42 I BENTHIC INVERTEBRATE TAXA OBSERVED IN RICHMOND POND ABUNDANCE INVERTEBRATE TAXON RATING I HOLLUSCA LYMNAEIDAE * PHYSIDAE * SPHAERIIDAE # UNIONIDAE * I * VIVIPARIDAE ODONATA ANISOPTERA * ZYGQPTERA * I EPHEMEROPTERA X DIPTERA CHIRONOMIDAE * DECAPODA I CAMBARIDAE * AMPHIPODA * ISOPODA x RHYNCHOBDELLIDA I ERPOBDELLIDAE * I = PRESENT ** = COMMON *** = ABUNDANT I I I I I I I I I 61 TABLE 43 RICHMOND POND FISH SURVEY RESULTS it WT. (kg) % 6F % OF MEAN; MEA1 GROWTH FISH SPECIES COMMON NAME CAUGHT CAUGHT TOTAL # TOTAL WT. LENGTH (MM) WT.i Salmo galrdneri Rainbow Trout 6 2.7 2.0 8.3 378 455 Salmo trutta Brown Trout 2 0.9 0,6 2.8 352 468 Catostomus conunersoni White Sucker 21 21.0 6.9 64.6 424 1000 Perca flavescens Yellow Perch 89 4.6 29.2 14.2 163 52 Avg. Micropterus salmoides Largemouth Baas 19 <0.1 6.2 <0.3 45 3 Micropterus dolomieui Smallmouth Bass 1 <0,1 0.3 <0.3 65 3 Ictalurus nebulosus Brown Bullhead 3 1.3 1.0 4.0 279 426 Lepomis gibbosus Pumpkinseed 70 0.1 23.0 0.3 85 2 Avg. to good Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill 3 £0.1 1.0 <0.3 65 2 Good Notemigonus crysoleucas Golden Shiner 58 0,1 19.0 0.3 40 2 cr> Esox nlger Chain Pickerel 10 1-1 3.3 3.4 261 114 Avg. to Good ho Notropis bifrenatus Bridled Shiner 15 0-1 4.9 0.3 35 7 Ambloplites rupestris Rock Bass 8 0.3 2.6 0.9 117 34 Avg. TOTAL 13 SPECIES 305 32.5 100 100 Note: Larger bass were sighted during diving surveys. No smelt were observed or captured, despite 3 separate gill netting attempts and over 16 hours of diving observation. Walleye and Black Crappie have also been observed in the past, but were not detected in this survey. • TABLE 44 QUESTIONNAIRE FOR WATERSHED RESIDENTS I Name Phone • Street Address (Not Mailing) Nearest Lake or Waterway | 1. Number of people in household? _ 2. Number of months in full time residency? • 3. Distance of property from lake? • 4. Do you make use of the lake? At Least Daily? At Least Weekly? Monthly or Less? i 5. Preferred activities on the lake? 1. 2. I 3. • 6. Where do you get your drinking water? 7. Where do you get your washing water? • -3. Do you have an in-ground waste disposal system? (If not, where are wastes disposed?) I 9. If you have a well and/or in-ground waste disposal system: a. What kind of disposal system do you have (i.e. cesspool, tank • and leachfield, pipe to lake, etc.)? b. Approximate age of disposal system? I c. Distance of disposal system from lake? d. What kind of well do you have? • ee. Approximate depth of well? I f. Distance of well from lake? I I I I 63 TABLE 44 (Continued) g. Distance between well and disposal system? • h. "Is well upslope, downslope, or alongside of • disposal system? . | i. When was well water last tested? _ j. When was disposal system last inspected/maintained? — k. Any known problems (quantity or quality) with • well or disposal system? • 10. Do you use a washing machine on the premises? • 11. Do you use a garbage disposal on the premises? 12. What kind of detergent do you use? • a .. FoForr- r-lr^t-hiac:'clothes?? • b. For dishes? I 13. Do you fertilize your lawn? 14. Do you have any questions or comments? Please feel free to use I space on this page or an additional sheet to respond. I l I I l l l l l l l 1 TABLE 45 QUESTIONNAIRE SURVEY RESULTS 1 RICHMOND POND 1 1. 3 (plus seasonal campers) 2. 12 mo. - 33% 1 - 5 mo. - 54% 6 - 11 mo. - 8% 1 3. 0 - 100' - 64% 100 - 500' - 36% 1 4. Yes 96% - No 4% Daily - 48% Weekly - 40% Monthly - 11% 5. Swimming - 30.9% Fishing- 19.7% Canoe - 9.8% 1 Boating - 15.4% Waterski - 9.8% Skating - 2.8% Snowmobile 1.4% Sailing - 7.0% Sunbathing 1.4% 1 6. Well - 81% Town - 4% Bottled - 15% 1 7. Well - 81% Town - 4% Lake - 15% 8. Yes 96% No 4% 1 9a. Tank & Leachfield - 93% Cesspool - 7% b. 18 Years c. 0-50' - 11% 100-200' - 30% 50-100' - 42% 250-750' - 16% 1 d. Artesian - 46% fJrilled - 38% Submersible Pump - 15% e. 162' f. 0-50' - 9% 150-200' - 23% 1 50-100' - 32% 200-500' - 18% 100-150' - 14% 750+ - 4% g. 0-50T - 48% 200' - 5% 1 50-100' - 28% 100---150'- 18% h. Upslope - 64% Downslope - 4% Alongside - 32% i. 8 years 1 j . 3 years k. Yes - 92% No - 8% 1 10. No - 69% Yes - 30% 11. No - 96% Yes - 4% 12a. Yes - 45% No •- 55% (Phosphates used) 1 b. Yes - 38% No •- 62% (Phosphates used) 1 13; Yes - 85% No •- 15% 1 1 j 1 65 I engage in a wide variety of recreational activities involving the pond. Most residences are served by wells, but some use bottled • water for drinking and lake water for washing. • Most wastewater disposal systems are tank and leachfield • arrangements with an average age of 18 years, and over half are | within 100 ft of a well. Most wells are deep, however, minimizing interaction with wastewater in the low permeability « soils upon which most residences are built. Septic systems are • maintained at an average frequency of every three years, which is ™ generally acceptable for seasonal residences. Yet 92% of the respondents report problems with septic systems or wells, usually • as a consequence of poor soil permeability. Less than half of I the respondents have washing machines or garbage grinders, most do not use phosphate detergents, but the great majority do fertilize their lawns. i Comparison with Other Studies _ The results are generally consistent with information gained by • other studies (Appendices B-F). The condition of Richmond Pond • is not a recent event, with studies from the early 1970's indicating similar plant densities and water quality. The • fishery has not changed much in the last decade, nor has the land | use in the watershed. Gradual conversion of farmland to residential land is occuring in this area, but at a slower pace — than to the east. The loss of the Berkshire Downs Racetrack • might constitute a substantial change, as manure piles used to be stored near streams in the Lebanon Brook system. This property was largely dormant during this study. I Hydrologic Budget Potential water inputs and outputs are depicted in Figure 23. • Precipitation is critical to the water budget for Richmond Pond. | The study year provided average precipitation in terms of quantity, although the temporal pattern differed from the long- term average (Figure 24). Perhaps more importantly, the I distribution of precipitation among events is depicted in Figure • 25. Taken collectively, the precipitation information underscores the importance of episodic events to the water budget • of Richmond Pond. Flows can rise dramatically in response to a | storm. Calculations relating to itemized water load are presented in • Appendix G. Unless one considers the stormwater drainage — dischages as point sources of pollution (a judgement call), there are no point sources to Richmond Pond. Direct runoff via • drainage piping or ditches is minor in terms of water quantity • (Table 46) . Direct groundwater and precipitation inputs are also relatively minor, given the magnitude of tributary inputs. • i i 66 i I I FIGURE 23 I LAKE WATER BUDGET I PRECIPITATION EVAPORATION TRIBUTARY INFLOWS WITHDRAWALS I DIRECT RUNOFF SURFACE OUTFLOW POINT-SOURCE I DISCHARGES I GHOUNDWATER INFLOWS GROUNDWATER OUTFLOWS I I I I LAKE PHOSPHORUS BUDGET PRECIPITATION I & DUSTFAU MIGRANT WATERFOWL I TRIBUTARY INFLOWS WITHDRAWALS DIRECT RUNOFF SURFACE OUTFLOW I POINT-SOURCE DISCHARGES GROUNDWATER INFLOWS GROUNDWATER OUTFLOWS I SHORELINE SEPTIC TANKS I NET SEDIMENTATION I Taken-fr-om-:-"United States Environmental Protection Agency (198 I The Lake and Reservoir Restoration Guidance Manual Washington, D.C. I 67 I FIGURE 24 I TEMPORAL DISTRIBUTION OF PRECIPITATION IN THE RICHMOND POND AREA I I I EH 30 yr avg. D Study Yr I I Pptin inches 3 - I I Apr flay Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Har Months I I Long-term annual mean precipitation: 43.7 in ( 111 cm) I Long-term annual maximum precipitation: 60.9 in ( 1 54.7 cm) I Long-term annual minimum precipitation: 3Z.5 in (8Z.6 cm) Study year precipitation: 44.5 in < 11 3 cm) I Days per year vith more than trace precipitation: 120 - 140 I Number of distinct storms per year 60 - 70 I I I 68 I I FIGURE 25 I DISTRIBUTION OF RAINFALL BY STORM flAGNITUDE I • VESTERHMA I 0 CENTRAL MA g < H EASTER MA I H U 0 ALL MA b. o < I H K I UJ = 20- I 0^-0.5 0.5-1.0 1.0-2.0 I RAINFALL (INCHES PER 24 HOURS) I I DISTRfBLfTIOH OF VOLUME OF RAISFALL AMONS STORMS VESTtRNMA I CENTRAL MA EASTERN MA I ALL MA I I I OJ2-0.5 0.5-1.0 1.0-2.0 >2.0 I RAINFALL (INCHES PER 24 HOURS) I I 69 I I TABLE 46 HYDROLOGIC BUDGET FOR RICHMOND POND • INPUTS: STATION CU.M/MIN % OF TOTAL Precipitation i.74 4.0 I GrounoVater .23 .5 Direct Runoff .32 .7 Tributaries RP-1 26.30 59.8 RP-2 11.50 26.1 RP-3 2.60 5.9 RP-3A 1.30 3.0 I Total 43,99 100.0 i OUTPUTS: Evaporation 1.13 2.6 Groundvater .04 .1 • Surface Outflow RP-5 42.82 97.3 • Total 43.99 100.00 OTHER HYDROLOGIC FEATURES I Hean Detention Time (days) 48 Mean Detention Time (yrs) .13 • Detention Time Range (days) 14 - 122 • Flushing Rate (per yr) 7.7 • Response Time (yrs) 0,20 - 0.33 i i i i i i i i 70 i I Within the tributaries, the Lebanon Brook system is the major contributor at almo'st -.60% of the -total water load. The unnamed I southern tributary system (represented by RP-2) is the other major water source, at about 26% of the water load. I There are no substantial withdrawals, unless one considers the winter drawdown as a withdrawal operation. Groundwater 'outseepage and evaporation are minor by comparison with outlet I flows, which account for over 97% of the water leaving the pond. The average quantity of water entering or leaving the pond, just under 44 cu.m/min, results in a relatively short detention time I of about 47 days, with a range of 14 (late winter/spring) to 122 (summer) days. The average flushing rate is 7.7 times/yr. The response time, a measure of the time-nBcessary for a change in I loading to be expressed as a change in chemical conditions as a consequence of hydrologic regime, is 0.2 to 0.33 years (73-120 days), which is relatively rapid. I Nutrient Budgets Based on a pond volume of 3.06 million cu.m, a flushing rate of 7.7/yr, and an average in-lake phosphorus concentration of 33 I ug/1 (volume weighted average for the pond) , a minimum annual phosphorus load of 778. This is a minimum because it does not consider sedimentation of phosphorus out of the water column. I Using a set of five models geared to predict phosphorus loading from in-lake characteristics (Table 47) , loads of 768 to 1808 kg/yr are estimated (Table 48) , although elimination of the I high and low values suggests a load near 1000 Itemizing as for the water budget (Figure 23, Appendix G) , using data for the Richmond Pond system and calculated literature-based I values where data are insufficient, the phosphorus budget outlined in Table 49 is derived. The two major tributaries are the primary contributors, as with the water load, accounting for 56% of the estimated total load of 1007 kg/yr. Internal I recycling is the next most important source of phosphorus, contributing 27% through three mechanisms. While sources such as direct runoff contribute more phosphorus than would be assumed I from the relative water loads, they are still minor by comparison with the major tributary loads and internal recycling. I Estimated phosphorus loads are slightly above the critical limit, as defined by Vollenweider (1968) . This suggests great potential for water quality deterioration and associated use impairment and habitat degradation. Loading does not appear to have changed I much over the past decade or even more, however, based on previous phosphorus budgets (Appendices C and D) , and water quality conditions in Richmond Pond are generally acceptable for I most uses. With respect to the phosphorus budget, much of the I phosphorus appears to enter as easily settleable particulate I I 71 I I TABLE 47 I EQUATIONS AND VARIABLES FOR DERIVING PHOSPHORUS LOAD ESTIMATES FROM IN-LAKE CONCENTRATIONS I Klrchner & Dillon, 1975 (K-D) TP=Total P as ug/1 in spring TP=L(1-R)/(Z(F)) 2 L=TP(Z)(F)/(l-Rp) L=P load as mg P/m /yr Vollenweider , 1975 (V) Z=mean depth as m TP=L/((Z)(S+F)) I L-TP(Z)(S-hF) F=flushing/yr Chapra, 1975 (C) Pin=Flow weighted average input I TP=L(1-R)/((Z)(F» concentration of phosphorus L=TP(Z)(F)/(1-R) Pout=Flow weighted average I Larsen & Metcier, 1975 (L-M) output concentration of phosphorus TP-LU-R )/ TP [ug/1] 31 I Z [m] 3 .7 F [yr"1] 7 .7 Pin [ug/1] 57 I Pout [ug/1] 23 S=P out/P in 0.40 qs=Z(F) [m/yr] 28 .5 Vs=Z(S) [m] 1 .49 I R=(P in - P out)/P in 0.60 Rp=13.2/13.2+qs 0.32 R =1/(1+F*5) 0.26 TLM I 2 Predicted Load (g/m /yr) ] I By Each Model K-D 1 .29 V 0.93 C 2 .19 I L-M 1 .20 J-B 1 .14 I Predicted Load (kg/yr) By Each Model I K-D 1068 V 768 C 1808 L-M 992 1 J-B 942 I Voile nw eider Criteria Critical Load g/m /yr 1 .06 I 876 kg/yr Permissible Load I 2 g/m /yr 0.53 I kg /y r 438 I I I 73 I phosphorus, and is not effectively integrated into the water • column. The sediment phosphorus build-up promotes macrophyte | growths instead of phytoplankton blooms. The nitrogen load by the in-lake concentration times the pond • volume times its flushing rate is 18,143 kg/yr. Based on 'itemized loading (Table 49), the total is 17,512 kg/yr, with 54% of this attributed to the two major tributaries. Internal • recycling accounts for another 30% of the total load, with a • variety of much smaller sources contributing the remaining 16%. Diagnostic Summary g Richmond Pond behaves much like a run-of-the-river impoundment, with water quality reflecting tributary inputs after settling in _ the lacustrine environment. The watershed is not overly I developed, but is large in relation to the pond area. Well * defined stream channels and steep slopes at the watershed margin speed pollutants to the pond. Internal recycling provides • additional influence on nitrogen and phosphorus loading. While | impacts from nearshore activities can have localized effects which may impair uses and habitat quality, more distant • activities along the two major tributary systems are likely to be I more important determinants of water quality in Richmond Pond. A small portion of the volume of the pond (6%) becomes anoxic I during summer stratification, and the phytoplankton composition • is indicative of advancing eutrophication, but other water column effects typically associated with overfertilization are • infrequent. The primary negative feature of the system is an | overabundance of rooted aquatic plants in the pond. Infestations of at least half a dozen potential nuisance species result in use _ impairment over much of the pond area during summer. Annual I drawdowns help to control certain species, but shallowness and • suitable substrate conditions over more than half the pond area promote nuisance growths. • Both watershed-level pollution abatement actions and in-lake management techniques are necessary to the improvement and • protection of Richmond Pond. The desired characteristics of this I pond as a multi-use facility (wide variety of uses, but primarily swimming, boating, and fishing) should be outlined and refined, and management actions should be taken to ensure realization of I the great potential of this valuable water resource, I i i i i i I I I TABLE 49 I PHOSPHORUS BUDGET FOR RICHMOND POND STATION KG/YR % OF TOTAL Precipitation 22 2.2 I Groundwater 20 2.0 Direct Runoff 76 7.5 Tributaries RP-I 387 38.4 RP-2 179 17.8 RP-3 21 2.1 I RP-3A 30 3.0 Waterfowl 4 .4 Internal load Resuspension 40 4,0 Plant release 200 19.9 I Anoxic release 28 2,8 I Total 1007 100.0 I NITROGEN BUDGET FOR RICHMOND POND STATION KG/YR % OF TOTAL Sb-seipitation 917 5.2 I Gfroundwater 85 .5 Direct Runoff 765 4.4 Tributaries RP-1 5944 33.9 RP-2 3536 20.2 RP-3 410 2.3 I RP-3A 513 2.9 Waterfowl 19 .1 Internal load Resuspension 23<;j IJ.3 I Plant release 3000 17.1 Anoxic release 0 0.0 I Total 17512 100.0 I I I I I I 75 76 I I EVALUATION OF MANAGEMENT OPTIONS Management Objectives The establishment of management objectives is critical to the I evaluation of management options and necessary to the development of priorities for restoration activities. Through meetings with officials of Pittsfield, Richmond and the residents of the several residential areas around Richmond Pond, it was determined I that this is one of the most multi-use facilities in the Berkshires, if not in Massachusetts. Primary recreational pursuits include swimming at one town beach and three camp I beaches, power and non-power boating from the state boat launch site, the camps, or from private residences, and fishing for stocked trout or native populations of bass, pickerel and perch. I Ice-related activities are also popular, as are a number of more passive forms of recreation. Aside from its role as a major recreational center, Richmond Pond is considered an important flood control facility in the Housatonic River Basin. There is I no clear set of priorities at this time, however, as control and management of the pond is fragmented. I Available Techniques The number of actual techniques available for lake and watershed management is not exceptionally large (Table 50). The I combination of these techniques and level of their application, however, result in a great number of possible management approaches. Since each lake is to some extent a unique system, a restoration and management program must be tailored to a specific I waterbody. Techniques are essentially taken "off the rack" and altered to suit the individual circumstances of a specific lake I ecosystem. Review of the management options in light of the characteristics and problems of Richmond Pond and its watershed does not readily allow elimination of any alternatives. Virtually every technique I listed in Table 50 could be beneficially applied to Richmond Pond, which is somewhat unusual in lake management and seems most unusual for a lake that is not continually experiencing severe I use impairment. Some techniques are clearly more suited than others to the circumstances of this system, however, and only a few techniques are likely to be cost-effective, particularly in I these fiscally constrained times. Given that only 6% of the volume of the pond is anoxic, and only a small amount of the internal recycling of phosphorus appears I related to anoxic sediment release, techniques intended to increase hypolimnetic oxygen and/or reduce phosphorus release I from deepwater sediments are not likely to be worthwhile for I I I 77 TABLE 50 LAKE RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT OPTIONS Techni_q_u_e_ Descri p t i v e Not: es A. In-Lake Level Actions performed within a water body. 1. Aeration And/Or Mechanical maintenance of oxygen levels Destratification and prevention of stagnation. 2. Biocidal Chemical Treatment Addition of inhibitory substances intended to eliminate target species. 3. Biomanipulation/Habitat Facilitation of biological interactions Management to alter ecosystem processes. 4. Bottom Sealing Physical obstruction of rooted plant growths and/or sediment-water interaction 5. Chemical Sediment Treatment Addition of compounds which alter sediment features to limit plant growths or control chemical exchange reactions. 6. Dilution And Flushing Increased flow to minimize retention of undesirable mate rials. 7. Dredging Removal of sediments under wet or dry condi tions. 8 . Dye Addition Introduction of suspended pigments to create light inhibition of plant growths. 9. Hydroraking and Rotovation Disturbance of sediments, often with removal of plants, to disrupt growth. 10. Hypolimnetic Withdrawal Removal of oxygen-poor, nutrient-rich bottom waters. 11. Macrophyte Harvesting Removal of plants by mechanical means. 12. Nutrient Inactivation Chemical complexing and precipitation of undesirable dissolved substances. 13. Water Level Control Flooding or drying of target areas to aid or eliminate target species. 78 I I I TABLE 50 (Continued) B. Watershed Level Approaches applied to the drainage area I of a water body. 1. Agricultural Best Application of techniques in forestry, Management Practices animal, and crop science intended to I minimize adverse impacts. 2. Bank And Slope Stabilization Erosion control to reduce inputs I of sediment and related substances. 3. Behavioral Modifications Actions by individuals. I a. Use Of Non-Phosphate Elimination of a major wastewater De tergents . phosphorus source. I b. Eliminate Garbage Grinders Reduce load to treatment system. c. Limit Lawn Fertilization Reduce potential for nutrient loading I to a water body. d. Limit Motorboat Activity Reduce wave action, vertical mixing, and I sediment resuspension. e. Eliminate Illegal Dumping Reduce organic pollution, sediment loads and potentially toxic inputs to a water I body. 4. Detention Basin Use Lengthening of time of travel for I And Maintenance pollutant flows and facilitation of natural purification processes. 5. Increased Street Sweeping Frequent removal of potential runoff I pollutants from roads. 6. Maintenance And Upgrade Proper operation of localized systems I Of On-Site Disposal Systems and maximal treatment of wastewater to remove pollutants. I 7. Provision Of Sanitary Community level collection and treatment Sewe rs of wastewater to remove pollutants. 8. Stormwate r/Wastewater Routing of pollutant flows away from a I Diversion target water body. 9. Zoning/Land Use Planning Management of land to minimize I deleterious impacts on water. I I 79 phosphorus control. There is adequate water suitable for trout over the summer without oxygenation, although a superior trout fishery could be created with increased hypolimnetic oxygen levels. .Biomanipulation is currently being practiced in the form of trout stocking, and additional fish stocking (e.g., pike for panfish control) is unlikely to be successful until plant densities are decreased. The system is generally well flushed now, but if further flushing were desired during dry periods, a very large water source would be needed; no such source is economically available. Given the tremendous volume of soft sediments, large scale dredging of phosphorus-rich sediments is infeasible, although creation of channels by dredging for plant control and to aid drawdown might be useful at Richmond Pond. The moderate flushing rate precludes economical use of nutrient inactivation treatments either in the pond or at the tributary inlets. Remaining in-lake techniques deal with reducing plant biomass, particularly that of rooted forms. Advantages and disadvantages of each are described in Table 51. Except for drawdown, which has not been as effective as hoped for at Richmond Pond, large scale treatments will probably not be affordable, at least not on a repetitive basis. Therefore, consideration should be given mainly to those techniques which can be applied flexibly by lake associations or towns as a group, or even by individual shoreline property owners. Forms of harvesting and application of benthic barriers are most suitable in this regard, although activities in association with drawdown should not be ruled out. Of the watershed management techniques, behavioral modifications, increased street sweeping, maintenance and upgrade of on-site wastewater disposal systems (or provision of sanitary sewers), and storm water diversion appear useful, but would actually do little to alter the pollutant loading of the pond. Their application should not be discouraged, as localized impacts could be minimized, but other actions will be necessary to affect a detectable change in overall water quality or recreational potential. Agricultural best management practices are always appropriate, and the use of buffer strips along stream corridors in agricultural areas would be very useful in this watershed. Such buffer strips are strongly recommended for residential areas as well. Bank and slope stabilization would be appropriate anywhere along the shoreline or stream corridors, but would be especially recommended for storm water transport channels and in the major tributaries near the pond. 80 I I I TABLE 51 OPTIONS FOR CONTROL OF ROOTED AQUATIC VEGETATION I OPTIOH MODE OF ACTIQH POSITIVE IMPACTS NEGATIVE IMPACTS Drawoown Lowering of water over winter period Control with some flexibility Possible impacts on contiguous allows dessication, freezing, and physical Opportunity for shoreline emergent wet Unas disruption of plants, roots and seed beds. ciean-up/structure repair Possible impairment of weii I Duration of exposure and degree of Flood control production dewatering of exposed area are important. Possible reouction in cooling Variable species tolerance to drawdown; supply ana fire fighting emergent species ana seed-bearers are capacity at Murray Printing Jess affected. Most effective on annual Alteration of downstream flows I to once/3 yr basis. Possible overwinter water level variation Chemical Liquid or pellet herbicides applied to Wide range of control is Possible toxicity to non-target I treatment target area or to plants directly, Ppssioie species of plants/animals Contact or systemic poisons kill plants May be aoie to selectively Possible aownstream impacts or limit growth. Maintenance tecnnique: eliminate species Will affect non-target areas typically requires annual application. Hay achieve sane algae control within pond as well Possible restrictions of water I use after treatraent Harvest ing/ Plants directly removed by mechanical Highly flexible control Possible impacts on aquatic Sototiiling means, possibly with disturbance of soils, May remove other aebris fauna Collectea plants placed on shore for Non-selective removal of plants I ccraposti/ig or other disposal. Vide in treated area range o£ techniques employed. Maintenance Possible spread of unaesirabie technique: application once or twice/yr species by fragmentation i Possible generation of turoidity Benthic barriers Hat of variable composition laid on Highly flexible control May cause anoxia at sediment- bottom of target area, preventing plant Hay reouce turbidity water interface growth. Can cover area for several Can cover undesirable May limit benthic invertebrates i months with removal, or install substrate Non-selective interference with permanently with annual maintenance. Often iicroves fish habitat plants in target area Mot really intended for use in large May inhibit spawning/feeding by areas, usually applied around docks, sane fish species i boating lanes, ana in swimming areas. Dredging Sediment is physically removed by Plant removal with seme Temporarily removes benthic conventional or hyorauiic excavation, with flexibility invertebrates deposition in a containment area for Increases water depth May create turbidity i dewatering. Dredging can be applied on Can reouce poljutaht reserves May eliminate fish ccnnunity a limited basis, buc is most often a Can recuce sediment oxygen (complete dry dredging only) major restructuring of a severely demand Possible impacts from contain- impacted system. Plants are removed and Can improve water quality ment area aischarge regrowth is limited by depth and substrate Can improve spawning habitat Possible impacts from dreogea i limitation. for many fish species material disposal Allows cccplete renovation of Interference with recreation aquatic ecosystem during dredging I Vater-solubie dye is mixed yith lake Hay achieve sane control of May not control peripheral or water, thereby limiting light penetration algae as well shallow water rooted giants and inhibiting plant growth. Dyes remain May achieve some selectivity Hay cause thermal stratification in solution until wasnea out of system. for species tolerant of in shallow ponds low light Hay facilitate anoxia at sediment i interface with water _ Biological Fish or insects which feed on or para- Provides continuing control Typically involves introduction • controls sitize plants are added to system to with one 'treatment' of exotic species affect control. The most cannonly Harnesses 'nature" to produce Effects may not be controllable used organism is the grass carp, but desired conditions Plant selectivity may not match the larvae of several insects nave been Proouces potentially useful aesirea target species used more recently. fish Qionass as an end May adversely affect inoigenous i procuct species i 81 I Detention basins would be most appropriate for this system, given I the apparently high particulate fraction of the phosphorus load. ™ Small basins throughout the watershed would be desirable; some exist now, but are not maintained. Installation of a large basin • slightly upstream of the inlet of each of the two major I tributaries would also be desirable, with V-notch outlet structures to allow flow at all times but increased detention • capacity during storm events. Upstream sedimentation of I particles, with periodic maintenance to maintain settling capacity and minimize scour, could substantially reduce the nutrient load to Richmond Pond. I Zoning and land use planning are very important in this moderately developed watershed. Richmond has enacted a 5 acre • residential lot size which will minimize the impact of future | residential development. Pittsfield needs to think in terms of water resources protection overlay districts with apporpriate lot _ size limitations within them. Setback limitations and buffer I strips would also be advisable in legislative form beyond that * afforded by the Wetlands Protection Act. Evaluation of Viable Alternatives I At this point viable in-lake alternatives are considered to include benthie plant barriers, harvesting techniques, and m drawdown. Feasible watershed-level techniques which could I detectably influence pollutant loads to the pond include the use of buffer strips around agricultural and residential areas, bank and slope stabilization, installation and maintenance of • detention basins, and zoning and land use planning. • The in-lake techniques are competing strategies for macrophyte • control. Drawdown is currently applied annually, although not | strictly for plant control purposes, and commercial mechanical harvesting has been tested in front of the Boys Club Camp. _ Species propagating by seed have colonized the area exposed by • drawdown, probably increasing species diversity but doing little • to eliminate nusiance conditions. Some control of milfoil and coontail in shallow areas has been achieved, but the density of • water celery and pondweeds is now excessive in these areas. | A major problem with the drawdown is that the hydrosoils do not • dewater well, and pockets of standing water are left in places • due to offshore shoals. Some of these shoals were apparently created by limited dredging operations in the Richmond Shores area for the purpose of increasing depth and removing plants and I soft sediments. While low hydrosoil permeability is likely to • restrict dewatering under any circumstances, improved drawdown effectiveness could be obtained by dredging a series of channels • to drain nearshore areas during drawdown. Removal of up to | 100,000 cu.m at around $10/cu.m would be necessary, for an I I 82 I I I estimated cost of up to $1 million. This is simply not economically feasible at this time, and is unlikely to be feasible for many years to come. Immediate relief must come from I other approaches. , As drawdown is likely to be conducted for flood control purposes, it would be wise to get the most out of it. Raking or other I sediment manipulations are possible by shoreline residents, and alternative drawdown schemes might yield some improvement in performance. Refilling the pond in December after only about an I inch of ice has formed would increase physical disruption of plant populations and'the sediments. Repetitive water level fluctuations in a single year might reduce populations of seed I propagators as well as vegetative reproducers. Beyond effectiveness there is the question of recreational impairment, as many pond users have complained about the annual I loss of access to the pond; as much as 45% of the pond bottom is exposed during drawdown. Consequences of various drawdown levels are presented in Table 52, as well as anticipated storage needs for spring runoff. It seems that a three-foot drawdown would I meet most likely needs and result in exposure of only 16% of the pond bottom. This is the portion of the pond bottom where plant I control is most needed. Assuming that drawdown by itself will not yield the desired level of control, benthic barriers or a harvesting program would be I desirable. Benthic barriers, Tahictt limit light and physically interfere with rooted plant growth,, caon be an effective tool by themselves or in conjunction with a drawdown. Applied and maintained by homeowners, benthic barriers can provide flexible I macrophyte control at a reasonable cost (about $1000 for a 50 ft X 50 ft area). Professionally applied on a larger scale, however, a cost of around $20,000 is to be anticipated. Limited I application is therefore much more common, with several installation methods possible (Figure 26). Harvesting incorporates a number of more specific techniques, I including hand-held cutting/collecting devices or rakes, barge- mounted hydraulically-operated cutterheads, hydrorakes, and underwater rototillers. The density of plants is beyond that I which could be reasonably handled with hand-held devices or hydrorakes. Underwater rototillers may provide some relief, but the resultant turbidity in a pond such as this would be very I high. Commercial harvesting with state-of-the-art cutterhead equipment is the harvesting method of choice for Richmond Pond. In order to implement an effective harvesting program, some I community level action is needed. Individuals are unlikely to be able to afford commercial harvesting, and the price per acre I harvested will decline with increasing harvested acreage. On the I I 83 I TABLE 52 I RICHMOND POND DRAWDOWN EVALUATION I EXPOSED EXPOSED CHANGE RESULTING % OF CHANGE LAKE LAKE LAKE IN I STORAGE POSSIBLE IN % DRAWDOWN AREA BOTTOM BOTTOM EXPOSED VOLUME STORAGE STORAGE I (ft.) (ac) (ac) (%) (ac-A) 0 214 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 1 201 13 6 6 207 25 25 2 186 24 11 5 396 49 24 I 3 175 35 16 5 564 69 20 4 158 56 26 10 707 86 17 4.5 143 71 33 7 768 94 8 I 5 118 96 45 12 816 100 6 I Notes: Between 3' and 4.5' of drawdown, have 36 additional acres of lake bottom exposed, or a doubling of exposed bottom with only a 36% increase in storage capacity. I I Using watershed area (5000 ac) x rainfall (ft.) x runoff coefficient (assume 0.5 to 0.8 as winter-spring possibility range), have: I RAINFALL (in.) RUNOFF COEFF. STORAGE NEEDS (ac~ft.) 0.2 0.5 42 I 0.8 67 0.5 0.5 104 I 0.8 167 1.0 0.5 208 I 0.8 333 2.0 _ 0,5 417 0.8 667 I This also assumes no outflow from pond; actual outflow will I not exceed 60 cfs. until spillway is overtopped. Only a 2.0 inch rainfall at a runoff coefficient of 0.8 causes I the storage capacity at 3 ft. of drawdown to be exceeded, and then only by 18%. I 84 I FIGURE 26 APPLICATION OF BENTHIC BARRIER FLQRT BOTTdM CfiVER I other hand, a widespread harvesting program with only a single • harvester will necessitate some areas being harvested first and others treated last. A clear payment and priority scheme should be developed prior entering into any harvesting arrangement. The I Richmond Shores and Whitewood Associations and various camps H should collectively decide how to approach harvesting. Each could act on its own, but some collaborative effort might prove • economically superior. | The potential for an arrangement with the Berkshire County _ Regional Planning Commission, which owns several harvesters, is 1 limited. Richmond Pond could use at least one harvester * operating full time on that pond. Purchase and operation by., an., association of interested parties is possible, but will require a I considerable capital investment (around $100,000) and on-going I operational costs (perhaps $15,000/yr). Harvesting by contract with a commercial operation should be estimated at $100 to $200 • per harvested acre, depending upon the total acreage to be I harvested. Two harvestings per year should be planned, as there are distinct late spring and summer plant assemblages. It is recommended that any group interested in conducting a B harvesting program should contact Mr. William Enser of Berkshire Enviro-Labs in Lee, MA, who is very knowledgeable regarding • harvester capabilities and potentially viable programs in | Berkshire County. He has expressed an interest in helping lake associations in the area solve.their plant management problems, _ and may be able match interests and available funds in a I clearinghouse function. ™ For small scale control of rooted plants in shallow waters, the • use of benthic barriers is highly recommended. There are a I variety of types available, with an equally varying range of prices. For reasons of economy, effectiveness, ease of • maintenance, and longevity, Aquascreen would be an appropriate I choice at this time. It is made by Menardi-Southern Corporation in Georgia, and has the appearance of heavy duty fiberglas window screen. It allows reasonable gas transport, avoiding major • billowing off the bottom, and restricts the growth of most H nuisance species for more than a swimming season. Installed properly and maintained adequately, up to a decade of plant control could be expected. i Enough Aquascreen to cover an area 50 ft by 50 ft would cost _ about $1000, including stakes and weights but excluding labor I costs. Healthy shoreline residents could effectively install * this benthic barrier in shallow water with a minimum of training. Annual removal is recommended, preferably at the end of the I season at Richmond Pond; the succession of species in'late spring I and early summer suggests that pre-season application and removal would be less effective. • i i I I The use of benthic barriers would provide relief from plant nuisances on a very localized basis. Expense would limit the overall acreage covered, but low plant densities could be I achieved around recreational focal points (e.g., beaches, docks). The amount of ecologically valuable edge habitat (where open .water meets plant stands) could be substantially increased by benthic barriers, improving fish and wildlife habitat while I providing increased recreational potential. The use of buffer strips in agricultural or residential areas is I largely a regulatory matter. Enforcement of existing erosion control and pollution abatement laws, and/or promulgation of more stringent or more effective bylaws will be necessary. No amount of verbage in a report will make this happen. It is up to the I citizens and government of Richmond and Pittsfield to adequately control non-point source pollution, and the use of buffer strips along stream corridors and shorelines is a major step in such I control. The State of Maine, in a publication designed to aid communities I in managing development impacts, has outlined anticipated runoff phosphorus reductions for buffer strips of various widths, soil types, slopes and vegetative classes (Dennis et al. 1989). For example, a 50 ft wooded strip on less than a 10% slope on Group B I soils will typically provide a 40% reduction in phosphorus load from the land bounded by the buffer strip. In Wisconsin, where agricultural pollution can be a very serious threat to water I quality, best: management practices (WDATCP 1389) call for buffer strips which reduce water velocity such that all suspended matter is deposited prior to stream entry. Adoption of bylaws which mandate buffer strips, with corresponding worksheets which allow I reasonable estimation of necessary buffer features, are recommended. I Bank and slope stabilization is also a regulatory matter to some degree, although natural erosion in many areas should probably be controlled through collective community efforts. Much of the watershed is in relatively good condition with respect to stream I channel configuration and erosion potential. Steep areas tend to have boulder-strewn channels which diffuse water energy, and broad wetlands in less steep areas tend to trap any sediment I which gets that far. The major stabilization needs in the Richmond Pond watershed I involve places near the pond itself, particularly on the fairly steep southern slopes. Drainage channels in this area have been observed to carry tremendous sediment loads during intense storms. Riprapping or use of waterfalls and plungepools could be I helpful here. Detention basins may suffice in the absence of I stabilization efforts. I I 87 Detention facilities can make a tremendous difference in the quantity of sediment reaching a lake, if they are properly constructed and maintained. A problem of many flood control basins constructed over the past two decades is that they do not detain water from more minor precipitation events. The use of V- notch or gabion weirs is advisable/ allowing the basin to gradually drain to a low level (but not dryness) after each storm event. Proper sizing is more a function of area than depth; a depth of five to eight feet (1.5 to 2.5 m) is advisable and sets the necessary area by division into the volume of water to be detained for a set amount of time. A detention time of at least four and preferably eight hours is likely to be needed to allow for settling of most particles. For either of the two major tributaries/ this translates into a necessary detention basin acreage of around 4 acres for the largest storm observed during this study. Even then/ such a basin would not remove many of the smaller particles with which a disproportionately large fraction of the phosphorus load is normally associated (Walker 1987). More than 24 hours of settling time, with biological interactions, would be desirable if phosphorus is the target parameter for removal. Useful features for improving detention basin effectiveness, • particularly with respect to phosphorus retention, include | infiltration capability and plug flow water routing (Walker 1987). Several smaller ponds in series can aid design _ flexibility and improve efficiency. The addition of chemical I settling agents or phosphorus inactivating chemicals can also be ™ helpful, even if only during the most influential storm events. Finally, maintenance of detention facilities to maximize capacity • is important; a long-term program of sediment removal from the | basin will be necessary. All four tributaries pass through locations near the pond where I detention facilities could be installed. Installation could be as inexpensive as $10,000 for the placement of gabion weirs on the two smaller tributaries to nearly $100,000 for a more formal I detention facility on either of the larger tributaries. Land I acquisition costs could add to these costs, but the likely basin areas are currently wetlands with no development potential. • Zoning and land use planning are practiced in both Richmond and Pittsfield, but the use of water resources protection overlay _ districts is recommended. Activities in areas of critical • concern to surface water or groundwater quality would be subject ' to greater restrictions through bylaws. This requires delineating those areas of critical concern and considering water • quality objectives for area streams, lakes and groundwater | supplies. A joint community sponsored planning project, at a cost of up to $100,000 is warranted for long-term improvement and • i i protection of water resources. Raising such funds certainly appears difficult at this time, but the cost of not protecting water resources is likely to be far more staggering. Protection almost always costs less than restoration, and failing to do either results in a decrease in the quality of life. Recommended Management Approach Based on the above discussion, the following management recommendations are offered: 1. Limit the drawdown to a vertical change of three feet, and experiment with multiple drawdowns in a single year, each of shorter .duration than currently practiced. 2. Consider a cooperative, commercial harvesting project involving the lake associations and camps around the pond. 3. Inform shoreline property owners of the potential utility of benthic plant barriers, along with cost and installation information. 4. Adopt bylaws mandating buffer strips along streams and shorelines in association with residential development and agricultural activities. 5. Take steps to control erosion on the steep slopes on the southern side of tb_e pond, and in any other erosion-prone areas. 6. Install detention basins near the inlets of all four tributaries, with priority given to the Mt. Lebanon Brook system, and maintain them for maximum sediment and phosphorus removal. 7. Create a water resources protection overlay district for the Richmond Pond watershed, and enact bylaws necessary to protect ponds, streams and groundwater in areas of critical concern. Impact of Recommended Management Approach If either benthic barriers or harvesting can be applied, adequate relief from nuisance plant growths could be achieved from the perspective of swimmers and fishermen. Unless a very large scale harvesting program is implemented, power boaters may still experience some aggravation, but conditions would certainly be improved. Modifications of the current drawdown may increase plant control, but drawdown does not appear to be sufficient to provide the level of nearshore relief sought. The use of buffer strips, bank stabilization, detention basins and land use planning could potentially reduce phosphorus inputs by 50%. A 25% decrease is probably a more realistic target, and would be adequate to decrease current phosphorus loading below 89 the critical limit. Nutrient-poor conditions are not necessarily desirable in Richmond Pond, so a load between the permissible and critical limits is an appropriate goal. Monitoring Program In order to track progress and provide data upon which to make future management decisions, a monitoring program is necessary. Ongoing monitoring is an essential feature of any effective long- term management program. Since phosphorus and rooted plant densities are the primary targets of control efforts, monitoring could be restricted to these parameters. Other information would certainly be useful, such as water clarity, nitrogen levels, and turbidity of drainage systems during storm events, but a conservative appraisal of monitoring needs is appropriate under current fiscal limitations. If funds become available for additional monitoring, these other parameters should be given careful consideration. Phosphorus in the drainage systems entering Richmond Pond (including all tributaries and stormwater runoff channels/pipes) should be monitored during at least three substantial storm events (>1 inch of precipitation) per year, and up to three more times during dry weather. As control practices are implemented, a decline in phosphorus levels during both wet and dry periods should be observed, with the wet weather changes being of prime importance. Rooted aquatic plant; densities should be assessed in treated and adjacent control (non-treated) areas, August stem counts for each species would be desirable, with total biomass as a secondary measurement from small (about 1 sq.m) harvested plots. Comparison of treated and control areas should reveal a major decrease in plant density from benthic barrier application or harvesting. Declining regrowth rates after several years of treatment may be observed in treated areas, even if treatment is discontinued. This would be valuable information in planning treatment frequency. Funding Alternatives Quite frankly, there is not much funding available in Massachusetts these days for any environmental improvement or protection. However, federal monies for non-point source pollution control are becoming more available, and there are several current projects in Massachusetts. The watershed controls recommended in this report would be eligible for such funding, and the MDWPC should be contacted for further details. It is likely that the in-lake improvements will have to be funded privately, by a consortium of lake users. 90 I I Environmental Evaluation Appendix H contains the Environmental Notification Form (ENF) which must be filed under the Massachusetts Environmental Policy I Act (MEPA). The MEPA unit will evaluate the proposed actions and their potential impacts and make a determination regarding the need for an impact study prior to implementation. The completed I ENF also serves as a useful summary document for the project. The major environmental issues surrounding the proposed project include balancing recreational desires with habitat I considerations and wetland impacts of proposed detention facilities. No proposed activity is inconsistent with stated management goals for fish and wildlife in this area or the intent of the Wetlands Protection Act. The precise details of any I program to be implemented will have to be spelled out in the ENF, with further discussion in an Environmental Impact Report, if I deemed necessary. Necessary Permits In-lake actions will require a Notice of Intent (NOD, but should I not require further permits after MEPA review. Of the watershed- level activities, bank stabilization and detention facilities could require the NOI, a USACOE Sec. 404 Permit, a DEP Water I Quality Certificate, and a DEP Ch. 91 Waterways License. Public Participation In addition to review by the agencies mentioned in the I Environmental Evaluation section of this report, the public at large was involved with the development of management alternatives. To date, two public meetings and numerous informal discussions have been conducted by BEC in Richmond and I Pittsfield. Participants in meetings were encouraged to express their views and make recommendations. There is solid local support for proposed actions, although the support base is I fragmented among several local groups. All comments received from participants of public meetings are included in Appendix I. Relation of Project to Existing Plans and Programs I The proposed program is entirely consistent with all existing policies and programs of the Town of Richmond, City of Pittsfield, and Berkshire County Regional Planning Commission. I Most proposed activities are similar in nature to programs conducted in other watersheds by these governmental entities, and might be incorporated into an overall regional water resources I improvement and protection program. I I I I 91 I Feasibility Summary • An evaluation of possible management options was conducted, and those alternatives which were not appropriate or feasible were eliminated from further consideration. Remaining options were I evaluated for potential effectiveness and economic constraints. • The primary elements of the recommended management plan are modified drawdown, benthic plant barriers and/or a commercial • harvesting program, vegetative buffer strips along stream | corridors and the pond shoreline, bank and slope stabilization on the steep slopes just south of the pond, construction of m detention facilities (especially for the two major tributaries), I and increased land use planning with water resources protection " overlay districts. The anticipated impacts of the proposed management plan include | an undetermined reduction in densities of rooted aquatic plants and a 25 - 50% reduction in phosphorus loading to the pond. « Phosphorus loadings would be reduced to below the critical I loading limit, but would remain well above the permissible limit. This is considered consistent with stated managemment goals for the pond. Substantial decreases in sediment and nitrogen loading I are anticipated as well. • Project costs are difficult to estimate accurately, as many • elements could be applied to varying degrees. A total jj expenditure of as much as $500,000 over a five year implementation period might be expected, with about $150,000 of — tMs cost borne by private citizens or associations around the I pond or other pond users. While this is not an appealing ' financial prospect for pond users, it is a realistic estimate of the contribution necessary to improve and protect Richmond Pond. • Programs could be carried out for less money, but with less | change from current conditions as a result. i i i i i i i i REFERENCES APHA, AWWA, AND WPCF. 1985. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater (16th Edition). Published jointly by the authoring associations. Berkshire County Regional Planning Commission. 1978. Final Environmental Impact Statement and Water Quality Management Plan for the Upper Housatonic River. BCRPC, Pittsfield, MA. Berkshire Enviro-Labs. 1980. Application for the Eutrophication and Aquatic Vegetation Control Program. BEL, Lee, MA. Bordner, R., and J. Winter (eds.). 1978. Microbiological Methods for Monitoring the Environment. EPA600/8-78-017. Cincinatti, OH. Chapra, S. 1975. Comment on: "An Empirical method of estimating the retention of phosphorus in lakes" by W.B. Kirchner and P.J. Dillon. Water Resour. Res. 11:1033-1034. Cooke, G.D., E.B. Welch, S.A. Peterson, and P.R. Newroth. 1986. Lake and Reservoir Restoration. Butterworths, Boston, MA. Dennis, J., J. Noel, D. Miller and C. Eliot. 1989. Phosphorus Control in Lake Watersheds: A Technical Guide to Evaluating Hew Development. Maine DEPe Augusta, ME. Dillon, P.J., and F.H. Rigler. 1975. A simple method for predicting the capacity of a lake for development based on lake trophic status. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 31: 1519-1522. Dunne, T., and L.B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. W. H. Freeman Co., San Francisco. Goldman, C.R., and A.J. Home. 1983. Limnology. McGraw-Hill Co., New York. Hanson, J.M., and W.C. Leggett. 1982. Empirical prediction of fish biomass and yield. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 39:257-263. Higgins, G.R., and J.M. Colonell, 1971. Hydrologic Factors in the Determination of Watershed Yields. Water Resour. Res. Ctr., Univ. Mass., Amherst, MA. Jones, J.R., and R.W. Bachmann. 1976. Prediction of phosphorus and chlorophyll levels in lakes. JWPCF 48:2176-2184. Kirchner, W.B., and P.J. Dillon. 1975. An empirical method of estimating the retention of phosphorus in lakes. Water Resour. Res. 11:182-183. 93 I Kopp, J.F., and G.D. McKee. 1979. Methods for Chemical Analysis of • Water and Wastes. USEPA 600/4-79-020, Wash., D.C. * Larsen, D.P., and H.T. Mercier. 1976. Phosphorus retention capacity of I lakes. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 33:1742-1750. • Martin, D.M., and D.R. Goff. 1972. The Role of Nitrogen in the Aquatic • Environment. Contribution #2. Academy of Natural Sciences of J Philadelphia, PA. Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. 1979, Statewide I Age and Growth of Warm Water Species. MDFW, Westborough, MA. ™ Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife. 1981. Summary of • fishery investigations at Richmond Pond. MDFWf Westborough, MA. | Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control. 1976. Baseline • Water Quality Surveys of Selected Lakes and Ponds in the I Housatonic River Basin, Berkshire County. MDWPC, Westborough, MA. Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control. 1979. Certification I for Dredging, Dredged Material Disposal, and Filling in Waters. • 314 CMR, Vol. 12-534. McKee, J.E., and H.W. Wolf. 1963. Water Quality Criteria. Publ. | #3-A. State Water Res. Control Bd., Sacramento, CA. Millipore Corp. 1972. Biological Analysis of Water and Wastewater. T.S. I Rept. AM302. Millipore Corp., Bedford, MA. • National Cartographic Information Center. 1985. Aerial Infrared • Photographs of Massachusetts. Univ. of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. | National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. 1985. M Climatography of the United States, Number 20, Massachusetts. I NOAA, Asheville, NC. * Nurnberg, G.K. 1984. The prediction of internal phosphorus load in lakes I with anoxic hypolimnia. Limnol. Oceanogr. 29:111-124. I Oglesby, R.T., and W.R. Schaffner. 1978. Phosphorus loadings to lakes and • some of their responses: Part II: Regression models of summer I phytoplankton standing crops, winter total phosphorus, and transparency of New York lakes with known phosphorus loadings. m Limnol, Oceanogr. 23:135-145. I Reckhow, K.H., M.N. Beaulac, and J.T. Simpson. 1980. Modeling Phosphorus Loading and Lake Response under Uncertainty: A Manual and • Compilation of Export Coefficients. USEPA 440/5-80-011, Wash., D.C. i i i I I Smith, C.S. and M.S. Adams. 1986. Phosphorus transfer from sediments by Myriophyllum spicatum. I Limnol. Oceanogr. 31:1312-1321. Soil Conservation Service. 1975a. Engineering Field Manual for . Conservation Practices. USDA, SCS, Wash., DC. I Soil Conservation Service. 1975b. Guidelines for Soil and Water Conservation in Urbanizing Areas of Massachusetts. I USDA, Antherst, MA. Soil Conservation Service. 1975c. Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds. Tech. Release #55, USDA, Wash., DC. I Soil Conservation Service. 1983. Upper Housatonic River Basin Study. USDA, SCS, Amherst, MA. I Sokal, R.R., and F.J. Rohlf. 1981. Biometry. Second Edition. W.H. Freeman Co., New York. I Sopper, W.B., and H.W. Lull. 1970. Streamflow Characteristics of the Northeastern United States. Penn State Univ. Bull. 766, Univ. Park, PA. I United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1977. Report on the Bottom Sediment Survey for Port Ontario, NY. Region V EPA, I Chicago, LL. United States Geological Survey. 1977. Limiting Values for Water Quality Alert System. USGS Circular, August 22, 1977. USGS, I Trenton, NJ. United States Geological Survey. 1984. Gazetteer of Hydrologic Characteristics of Streams in Massachusetts. Rept. #84-4288, I USGS/DEQE, Boston, MA. Uttormark, P.D., J.D. Chapin, and K.M. Green. 1974. Estimating Nutrient Loadings of Lakes from Non-point Sources. USEPA 660/3-74-020, I Wash., D.C. Vollenweider, R.A. 1968. Scientific Fundamentals of the Eutrophication of Lakes and Flowing Waters, with Particular Reference to Nitrogen and Phosphorus as Factors in Eutrophication. Tech. Rept. to OECD, Paris, France. Vollenweider, R.A. 1975. Input-output models with special references to the phosphorus loading concept in limnology. Schweiz . Z . Hydro1. 37 :53-62. Vollenwieder, R.A. 1982. Eutrophication of Waters: Monitoring, Assessment, and Control. OECD, Paris, France. 95 I Walker, W.W. 1987. Phosphorus removal by urban runoff detention basins. I Lake Reserv. Manage. 3:314-328. * Water Pollution Control Federation. 1970. Design and Construction of I Sanitary and Storm Sewers. WPCF, Washington, DC. I Weiss/ L.A. 1983. Evaluation and Design of a Streamflow-Data Network • for Connecticut. CT Water Res. Bull. #36, USGS/CTDEP, Hartford, CT. | Wetzel/ R.G. 1975. Limnology. Saunders Co., Philadelphia, PA. Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection. • 1989. Nutrient and Pesticide Best Management Practices for Wisconsin Farms. WDATCP Tech. Bull. ARM-1, Madison, WI. • Zen, E. 1983. Bedrock Geologic Map. USGS and MA DPW, Boston, MA. i I I I I I l I I I I I 96 I I I I I I I I I APPENDIX A I FIELD AND LABORATORY METHODOLOGY I I I I I I I I I I 97 SflMPLE COLLECTION flHO PROCESSIHG METHQDOLOGV FOR EEC SURVEVS RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED STD. HETJ) EPft METHOD OTHER METHOD SflHPLE SIZE SflMPLE PRESERV. HOLDING TIME Chr or as noted) Hater aanple collodion General surface uater Crab 105 2. a DEQE Stornwater runoff Crab or composite 105 2.afib DEQE 6roundnater tlells Crab 105 2. a SHDCF Poretiatar Grab or conposite 105 2.aftb MLB HUHB MHH s«P.g. Vol unetri c LEE Sedinent sartpla collection Core or Eknan grab M&L CH.12 HttB Mater discharge Vol unetri c MftL CH.5 SCS Total phosphorus ColoriHotric 121 C,F 365,1-1 M&L CH.P 100 Refrigarate/freeza Total filterable phosphorus Color inotric 121 n,C,F 365-1-1 IIOL CM.? 100 Filter, 10 ro frigerata/fr«ez« Soluble reactive phosphorus ColoriMatric -121 fi.F 365.1-3 MftL CH-? 100 Filter, 18 refrig«rate/freezo Hitrate nitrogen Coloritietric -118 0 353.3 HftL CH.7 100 H2SO-1 to pH<2 500 H2S04 to pH<2 168 flnnonia nitrogen Colorinatric "11? H,B 350.2 HftL CH.P 500 N2S01 to pH<2 168 Total kjeldahl nitrogen Colorirtetric "120 B 351.3 HftL CH-? Innediata foHnorAturo Thernistor 212 170. 1 H6L CH.2 Itmediato Dissolved oxygen Mertbron* aloctrodo 121 fl,B,C,F 360. Ift2 H&L CII-6. (electrode) or Hinkler titration to 3 XMinkler) CO SfittPLE COLLECTION fiMO PROCESS1MG METHODOLOGY FOR EEC SURVEVS RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED PftROMETER COLLECTION/TEST TVPE STD. HETH METHOD OTHER METHOD SflHPLE SIZE SOHPLE PRESERV. HOLOIHG TIHE Percent oxygon saturation Calculation fron T/DO UtL CH.6 pH Potenti onetrie 123 150.1 H&L CH.8 2 Total alkalinity Titration 103 310.1 HttL CH.8 200 Refrigerate z< Chloride Titration 10P R,B,C 325.3 HftL CH.P 100 Refrigerate 6P2 Specific conductance Platinized electrode 205 12001 H1L CH.P Refrigerate 6P2 Secchi disk transparency Visual HftL CH.2 Innttdiata P Turbi di ty Nepholonetrie 211 A 180. i 50 Darkness 21 Total 30!ids Gravirtatric (dried) 209 A 160.3 HttL CH.P 500 Refrigerate 168 lotal volatile solids Gravi netri c (i gni ted) 209 E 160.1 U&L CH.P 500 Refrigerate 168 Total suspended solids Gra.vinetric 209 B ItO.l WftL CH.7 500 Refrigerate 168 Cfiltered/dried) Rrsenic fttonic absorption 303 E 206. 1ft 2 50 HH03 to pH<2 6 nonths Cadniun Atonic absorption 303 A 213.142 50 HH03 to pH<2 6 nonths Chroniuri Rtonic absorption 303 A 218-1&2 50 HH03 to pH<2 6 nonths Copper Atonic absorption 303 A 220.142 50 HH03 to pll<2 6 nonths SRHPLE COLLECnOH flHO PROCESSING HETHODOLOGV FOR BEC SURVEVS RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDED PflRfiHETER COLLECTIOH/fESr TVPE STD. HETH EPA hETHOD OTHER HEHIOD SftMPLE SIZE SflHPLE PRESERV. HOLDING TIME Cnl> Chr or as noted) Iron Rtonic absorption 303 R 236. W2 50 HN03 to pH<2 6 Month5 Coloritietric 315 B Lead fltonic Absorption 303 R 239.Ift2 50 HN03 to pH<2 6 nonths Manganese Rtonic absorption 303 R 2-13. 142 50 HN03 to pH<2 6 ttonths Mercury fltonic absorption 303 F 215.Ift2 500 HH03 to pH<2 6 nonths 2-15.5 Nickel fltonic absorption 303 fl 219.142 50 HH03 to pH<2 6 Months Uanadiun Rtonic absorption 303 C .132 50 HN03 to pH<2 6 nonths Zinc Rtonic absorption 303 R 289. «tZ 50 HN03 to pH<2 6 nonths Oil and grease Extraction/gravinatric 503 R,C 113.1 1000 H2S01 to pH<2 672 Poly chlorinated biphenuls Gas chronatographic FR rustic!das Organic content Gravi natri c 209 E 160.1 Cdri odXi gni ted) Grain siza distribution Gravi natri.c Csiovod) HftL CH.5 MftB Sedinont settling features Volunetric H5B Fecal Incubatttd filter 909 C Sam iii.c.2 125 Refrigerate plate count atr*ptococci Incubated filter 910 B B&H III.0.2 125 Refrigerate, plate count o o SnHPLE COLLECTION fiHD PROCESSING HETHODOLOGV FOR BEC SURVEVS RECOHHENDEO RECOMMENDED PRRflrtETER COLLECTION/fESf TVPE SID. NETH EPft METHOD OTHER METHOD SAMPLE SIZE SAMPLE PRESERV. HOLDING TIME CM!5 (hr or as noted) Chlorophyll a Extract!on/absorpti on 1003 G.3 U CH.£B&.2.1ft3 H&L CH.10 1000 Refrigerate in dark Bi ol09!cal col1octions Phyloplankton Grab or tuba conposito 1002 B.2*3 H CH.2.213 UftL CH.10 Lugol's 6 nonths Zooplankton ISO un nosh not ton 1002 B.Zftl M CH.2.243 UftL CH.ll For Mai in 6 Months Macrophytes Eknan or nanual 1001 0.1 M CH.3 MftL CH.20 Fornalin 18 1001 0.2aftb Macro!nvertebrates D-nat or Eknan dredge 1005 B.3.a.6 H CH.1.3.2»3 UftL CH.12 Alcohol or fornalin 6 nonths 1005 8.1 H CH.1.1.W2 Fish Gill net, trap not 1006 A.l.abd H CH.5.2.2.1 NJL CH.6, fllcohol or fornalin 6 nonths or saina U CH.S.2.3 Phytopiankton abundance. Microscopic call count 1002 C.I H CH-2.-I&5.3 HftL CH.10 1002 E.U1 1002 F.W2 1002 H-2 Zooplankton abundance/ Microscopic count 1002 C.I M CH.2.1tt5.3 U&L CH.ll siza distribution 1002 E.lttl 1002 F.? 1002 H.2 Hocrophyla Visual 1001 B H CH.3 UftL CH.20 distribution 10CM C.l,2»1 1001 0.3*1 Macro!twertobrato abundance Visual or Microscopic 1005 C M CH.1.1.5 UftL CH.12 examnati on Fish abundanca/grouth rata Visual and nicroscopic 1006 B U CM.5.1 NJL CH-lSftlt scale axatiination Soft. sadi«ent depth Probe to refusal DEQE Laka bathynetry Sonic fathotieter MftL CH.l DEQE Norphonetric lake features Physical/calculation MftL CH.l I I I REFERENCES FOR METHODOLOGY: I Unless otherwise given, Std. Method is from APHA-AWWA-WPCF 16th edition. Unless otherwise given, EPA Method is from EPA-600/4-79-020. • Other references: B&W = Bordner and Winter, 1978. Microbiological Methods for Monitoring the _ Environment. EPA-600/8-78-017, USEPA, Cincinnati, OH. • DEQE = Department of Environmental Quality Engineering, Division of Water * Pollution Control, 1988. Clean Lakes Program Guidelines. Publication #15, 487-52-200-2-88-CR, DEQE, DWPC, Westborough, MA. • FR = Federal Register, 40 CFR, Part 136, Oct. 26, 1984. | LEE = Lee. 1977. A device for measuring seepage flux in lakes and estuaries. Limnol. Oceanogr. 22:140-147. « MWA = Mitchell, Wagner and Asbury, 1988. Direct measurement of groundwater I flow and quality as a lake management tool. Lake Reserv. Manage. 4:169-178. MWMB = Mitchell, Wagner, Monagle and Beluzo, 1989. The Littoral Interstitial • Porewater Sampler: Paying "LIP" service to your lake. Lake Reserv. I Manage. 5:(in press), NJL = Nielsen, Johnson and Lampton, 1983. Fisheries Techniques. AFS, • Bethesda, MD. | P = Preisendorfer, 1986. Secchi disk science: Visual optics of natural waters. Limnol. Oceanogr. 31:909-926. _ SCS = Soil Conservation Service, 1975. Engineering Field Manual for I Conservation Practices. USDA, SCS, Washington, DC. * SMDCF = Scalf, McNabb, Dunlap, Cosby and Fryberger, 1981. Manual of Groundwater Sampling Procedures. NWWA, Worthington, OH, • W = Weber, 1973. Biological Field and Laboratory Methods. I EPA-600/4-73-001, USEPA, Cincinnati, OH. WLB = Winter, LeBaugh and Rosenberry, 1988. The design and use of a • hydraulic potentiomanometer for direct measurement of differences I in hydraulic head between groundwater and surface water. Limnol. Oceanogr. 33:1209-1214. . W&B = Walsh and Bemben, 1977. Disposal and Utilization of Hydraulically I Dredged Lake Sediments in Limited Containment Areas. I Publication #92, Water Resour. Res. Center, UMASS, Amherst, MA. W&L = Wetzel and Likens, 1979. Limnoiogical Analyses. W.B. Saunders, Ph i1ade1ph i a, PA. i i i i 102 i FIELD/LRBORnrORV flNRUVSES RHD EQUIPMENT PflRHHETER COLLECTION/FESf TVPE EQUIPMENT NEEDS FIELD HORK: Mater Sanple Collection - General field needs Vehicle, first aid kit, flashlight, tools/repair supplies 8oat, trailor, oars, notor, fual tank/1ino, rope, 1ifa jackets, sojtt cushions, fir« extinguisher, light/uhistle safety and anchors Ice auger, toboggan/sled, ica ladle Boots/Naders, rubber gloves, rain gear Coolor5, carrying crates, labels/tape, narking pans, pencils, paper/clipboards, field notebooks, waterproof notebook, lab/field sheets, naps Assorted sanple containers, preservatives (specific needs beloM> Surface Mater Grab 1 to 1 L jug or jar, Scott bottle, funnel, extension poles/tape Stornuater runoff Grab or composite. 1 to 1 L jug and jar Grounduater Mells Grab 1 to 1 L jug or jar, Mall logger, Mell bailer or punp Poreuater Grab or conposite 1 to 1 L jug or jar, LIP sartpler it/hand punp and trap o UJ Seepage Volunetric Seepage netars M/bags and spouts, grad. cgl., tape rteasure, float- narkers, Match Biological Col1ections Bacteria Grab Sterile plastic bags or glass bottles Phytopiankton Grab or tube conposite 100 to 250 nl bottles u/Lugol's solution, 10 n flexible tube Cl to 2 en did.), 1 L dark bottle (for chl) Zooplankton 150 un nesh net tow 250 to 500 nl bottles H/fornalin, 150 un nesh ton net, calibrated rope Hacrophytes Eknan or tianual Ekrtan dredge, areal grid sanpler, plastic bags, SCUBfl gear, ident. Manuals Macro!nvertebrates D-net or Eknan dredge Ekrtan dradgo, D-nat, sorting pan, forceps, 500 nl jars, alcohol or fornaiin, std. selves Fish Gill net, trap net Gill net, trap net, seine, net pickers, live Mell, neasuring board, or seine Meighing scale, needle nose pliers, scale envelopes, dip net FIELD/LflBORflTORV HNftLVSES BND EQUIPMENT PflRRHETER COLLECriON/fESr TVPE EQUIPHENT NEEDS Soditfent Sampling and Physical Heasurenents - Sedinent collection Core or Eknan grab Eknan dredge, lucite core tubes, nixing bucket, glass and plastic Midonouth containers, SCUBA gear Soft sedinent depth ProbQ to refusal Graduated rods Mith scraM connections, SCUBA gear Hater discharge (flou) Volunetric Floats, Gurlay Meter, stopwatch, tape neasure/graduated rod Lake bathynetry Sonic fathotieter Electronic fathotieter assenblu., graduated pi until no, operated fron or line soundings a boat Horphonetrie lake features Physical/calculation Haps, ruler, planineter, neasuring Mheel, calculator/conputar Ctypically done in office after field reconnaisance) Field Analyses - Secchi disk transparency Visual 20 en Secchi disk on graduated rope o -P- Tenperature Themis tor Thar HI s tor Dissolved oxygen Henbrane electrode VSI Hodel 5? or Modified Model Sift or equivalent DO neter M/30 n or Minkler titration cable, probe repair kit Uinkler chenicals, pipettes, titration apparatus, stoppered bottle for sanple Percent oxygen saturation Calculation fron Calculator/conputer; can be done in field or in office/lab later Potentionetric Orion SR250 pH neter or equivalent, pH 1, 7 ft10 buffers, distilled Mater. Hach colorinetrie kits can be used for field approxination; pH neter can also be used in lab. Specific conductance Platinized electrode VSI Hodel 33 S-C-T neter or equivalent, conductivity standard, platinizing solution, distilled Mater; can also be used in lab Turbidity Nephelonetri c Hach Hodel I860 turbidineter or equivalent, power source, paper toMels, distilled Mater; can also be used in lab FIELD/LRBORRTORV RNRLYSES AND EQUIPHEHf PRRflhETER COLLECTIDM/TEST TVPE EQUIPMENT NEEDS LRBORRTORV nHflLVSES: General laboratory needs Rofrigorator/fraezer, cabinets/benchtops, hood/overal1 venti11ati on systeM, electronic balance, drying oven, rtuffle furnace, autoclave, dessicator, incubator, titration apparatus, distillation apparatus, Magnetic stirrer assertbly, 2 nn band Midth spectrophotorteter , acid Mash assonbly, rubber gloves, cleaning supplies Cincl. acids and non-P dotergenO, goggles, chenical handling supplies Total phosphorus Colori«atric •IZHC-Porsulfate digestion- hot plate or autoclave, autoclavable, acid-Mashed glassMare, phenophthalein indicator, sulfuric acid, armoniuti persulfata, sodiun hydroxide 121F-fiscorbic acid nethod- See SRP beloM Total filterable phosphorus Colorirtetric •12^n-Filtration step- 0.15 un nenbrane filters, auction filtration apparatus, acid Mashed collection vessel •121C- Persulfata digestion- See TP above •12-lF-Rscorbic acid Method- See SRP belou o Ui Soluble reactive phosphorus ColoriMetric -12lF-flscorbic acid Method- Reid-Mashed glassMare, spectrophotoneter u/S-10 en path, sulfuric acid, potassiuM antinonyl tartrata solution, annoniun nolybdate solution, ascorbic acid solution, stock P solution Nitrate nitrogen Colorin*trie 118B-Elactrode Method- pH Meter, nitrate electrode, Magnetic stir apparatus, stock nitrate solution llSC-CadniuM reduction Method- Reduction coluMn, spectrophototieter M/l to 5 en path, copper-cadMiun granules, sulfanilanida reagent, NCl-naphthyl)-athylenedianine dihydrochlorids solution, aMnoniuM chlorida-EDTR solution, hdrochloric acid, copper sulfate solution, stock nitrate solution, MeMt>rane filters, suction filter apparatus 118D-Chronotropic acid nethod- Spectrophotoneter M/l to 5 CM path, stock nitrate solution, sulfite urea solution, anti«ony reagent, chrOHOtopic acid reagent, sulfuric acid FIELD/LRBORflTORV RNflLVSES RND EQUIPMENT PARAMETER COLLECTION/TEST TVPE EQUIPMENT NEEDS Hnrtonia nitrogen Colorinetric HJ*A-Distillation stop- fltinoni^-froa uator, distillation apparatus, borato buffer solution, sodiun hydroxida, dechlorinating agant, phanglarsina oxida, sodiurt arsanita, sodiun sulfita, sodiun thiosulfata, neutralization agant, sodiun hydroxida, sulfuric acid, boric acid 1lPB~Hasslarization- Spactrophotonator MX I to 5 CM path, Nasslar tubas, pH natar, zinc sulfata solution, EOTfl, Hasslctr reagent, stock annoniun solution, potassiun chloroplatinata solution, cobaltous chlorida solution, nanbrana filters, suction filtar apparatus 1l?D-ElQctrode nathod- pH nater, antionia alactrodo, Hagnatic stirrer apparatus, annonia-fraa Ha tor, sodiun hydroxida, stock annonia solution Total kj ttl dahl ra trogen Colorinetric <420B-Sarti-nicro-KjaldaM nathod~ Digestion apparatus, distillation apparatus, pH natar, digestion reagent Cpotassiun sulfata, nar curie oxide, sulfuric acid), phenol ph thai ein indicator, sodiun hydroxide-sodiun thiosulfata r«agant, borate buffer and sodiun hydroxida - See annonia above Total alkalinity Ti tration 103 -Std. Method- sodiun carbonate solution, sulfuric or o hydrochloric acid, nixed bronocrasal green-nethyl red indicator, cr- nethyl orange solution, phonophthal *i n indicator, sodiun thiosulfate Chlorida Titration •lOPfl-flrgentonfttri c nethod- Potassiun chronat* indicator, silver nitrate solution, standard sodiuti chlorida, ti trati on apparatus Total solids Gravi rtatri c Cdri od) 2O9fl~Std. Method- Evaporating dish, Muffle furnace, stean bath, drying oven, dassicator, balance Total volatila solids Gravinetrie Cignited) 209E-Std. Method- Ho additions to 2O9ft 209ft~ See Total Solids above Total suspended solids Gravinatric 209D-Std. Method- glass fiber filters, suction filter apparatus, (filtered/dried) crucibles or planchets, in addition to 209fl 209R- Sea Total Solids above Arsenic fttonic Absorption fltonic absorption unit and related supplies, argon-hydrogen or nitrogen-hydrogen gas Cadniun fltonic Absorption fl tonic absorption unit and related supplies, air — acetylene gas Chroniun Atonic absorption fltonic absorption unit and related supplies, air-acetylene gas FIELD/LRBORfiTORV HNRLVSES RNO EQUIPHEMf PftRRHETER COLLECTIOH/TESf IVPE EQUIPMENT NEEDS Copper Rtonic absorption Rtonic absorption unit And related supplies, air—acetylene gas Iron Rtonic absorption Rtonic absorption unit and related supplies, air—acetylene gas Colorinetric 3158-Phananthroline nethod- Spectrophotoneter H/l to 5 en path, Mossier tubas, acid-washed glassware, separatory funnels, nenbrane filters, suction filtration apparatus, hydrochloric acid, hydroxylanine solution, annoniun acetate buffer solution, sodiun acetate solution, phenanthrolina solution, stock iron solution Load Rtonic absorption Rtonic absorption unit and related supplies, air-acetylene gas Manganese Rtonic absorption fttonic Absorption unit and related supplies, air-acetylene gas Mercury Rtonic absorption Rtonic absorption unit and related supplies, cold vapor nethod supplies Nickel Rtonic absorption Rtonic absorption unit and related supplies, air—acetylene gas Vanadiun Rtonic absorption Rtonic absorption unit and related supplies, nitrous oxide- acetylene gas Zinc fltonic absorption fltonic absorption unit and related supplies, air-acetylene gas Oil and grease Extracti on/gravi netri c 503fl-P*rtition/gravinetric Method- Saparatory funnel, distillation apparatus, water bath, filter paper, gravity filtration apparatus, hydrochloric acid, trichlorotrif1uoroethane, sodi un sulfata Polychlorinated biphenyls Gas chronatographic Gas chronatograph and related supplies Pesticides (general scan) Gas chronatographic Gas chronatograph and related supplies Organic content GraviMetric 209E- See Total Volatile Solids above (dri ed/igni ted) FIELD/LRBORRTORV RNRLVSES RND EQUIPMEHr PflRflHETER COLLECnON/rESr TVPE EQUIPMENT NEEDS Focal coli torn Incubated filter 909C-Henbrane filtar procedure- H-FC nediun, culture dishes, plate count incubator, pipettes, sterile filter apparatus, nenbrane filters, absorbent pads, forceps, fluorescent lanp with Magnifying lens CIO to 15X) , suction filter apparatus Fecal streptococci Incubated filter 910B-Henbrane filtar procedure- KF Streptococcus agar, culture dish plate count incubator, pipettes, sterile filter apparatus, nenbrane filters, absorbent pads, forceps, fluorescent lanp nlth Magnifying lens CIO to 15X>, suction filter apparatus Grain size distribution GraviMetric Csieved) fiSm seive series, hydroMeter, collection pans, balance Sedinent settling features Volunetric Large and snail settling colunns Cclear tubes, praf. graduated, Hith sanpl ing/outlet ports at intervals), Match Chiorophul1 a Extraction/absorption 0.-15 un filter paper, Hillipore suction filter apparatus or equivalent, 902 acetone solution, tissue grinder, graduated test tubes, spectrophotoneter n/2 nn band uidth, cone Phytoplankton abundance Microscopic call count Graduated settling tubes, Sadgeuick-Rafter and Pal tier-Hal oney counting slides, Microscope Mith capability of 100 to HOOK, o tally sheets, conputer CH/tabulation/bionass conversion prog.>, CO identification Manuals, ocular Measuring device Zooplankton abundance/ Microscopic count Graduated settling tubes, Sedgeuick-Rafter counting slide, size distribution Microscope with capability of tO to 100X Coverheod pro j . scope >, tally sheets, coMputer CM/tabulation/bionass conversion prog.>, identification Manuals, ocular neasuring device Hacrophyte abundance/ Visual Hand lens, ident. nanuals distribution Hacroinvertebrate abundance Visual or Microscopic Patri dishes, stereoscope tiith capability of to 40X, dissection exanination ident. nanuals, hand lena Fish abundance/growth rate Visual and Microscopic Ident. nanuals, nicroscope Mith capability of *tO to 100X Cover head seal a exanination pfojecter scope>t flat nicroscope slides or acetate scale inpressions, forceps, ocular neasuring device APPENDIX B RELEVANT INFORMATION FROM MDWPC 1976 109 \jU. BERKSHIRE COUNTY GEOLOGY In consequence of its Paleozoic history, New England as a whole is of meta- morphic terrain. Underlying the Great Valley of Vermont, which continues southward past Stockbridge, Massachusetts, and into northwest Connecticut, there is a narrow belt of Cambrian and Ordovician limestones, some of which are metamorphosed to marble. This area, merging northward with the Champ la in Lowland, is drained southward by the Upper Housatonic River. New England's hard-water lakes are largely confined to this belt due to the extensive limestone deposits. Berkshire County itself is underlain by four major bedrock types: gneiss, quartzite, schist, and carbonate rocks. The gneiss and quartzite form the eastern hills, while the carbonate rocks underlie the lowlands in the Central Valley mentioned above. The .carbonate rocks are widespread in the Berkshires and, in places, produce a great amount of groundwater for wells. i The Berkshire lakes, as well as those elsewhere in New England, owe their origin in part to Pleistocene glaciation, which left Berkshire County between ten and twelve thousand years ago. The majority of these lakes appear to be in modified rock basins dammed by glacial drift. Stratified kame dams are more common than till alone, and kettle holes are quite numerous. The outstanding feature of the Berkshires is the physiology of the region which, in turn, produces the basis for the diversified fish and wildlife resources found there. The hill and mountain ranges run predominantly north-south and fall between two major ecological regions: the Chestnut-Oak zone to the south; and the Northern Hardwood zone, characterized by beech, birch, and maple, to the north. BERKSHIRE- COUNTY SOILS A full description of each lake's soil types would be too lengthy for this report. A brief, general description is given instead for the Berkshire region. Most of the lake watersheds are composed of well-drained and moderately well drained stony soils. Most of the upland areas contain hardpan with a slope of about 15 percent. Many of the lakes (e.g., Stockbridge Bowl, Richmond Pond, and Laurel Lake) have well drained and moderately well drained stony limestone soils with hardpans on the uplands. Except for the peripheral development around each lake, the watersheds are forested with mixed coni- ferous and hardwood trees. This vegetative cover provides -a layer of litter over the soils where Che slope is not too steep. The shallow soils in the region have frequent outcrops of ledge. On the steeper slopes, the bedrock is very near the surface and imposes severe limitations for farming, coirmercf a) , industrial, and residential uses. The hardpan and bedrock also make the installation and operation of subsurface disposal systems difficult. 110 I KEY TO BEDROCK GEOLOGY I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I HOUSATONIC RIVER BASIN I GENERALIZED BEDROCK I FIGURE GEOLOGY Sourcerce: R.F. Norvitch, et al. , Hvdrotofty^ana "Water Resources of the Hgusatgnic I River Basin, MassachusVtTs. WasKnffto«, 'i.e.; ui> uepc. or incerior, Ill I I I RICHMOND POND Richmond and Pittsfield I Richmond Pond is a 2l8-acre Great Pond located just south of the junction I of U.S. Route 20 and State Route M in Richmond and Pittsfield. A portion of the Richmond Pond watershed also drains an area of Lenox. Two of the • three tributary streams to Richmond Pond drain extensive areas of wetlands; • one of these tributaries drains a relatively large beaver pond, while the other drains a county fairground and a large apple orchard-. The outlet _ of Richmond Pond flows north a short distance before entering the South- I west Branch of the Housatonic River in the western portion of Pittsfield. ' Residential development around Richmond Pond is moderate with approximately • 100 seasonal and year-round dwellings. Two summer camps are located near | the lake. Recreational activity includes boating, fishing, and swimming. Access to Richmond Pond is provided by a public boat launching facility. M Richmond Pond can be considered a typical deep, hard, and alkaline Berkshire County Sake. Hypolimnetlc dissolved oxygen concentrations were relatively low dfuriing the time of the survey. Nutrient concentrations were also I relatively low. Secchi disc transparency in July was the best ?n the • Housatonic basin, reaching 2b feet. The extensive, shallow littoral shelf area in the lake provides suitable habitat for the attachment of • aquatic macrophytes. Large-leafed species of pondweed were dominant I with water milfoil, while stonewort was very common. Marl encrustation was noted on many of the submerged aquatic plants. I I I I I I I RICHMOND POND RICHMOND Inlef - et LOCATION OF SAMPLING STATIONS /\ Sample Station FIGURE 28 113 TABLE 14 RICHMOND POND WATER QUALITY DATA (mg/l) July 6, 1976 STATION: 1 2 3 4 5 5.0' 18.0' 50.0' Inlet Inlet Inlet Outlet Parameter pH (std. units) 8,2 8,0 7.4 7.7 7.9 7.6 8.3 Total alkalinity 88 91 n4 139 147 78 83 Total hardness 92 92 116 145 149 84 83 Total Kjeldahl-N 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.49 0.56 0.28 0.42 Ammonia-N 0.0*1 0.06 0.11 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.03 Nitrite-N 0.003 0.000 0.005 0.002 0.000 0.003 0.001 Nltrate-N 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 Total P 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.04 0.03 Ortho P 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 Total iron 0.06 0.06 0.10 0.16 0.40 0.20 0.04 Total manganese 0.01 0.01 0.90 0.07 0.02 0.05 0.02 Calcium 26 26 35 40 45 27 23 Magnesium 6.5 6-5 7.0 11 9.0 4.2 6.3 Sodium 6.0 6.0 6.4 3.7 7.0 7.8 6.0 Potassium 0.2 0,2 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.1 Color (std. units) 5 10 5 30 40 5 5 RICHMOND POND FIGURE 29 TEMPERATURE and DISSOLVED OXYGEN PROFILE JULY 6, 1976 DISSOLVED OXYGEN (mg/l) STATION I 123456789 Depth Temp. D.O. (feet) °F (mg/l) Surface 75-0 8.5 5 72.0 8.3 10 70.0 8.1 15 6**. 0 7-8 18 56.0 8.4 20 52.0 9.4 25 48.0 8.6 30 '(6,0 6.6 35 ^3-0 1.7 40 42.0 0-7 45 41.5 0.7 50 41.0 0.6 52 4 i.o — SKOCHI RKAIHNC 7/t>/7(> SUi. I ft 10 5O fjf) GO 65 TEMPERATURE (°F) RICHMOND POND RICHMOND £!odeo sp. sp. Myriophyilurn sp. Sc/rpus Sfl. Typha latifoiia Potamogeton I DISTRIBUTION OF Potamoqeton 2 Nuphor sp, AQUATIC VEGETATION FIGURE 30 116 I I I I I I I I APPENDIX C I RELEVANT INFORMATION FROM BCRPC 197 I I I I I I I I I I 117 FART I - THE LAKE AND ITS INTERNAL MANAGEMENT 2.0 LAKE CONDITIONS Table D-l summarizes some of the important lake characteristics. The entries are generally self-explanatory except for the following remarks: 1. The surface runoff, 26 inches a year, is the long-term mean for the study area. 2. In determining the flov volume, consideration vas given to the effects of groundwater directly entering the lake "bottom and evaporation from the lake surface. 3. The areal water load (q.g) =QiAo = Z-=-tw. U. The retention coefficient (R) is the ratio of the phosphorus retained in the lake to the phosphorus entering the lake from all sources . It is estimated by the Dillon model: R = 13.2 7 (13.2 + q.g). Retention coefficients for nitrogen vere calculated from field data and range from 0.65 to 0.73. 5- The annual phosphorus input supply tolerance will "be explained in the next section on phosphorus tolerances. 6. The annual nitrogen input supply tolerance is fifteen times that of phosphorus . 7. The lake condition numbers are explained in Section 12.0. TABLE D-1. LAKE CONDITIONS Lakes Lake Characteristic Units Symbol Ashroere Lake Lake Goose Laurel Onota Plunkett Pontoosuc Richmond S tec '-.bridge Lake Buel Garfleld Pond Lake Lake Reser. Lake Pond Scwl Lake surface area k»2 AO 0.878 0.785 1.061 1.093 0.668 2.497 0.295 1.891 0.882 l.SH Mean depth n r 2.438 5.161 4.825 7.133 7,958 6.401 3.048 4.261 5.486 7.315 Volume 106 - m3 V 2.141 4.051 5.119 7.796 5.316 15.983 0.899 8.057 [4.839 11.07 Drainage area km2 Ad 10.07 11.99 9.91 10.72 7.49 27.01 7.57 55.74 19.47 26.78 (1ncl. the lake) Runoff 26"/yr - n/yr r. 0.661 0.651 0.661 0.661 0.661 0.661 0.661 0.661 0.661 0.661 0.661 m/yr Outflow volume 106 rn^/yr Q 6.66 7.93 6.54 7.09 4.95 17.85 5.00 36.84 12.87 17.70 Flushing rate t1rnes/yr P 3.11 1.96 1.28 0.91 0.93 1.12 5.56 4.57 2.66 1.60 Average residence time years TW 0.321 0.511 0,783 1.100 1.074 0.895 0.180 0.219 0.376 0.625 Areal water load m/yr Is 7.59 10.10 6.16 6.49 7.41 7.15 16.95 19.48 14.59 11.69 Retention coefficient R 0.64 O.S7 0.68 0.68 0.64 0.65 0.43 0.40 0.47 0.54 Annual 'Phosphorus Input Tolerance: Condition 1 kg P/yr Pi 139 138 153 161 103 383 66 461 182 289 Condition 2 278 277 307 322 206 364 • ?2 765 132 921 57 7 Condition 3 P3 555 553 613 645 413 1,530 263 1,842 728 1.154 Condition 4 P4 1,110 1.107 1,226 1.289 827 3,060 526 3.684 1.457 2,308 Annual Nitrogen Input Tolerance Condition 1 kg ll/yr. N! 2085 2070 2295 2 It 15 15^5 5745 990 6915 2730 4335 Condition 2 kg M/yr. N2 4170 4155 4605 1.330 3090 1475 1975 13815 5*60 6655 Condition 3 kg N/yr. N B32S 8295 9195 9670 6195 22950 3945 27630 10920 17310 3 34620 Condition 4 kg N/yr. »* 6650 6605 18390 9335 2*105 45900 7890 55260 21855 118 I 1 I TABLE D-3 NITROGEN SOURCES (GROSS TOTAL, 1976) «* {I §« •» u « JC 2 w L. k. c 1 j U 4 M- < * u. cc j ie 41 >~ e U. 10 ik JZ 01 « *> X <* o Ol U. ja u. J3 a. c M m 5 u o« — c — *_ c E *- 6 C v» — •a js a ^ Q w I .« +t « 3 . o m 1- 3 *. « Q "CJ v ** *. i_ ui C - VI J3 O C O- -0 E IV — a. •«— t—a tt. *4 NITROGEN LIMITED LAKES 0. flj o a u u O t-t U ** O « u *) ^ « *rt B) Z 01 3 trt Z in 3 < -J oe o aC 1/1 V) x H TOTAL __ I ASHMERE ._ 3 __ Volume ('000 H /year) 1312 2635 8 1525 265 HA __ __ HA Nutrient Concent, (mg/i 1.42 1.40 1.06 L42 1.42 .. Nutrient Load (kg/yr) 1881 3.695 8 2186 380 206 2230 625 -- 1 1 .292 I Percent of Total 16.7 32.7 0.8 19.4 3.4 1.8 ~—~ 5-5 19-7 100 — SUEL __ "ToTume ('000 M^/year) 2000 1641 68 2490 191 554 __ __^_, —— Nutrient Concent." (mg/£ 1.42 0.317 0.97 1.42 1.42 — 1.15 I Nutrient Load (kg/yr) 2867 3570 273 16—9 644 525 67 615 2669 812 12.211 I • Percent of Total 23.5 4.3 a. 5 29.2 2.2 1.4 5.3 5.0 21.9 6.6 100 GARFIELD __ __ I Volume ('000 rP/year) 1932 1476 in 331 1227 1028 .__ Nutrient Concent. (mg/£ 1.42 0.477 1.131 1.42 1.42 — 0.21 _. -_ Nutrient Load (kg/yr) 2769 711 127 3158 475 23—8 216 630 1990 769 11,083 I Percent of Total 25-0 6.4 1.1 28.5 4.3 2.1 1.9 5.7 17.9 6.9 100 LAUREL Volume ('000 M3/year) 1375 1129 46 1575 130 4336 _,-_ MA — Nutrient Concent. (mg/-£] 1.42 0.227 0.931 1.42 1, 1..4-2 -- 0.49 Nutrient Load l'*g/yr) 1971 3.16 44 2258. 'lisa. 150 2144 342 2736 — 10B!47 I Percent of Total 19.4 0.4 22.2 1.3 1.5 21.1 3.4 27.0- — JGO 3.1 — OHOTA __ __ "VoTume ('000 H^/year) 4885 4023 124 5627 348 H_A_ __ __ NA I Nutrient Concent. (mg/£) 1.42 0.264 0.918 1.42 .42 — *_ I Nutrient Load (kg/yr) 6959 1072 US 8066 499 56—0 1306 638 19.215 Percent of Total 36.2 5.6 0.6 42.0 2.6 2.9 — 6.8 3-3 — 100 — — I PONTOOSUC Volume { '000 rlVyear) * 10954 9067 654 12165 1831 NA Nutrient Concent. (mg/£) 1.42 -385 1.039 1.42 1.42 —-- « — — — -- Nutrient Load (kg/yr) 15701 3383 687 17437 2626 425 -- 101—8 628—2 4026 51,585 Percent of Total '30.4 6.6 1.3 33.8 5.1 0.3 2.0 12.2 7.S ID-; — RICHMOND Volume ('000 M3/year) 3825 2928 220 3986 600 543 NA Nutrient Concent. (mg/£) .42 1.42 — — — 1.42 • 396 1.05 0.42 -- Nutrient Load (kg/yr) 5435 1170 233 5714 860 19—8 227 64—5 291—7 17.339 Percent of Total 31.2 6.7 1.3 32.8 4.? 1.1 1-3 3.7 16.8 — 100 — STOCXBR 10CE Volume I1 000 rWyear) 5685 4712 145 584 407 -, 2007 __ Nutrient Concent. (mg/Z) 1.42 • 349 .003 .42 1.42 1.60 — — -—. Nutrient Load (kg/yr) 3148 1660 147 437 583 34—0 3205 46—2 2120 2352 28.45:. Percent of Total 28.6 5.3 0.5 3-2 2.0 1.2 11.3 >.* 7.4 8-3 JOO 119 I TABLE 0-4 TROPHIC STATUS BASED ON "IN-LAKE" NUTRIENT BUDGET, 11 I AND COMPARISON WITH "OUT-OF-LAKE BUDGET Year - 1976 Year - 2000 I Nitrogen Trophic Nitrogen Trophic Lake Loading (kg) Index Loading (kg) Index Ashmere 8,130 2.9 9,822 3.2 I Buel 9,227 3.1 11,677 3.5 Garfleld 8,340 2.9 11,235 3-3 Laurel 8,547 3.5 10,997 3.8 1 Onota 13,489 2.2 14,868 2.4 Pontoosuc 37,471 3.4 42,627 3.6 I R i chmond 13,778 3.3 16,275 3.6 Stockbridge 21,338 3.3 23.935 3.S I * Trophic Index of 0 to 1.9 - 01 igotrophic, 2.0 to 2.9 " Mesotrophic, and 3.0 and Over - Eutrophic. + Less nutrient outflow I ** Without lake eutrophication control measures. I I TABLE D-5 LAKE STATUS* BASED ON NET NITROGEN LOADING, YEARS 1976 AND 2000 I Lake Status as Lake Status as • I Determined from Determined from . General Lake Class In-Lake Analysis Out-of-Lake Analysis Laurel Stockbridge I Pontoosuc Laurel Eutrophic Richmond Richmond Stockbridge Buel I Buel ,' Pontoosuc Ashmere Ashmere I Garf ield Mesotrophic Garf ield Plunkett Plunkett Onota Onota I Oligotrophic Goose Goose I * Although Goose Pond and Plunkett Reservoir are phosphorus limited, their status as determined by In-1ake calculations is shown for-the purposes of comparison. I 120 I I the lakes, it would account for 29 percent of the annual phosphorus input to I -the lakes. Against-this ceiling perspective, the estimated current discharge of 973 kg P/yr (13 percent) seems most reasonable, if not somewhat high con- * sidering the well-known capacity of soils to adsorb phosphorus. J I In summary, then, the reasonableness of the phosphorus input estimates f herein and their relationship to lake tolerances seems to be very amply demon- f '** I strated in many different independent ways. We can then proceed with some ;<; confidence to use the data in the remaining consideration of control measures * I —-how to reduce the phosphorus input"to tolerable levels. & I 15.0 CONTROL MEASURES 15*1 Description of Potential Measures I (1) Manage crops per SCS. This measure reflects an estimate of how the phosphorus supply coming from croplands would be reduced about 30 percent by a conversion from the cross-slope method of plowing I generally practiced in the study area to contour farming. The extra cost is 'estimated at about $l,500/km2/yr ($6/acre/yr). The measure has the added advantage of conserving the farmer's topsotl. I (2) Control construction practices. Entries reflect the estimated cost and effectiveness of controlling erosion from construction sites. Techniques include (1) minimizing th& construction period, (2) I slope stabilization, (3) ditch nsaintssaaace, (4) filtering, (5) sedimentation basins, and (6) revegetation. They are explained in detail in "Guidelines for Soil and Water Conservation in Urbanizing Areas of Massachusetts," SCS, April 1975. Because little construction I is anticipated in the lake basins, however, this measure has a low effectiveness. Effectiveness is estimated at 20 percent of the erosion from construction anticipated during the 1976-2000 period I plus 5 percent of the erosion from already developed areas. Cost effectiveness is estimated by updating literature values at about $630 per kg P/removed. ; I (3) Maintain or provide catch basins. This measure is applicable pri- marily in developed areas where the streets are below the level of the property. Thus, it would not be applicable in the common case I where cottages rim the shoreline and are fed by a road on the up- hill side. Appropriate situations exist, however, in the Onota, Pontoosuc, Richmond and Stockbridge watersheds. In all but Stock- bridge Bowl, the catch basins are in place; the only cost is periodic I emptying to maintain their effectiveness. Good maintenance practices call for this emptying anyway. Care should be taken to see that the removed contents including the water are not disposed of in a way I that will permit them to flow back rapidly into the lake. Estiinated costs are those generally experienced in the Pittsfield area. (4) Use nonphosphate detergents. This measure is limited to dwellings I with washing machines and dishwashers located close (say within 300 feet) to the lake and major tributaries thereto. It is the least expensive, quickest, surest control measure, but it is applicable I •only ™to-a-small -portion of. .the total load. Probably the easiest way I 121 to Implement this measure is on a voluntary basis backed up by the social pressure and educational activities of a strong lake associ- ation. An outright ban would be difficult to enforce. A countywide or statewide ban might take years to get enacted, and it would penal- ize the vast majority of citizens who do not live next to lakes and who thus have no impact on the problem. (5) Manage septic systems. This caption embraces a number of techniques developed in Chapter F (Municipal Facilities) for septic systems. Briefly, it is recommended that the future growth of septic system problems be minimized by careful administration of generally existing zoning and building permit programs; that the viability of these programs be maintained by recurring inspections and by providing - acceptable controlled means of septage disposal; and that a progres- sively more severe list of alternative solutions be considered to bridge the gap between the extremes of benevolent permissiveness in the face of persistent violations and the socially harsh alternative of forced abandonment of a site. Effectiveness of this measure is estimated at 75 percent of the total load from septic systems. (6) Sewer. This measure is self-explanatory. Its effectiveness is limited to the phosphorus being discharged to lakes through septic systems, which is often only a small part of the total phosphorus supply. Sewering is usually very expensive, especially if the lake is far from an existing treatment plant. Fortunately, as is sug- gested in Figure D-3, the use of nonphosphorus detergents and a septic system management program can accomplish much of the phos- phorus reduction achievable by sewering. In some situations, such as at Ashmere, Onota, Plunkett and Pontoosuc, sewering is justified for reasons other than lake eutrophication control. As brought out more completely in Chapter F (Municipal Facilities), where sewering Is examined in more detail, a large part of its cost is defrayed by very generous Federal and Commonwealth programs. Wherever sewering is provided around lakes, it must be coupled with careful development controls. Otherwise, the phosphorus added by increased erosion can easily more than offset the reduction in phosphorus from septic system leachate. To evaluate this control measure, the following shorelines were con- • sidered for sewering: Jj Buel, Plunkett, Stockbridge—all or essentially all. ; Ashmere—primarily the east shore. • Garfield—all except the easternmost quarter. | Goose—none. Laurel—all except the west shore, — Onota—west and south sides only. Most of east and north sides • have already been sewered. Pontoosuc—all shore in Lanesborough. Pittsfield shore is al- ready sewered. • Richmond—all -except the west shore. • (7) Locate livestock out of basin. Large concentrations of dairy cattle are located near the outer limits of the watersheds of Stockbridge • Bowl and Laurel Lake. It might be feasible to quarter and pasture • the cows on the other side of the divide away from the lake. (8) Manage manure. Good practices include such things as storing the • manure during winter months, employing holding ponds to catch run- • off, and disking the manure into the soil during the proper seasons. I 122 I I (9) Locate landfills oat of basin. Self-explanatory, except for a reminder that leachate will flow from the abandoned landfill for some tlaie, (10) Intercept landfill leachate. Rather than move the landfill, it may be I more effective to provide a cutoff trench fill with coarse material and a perforated collector pipe. When the collected leachate is re- applied to the fill, the phosphorus in it is almost completely ad- I sorbed. (11) Treat point-source sewage. Point sources are listed here for com- pleteness because they can eutrophy a lake as well as nonpoint I sources. As stated earlier, there are no significant point sources . in the watersheds of any of the ten lakes. (12) Employ detention ponds. Most of the phosphorus entering the lake I is carried there by streams. Where the topography permits, shallow, broad ponds can cause some of the phosphorus to settle out. The proportion of phosphorus such a pond can retain (R) can be esti- I mated by the following theoretical relationship developed by Dillon and verified empirically with data from many lakes: R = 13.2 * (13.2 -f- qs) , in which qg Is the mean quantity I of water (Q) flowing through the pond annually divided '• by the surface area of the pond. The problem of cleaning out the detention ponds is only minor. I To illustrate, in 100 years, the detention pond proposed on Lower Lily Brook in the Stockbridge Bowl watershed would fill by only 3 to 4 inches. At the end of this time, the minor loss I in capacity could either be ignored or made up by raising the impoundment by that slight amount. Although the proposed de- tention ponds would cover some existing wetland, they would pro- I duce a large and much more favorable land-water habitat area in which wildlife should thrive. Since the detention ponds are designed to trap sediment, phos- I phorus and other generally nonmigratory materials, they are un- likely to cause adverse effects on nearby aquifers. On the positive side, they should provide a source of recharge water. I (13) Diversions. The eutrophic level of a lake can also be reduced either (1) by diverting inflowing tributaries with high phosphorus concentrations around the lake to a downstream discharge, or (2) by diverting streams with low phosphorus concentrations into the I lake thereby increasing the dilution and flushing properties of the lake. There are no practical opportunities for applying the first technique in the watersheds of the ten lakes. For the second I technique, however, there is one excellent major opportunity at the northeast corner of the Ashmere watershed. At that point, a drainage area about the size of the entire existing watershed could easily be I diverted into Ashmere Lake, thereby increasing the lake's tolerance to phosphorus by about 35 percent. The technique could also take advantage of several potential sites for detention ponds thereby limiting the small quantity of phosphorus supplied from the new I heavily forested watershed to almost nothing. This measure was not pursued further because of the extensive effort required to evaluate the effects on the Windsor Reservoir and the apparent lack I of public support as expressed in response to a public presentation In Hinsdale at the end of Phase I of this study. If eutrophication problems persist at Ashmere, however, further examination of the I concept is certainly warranted. I L23 TABLE D-ll- Continued PHOSPHORUS SUPPLIED TO LAKES BY SUBBASIN, TIME FRAME, AND SOURCE 1976 Lake Pristine 2000 and Septic Live. Motor 1 Eros. Atmos. Total Eros Atros. Other* Total Eros / Itaos. Septfc Subbssln Sys. Stock Veh. Sys. Other" Total OnoU L. A 3 3 13 0 0 0 0 13 13 Q 0 13 • B 3 3 14 0 0 1 0 15 16 Q 1 17 . C 36 36 68 0 37 0 0 105 68 0 37 105 D 54 54 118 0 38 4 0 160 122 Q 42 164 £ 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 3 3 34 0 37 F 15 15 66 8 0 3 0 79 75 106 : 3 184 6 14 14 132 4 0 2 0 138 150 - 22 2 174 H 11 11 129 8 0 0 0 137. 145 67 0 212 P 33 83 100 0 0 0 0 IOC 100 7 0 107 T 10 10 60 0 0 0 0 60 69 0 0 69 Lake 125 125 187 187 187 187 Total • 232 125 357 723 187 20 75 10 0 997 761 187 236 85 1,269 Late 2.4-Mes Conditions' 0.9-01 1g 2.7-Mes Plunkett R. A 3 3 28 10 0 0 0 38 39 56 0 95 B 7 7 46 6 0 0 0 52 64 43 0 107 C 7 7 6 0 0 0 9 is- 6 1 9 16 D 11 i 11 9 0 0 0 0 9 9 0 0 9 Ha 7 7 6 0 0 0 0 6 6 0 Q 6 HF 34 34 25 0 0 0 0 25 25 0 0 25 H 20 20 20 0 0 0 0 20 22 0 0 22 Lake 15 15 22 22 22 22 Total 89 15 104 140 22 16 0 0 9 187 171 22 100 9 302 Lake 2.5-Kes 3.2-Eut Conditions* 1.7-01 1g Pontoosuc I. T 136 136 357 0 93 30 0 480 395 0 123 518 H 43 43 45 0 0 0 0 45 45 0 0 45 S 53 53 86 0 Q 2 58 146 88 0 60 148 M 14 14 51 38 . 0 2 0 141 54 161 2 217 0 17 17 57 0 0 2 0 59 60 0 2 62 L 12 12 172 161 0 2 0 335 185 315 2 502 P 30 30 185 135 0 2 0 322 196 323 2 521 Lake 97 97 146 146 146 146 Total 305 97 402 953 146 384 93 40* 58 1,674 1,023 146 799 191 2,159 Lake 2. 8 -MM 3.2-Etit Conditions* 0.8-Ollg Richmond P. NSH 57 57 130 0 0 10 0 140 146 0 10 156 C 14 14 68 0 56 1 0 125 77 0 57 134 P 30 30 106 0 0 1 0 107 120 0 1 121 r 25 25 26 0 0 0 0 26 26 0 0 26 1 9 9 65 33 0 0 0 14S 31 115 0 196 5z 2 2 43 36 0 0 0 79 52 73 0 125 1l3 3 3 13 0 0 0 0 13 15 0 0 15 R4 5 5 28 8 0 0 0 36 32 14 Q 46 Lake 44 44 66 66 66 66 Total 145 44 189 479 66 127 56 12 0 740 549 66 202 68 335 Lake 1.1-Oltg 3.0-Eut 3.3-Cut Conditions* Stockbrldge B. B 7 7 16 0 0 Q 0 16 17 7 0 24 C 2 2 22 16 0 0 0 38 25 91 0 116 0 n 11 29 0 0 0 0 29 32 5 0 37 E 15 15 82 26. 0 1 0 109 92 94 1 187 F3 96 96 182 0 0 0 0 182 196 0 0 196 53 53 304 0 0 1 0 305 343 0 1 344 117 117 171 0 60 4 0 235 173 0 64 237 [' 31 31. 146 36 0 1 0 183 154 37 1 192 23 28 102 24 0 1 0 127 111 72 1 184 H 40 40 77 0 0 0 0 77 80 0 0 80 Lake 75 75 114 114 114 114 Total 400 75 475 ,131 114 102 60 3 0 1,415 1,223 114 306 68 1,711 Lake 3.3-Eut 3.6-E«t Conditions* 1.8-Ollg TOTALS .776 560 2.326 4,870 842 973 314 92 67 7.158 5.703 842 2.433 473 9.456 124 I 'i it at a level of 2.8, a much more favorable "beginning point. Nonetheless, there is the implication that the lake may tend to "become more and more Ii phosphorus limited as it is restored. Unless biological substitution with chara can be effectuated, which could result in significant lake improvement in terms of both nitrogen and phosphorus, then it may become necessary to try to encourage the lake to become phosphorus limited. Richmond - A program of harvesting plus land use controls such as use of non-phosphate detergents, managing septic systems, and leaf control is recommended. Drawdown should also be considered for short-term relief from weeds. ' These measures should improve the lake from a low-eutrophic condition to low-mesotrophic in terms of phosphorus. If the lake management program should eventually focus on phosphorus .control then use of catch basins and the construction of a detention pond just south of the lake would also i be effective measures. However, this may not eventuate because Richmond Pond, like Laurel Lake has marl deposits on much of the aquatic vegetation. Marl is composed of calcium carbonate (limestone) and, as it precipates onto the vegetation, it takes phosphorus with it. IVi spite of this I natural phosphorus sink in Richmond Pond, the lake appears nitrogen limited. Phosphorus management may only reduce the phosphorus in the I marl deposits with marginal impact on vegetation. Since the initial recommended program will only bring the lake tc I a borderline mesotrophic condition in terms of the nitrogen budget, additional measures may be necessary. Biological substitution vith chara would be dramatically beneficial if the chara can be established. jr, I a program of additional land use controls, such as control of fertilizers, -! " could be instituted. I i Stockbridge Stockbrige is now planning the installation of sewers to the Bowl to rectify a potential public health problem. This measure is not re- commended on the basis of lake management, but if it is undertaken vouli I remove substantial nutrients. Care must be taken to see that the develop- ment which is often spawned by sewering does not increase nutrient inflov. Harvesting of the lake's chara is strongly recommended. If aeratior. is added to the program, then the lake would improve fron a mid-eutrophic I to a mid-mesotrophic condition for both phosphorus and nitrogen. I 125 126 APPENDIX D RELEVANT INFORMATION FROM BEL 1980 127 BERKSHIRE ENVIRO- LABS, E^C. • ROUTE 102, LEE, MASS. 01238 (413)243-2600 | f *#B I tmn I McrtnocooicuJ miflTttii ^^ ' October 18, 1980 I Mr. John Manners, Chairman I Richmond Conservation Commission * Town Hall Richmond, MA. 01254 • Dear Mr. Manners: Attached please find our completed Richmond Pond 1980 Final • Application for the Eutrophication and Aquatic Vegetation Control Program. • The program for this lake has been divided into two parts: I - The Inlake — Nuisance Weed Control Program, which is fundable under this application and | II - The Out of . Lake Nutrient Control Program, which is fundable under other programs such as the 201 Construction Grants Program and the 314 Lake I Restoration Program. I. THE INLAKE NUISANCE WEED CONTROL PROGRAM: | As you are aware from previous studies of Richmond Pond, the nuisance _ weed problems of this lake are caused by the euthophic state of this lake. I That is , the lake is overfertilized. Thus, the long term goal to control nuisance vegetation in Richmond Pond is to reduce its nutrient load I (primarily Phosphorus) to the point that vegetation is no longer a nuisance. However, due to the physical characteristics of this lake, even when all of I the advised Out of Lake Nutrient Controls are implemented, nuisance macrophytes will probably be a problem in Richmond Pond for many years. • Richmond Pond is a very large retention basin relative to the size of * its watershed. Approximately 47% of its annual Phosphorus load stays within _ the lake in the form of biomass (vegetation), muck and sediment. Over the | decades, a tremendous amount of Phosphorus has accumulated within this lake, which will likely sustain a lush growth of macrophytes for many years after I all of the Out of Lake Nutrient Controls are operational. Thus, our advised Inlake Nuisance Weed Control Program was selected on the basis of the I following goals: a) Its ability to economically provide a significant amount of • short term (seasonal) nuisance weed control. • 128 I • I I Mr,,. John. Manners October 18, 1980 -2- I b) Its ability to augment whenever possible future Out of Lake Nutrient Control Programs. c) Its ability to help local lake residents maintain their own I beaches as they desire, assuming they meet local Conservation Commission and Zoning Regulations. I The following is our advised Inlake Nuisance Weed Control Program for Richmond Pond.which is a combination of physical and biological techniques to provide control of nuisance weeds (also see THE PROGRAM I and Appendix #2, the J. F. Moynihan & Associates, Inc., Engineering/ Survey Report for further details). I 1) Winter drawdown of six (6) feet and freezing of exposed sediments to control Milfoil as well as retard the growth of Vallisneria I and El odea. 2) Muck excavation after drawdown of select intensively used shoreline areas to eliminate Vallisneria and Elodea as nuisance weeds The purpose behind selecting winter drawdown and freezing plus select shoreline excavation after drawdown instead of other Inlake Controls is for the following reasons; 1) Your primary nuisance weed is Vallisneria which cannot presently be effectively controlled by Chemical Treatments, Hydraulic Raking, Aeration or Siphons. 2) Though Vallisneria can be controlled by hydraulic dredging, the cost of such appears prohibitive and in most likelihood will not work, for Milfoil will probably replace Vallisneria as a shoreline nuisance. 3) Though cutting and harvesting will control Vallisneria, seasonal control by this method will probably run around $800 per acre, for at least two harvests are required and the locations which need treatment are shallow, very difficult to harvest areas. 4) Since, a) nuisance weeds in Richmond Pond have not significantly changed, except for density, over the past decade; b) past limited drawdowns of 2.5 feet have controled Milfoil in the 129 I Mr. John Manners October 18, 1980 ^3- exposed areas; and c) select shoreline excavations in 1970, when the lake was lowered .to build the boat ramp, controled . I nuisance weeds for a minimum of five (5) years and some areas are still free of nuisance weeds, drawdown and freezing with • muck excavation is not only a proven nuisance weed control technique in Richmond Pond but also the least expensive. • • 5) It must be understood that Vallisneria is not controled by B drawdown and freezing. However, its growth rate and subsequent _ density should be significantly reduced; thus activities other | than shallow shoreline uses should not be hampered. The following table illustrates surface acreages and percentages of I Richmond Pond's literal zone from 0 to 20 feet; the area where Macrophytes are presently growing; I Surface Area Exposed During % of Exposed Area _ Surface Area Drawdown Related to a . (acres) (acres) 20 ' Drawdown Lake Full 218 0 0% Lake 51 Down 125 93 58% Lake 10' Down 74 51 89% I Lake 15' Down 64 10 96% Lake 20' Down 57 7 100% With a six (6) foot drawdown, which can be accomplished with only I minimal excavation at the outlet, over 60% of the potential weed beds are • exposed. Since weeds in Richmond Pond are not typically a nuisance in waters ' • over four (.4) feet and the cost to significantly draw this lake down beyond • this point by gravity is presently prohibitive according to the attached I J. F. Moynihan & Associates, Inc. Report due to the gradual grade beyond the outlet of this lake, it is our opinion that drawdown to the present capacity I of the outlet structure should be sufficient to provide a nuisance weed free lake for general open water activities. However, if in the future Milfoil I does become a nuisance in water deeper than six (6) feet, drawdown by pumping will probably be much cheaper than drawdown by gravity. • Thus, it is our opinion that in the long run the Inlake management of * Richmond Pond, by drawdown and freezing, and select excavation, as outlined • in "THE PROGRAM" section of this application,is the most cost effective I i 130 i I I Mr. John-Manners . -. October..l8, 1980 -4- and biologically sound short term and long range Inlake Management I technique for this lake. , I II. THE OUT OF LAKE NUTRIENT CONTROL PROGRAM: The emphasis of an Out of Lake Nutrient Control Program for Richmond I Pond is to limit nutrient loading at the source; that is, farm, construction, silviculture and urban development related erosion as well as septic leachates These Nutrient'Control techniques are either fundable under other programs or I require strict following of State and Local Zoning, Building, Public Health and Wetland Laws and Ordinances. We advise the Town to adopt the various I Land Use Guidelines developed by the Berkshire County Regional Planning Commission in its "208" Study of the Upper Housatonic River as well as I follow the Soil Conservation Service Development Guidelines for Urban areas. In addition to controling erosin at its source we advise the I construction of storm flow retention basins at the Wetland northeast of Swamp Road, Inlet #1 Brook and the Richmond Shores culverts as illustrated I in the 3. F. Moynihan & Associate* line, report (see Appendix £2). Such devices are designed to maintain normal water elevations. However, during storms they will impound the flowage behind the control structure and allow I the sediment and nutrients to remain in the wetland and not be carried into the lake. Presently at both of these sites beaver dams are providing a I limited amount of retention. However, the proposed flow control structures will not only optimize the retention ability of these areas but also I minimize potential nutrient loading of the lake which could occur if the areas flooded turn anaerobic and release their stored Phosphorus. I We advise the Town to seriously consider obtaining a 201 grant to develop a Facility Plan for the Town's septic disposal systems. The soils ' within Richmond Pond's watershed are generally very poor for septic systems I and even though our shoreline Fecal CoJiform Survey did not identify severe septic leaching into the lake, septic system problems are going to I increase especially since many of the homes along the shore are being I converted from summer to full time residences. I I 131 Mr. John Manners October 18. 1980 -5- In addition to the above programs, we have proposed a continued monitoring program for Richmond Pond to evaluate not only the effects of the programs but also identify potential future problems and provide information to develop management changes as they become necessary. We hope the program meets with the approval of the State and receives the funding required for its implementation and continuation. Sincerely, BERKSHIRE ENVIRO-LABS, INC. William S. Enser, Or. Director 132 I lIMTROOUCTiarM I I I I FINAL APPLICATION I OCTOBER 1980 I The information compiled herein represents a collection of all applicable data and information from previous studies and reports. A list of these references is below. In addition, BERKSHIRE ENVIRO-LABS, INC., has I initiated the Monitoring Program as outlined in the Final Application form. Upon completion of the required Monitoring Program (February and March 1981), I pages 4 through 7 will be resubmitted. COLOR CODS Yellow - Application Form Brown - Application Exhibits Blue - Appendix #1, BERKSHIRE ENVIRO-LABS, INC., Monitoring Reports Goldenrod - Appendix #2, J.F. MOYNIHAN & ASSOCIATES, INC. Engineering/Survey Report Buff - Appendix #3, Watershed Soil Descriptions REFERENCES 1. "Baseline Water Quality Studies of Selected Lakes and Ponds - 1976 Housatonic River Basin", E. Chesebrough, A." Screpetis and P. Hogan, Massachusetts'DEQE, 1976. 2. "Water Quality Management Plan for the Upper Housatonic River Final Plan/Environmental Impact Statement", Berkshire County Regional Planning Commission, 1978. 133 I I 3. "Hydrology and Water Resources of the Housatonic River Basin, — Massachusetts", R. Norvitch, D. Parrel!, F. Pauszck and R. Petersen, I U.S. Geological Survey, 1968. . " 4. "Yield of Streams in Massachusetts", G. Higgins, Water Resources • Research Center, University of Massachusetts, 1967, • 5. "The Role of Aquatic Vascular Plants in Eutrophication of Selected • Lakes in Western Massachusetts", R. Livingston and P. Bentley, Water | Resources Research Center, University of Massachusetts, 1969. 6. "The Recent History of Productivity in Selected Berkshire Lakes", I S. Ludlam, Water Resources Research Center, University of Massachusetts, 1977. i i i i i i i i i i i '" " i ™ Date Octob&i 1, 1QSO • - — Respondent!?"** o^.lUchmond, HicJunond Co m> equation Municipality, Deoartment, Consultant Ak. John fennel, , Chacon R; I Address WcAmond tonAMiw^n Cmm^n Se/ie Em/^-Lak,' Inc. .iS.5,, S2C I Name of Waterbody Richmond Pond m Location of Public Access Boat Romp'g Public. Beac/i (See I _. . (See Ex.kib • Location of Drainage Basin(Municipa7ity) HicJvnond $ i Name(s_) of Lake o r Pond _Association QicJunond Skofi&> Briefly describe the problems of the waterbody. I A ptiQgtLeA&AMe, ^ncJi&aAe. jji £k& acreage, o£ MacAopkyti X-ZcfLeaUowLt o^age, low to no dUAo£ve.d Oxr/gen -in the. Hypo&imia.' dusting months c.auAtng thz tizJi&a&e. o& A&ciuxznt PkoApkoswA wk£c.h en/iancei the. giowtk I of /i^ee^. and algae.. • I. Morphological Characteristics of the Waterbody Surface area(acres) 273 fo£« #? {square meters) B. I Maximum depth(feet) 5f? Rgt(- #? (meters)_ 15.2 _ Mean average depth(feet) n (meters) 5-4S6 R&ii- tf: • & 6 • Volumefcublc" feet) K77x?0 (cubic meters)4.S39X.10 • Shoreline length(feet) 7^2^g- (meters) 4546 Size of watershed(acres) 4621 (square meters) 7.g7xTfl Shoreline Configuration Ratio - *-3? _ {shoreline length/circumference of circle equal to. .lake surface area) Shoal ness Ratio_ 0. 30_ _ _ (lake, area with depth less than 15 feet (4.6m)/surface area) Drainage Ratio_^ _ 3.9 Aquasie, rwteMA / cubic, m&te/i (drainage basin area/volume of waterbody) Water Residence Time 0-3& ywJi& Ra^. #2 _ (mean residence time(yrs)=total inflowevaporation/volume of waterbody) Water level control? yes **_ no__ level chanae(ft)_g- j Include Bathymetric map(s) on a separate page. 5 to 6 Jeet a 135 I I I I I I l Jctcmnond Town Beac/i I l i i l l l i l l BERKSHIRE ENV1RO-LABS, INC l ROUTE MA 136 i I Mop Jtcc/imond Pond I , MA 250 50O 137 BERKSHIRE ENV1RO-LABS, INC. ROUTE 102 LEEfMA 1 II. Physical and Chemical Characteristics of the Watsrbody 1 Profiles of physical and chemical parameters are to be taken over the deeper portions of a lake (or pond) Multiple sampling sites are required in lakes (or ponds) having multiple basins (deephole.s') . All sampling sites, stations. etc. are to be depicted on watershed or lake maps. Sampling dates must be noted. Physical Characteristics See Richmond Vend Wat&i Samptinq Location - Exhibit #3 \ Secchi Disk- Transparency readings Weekly samples: April - August 1 5/2/80 - 7' 7" S/23/&Q - J4'3" 6/20/SO - 13*2" Pfiioii Studies S/4/SO - J6'S" 6/ — /77 - 2.77 me-tet4 Retf. ^t 9/3/S0 - n'2" 7/ — /77 - 5.9 meie-ti Re^, #6 7/06/76 - 24 fczt Reij.. #; g$/28/69 - 4 m&teA6 Re^. ^5 Thermal Profile (°F or °C) i Mid-v/inter profile Mid- summer profile See €x.kib£t #4 £1980} See ExJdibJjt #4a { Psi>iosi S-tiuiceA ) i i Chemical Characteristics ii^B Dissolved Oxygen Profile (mg/1) Mid-winter profile Mid-summer profile See Exh^bJUt #4 (19 SO] See Ex.hA.btt #4a. early morning (specify time) ( VnJiQfi Siactcei ) mid-day (specify time) 1 Specific Conductivity Profile ( y. omhs) Mid-vinter profile See ExJfiibAJi #5 Mid-summer profile (19BO and P^ixot, Studied) 1 Total Alkalinity Profile (mg/1) See Ex.hJJb'&t #6 Mid-summer IT9SO and PAsioA. S£u.di&6) pH Profile See Exhibit #7 Mid-summer {19BO and Pfiiofi" Studies] 138 1 I EXHIBIT Sampting Location* ZlcJmond Pond I ZLckmond - P-ctts £te£d, M I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 250 SOO BERKSHIRE -ENV1RO-LABS, INC. I 139 ROUTE 102 LEE,MA EXHIBIT #4 TempeAoto*e ^ P.£s •••---. 5/2/80 5/23/80 6/20/80 - 8/4/80 -9/3/80 1 Temp. P.O. Temp. P.O. Temp. P.O.' Temp. P.O. Temp. P.O. Pepife lit] -°C. mg/£ °C mg/£ °C rag/£ °C ag/Z °C mg/t | SuA^ace. 73.0 9.8 79.0 :9.7 22.7 8.8 26.0 8.2 27.5 8.0 5' ' 13.0 9.9 78.8 8.9 22.0 8.8 25.8 8.7 27.0 8.0 i 70' 72.5 9.9 7.8.5 8.8 27.9 8;7 - 25. 7 8.2 26.6 8.5 1 15' 70.5 10. 7 76.2 8.8 20.4 8.5 24.5 6.6 24. 8 8.8 20' 70.0 70.2 74.5 8.8 75.5 8.4 20.0 7.5 20.2, 8.4 1 25' 70.0 10.1 72.0 8.7 J2.4 8.0 75.2 6.6 . 16.1 7.2 30' 9.5 9.9 70.5 8.4 70.9 8.0 72.5 7.7 73.9 2.7 1 35' 9.0 9.4 9.5 7.4 9.8 7.5 "'77.0 0.9 70.9 0.5 1 40' 9.0 8.2 9.0 6.5 9.0 6.9 70.0 0.0 ; 70. K (7.0 45' 9.0 8.7 9.0 6.7 8.9 4.0 4.5 0.0 - 9.4 0.0 1 50' 9.0 8.0 8.9 5.8 8.9 2.7 9.4 0.0 9..0 0.0 1 • 1 1 -- 1 -_ 1 - 1 • '•' -..'•- ' -• •_ -•-'•_"- -•' •' ' '_..'.-. . . ','-": 1 1 140 1 RICHMOND POND TEMPERATURE and DISSOLVED OXYGEN PROFILE JULY 6, 1976 . DISSOLVED OXYGEN (mg/l) : . . •STATION I I 2 3 4 5 ; 6 7 ; « 8 9 Depth Temp. D.O; (feet) °F (mg/i) Surface 75.0 8.5 5 72.0 8.3 10 70.0 8.1 15 64.0 7-8 18 56.0 8.4 20 52.0 9. 'i 25 liB.O 8.6 30 46.0 6.6 35 43.0 1.7 '|0 : 'l2.0 0.7 *i5 M.5 0.7 50 .M.o 0.6 52 ;M.O . — - 5C 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 TEMPERATURE (°F) EXHIBIT #5 I Zidmond Pond Peep Hole. # I • mo BEL and . - • • •-. _- ..','. - • •- • - - • •- i 7. " . . ;_• ' ': ± ."-"-" ^ Spec^iJ-cc Comfuctcv-c&/ (umko/cm] i 9/3/80 7977 8/28/69 Vzptk (£t) (BEL) .Retf. .#6 .Ref. #5 i S^oce no ... i . 5' /SO ". 10' _ no i 75' no 210 - 259 796 ( i 20' jvu .[ I i 142 i ?and 1980 BEZ. and Stadia Total MkalinZty isng/l] 9/3/80 7977 7/6/76 S/2S/63 Vzptk (ft] (BEi) 85 5' 86 10' SB dcutz, (de,ptkr date, 15' 89 and location and location w&ie. not Jie.po&te.d) w&te. not 20' 90 9 1 25' 92 30' 700 35' 770 40' 777 45' 720 50' 727 114 143 pH Rtcnmond Pond Peep Ho£e #J m0 BEt and pH (SU] 9/3/SO 7/6/76 t?epifi (it) (BEL) , #5 SuAiJace S.3 5' B.S S.2 ro' B.2 , date. S.2 and £oc.a£um | 75' weAe noi 20' S.7 S.O 25' 7.9 I 30' 7.S 35' 7.6 I 40' 7.5 45' 7.5 50' 7.5 7.4 I I I I I I I I 144 I I I Shore Types* I Locate on a map the lake or pond bottom type present within 100 feet of the shoreline.. Typical bottom types are: I 1. predominantly gravel and small rocks 2. predominantly large boulders (>2 feet in diameter) 3. predominantly tree stumps i 4. predominantly sand 5. predominantly mud or muck i See Richmond Pond Lake. £ Land toe - 500' Map * If borings of the lake (pond) bottom have been or will be made I during the course of this study, please send all pertinent information along with maps and this application. I Hote.'* Two A&dim&nt AompteA w&iz. cotie.cte.d on Sep-temfaeA 2,,79£0 and ' "' 'to the. VJ.VsUJ.on of, WateA Pollution Control, MA. The. tabo/iato/LLf anatyA-U sieAu£t& io/i tk&>& bampLzA one. not „. . I avositabte. to be, -tne&uiea viithcn tfaU appLccatLon. noweueA, H the. anatutic&t testing X6 comp£e£ecf, thzy wWt be howojidz.d. I The, 4e.dune.nt £ampt&> wvit take,n &tiom the. fiotLoi&ufi-g tocatLon. .. b [See Exhibsit #B] I Ssite. # Sstte. Location WateA. Vtpth I ttovth oi Inlet n 2' | 2 UOK&I Aside. o£ Boat Ramp 2' i i i i i i 145 Exhibit Samptlng $itnt> ULckmond Pond , MA Boot Ramp J 0 250 500 146 BERKSHIRE ENV1RO-LABS, INC • ROUTE \OZ LEE,M, I 1 - -4- 1 • Concentrations of Phosphorous entering, exitina and occurring in the waterbody Total Phosphorus (rag/1) ,5/7/80 5/27/S06/1S/SO 7/22/SO 9/1/SO 1 Inlets/Sources (a;b) February March Anril Mav June July August 1 Inlet tl_ 0.04 0.05 0.07 . 0.07 0.23 Inlet ,$2 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.03 1 Inlet £3 0.03 0.05 0.05 0.09 0.04 Other « £ InLake Stations (c) 2; S: Station. A •-*"*• ^ 5/2/SO 5/23/SO 6/20/SO S/4/SO 9/3/SO 1 epilimnetic 8 S 0.04 0.04 0.03 O.J2 0.74 hyr>olimnetic o fe 0.06 0.02 0.04 0.73 0.79 lu UJ Station B —o1 — j 1 CJ epilimnetic ° hypolirrmetic CQ WJ 0 o Other T GO i limns tic hypolimne-tic Outlets (apb) Outlet A 5/7/SO 5/27/SO 6/H/SO 7/22/BO 9/1/&0 Outlet B 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.05 1 Other WATER SAMPLING LOCATION MAP - See E•xkibJUt #3 1 •See. ExJu-bsit #9 and #9a 1 (.BEL and PSLLOSL StudL&ttl. (a) indicate the location of the saiiiplincr site on a map or maps 1 (b) indicate the date the samp la v/as taken and tine of day. (c) epiliranetic and hypo limnetic samples are required during June, 1 July, and August 1 1 • 147 Richmond Pond I ln£&&> and Outt&t 1980 BEL and I I 5/J/SO Total I r«tec-« -. - 0.01 < . 0.04 Inlet #2 0.07 0.02 I latent #3 0.07 . 0.03 Outlet 0.07 0.07 I S/27/&Q (BEL) Inlet *7 0.07 0.05 I Inlet n 0.01 0.05 Inlet #3 0.02 0.05 I Outlet 0.00 0.05 I 6/U/SO IBEL) I^eC #7 0.02 0.07 Iw£e* ^2 0.02 0.05 I Tn£et #3 0.02 0.05 Owttut 0.02 0.04 I 7/22/SO[BEL) I 7n£et ^7 0.02 0.07 In£ei #2 0.02 0.07 I Iw£ei #3 0.02 0.09 £?a^et 0.00 0.02 I 9/r/^a (BEL) Inlet $1 0.02 0.23 I Inlet #2 0.00 0.03 Ivit^t #3 0.00 0.04 I Outlet 0.00 - . 0.05. 7/6/76 (KejJ. #7] I o.o; 0.05 TR£&£ ^2 0..0J. 0.03 In£e^: #3 0.02 0.04 I Outlet. 0.07 0,03 148 I 1 • Exhibit 1 Richmond ?ond Peep Hole, #1 1 1980 BEL and ThoApko/iuA (mg/£) i.- ' '•.'••5/2/80 IBEt) £}Ai/io Totat ' 0.02 : 0.04 • 45' 0.02 0.06 1 5/23/SO tBEt) 5' 0.01 0.04 | 45' 0.02 . 0.01 6/20/SO tBEt ) • • 1 5' 0.00 0.02 I 0.03 0.04 8/4/80 tBEt) 1 5' 0.04 O.Q6 • 451 0.12 0.13 1 9/3/80 LBELJ i 0.01 0.14 45' 0.10 '0.19 I 7/6/76 IRefJ. T\ 0.01 • 0.02 i 5,:: 0.01 0.02 1 °' 0.01 0.03 1 §•:..------.-:'-- - 1 1 149 -5- I I Concentrations of Nitrogsn entering, exiting and occurring in the T-?aterbody " ' I Total Nitrogen (ir.g/1) '. ': 5/1/SQ 5/27/SO 6/7S/SO 7/22/SO 9/1/SO Inlets/Sources (a,b) February March April Hay June July August I Inlet £1 0.52 0.46 0.95 O.SJ 7.JZ Inlet-52 0.60 0.57 0.80 O.SI 0.60 Inlet £3 0.37 0.23 0.69 0.91 0,49 I Other *3 OO In-Lake Stations (c) O o I =Z ^ Station A *-M h-* - 5/2/SO 5/23/50 6/20/SO 8/4/SQ 9/3/SO » Ci 0.39 0.36 0.39 0.46 0.37 epiliianetic UJ UJ I \- V- 0.45 0.42 O.S2 0.47 0.68 hypo limnetic CJ CJ UJ UJ 1 •^J ^^4 Station E o— 1 o—I epilimnetic CJ o I UJ UJ hypolir^netic CO CQ o O n-K-isr- t- H I epilimnetic hypolimnetic I Outlets (a b? r 5/J/SO 5/27/SO 6/2S/SO 7/22/50 4/J/W Outlet A 0:53 0.25 0.69 0.54 0.44 Outlet B I Other I WATER SAMPLING LOCATION MAP - Sea Exhibit #3 I See Ex/u£-ct6 #70a and Wb and (a) indicate the location of the sampling site on a map or maps. I (b) indicate the date the sample was taken. (c) epilimnetic and hypolimnetic samples are required during June, I July and August I I 150 I I Pond I and I 1980 BEL and ••'••.'- " - • Organic Total Ammonia, &tt/Ute. tti&iate. Kjzldahl N.ct'uJae* I 5/2/gQ {BEL} ... mp/l 'mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l Inlet #7 0.32 0.001 0.02 0.18 0.52 Inlet n " • 0.08 '0.003 0.26 0.26 0.60 I Inlte. #3 0.01 O.OQ2 0.20 ~"0.16 0.37 0.70 0.003 0.16 0.27 . 0.53 I 5/27/gQ inlet *1 0.00 0.007 0.07 0.45 0.46 Inlet H ' 0.00 . 0.001 . 0.07 0.56 0.57 Inlet #3 0.00 0.002 0.06 0.17 0.23 I 0.00 0.002 0.07 0.1S 0.25 6/1tf80 (EEL] I n 0.16 0.004 0.01 0.7$ 0.95 '2 0.72 0.003 0.07 0.67 0.80 Inlet #3 0.07 0.004 0.06 ' 0.56 0.69 I Outlet 0.17 0.003 0,07 0.51 0.69 7/22/80 [.BEL] I #1 0.02 0.009 0.02 0.77 - 0.81 n 0.72 0.006 0.03 0.66 - 0.57 Inlet #3 0.10 0.006 0.04 0.77 0.97 I Outlet 0.12 0.003 0.03 0.39 0.54 9/7/gQ (BEL) I Inlet #1 0.05 0.009 . 0.08 0.99 7.72 Inlet H 0.06 0.003 0.04 0.50 0.60 Inlet #3 0.02 0.006 0.14 0.33 0.49 I 0.04 0.002 0.02 0.3S 0.44 7/6/76 Inlet #1 0.07 0.002 0.0 0.42 0.49 I Inlzt $Z 0.03 0.000 0.0 0.53 . .0.56 Inlet #3 0.01 0.003 .0.2 0.27 0.48 I 0.03 ^ 0.007 0.0 ' 0.39 0.42 I I I I 151 Exhibit #10b Atctto^en Rccfunond Pond Peep tfo£e ^1 J9SO BEL and *•>-• . ....:. .-:'-„ ....•;,- - ': • - .: : ---, . - ... Organic. Total ". . i - •• . ' - . Arnion^a Hit&ite. M^C/utte K.j&tdak£ tti&iogzn . 5/2/80 (BEL) - mgft mg/t . mg/£ mg/£ mg/t 5' . 0.00 0.004 0.14 0.25 0.39 *;--• • - • :; 45'--"-" "-..:. -0.01 0.005 0.16 0.2* 0.45 .; 5/23/80 (BEL) i 5' ' 0.00 0.00? 0.09 0,27 0.36 "- r.J: 45' 0.06 0.004 0.79 O.J7 0.42 i d- .. 6/20/50 (BEL) 1 5 0.07 0.007 0.07 0.37 0.39 45' 0.06 0.005 0.18 0.5$ 0.82 i 8/4/80 [BEL] 5' 0.06 0.007 0.07 0.39 0.46 45' . 0.23 0.023 0.06 .. 0.7* 0.47 9/3/*0 (.BEL) i 5' 0.01 0.000 0.07 0.29 0.37 45' 0.2S 0.041 0.09 0.31 .. 0.6$ i 7/6/76 IRerf. #1) 5< . 0.04 0.003 0.0 0.31 0.35 IS' 0.06 0.000 0.0 0.29 0.35 i 50' 0.11 0.005 0.3 0.24 0.65 - - • i i - . i :— " - - ^ i ^ • . ' --'.." A '--''- . • ~ . • i r v "S- - - - ~ l\~"'-. -- ' "'- " " . "' ' " '. -- - .-" .' i -?--'"-' i 152 i 1 - 1 -6- Surface Concentration of Total and Fecal Coliforms entering, exiting | • and occurring in the waterbody. • 5/3/SO 5/27/SQ 6/H/SO. 7/22/SO tyl/SO M Inlets/Sources (ab) February March April May June "July August Inlet 51 ££ 40 200 150 150 1440 ^10 •*- 20 10 20 320 1 TC 90 4SOO • 30 100 320 Inlet, 52 Fc 10 2320 20 *- 10 -^ 20 TC 60 200 ISO ISO 1160 I Inlet £3 Fc '^-10 SO 120 90 960 — Other I • , (Solace.) - - In-LaJce Stations «o £ 1 ~" S: 5/2/SO 5/23/SO 6/20/SO* S/4/SO 9/3/SQ • Station A - rc ^ g 0 00 0 0 FC £ ^00 0 00 • Station B {u UJ UJ UJ Station C ^ _—J J s o UJ UJ I Outlets m ca - o o 5/1/&0 5/27/SO 6/1S/SO 7/Z2/SO 9/1/SO H K |• Outlet A rc^ - 1 BO 1 20 120 ^10 6.1 4 20 _ Outlet B •I - Otner 1 (a) indicate the location of the sampling site on a map or maps 1 . (b) indicate the date the sample was taken U/ATEK SAMPLING LOCATION MAP - See txhibJut #3 1 See €xk<.b (.BEL Skc-te&oie Feco£ Coti&ofty m Su/cvet/«/ ]* 1 i Note,: ^~ = £.&>& than i i 7 <;•} 'Feca£ Co^ioAm 1 S/io^etoie Su/tvet/ Richmond Pond 9/1/SO (BEL) 1 See RidwoYid Pond Lake. B land £&e - 500' Map Sampling Location* . 1 - -. FecaZ CoLi&otun Location "-..'"• ' flQQmt 1 7] Richmond Tom Beach -=ra .1] Pubtic. Soot Romp 720 3) S/toofea, Lot #724 ^ 10 B 4) Bu^ey, Lot #122 -^ 10 5) Mo4 Source A~ lnt&£ #7 7.7 0.7 O.I 0.7 0.7 I 00 Source' B Tnt&t #2 6.4 3.4 7.7 70.7 7.6 >— i i—— • Source C lnt<^t *3 ^ 7.2 3.4 1.9 1.2 0.7 I UJ P. UJ o oV- Other • UJ UJ — J I o o—J o o Grouncwater (?) UJ UJ CO CO I o o Outlet: Flow Vcilurne (CFS) I 5/1/SQ5/27/SQ. 6/.7S/SO 7/22/SQ 1/1/BQ I Outlets (ab) February March Aoril ' May- June July - August Outlet A 73.4 S.J I Outlet B I Other Groundwater (?) I WATER SAMPLING L(?CATTOW MAP - See Ex/tckct I I I I (a) indicate sampling locations I (b) indicate sampling dates I 155 -3- I Other Water/Nutrient Imports-Exports • Annual precipitation fa3/yr) ^03x^ ^(volume "of wet precipitation falling on the surface of the -lake i or pond) Phosphorus loading from wet and dry precipitation (mg/yr) 66x10 Re.fi, #2. i {(75-125 mg P/m2*yr) * surface area of the lake or pond) Annual evaporation (m^/yr) B .78x.W Re^, "4 • (annual evaporation of 50-70% of tne annual precipitation) I Estimated^phosphorus loading from the sediments (mg/yr) (a) * "AM ' I ((mg P/m2*yr) * active surface area of sediments) Estimated nitrogen loading from the sediments (mg/yr) (a) $,72xW __ 2 i ((mg P/m *yr) * active surface area of sediments) Annual estimated nitrogen fixation by bluegreen algae (gm/yr) _ (b; *WA: The Wcuteji QwzLLty Mofiagemayit Ptan fan, -die. Uppe/i HouAcutoYiic. R^ueA Eaial. ?lanf cut thtA tune. aite ^o A&dune.yi£ /i&t&us&A OA w&tt OA Wx^togen ^^ dtgae, a/it not 4-ujMx£tcan£ ^n Richmond Pond. ' i i (a) this is required ONLY IF the dissolved oxygen profile -indicates • that in July or August the lower hypolimnetic water contains < 1.0 mg/1 of dissolved oxygen and is not caused by spring or • ground water inflow. I (b) this is to be done ONLY IF the nitrogen fixing bluegreen algae • dominate the summer phyloplarikton and if secchi disc readings | are less than 10 feet. (3 meters) i i I I Estimates of Annual Phosphorus and Nitrogen Budgets Estimations of the annual phosphorus and nitrogen budgets I will be made from the chemical and flow data and from properly interpolated data defined by mathematical models using land use patterns and flow characteristics of similar drainage I basins on which flow data is available. In all instances detail the methodology used. Where possible, indicate the • range .of values or confidence underlying estimates. I ^ Phosphorus (gm) Nitrogen (gm) total inflow 674x10? ' 16329x70:! precipitation on lake 66x10 i internal loading (a) — bluegreen algal N fixation £b) — i groundwater (?) — — Inports - total 740X.103 total J7399X/03 i 3 Outports - total 392x7 wje/ie dzv&JLopzd dusting the. p/ie.pana£ion o$ the. QLL&titu ManoflemeKt "Plan jjo.t till UppeA HoiMa£onxc R otw&vta£ Impact Sj&ttejnejtt" (Re^. *2H 1 6 i the. de.v&JLopm&tt o£ tk& above, vatute can be. i i i i (a) this is required ONLY IF the dissolved oxygen profile indicates that in July and August the lower hypolimnetic water contains <1.0 mg/1 of Dissolved Oxygen and is not i caused by spring or ground water inflow. (b) this is to be done ONLY IF the nitrogen fixing bluegreen i algae dominate the summer phyloplankton and if secchi disc readings are less than 10 feet (3 meters). 157 -10- I Biologjcal Characteristics of the Waterbody Ve e I ? tation Algae • species complex %relative abundance | mid-summer assessment lAcofcwificeae. 33-lASUl 51 M Ch£oJiopkyc.£Cie, .JJ51ASUL 301 • Aucju4£ 4,, W8Q .Cyanopkyc.&ae, 254 Mom £-c°- * Peep HoZe #J See Exhib^t #3 1 Aquatic Macrophyton species complex %relative abundance m June assessment J9.£0 Etcdza. 4p. . 20-405 I .p. 20-401 " . • August assessment 13.&Q Nupkax. 4p. J-5| B •' Bai/i i/ie, Jane and MyjtijopkyfJtwn -bp-LcLcvtum vat. -1^401 | i Submit a distribution map for aquatic macrophytes. if 12 GdYizAat Aqootcc. MacAoptiyte. Map 79SO • #13 Aquatic MacAopkyte Map J976 See Exhibit #14 Aqu&tlc. MacAopkytte 1969 Have there been problems with algal blooms? Yes $tiakt* No I When? Vwu.ng Sp/icng omf Fot^ &itnove/t6 VJhere? ThAOugkout. tke. Lake. i What types? Have there been problems of excessive growth of aquatic macrophyte • Yes X No When? i T-There? A£ong- tke. Akattow weA£&w and i VThat types?^a££X4neAxa, E^odea a^ici See EM-b^t #15 Aquo^xc Wocionce Weed A-tea Map \ Indicate problem areas on the macrophyte map. Mon^itoAcng {OA £hxA appt^.c.atLan bugan -in Way and &nde.d i C Chara sp. E Elodea sp. V Vallisnena americana I M MyriophyTlum spicatum var. exalbescens N Nuphar sp. I DISTRIBUTION OF i AQUATIC VEGETATION I BERKSHIRE ENVIRO-LABS, INC. 159 ROUTE 102 LEE,M£ RICHMOND i POND RICHMOND ••'- Eiodca sp. Chora sp. VaUisnsrio omericana sp. Scicpus sp. ' . tailfoli a Potamoyefon I DISTRIBUTION OF Fofafnoffctoa 2 Nuphar sp. AQUATIC VEGETATION 160 _ Exfc*M-t »J4 r-l Aquatic Ma&iapky ;.:"" ' Richmond Pond 7969 Rerf. #5 AQUATIC MACROPtf/TES IPEWIFIEP IN RICHMOND P0WD 7969 "-." -v'~- 1•'•.-:• --.---"--•"., ' . ' ' ~ j( •;.5pe^-^;; --- -•:;: - Potamogeton 'j£tinoeji&4A 1 ' iSSrSSi^- ^fae"" . V _- < Eiode.a canadejiAJA •j": Va£Li&n&UM. omexcconci 1 Potamogeton pu4-c££oa | MegaZowtfontfl. BecfeZc • Po^tmogeiow Robb^ia^c Potamog&tQn Q&AJL&AJL 1 Spi/Lode£a, po&ysihiza UtAsicu£aAjia ? gejjiuti&capa 1 PotamoQuton. g/tamineut> _ Po-toiog&toft c/Lcipo6 Po^inioge^on mLtoiti Naja& fi&exLtiA |•I ChaAa ?4p. 1 Poiomoaeion 4p. N&phasi £mtg,u!n -64p, mac/Lophy££uuM SaQ^ittan^ia. f g-fiamin&a 1 JtOlCU4 ? pC^(7C£lA.pU4 )5- 4tlfam£A4U4 1 A -ieA-tei 0)5 QUiici^Lti acAo44 R^c/imowd Pond (F^g. 4) ^vicm muo Xo 442. ^.eueot Aomething of the. zonation occusifcing taith depth and &u.b&tfiate.. The. dominant p&ant& aJLonQ thu tsian&e.ct OJVL &e.en in Fsigu/LZ. 20 be£ow. ^" 77Lt4 tabte, sindicateA that Va££i2n&tua a&4 -important aJUL atong the, tnan&e,ctt 1':"•_ bat WO4 the, 'dominant onty ^n bhoJULow and de,e,p wateA. Va£Lt&neJiia y4.e£de,d '^" 4t&, dominance, to Etodeja £n the, Ant&unzdiate, de.pth&, and E£ode& -in tusm dominance, to Potamog&ton Robb<&L&-ii at one. de,ptn. I 1 161 Exfc&ct 14 - (Cont. ] Aquatic. "Richmond Pond 7969 Ra. #5 . OtheA p£ant& wesie. o& ijnpositanc.e. ontt/ at pafcticuZaJt depth* * - The. _and ?otamos&ton Rtcea^ic weAe. 4mpoxtant between 7 and 7.5 m. ' Me.ga£on.donta and PotamoeAon Zoa-teAZ^omcA toe/ie of -tmpo/L&wce between 7.6 and 2.5 m, \JOJL. exa^b&Acen^ and Po&wog&ton Pasi&tonguA. The. a£ 3 m extended ou£ ^o a d^ifi o^ 5 m, ~ a A AeAJ.&& 06y qaadsiati1 ) Atiou m the—. 44 —e coteiesi ouA the, lake. touxwd& ..the. . ^BI a p&utt coueA. ifett wiaa conAtdestabfy ttet* Jbn abundance. and vatLL&tg, due. at £&u>t I 162 I bLt #74 (Cont.] i Aquatic. I Richmond Pond 1969 Re. #5 i"1« I i I i i i i Figure k* Richmond Pond. Depth contours*in feet. Standing crop samples and tfansect taken from 1 - 2 RICHMOND POND - . Richmond Areo=218 Acres 163 . ' \ ' . Exhibit #J4 (Con*.) Aqtuttcc. MacAop/iy££4 Richmond Pond J969 ReiJ. #5 I - • ' ': ' - • ' ' ' - " • ....:._... '.'; ..;.... -:. L : I TT^" r- ':'-'- ""- ; ;v ;" -FIGURE 20 ' """-// -• —^- -''•--—; ----.- -.- •_•-.-- •--.-.--. . . • . . . . _ „-'•-" - I DISTRIBUTION WITH DEPTH OF THE DOMINANT PLANTS* . 'IN RICHMOND POND i Depth (m) ;. Abundance and Cover Greatest ' Lesser I 0.5 ra Chara 1 Vail - Eleo - - Najas I I . 1.2 Vail - Sag - P. Friesii - Najas . *-* 1.5 Elodea - Vail - . P. Friesii - Najas l^H or 1.5 Elodea - Vall^—^P. Robb. - 1 1.6 P. Robb-^^Elodea -^Vall ' - Meg - P~. zost 1.8 Elodea^-^ Vall^"*^*""F. Robb. - Meg - P. zost 1 *I 1• * 2.0 Elodea - Vail - P. Robb. - Meg - P. zost i/ i• :• 2.5 Elodea - ^Vall - P. Robb. - Meg - P. zost 1 3.0 - Vail — Myrio - P. prael 1 *Chara - Chara sp. Eleo - Eleocharis acicularis 1 Elodea -• Elodea canadensis ... • Meg - Megalodohta Beckii Myrio - Myriophyllum spicatum Najas - Najas flexilis P. Friesii - Potamogeton Friesii . .. ; P. Prael - Potamogeton praelongus P. Robb - Potaraogeton Robbinsii : : - P. zost - Potamogeton zosterifonnis " ; -i-- ; --;-r-... Sag - Sagittaria sp. ~ : . . ''.'. Vail - Vallisneria americana 1 1 164 I Aquatic Nuisance Weed Area Map I August 4, 1980 RICHMOND i POND t .. RICHMOND •I 1 I I I I I I I I C Chara sp. E Elodea sp. V Vallisneria americana I M Myriophyllum spicatum var. exalbescens N .Nuphar sp.. DISTRIBUTION OF Nuisance Weed Areas AQUATIC VEGETATION 165 BERKSHIRE ENViRO-LABS, INC. ROUTE 102 LEE.MA -11- t t Invertebrate Animals • Zooplankton species complex %relative abundance mid-summer VapkfUa. • 30' 60% Augtui 4, 1%$Q CucZop* 30- &Q% Veep Hole, $1 CantliQcainptLtt 5- 301 See "Exhibit. #3 I^^v Zoobenthos - species complex ^relative abundance mid- summer ZoobentkoA cce/te not obA&ived MS* . - - common Raccoon 1 common - bhotie Line • OppoAA urn common - &kotic Line i Indicate on a map areas where reptiles, amphibians, waterfowl" and mammals may usually be found. Tke above sieptileA, ampki'.b£a.Yib, tcctteA-^ow^ and. mammals can be found along tke entire Ahasietine o£ thiA take, tfoweven, they one predominantly ti£oiwd along the wcAtesui Ako/ie&<.nc. ote~- Tke above v&itebsiate infaonwcutiGYi ioa6 obtained ^-^lom Leo Voly, V Physical and Morphological Characteristics How many miles of tributaries are in the watershed? Name of tributary Tnt&t #7 - No toe. _ , J ,OJ miles Name of tributary Tnt&t #2 - Mo tote _ \ _ , 3. 37 miles • Name of tributary Tnt^t #3 - Scace £ Alt, Le.6a.nOYi Sftoofea , B.1& miles | Name of tributary _ , _ miles ^ Total _ J3.J6 mi -\ es How many acres of wetlands are present in the watershed? I Wetland name At Inlet #T - Beaver. Pcmrf - Mo Name , 2? acres Wetland name ** l¥VL^- ^ ~ N0 N Soil type and name__^ _ : _ 375 _ acres Soil type and name *7 _ , 2J4 _ acres Soil type and name__^ 68 _ acres Soil type and name #3- _ , B^3 _ acres type, and name. ~JTg _ t "J446 " type, and name ^U _ jdU7 ota1...... _ - acres Indicate on a map areas where soil type characteristics prohibit or impair septic tank use. See ZicJimond Pond So^Zi and Land 167 -13- V Land Use Characteristics of the Watershed i Inlet #1 See Appendix. #3 £O/L So£t VeAc/tip£con& i Tributary name (1) Intvt *1 - Wo Nome. 1.01 miles — Soil types and name #6 25 acres • Industrial and commercial 0 acres I B Agricultural and open space 2 acres Residential Q acres • Forest * acres g Wetland J5 acres Soil types and name *§ 4 acres | Industrial and commercial 2 acres • Agricultural and open space 0 acres I Residential 0 acres • Forest 2 acres Wetland 0 acres | Soil types and name ^9 150 acres • Industrial and commercial 5 acres I Agricultural and open space °' acres • Residential 2L acres • Forest 76 acres | Wetland 4 acres • Open wcut&i 2 acAeA | i i i 168 i I -14- I I Soil types and name #10 150 acres Industrial and commercial acres I 'Agricultural and open space_ acres Residential acres I Forest 144 acres I Wetland acres Soil types and name 79 acres I Industrial and commercial acres Agricultural and open space_ acres I Residential acres I Forest 19 acres Wetland acres I Total industrial and commercial 7 . acres I Total agricultural and open space_ 69 acres Total residential acres I Total forest 249 acres Total wetland_ 79 acres I Open I Tota£ teu.no.ge,A*eo . - Int&t #1 34 8 I I I 169 1 1 Inlet #2 See Appemfoc #3 fa* SoW> VeAcAipticK4 Tributary name lyitzt $2 - Ho Afamc 3.97 miles i Soil type and name *<$ 753 acres _ Industrial and commercial 0 acres * Agricultural and open space 16 acres • I Residential 2 acres Forest 9* acres | Wetland acres _ Open wo-te/L 1 CLCJLQM | Soil type and name #7 US acres Industrial and commercial 0 acres • Agricultural and open space 0 acres • Residential acres Forest 54 acres I • Wetland " }U acres 1 Soil type and name #9 633 acres Industrial and commercial JO acres | Agricultural and open space 250 acres . Residential 720 " acres ™ Forest 240 acres | Wetland 73 acres • Open woieA. te64 than 7 a&ieA | i• i 170 i I -16- I I Soil type and name SfLi acres Industrial and commercial 0 acres I Agricultural and open space n acres Residential u acres I Forest 3JJ acres I Wetland Q acres I Soil type and name 6Z3 acres I Industrial and commercial 0' acres Agricultural and open space 2J9 acres I Residential 757 acres I Forest 111 acres Wetland 26 acres I Total industrial and commercial W acres I Total agricultural and open space 503 acres Total residential 292 acres I Total forest 9S3 acres I Total wetland 20S acres Open woteA J dLCA£6 I roa*a«c*«e ««-•***« ' 7997 ' O.CA&& I I 171 -17- Inlet 13 See Appendix #3 fan. SoiZ Tributary name Tnl&t #3 - Scace. S Mt. Lebanon Stacks- miles Soil type and name tQ acres " Industrial and commercial ITL? acres • Agricultural and open space * acres B 0 Residential acres H Forest acres Wetland * acres | • Soil type and name #£ 179. acres • I Industrial and commercial 25 • acres Agricultural and open space 70 acres | Residential Q acres m Forest 66 acres ' Wetland ** acres | I Soil type and name #7 2S acres 1• Industrial and commercial 0 acres Agricultural and open space 7 acres B Residential 0 acres ^ Forest J6 ' acres Wetland JJ acres B i• i i 172 i I -18- I Soil type and name .S4S. acres Industrial and commercial acres Agricultural and open space 73* acres Residential acres Forest 79J acres Wetland acres Soil type and name acres Industrial and commercial 55 acres Agricultural and open space acres Residential acres Forest 527 acres Wetland acres Total industrial and commercial IS acres Total agricultural and open space_ 4QQ acres Total residential JOS acres Total forest uoo acres Total wetland 35 acres Total Drainage. Mea - Intzt #3 2041 a&uLt> Note.; OnJiy 43S6 O.CAZA o& Richmond Pond'-i Wote^ifiad OJUL dsuUnzd by &*ibu&MLi tivpofct. The. ot/ieA 235 acA&A dMU.Yi £n£o RLcJwond Pond v^La. ditckeA, &tne.&t dteunb and ov&itand ^towage.. Tke. tand bfKLokdown ^O/L tkeAd oJiztLb asis. a& ^O££OMJS: To£aJl TnduA&Liat and commeAcco£__ ' 41 and open Apac.e,_ ' 70 . : — To tat 56 Totat lQt0JL.QXh.vi 235 173 -19- i Upland Land Use See Richmond Pond Wcut&it>ktd Wop See Richmond Pond SoJJLs 5 Land percentage and acreage of the watershed Intensively developed i acres i percentage and acreage of the watershed used in agricultural or dairy activities. 74 * acres i percentage and acreage of the watershed used for residential housing. 9 * 399 i acres number and percentage onsite soil absorption sewage systems within 50' and 200' of tributaries to the lake (or pond). Indicate i location of sites on -map. within 50'_ % s within 300' 7B %36 i percentage of land used for agricultural or dairy activities abut- ting tributaries to the lake (or pond). Indicate location of activities and types on map. 55 % i percentage of land used for intensive development within 500' of tributaries to the lake (or pond). 37 % 73 i percentage of forested land abutting and extending 500' from the _ tributaries. 2Q % i number of road miles (paved) within the watershed JO. JO miles i Lakeshore Land Use percent of shoreline privately owned . Cf\ i percent of shoreline publicly owned . __ number of onsite soil absorption-within 50 feet i sewage systems. Loca'te on map- -within 200 feet and indicate year round and _wl-thin 500 feet 736 seasonal sites. i percentage of lakeshore developed -% within 50 feet 20. and serviced by onsite systems -% within 200 feet _ 46 -% within 500 feet 57 i percentage and acreage of lakeshore developed with structures located within 200 feet of the shoreline. 46 % 40 acres i percentage and acreage of lakeshore developed for intensive public use i located within 200 feet of the shoreline. 77 acres i 17A i I I I percentage and acreage of lakeshore intensively developed (industrial, _ . commercial, etc.,area)located • within 200 feet of the shoreline. zs % 24 acres percentage and acreage of lakeshore used for agricultural or dairy purposes I located within 200 feet of the shoreline. p % p _ acres I percentage and acreage of the lakeshore covered by forests located within 200 ., I feet of the shoreline. % acres percentage and acreage of lakeshore with roads located within 200 feet of I the shoreline. 43 % 37 acre: other uses* within 200 feet of the I lake shoreline (please specify below) I *swimming areas* camping and picnic areas, marinas, and boating I access. I I I I I I 175 VI Recreational and Non-Recreational Uses of the Lake (or Pond) Recreational Use - What recreational uses of the lake (or pond) have occurred in the past twenty-five years? For each use (use participation) , specify the type of use and the approximate annual number of people involved in each use. V Bo&totg - bQuiL, Aoto, canoe, 4maZ£ moto/i 7000 + - beacJt tang 'dLb&uicA. • 1 00 OQ + boat, What changes in the future recreational uses of the lake ' | (or pond) are. anticipated? Specify the type of use, use participa- tion and expected pattern changes. " M Changes Jin. the. x.e.cAe.a£io not m>&6 qfi Hicfanond Pond QJUL not e^.pe,ct2.d an£eJ>£ the. yiLUAance. u)e.e.d pswbtem w?A4e>t6. • I I I 176 I -22- I What past and present recreational uses of the lake (or pond) have reduced or currently degraded the water quality of the lake (or pond) ? I fl.e.cSL£ationa£ u&e, Q& Richmond Pond ha& probably not de,gJiade.d Ill ,-23- What future non-recreational uses of the lake or pond are anticipated? Can these degrade the water quality of the lake (or pond) ? How and to what degree? Th&ie. QMJL no known £utu/L& ptant> to oae, Richmond Pond faon. i i Are there non-recreational uses of the water downstream of the lake (or pond)? What kinds? Where? How is the water used? • Tk&nz. CJVL no non-n.e,cn.e.cutionat iu>&> o£ the. watzsi dintctty down&&Le&m o£ Richmond Pond uwtit A£ &nt&u the. HoaiaionxG. lUv&i. AyAt&n, wkiak 178 I I -24- I I VII History of Efforts to Control Aquatic Nuisances Have either herbicides or algaecides been used to reduce I excessive growth of aquatic macrophyton or phytoplankton? yes no x ' If either herbicides or algaecides have been used, indicate I the name of the chemical, the application rate used, the area treated (location & acres), the target species, and the date(s) I of application. Indicate each treatment separately. Date Chemical Name Application Rate Area Treated Target I (mg/1) (acres) Species I I I , Were any negative effects on any non-target species noticed? I yes no '-X If negative effects were noticed, indicate the species affected I and behavior noticed. I Have piscicides, or any other biocides, bean applied to the lake or pond? yes no ' y I If an application(s) of any biocides (other than herbicides and algaecides) have been made indicate the date of application, the chemical applied, the rate of application, the area treated, and I the species treated. I Date Chemical Name Application Rate Area Treated Species I Were non-target species affected? yes no If negative impacts were noted, indicate the species affected and I 'the behavior noted. I 179 -25- Has the lake (or pond) ever been drawn down? Yes X No If so, when, by whom, by how many feet, and for what purpose? Fo££ 1970 - Camp MJLe.Qfio - 5 to 6 fce£ to install State, Root Romp - x.e.fritl be,$oie. &&t -oi. 1977-19.78 - Camp MJ&QKQ - 2.5 feet - AkosLe&une. pSLote.cti.on 197B-1979 - Camp Atteg^o - 2.5 fleet - What are the principal characteristics of the lake (or pond) and land uses of the watershed which contribute to* the accelerated eutrophic condition and/or presence of nuisance aquatic vegetation • in the lake (or pond)? Hic-kmoyid Pond -U> a. twjj^zd. G^eat Pond. App/LoxunoXe^t/ 60$ o^ ttuA £a.k& too4 fcanm and fosiZAt land p/u.01 to Mussing the. take, to -itb c.uAA.e.nt &te,va£iont The. jj-fcooded land WOA obv^ouAly • not 3/iabbed QOA. many Atumpx aw located atong the. tteAt&nn xkotLztoiz,. Hence, the, lake, wh&n ™ •it WOA {&tAt nj^Ut-e.d had a &&nt£le. bottom and uxu> psioBably m&>o&iopkic. The, pilncA,pal AOUAC.Z& o£ known pollution zntex-ing Richmond Pond tvie atl nox.-.pQlnt • -ui QtLiQwi and one, a& " . Loading 'fam/yx. Rfc^. #2 • 2. 3. 4. Livestock 5 5. Moto/L l/efixc££4 22 I I 180 I I I -26- What are the principal suspected sourcas of pollution (point and non-point) to the lake (or pond) and its tributaries. I The. &lndlng* ojj the. "Upptin Hou&atonlc Hive*. &u>ln 20$ Study"t detalizd In the. px.VJ4.ouA panagsiaph, ti&t'alt o& the. known AowiceA o£ potlutlon ext&Ung Richmond I Pond. TkeAe. ant no otheA *uApe.ct What changes in the recreational use of the lake, if any, would be appropriate to control "the problems associated with the I accelerated eutrophic conditions and/or nuisance aquatic growths? Changing the. n.e.cn.e.atlonat ate, o& Richmond Pond wltt pn.obabty not affect the. I —-*• tnophlc and/on, nwuance. we.e.d condition*. I What types of lake, lakeshore, or watershed controls are deemed necessary to improve the environmental quality of the lake (or pond)? 7. SeweJi and/on. vejiy Atsilct &e,ptic managejne.nt.afw and take. and tnlbutasu.eA . I 2. SfiicJ: Bottoming o& tke. "20S" and SCS &MA ., pt.0po4e.rf c£c4po4a£ Ay&t&n woutd provide, adequate. pft.ote.(Ltion to wateA quality -in the. ivateA bodies. « 6} Wo dwe£ting, packing aA&a. fan. tnoAe. than &ive. COXA, QJ sie,c,fL&ationa£ OJVHL gsiz&teA than 300 Aquasie, {e.&t &koJit be. c.onA&ULct&d viithin 75 the, high-watzA. ^kofiMjio. ojj any naJuAat ox. man-made, wat&i bodies i£ejn "a." above,, excep-t twd&i a Ap&ci&t pe/unit &twm the. { the. 'BooJid fandb that c.ompZianc.e. with tiz.qiLaiwe.ntA oft th^i& iteuiti.(ux£ di^^cultif oft., wk&iz. due. to the, tejigth o£ unde.ve£i _ on the, tot on. topographic, AzatuSizA, a AmatteA. &&tba£k wo&td pn.ov4.de. adequate. pA.ote.ztion to the. watQA. quality in 4ac/i wat&i bodies. « i i i i i i i i i i i 182 B I I I Outline a cost-effective and environmentally sound long-range pro- gram to control the cause (s) of the problem (s) in the lake (or pond) Where appropriate, indicate the cost-effectiveness of the most I environmentally sound, short-range control measures which will reduce the^problemCs) in the lake (or pond). Estimate the overall and specific (initial and annual) costs of the long-range program I and the short-range control measures. The lake management program fan. TU.clwond ?ondr both *hort and long term, lt> outlined In our letter otf tran^mlttal. Folloiulng tliat, l& a co*t breakdown far the I £lve year project entitled "THE PROGRAM" to be funded under tiili> application. We hope thl& Information l& ^u.^lclent to describe the nature and Acope neceA-bory I thl& application. We have al&o Included within thl& application the eng-lneeru ' .. report afc J.F. Moynlhan and k&&oclateA, Inc. (Appendix. #2) wklck outline* the preliminary planA far the major project* considered In thi& application. i In addition to the. psioje.ct6 and mzthod* ptiopo&zd fan. tkz management o£ Hickmond Pond, a maJQX. contribution o£ tkz. pfiogfiam wJJLL be to majjit&in a tocat hdv-UaXM ftoasid to promote, good tand UA& management psiactic&> Mitkln the wat&t&he.d, coordinate tke. ptioattam on the. Locat te.ve£ by -in^o^vning Lak.%, A.eA 183 184 I I I I I I I I APPENDIX E I RELEVANT INFORMATION FROM MDFW 1981 I I I I I I I I I I 185 I I RICHMOND POND (Richmond, Pittsfield) I I Physical: Richmond pond is a 218 acre great pond located about 4 miles southwest of Onota lake, being divided between Richmond and Pittsfield. The lake has a maximum i and mean depth of 53 ft. and 17.5 feet respectively, while transparency is 13 ft. Residential development is moderate with approximately 100 seasonal and year round dwellings occupying the shoreline along I with 2 summer camps. The Public Access Board owns a 30 car capacity parking lot and launching ramp located on the western shore Immediately north of the large cove. I The bottom being comprised of silt and clay, provides excellent rooting for pondweed, and water milfoil, while stonewort, cattail and yellow pond lilies are I common to a depth of about 8 ft. around the entire lake. Chemical: Richmond is typical of the hardwater Berkshire lakes I with a pH ranging from 7.4 to 8.3. The total alkalinity and hardness are about 90 ppm each. Specific conduc- tance is about 103 trahos giving a morphoedaphic index I yield of 5.9 Ibs. per acre. The trout layer, that volume of water less than 71°F I and containing 5 ppm of disolved oxygen, ranges from 7 to 24%. This layer appears to be declining. Biological; The fishery in Richmond pond is dominated by the annual I release of 4,400 catchafale trout for spring time. It is estimated that 13,200 angler hours are generated by this stocking and that anglers catch over 0.3 fish I per hour. None of the existing warmwater fisheries can approach this. As a matter of fact, the resident game- fish are of minor importance here. I Between this survey and one done in. 1972, only one largemouth bass other than young of the year was captured. This individual exhibited good growth I according to 1978 standards but this understandably is for such a low density. The fishable population must be very small. I The chain pickerel comprised 14% o£ the sample by weight and provide the major fishing success. The length frequency indicates heavy fishing pressure on I this species. The average growth rate indicates stock replacement is slow. I 186 I I From the sample, it appears that yellow perch provide I the only other significant fishery. They comprise 24Z of the weight sample and some individuals approach 10 inches if they escape the anglers. The average I growth indicates a certain stability is present. Brown bullheads total 18% of the sample by weight and I may add to the fishery but their importance is uncertain. The remaining panfish, bluegills, pumpkinseed rock bass I and black crappie combined, only total 10% of the sample, Few individuals are of a desireable size. Even at a low density, the bluegills are overcrowding since the I growth rate of 4 and 5 year olds is above the 1978 average while growth of yearlings has declined to a poor growth rate. The pumpkinseeds are maintaining the I state average for growth. Undesireable fish, namely golden shiners, bridled shiners and white suckers totalled 30% of the sample. I many individuals within this aggregation are too large for the existing predators. I Social: While Richmond pond is apparently heavily fished, the users seem to be abutters since the boat ramp is not plowed in the winter and only lightly used during the I rest of the year. Competitive uses such as water skiing and sailing are popular but not to a prohi- bitive degree. I Objective: To maintain the existing spring fishery at a cost of $0.25 per hour of recreation and a catch rate of 0.33 I fish per hour. To determine the scope of the largemouth bass fishery I and the exploitation rate of this fishery. Consider stocking a large predator to utilize the resource available in large forage fish. I Recommendations, Stock 4,400 catchable trout each spring. Encourage lake residents and other volunteers to tag I largemouth bass to estimate stock size and recruitment. I I I I 187 I I I I 188 I I I I I I I I APPENDIX F I RELEVANT INFORMATION FROM SCS 1983 I I I I I I I I I I 189 I SUMMARY • This report focuses on the problems and concerns associated with the Upper Housatnm'c River Basin area (as described in Chapter 1). The concerns iden- — tified by local, county, and state officials include: Eutrophication of Lakes, I Wetlands Protection, Groundwater Protection, Multiple Purpose Use of Lakes, Polycnlorinated Biphenyls (RGBs), Water Supply, and Flooding. In addressing these problems, USDA and cooperating agencies recommend a plan I of action as presented in Chapter 2, along with a list of agencies, groups, and organizations that could take leadership to implement parts of the Recom- • mended Plan (Chapter 3). Several alternative components that were considered Q durinq the evaluation process but not included in the Recommended Plan are dis- cussed in Chapter 4-. _ The Appendices round out the report. Apoendix A is devoted to Resource Base • Information such as climate, topography, soils, flood plains,'prime farmland, water quantity and quality, population, and use of resources. Appendix B, • the Wetland Inventory and Evaluation, presents the results of a study of the I wetlands of the Basin. Appendix C is comprised of basic data and background analyses related to the lake eutrophication problem. Public participation during the course of this river basin study is discussed in Appendix D. i Eutrophication of Lakes appears to be an increasing problem in Berkshire County. _ Lakes, are plagued with excessive weed growth that limits recreation potential. I The weeds have been called a symptom of the high level of nutrients reaching • the lake from sources in the watershed and from direct rainfall. The Berk- shire County Regional Planning Commission's Water Quality Management Plan for H the Upper Housatonic River (the 208 study) presented a detailed analysis of the I phosphorus input to the five major lakes (Ashmere Lake, Onota Lake, Pontoosuc Lake, Plunkett Reservoir, and Richmond Pond) and concluded that "erosion-related" phosphorus contributed from 57 to 75 percent of the annual phosphorus input. i Although the 208 study identified "erosion-related"" phosphorus as the major phosphorus source, a better term might be "runoff-related" phosphorus, a term • that includes prnennn-rperosion-relatel at.pd nhn<;nhnm Utilizing an independent analysis procedure and undated land use information, this river basin study concluded that runoff-related phosphorus was indeed a • significant percentage of the phosphorus being delivered to each lake. In | addition, it was determined that erosion-related phosphorus from tilled crop- land in the watersheds of Onota Lake, Pontoosuc Lake, and Richmond Pond con- tributes a significant percentage of the runoff-related phosphorus delivered. I i i j 190 i I The Recommended Plan suggests that soil conservation practices be installed on cropland in the watersheds of Onota Lake, Pontoosuc Lake, and Richmond Pond to I reduce erosion rates and thus reduce nutrients delivered to the lakes. Conser- vation practices such as cover crops, contour planting, and the conversion of cropland to permanent pasture were evaluated as to their effect in reducing I .-delivered phosphorus. Animal waste is another aqriculturally-related source of phosphorus that was considered by this study. Investigations confirmed that phosphorus from live- stock waste contributes 5 to 8 percent of the annual phosphorus delivered to .^•': the three Takes fOnota Lake, Pontoosuc Lake, and Richmond Pond) that have significant concentrations of farm animals. The Plan includes a recommendation that agricultural waste management practices be instituted on farms in the watersheds of Onota Lake, Pontoosuc Lake, and I Richmond Pond to reduce the amount of nutrients from animal waste delivered to the lakes. Conservation practices to reduce erosion on cropland and better agricultural I waste management will complement the Water Quality Management Plan for the Upper Housatonic River. Wetlands Protection is an important concern because of the many valuable func- tions performed by wetlands. They can function as natural floodwater storage areas, provide habitat for a variety of plant and animal species, help main- I tain summer streamflow, serve as groundwater recharge areas, and provide recreational opportunities. I Loss and degradation of wetlands is a common concern throughout Massachusetts. The Wetlands Protection Act has been a major factor in reducing the wetland loss in the state. Because the Act is administered by the local Conservation Commissions, it is important that these people have accurate resource informatic available to enable them to make informed decisions concerning wetland values I- - '•-&.-• and significance. This study endeavored to locate and identify the type and size of wetlands * within the Basin and to evaluate the wetlands for various functions and uses. Seventy-eight wetland areas covering over 4000 acres were identified and I evaluated. The Recommended Plan suggests that oublic control be established on three I particularly important wetland areas: 1. Town Brook wetlands, in Lanesborough 2. Center Pond wetlands, in Dalton I 3. Quaking Bog, in Hinsdale Acquisition or other control of these wetlands is recommended to insure that they will be protected from unwise develonment and will be available for I public use and enjoyment. Groundwater Protection was identified as a concern since communities within I the Basin exhibit increasing interest in groundwater as a source of municipal water supplv. The ability of groundwater aauifers to meet water supply needs and the protection of groundwater nuality are of soecial concern. I I 191 Definitive groundwater testing programs much beyond the scope of this study • have been conducted on aquifers in Dal ton and Pittsfield. Less detailed | studies of the Secum and Daniels Brook aquifers in Lanesborough and Pitts- field have been made. mm .Detailed information is presented in this study concerning the Town Brook, ; Secum Brook* and Daniels Brook aquifers. £ Lanesborough fs the only community fn the Basin that is currently drawing B | municipal supply from groundwater. Due to Lanesborough*s dependence on groundwater and the studies underway or completed for other Basin aquifers, • the river basin study undertook to define the potential of the major Lanes- | i borough aquifers and to identify specific hazards to groundwater quality. Implementation of a program to protect the water quality in the Town Brook E : aquifer is recommended. Such a plan would consist of enactment and enforce- ment of a groundwater protection bylaw to limit potentially hazardous land uses from threateninq the quality in an aquifer that has potential to meet I all of Lanesborough's water supply needs for the foreseeable future. Limita- B . tions on the application of roadway salt in critical aquifer recharge areas are also suggested. • . Multiple Use of Lakes can create multinle conflicts between users. The Basin | has five major multi-purpose lakes {Ashmere Lake, Onota Lake, Pontoosuc Lake, mm ' Plunkett Reservoir, and Richmond Pond) which are used for a variety of I ! purposes including water supply, fish and wildlife habitat, flood control, : aesthetics, streamflow augmentation, boating, swimminq, and fishing. These uses can conflict and result in less than optimum use of the water resource. I A series of public meetings and discussions with local, county, and state agencies identified several areas of concern and conflict at each lake. • : Perhaps the most common area of conflict involves the regulation of the lake | level. Recreation interests prefer a maximum water level while downstream • flood control and winter dam safety considerations favor lowering the lake _ levels for a portion of the year. The report discusses various lake level I options and presents alternatives for consideration. " The Plan recommends establishment of Lake Management Advisory Groups composed • of representatives of each interest group concerned with the use and operation I of each lake. Polychlorinated Biphenyls (RGB's) are a water quality problem in the Basin. I Wo investigations were made by this study into the topic of RGB's. The sole purpose of including RGB's in the list of problems and concerns was to acknowledge a potentially serious situation and to encourage comprehensive I study of the subject. • Water Supply is beinq addressed in detail by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • as part of their Urban Study of the Housatonic River Basin in Massachusetts | and Connecticut. Study participants provided the Corps with detailed informa- tion concerning potential reservoir sites in the entire Massachusetts portion mm of the Housatonic River Basin. B An update of a previous SCS inventory of potential reservoir sites is included in Chapter 4 - Alternatives. Some of the reservoir sites in the Upper Housatonic • Basin offer potential to meet local needs. Local interest is currently focused B on groundwater to meet municipal needs but the surface reservoir option should not be totally dismissed. • 192 i FTooding is also a topic of local concern that is being addressed in detail by the- Corps of Engineers as part of the Urban Study of the Housatonic River. The Soil Conservation Service provided the Corns with detailed flood danage^ information as well as hydraulic data compiled in earlier flood hazard studies of the Uooer Housatonic River Basin. To avoid duplication of effort, no in- vestigations of flooding were conducted in this study. 193 I Previous studies have indicated that runoff-related phosphorus can be esti- mated by attributing phosphorus delivery rates to various land uses. Table 1-3 indicates the delivery rates selected to develop the estimates for this I study. I Table 1-3 Runoff-Related Phosphorus Delivery Rates I Land Use Delivery Rate (grams of phosphorus/acre) I Forest 20 Pasture 35 Tilled Cropland 250 -i7 I Urban 450 Other 200 Non-Sediment Producing (Wetlands) 180 I Source: Soil Conservation Service Technical Note 23. I I/ Adjusted to 510-1800 g/a in high erosion rate areas. I Water quality sampling data discussed in Appendix C and investigations made in the Massachusetts Agricultural Water Quality study indicate that erosion- related phosphorus amounts to about 1.5 pounds of total phosphorus (0.68 kilo- grams of total phosphonis) per ton of sediment delivered to the lakes. Using I the phosphorus delivery rates from Table 1-3 and the land use acreages from Table 1-2, runoff-related phosphorus estimates were developed. Erosion-related 'phosphorus estimates were developed from the sediment data in Table 1-2. I Since the phosphorus delivery rates in Table 1-3 are based on average runoff conditions and do not reflect the steep slopes and higher erosion rates in I Berkshire County, runoff-related phosphorus figures for areas with high ero- sion rates were adjusted to compensate for increased erosion-related phosphorus In the total runoff-related number. I Estimates of runoff and erosion-related phosphorus are presented in Table 1-4. I I I I I 194 I I Table 1-4 Runoff and Erosion-Related Phosphorus Estimates I (kilograms of total phosphorus) Ashmere Onota P unket.t II Pontoosuc Richmond Area Runoff Erosion II Runoff Erosion Runoff Erosion Runoff [Erosion Runoff (Erosic I Cropland 0 0 140 126 0 0 520 46P 86 77 Pasture 0 0 14 5 1 1 75 29 17 7 Forest 36 20 89 75 32 27 164 112 48 43 I Urban 141 3 227 3 35 1 433 15 257 6 Other 30 1 63 3 15 3 243 17 76 6 I Non- 8 0 22 0 26 0 109 0 100 0 Sediment I Producing• Streambani*', 5 5 4 4 0 0 18 18 6 6 Total 220 29 559 215 109 32 156? 659 590 14S • Given the many variables entering into these two independent analyses of runoff-related phosphorus, the two estimates agree quite well especially when viewed in the context of lake trophic status. I Usinq a procedure developed by Dillon that utilizes Vollenweider1s total Dhosphorus loading versus the mean deoth to renewal time ratio, trophic • states were calculated with the 208 data from Table 1-1 of this report and also calculated by substitution of runoff-related phosphorus estimates of I the study for the 208's erosion-related phosphorus estimate in Table 1-1. Table 1-5 presents a comparison of the 208 study runoff-related phosphorus I estimates and those developed during the course of this river basin study. I Table 1-5 Comparison of 208 Study (1975) and River Basin Study Runoff-Related Phosphorus Estimates for Five Lakes I — SCS Estimates as a Runoff-Related Phosphorus Percent of the 208 I Lake (Kilograms ) Estimate :t 208 scs l Ashmere 308 220 71 I Qnota 705 559 79 Plunkett 140 109 78 I Pontoosuc 953 1562 164 Richmond 479 590 123 I 195 Results indicated that the trophic state of all five lakes is predicted to be I within the same range using the original 208 data and the river basin study data even with the differences in data as depicted in Table 1-5. I Even though the numeric data are different, the conclusions as to trophic state appear reasonably similar. Likewise, the river basin study agrees that runoff-related phosphorus is the primary component of the phosphorus I inputs to the lakes* Table 1-6 indicates the percentage of runoff-related phosphorus contributed by erosion in each land use category. I Table 1-6 I Percentage of Runoff-Related Phosphorus from Erosion in Various Land Use Classes I •Runoff-Related ;Phosohorus Source Ashmere Onota Plunicett Pontoosuc Richmond I tronland " 0 23 0 30 13 ••-'1 Pasture 0 1 1 2 1 I Forest 9 13 25 7 7 Urban 1 1 1 1 1 I i Other 0 1 3 1 1 I Streambanks 2 1 0 1 1 I Table 1-6 illustrates that reduction of erosion on tilled cropland in the watersheds of Onota Lake, Pontoosuc Lake, and Richmond Pond will reduce a significant percentage (13 to 30 percent) of the runoff-related ohosphorus I beinq delivered to the lakes. To avoid overemphasizing the phosphorus contribution from cropland erosion I it is useful to remember that runoff-related phosphorus from urban areas represents 28 to 44 percent of the total runoff-related phosphorus delivered to the three lakes. However the erosion-related component of urban runoff- related phosphorus is negligible. I Phosohorus from erosion on forest land represents a notable percentage of the runoff-related phosphorus. However, this 7"s attributable to the fact I that forest land is by far the most prevalent land use category, rather than being a result of excessive erosion as is the case with tilled cropland, I Another source of agriculturally-related phosphorus is that contained in animal waste. Table 1-7 presents data from the "208" Water Quality Manage- ment Plan for the Upper Housatonic River and corresponding estimates by the Soil Conservation Service of the quantity of ohosphorus contributed to each I 9f the lakes from ^arm animals. I 196 I I Table 1-7 I Annual Phosphorous Loading from Livestock 1 Ki oar am s I 208 Estimate SCS Estimate Lake (1976) (1981) Remarks Pontoosuc 93 67 Onota 75 46 *I Richmond 57 56 Ashmere 0 0 Insignificant number I of animals. Plunkett 0 0 Insignificant number I 1 of animals. The estimates are in good agreement and substantiate the 208 contention that -. farm animals contribute from 5 to 8 percent of the annual phosphorus delivered r to the three lakes with significant farm animal concentrations. : I Wetlands Wetlands are those areas of land where the water table is at or near the • ground surface for much of the year and which are subject to occasional floodina. Wetland areas are important because they can: function as natural floodwater storage areas, provide habitat for a variety of plant and animal species, help maintain summer streamflow, serve as ground water recharge areas, and provide recreational opportunities such as fishing, hunting, • , trappinq, and nature study. The important and varied functions of wetlands have been recognized by Massa- chusetts government and legislation has been enacted to protect wetlands against unwise development. The Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (Massa- chusetts General Laws, Chanter 131, Section 40) has been a major factor in reducing the rate of wetland loss throughout the state. The Act has been i : especially important in eastern Massachusetts where there are more wetlands and much more development pressure than in the Upper Housatonic Basin. I The Act is administered by the Conservation Commission in each city or town and the effectiveness of the Act depends primarily upon the views of the individuals who comprise the Commissions. If the members respond to pressure i for development, the wetland resource can be compromised for future genera- tions. If the members consider themselves as "advocates" for the wetlands, then wetlands will only be altered when the tradeoffs result in undeniable positive benefits to the community. The Wetlands Protection Act provides ~ i some flexibility to permit a municipality to exercise some local judgment, ~: and consider local values and priorities in accepting or rejecting wetland alteration. Weighed against the benefits derived from local control is the danger that intense local pressure for economic development may result in the i Conservation Commission acceptinq wetland alterations that are not in the i 197 I Table 1-10 I rotentUJ Conflicts Betveen Uses at f*lit1nq Beter»oln emergency rtjnici Mooa rrevencion MOOQ Prevention Loll water •am idater Boating P<1 Utter Supply (Permanent Hater Supply Drawdown Upon Fishery F\ sflery (Water Skiing) Driwoown) flood Warnings and fn Winter) I Uergeney Ho tontUtt '« Ldtnticak ui» ftmicipal ultlMt* u»» Hater Utter utilized Supply for prinary •inlclpal wtw supply obvious- I ly will not Bt available tn an emergent v. no*. Cant lie:. If* UjnfMct. The identical us* rr* vend on voluM of water *olu«« of inter (Pcrwient drawn down f£r driMi dOMi for 1 Of j mown ) flood prevention flood prevent ion •III no longer Kit I no ?onqer b« available for be tvttltnle for prlnary «»n16l- (•ergeney munlcl ptl water supply p«l tMter supply Ule. use. I HMO Potential caft- t'ocential con- Ho conrl let. laentical use •re vent Ion filets. Managers fHctt. Ntnaqeri Site would o* (Drawdown •Ignt be reluct- itt^nt 0* reluct- utt tiled for upon flood ant to 1wp1e*Mt ant to Implement flood prevention. warnings drawdown if titter uriMjOMi If »ite »nd In supply »es cri- supply vti crt- I wintir) tical. However. tlcil. However, If flood warnings If flood wjmingi •re accurate, ire accurate, drawdown volum dr«ndotm voluoM u)l) be replen- •111 6e replen- ished with Mood- ished witn riood- I water. •ater. identical Use Flsnery filets. Sfgnlfl- filets- Signifi- filets. Draw- flfcts. Draw- unt drivoown for cant drawdown for down for flood down for flood **ter supply vater supply prevention night prevention aignt night *lter tew. •Ignt alter to- alter tenperature alter teaoiracure per a tu re charac- characteristics I peritur* cfl*r»c- characteristics urtstUi of l«e teristics of lake of lake and 10- of lake ana *a- in I RICHMOND The most significant wetland area in Richmond is the (R-2) Richmond Pond wet- land system. This system received high ratings for all evaluated parameters. I This system is comprised of a variety of wetland types and has a particularly high recreation and wildlife value. I According to the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, this area is one of the larger cattail swamps in Berkshire County and is unique in this respect. It is also an area of major wildlife and water conservation value as well. In addition to the predominance of cattails, other vegetative types in- I clude sedges, grasses, rushes, and meadow sweet. The outer margins consist of alder, willow, red maple, poplar, white pine, and hemlock on the uplands. This type of habitat provides the nesting requirements for the following: black I duck, mallard, Canada goose, teal, and a few wood duck. American bittern is a probable nester. Passerines include a large variety of species in this area. Upland game birds such as pheasant, grouse, and wild turkey may be found along I the perimeters durinq the winter months in search of food and water. Mammals frequenting or residing in this area include muskrat, mink, beaver, skunk, I raccoon, red fox, and white-tailed deer. 199 I I I I I 200 I I APPENDIX G CALCULATIONS 201 USEFUL CONVERSIONS Multiply... by... to obtain... Acre (ac) 0.4047 Hectare (ha) Acre (ac) . 43,560 Square Feet (sq.ft) Acre (ac) 4,047 Square Meters (sq.m) Acre (ac) 0.00156 Square Miles (sq.mi) Acre Feet (af) 1613.3 Cubic Yards (cy) Centimeters (cm) 0.3937 Inches (in) Cubic Feet (cu.ft) 0.0283 Cubic "Meters (cu.m) Cubic Feet (cu.ft) 0.0370 Cubic Yards (cy) Cubic Feet (cu.ft) 7.4805 Gallons (gal) Cubic Feet (cu.ft) 28.32 Liters (1) Cubic Feet/Second (cfs) 1.7 Cubic Meters/Minute (cu.m/min) Cubic Feet/Second (cfs) 0.6463 Million Gallons/Day (mgd) Feet (ft) 0.3048 Meters (m) Feet (ft) 0.0001894 Mile (mi) Kilograms (Jcg) 2.205 Pounds (Ib) Kilometers (km) 0.6214 Miles (mi) Liters (1) 0.2642 Gallons (gal) Liters (1) 1.057 Quarts (qt) Meters (m) 1.094 Yards (yd) Milligrams/Liter (mg/1) 1.0 Parts Per Million (ppm) Micrograms/Liter (ug/1) 1.0 Parts Per Billion (ppb) Square Kilometers (sq.km) 0.3861 Square Miles (sq.mi) Square Meters (sq.m) 0.0001 Hectares (ha) 202 JOB L BAYSTATE I ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. SHEET NO. OF- 296 North Main Street CALCULATED BY. DATE. 9/11 EAST LONGMEADOW, MASSACHUSETTS 01028 525-3822 CHCCKED BY _ DATE- I SCALE L £ .71 LC/V L. t, u «te ov\ r...... — /*• . * 7@i m-. w CM,. Jiie "/* f- •V kei J*Si< -(-et^ ou/ ^ e/y tv l^ttfM OH O f. WMW (3 W»r f D/ 35 • rec; COM- ^i. /c e^v es & i w" r.*F c**i • o 0 i 3Z CM- W»"K 5wa -/ '£" iwg wy 10 ^ 1*1/h ^i°-ii •I CU >< M-^ •Hi fn -H M-l Errer Tfc /?P-JX\ /'Is Over "MODUa 204-1 frvsaSllK.f_t , Grata. Mm. OMH, 203 JOB. BAYSTATE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. SHEET NO. OF — 296 North Main Street PY DATE, EAST LONGMEADOW, MASSACHUSETTS 01028 (413) 525-3822 CHECKED BY. DATE. SCALE Ow 'JDoVAfi/< ^>/rain I- /3 ..c(efe eci SOWtMer ; y cei If/ 33. / -Ls. / U1 «cT w^r are -fe Iref £ ; *dL rffef «^ / iV "'OX /.. f-^r C^3JZ _^_j -i£ /'43 o*dv fei iv ^ PRODUCT 204-1 (MEWS! Int. CnKon, Mm. 01471. JOB- BAYSTATE I ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. SHEET NO- OF. 296 North Main Street CALCULATED BY. DATE. EAST LONGMEADOW, MASSACHUSETTS 01028 I (413) 525-3822 CHECKED BY DATE. SCALE = *? X1 L?3 A?7 I m YfftSk rtf--; Am tUL_| J?l.lS.Suv\J J7 ..;£ I J2.£-fe 3 viZ" d» 7 #r=! T 33 vr ^ 73 -fc /£? if- 1204-1 fWe&W/ Inc., faun. Mm 01471. 2ns JOB- BAYSTATE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. SHEET NO. OF. 296 North Main Street CALCULATED BY. DATE- ?/£/*? EAST LONGMEADOW, MASSACHUSETTS 01028 (413) 525-3822 CHECKED BY DATE. TAi^r SCALE Vlto cu JS. @ 2. "2. T/v= 7/7 ( Srt?u!^£w\ 14 =: ZO seoo-a e / T> = 0 02_ f tf 6 = ac? 3 P.' wo . 3"2- c-u. r g. Avar/ r """" i'V" ftH'S Af.^o/ ^. r/v= Jej*!^"/!* 5. T? t sc/ rx/ u, WWv S£ 72L rf ei/ J?v. .//.._5| sJ^ress^ be/o ?'_^ 3A ]AlI] 58 - tase) S^ :.Lt!: JO '.2. i«*iai as 30,7 41?. IW... y. . X -2 t_s~o ^A e 2.3-// ; • \io 3f S^OK // X Pa/5 •1) fs /.'^e^y ^ A<3LV€t/er. «Ott)CT 204-1 IIVE&5J Inc. Grabn, Mt& 01«1. 206 JOB. BAYSTATE I ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. SHEET NO.. OF- 296 North Main Street CALCULATED BY f^U/ DATE. EAST LONGMEADOW, MASSACHUSETTS 01028 I (413) 525-3822 CHECKED BY DATE. SCALE or ! P I / 5/i 3 b/rs* y I^Sl ..;. , rY-~. $. r* wia ff As? 'OV\ ! ^ TP- s 232.3 m * >H ..._»>"- fi *H -f(7 t "TrV/ * i« cf• "^™ # ' i)icf-| Decors! Kni-fhly /h S^i "/ 7 :*"" "•"" ":" •———-:— - —- -/-" ——•* - ease. =. 200 (b k -R, fin- a-ea er w /« ®. 1-J ' /' /, dr \jd\t - lot (?(*/ ,-k»y] - 4o a? ^.is/^W^tfi TODUCT 2D4-I fiveSS/ Inc., CnWn. Mm 01471. 207 joe- BAYSTATE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. SHEET NO- OF — 296 North Main Street CALCULATED BY- DATE. EAST LONGMEADOW, MASSACHUSETTS 01028 (413) 525-3822 CHECKED BY DATE. SCALE C_ OcC *L e /..* 0*r f/fe W, ee ey fc«5 tcse. /KC/UjsCc U/K/li ears / ./f. * frvSWs] Inc., Cram. Hut. 01471. 208 JOB- BAYSTATE I ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC. SHEET NO.. OF. 296 North Main Street CALCULATED BY. DATE. ?/£/*? EAST LONGMEADOW, MASSACHUSETTS 01028 I (413) 525-3822 CHECKED BY DATE. 2,2. V^^fc TnUl •*#• 387 2-3 3-io -•&• 0.3 *#**- a.5* /ao Prew/ottjs/y eu. T0U; L e\jr PS /fl3 o/^e a 3«" Si^C- -i/- f •e/v\, V /Me act f. Pe*fc Li a TV A .a PRODUCT 204-1 /5fS3/ Inc., Greta. Mm. 01«1. 209 I I I I I 210 I I I I I I I I APPENDIX H I ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATION FORM I I I I I I I I I I 211 ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATION FORM I. SUMMARY A. Project Identification 1. Project Name Address/Location . City/Town 2. Project Proponent Address 3. Est. Commencement . Est. Completion Approx. Cost $ . Status of Project Design Complete. 4. Amount (if any) of bordering vegetated wetlands, salt marsh, or tidelands to be dredged, filled, removed, or altered (other than by receipt of runoff) as a result of the project. acres square feet. 5. This project is categorically included and therefore requires preparation of an EIR. Yes No ? B. Narrative Project Description Describe project and site. Copies of the complete ENF may be obtained from (proponent or agent): Name: _ Firm/Agency: Address: . Phone No. .1986 THIS IS AN IMPORTANT NOTICE. COMMENT PERIOD IS LIMITED. For Information, call (617) 727-5830 212 I I P.2 C. List the State or Federal agencies from which permits or other actions have been/will be sought: I Agency Name Permit Date filed; file no. I I D. List any government agencies or programs from which the proponent will seek financial assistance for this project: I Agency Name Funding Amount I E. Areas of potential impact (complete Sections II and III first, before completing this section). I 1. Check all areas in which, in the proponent's judgment, an impact of this project may occur. Positive impacts, as well as adverse impacts, may be indicated. I Construction Long Term Impacts Impacts Inland Wetlands I Coastal Wetlands/Beaches Tidelands , Traffic Open Space/Recreation I Historical/Archaeological Fisheries/Wildlife —— Vegetation/Trees I Agricultural Lands Water Pollution Water Supply/Use . I Solid Waste Hazardous Materials Air Pollution Noise .. I Wind/Shadow Aesthetics Growth Impacts , ,. I Community/Housing and the Built Environment I Other (Specify) — . I 2. List the alternatives which have been considered. I I 213 P.3 I F. Has this project been filed with EOEA before? No Yes EOEA No. I I G. WETLANDS AND WATERWAYS ; 1. Will an Order of Conditions under the Wetlands Protection Act (c.!31s.40) or a License under I the Waterways Act (c.91) be required? Yes No 2. Has a local Order of Conditions been: I a. issued? Date of issuance ; DEQE File No b. appealed? Yes ; No 3. Will a variance from the Wetlands or Waterways Regulations be required? Yes ; No I I II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Map; site plan. Include an original 8% x 11 inch or larger section of the most recent U.S.G.S. I 7.5 minute series scale topographic map with the project area location and boundaries clearly shown. If available, attach a site plan of the proposed project. I B. State total area of project: acres. Estimate the number of acres (to the nearest 1/10 acre) directly affected that are currently: I 1. Developed acres 6. Tideiands acres 2. Open Space/ 7. Productive Resources Woodlands/Recreation acres Agriculture acres 3. Wetlands ... acres Forestry acres I 4. Floodplain .. acres 8. Other .. acres 5. Coastal Area acres I C. Provide the following dimensions, if applicable: Existing Increase Total I Length in miles Number of Housing Units Number of Stories I Gross Floor Area in square feet Number of parking spaces - Total of Daily vehicle trips to and from site I (Total Trip Ends) Estimated Average Daily Traffic on road(s) serving site 1 I 2 3 I D. TRAFFIC PLAN. If the proposed project will require any permit for access to local roads or state highways, attach a sketch showing the location and layout of the proposed driveway(s). I 214 I I I P.4 I HI. ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Instructions: Explain direct and indirect adverse impacts, including those arising from general construction and operations. For every answer explain why significant adverse impact is I considered likely or unlikely to result. Positive impact may also be listed and explained. Also, state the source of information or other basis for the answers supplied. Such I environmental information should be acquired at least in part by field inspection. A. Open Space and Recreation 1. Might the project affect the condition, use, or access to any open space and/or recreation I area? I Explanation and Source: 2. Is the project site within 500 feet of any public open space, recreation, or conservation land? I Explanation and Source: I B. Historic and Archaeological Resources •1. Might any site or structure of historic significance be affected by the project? (Prior I consultation with Massachusetts Historical Commission is advised.) I Explanation ana* Source: I 2. Might any archaeological site be affected by the project? (Prior consultation with Massachusetts Historical Commission is advised.) I Explanation and Source: I C. Ecological Effects 1, Might the project significantly affect fisheries or wildlife, especially any rare or endangered I species? (Prior consultation with the Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program is advised). I Explanation and Source: I I I 215 I I 2. Might the project significantly affect vegetation, especially any rare or endangered species _ of plant? (Prior consultation with the Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program is advised.) I (Estimate approximate number of mature trees to be removed: ) Explanation and Source: I 3. Agricultural Land. Has any portion of the site been in agricultural use within the last 15 years? • If yes, specify use and acreage. B Explanation and Source: I D. Water Quality and Quantity • 1. Might the project result in significant changes in drainage patterns? • Exp/anation and Source: I 2. Might the project result in the introduction of any pollutants, including sediments, into marine I waters, surface fresh waters or ground water? * Explanation and Source: _ I 3. Does the project involve any dredging? No Yes Volume If 10,000 • cy or more, attach completed Standard Application Form for Water Quality Certification, — Part I (314 CMR 9.02(3), 9.90, DEQE Division of Water Pollution Control). I I I 216 I I I P.6 4. Will any part of the project be located in flowed or filled tidelands, Great Ponds, or other waterways? (Prior consultation with the DEQE and CZM is advised.) I Exp/anation and Source: I I 5. Will the project generate or convey sanitary sewage? No Yes If Yes, Quantity: gallons per day Disposal by; (a) Onsite septic systems Yes No I (b) Public sewerage systems (location; average and peak daily flows to treatment works) Yes No I Explanation ana* Source; I I 6. Might the project result in an increase in paved or impervious surface over a sole source aquifer or an aquifer recognized as an important present or future source of water supply? I Explanation and Source: I I 7. Is the project in the watershed of any surface water body used as a drinking water supply? I Exp/anafion and Source: I 8. Are there any public or private drinking water wells within a 1/2-mile radius of the proposed I project? I Explanation and Source: I I I 217 I P.7 9. Does the operation of the project result in any increased consumption of water? Approximate consumption - gallons per day. Likely water source(s) Explanation and Source: I E. Solid Waste and Hazardous Materials I 1. Estimate types and approximate amounts of waste materials generated, e.g., industrial, » domestic, hospital, sewage sludge, construction debris from demolished structures. How/ • where will such waste be disposed of? Exp/anafion and Source: B I 2. Might the project involve the generation, use, transportation, storage, release, or disposal I of potentially hazardous materials? Exp/anafion ana* Source: M I 3. Has the site previously been used for the use, generation, transportation, storage, release, • or disposal of potentially hazardous materials? Exp/anation ana* Source: w I F. Energy Use and Air Quality I 1. Will space heating be provided for the project? If so, describe the type, energy source, and approximate energy consumption. Exp/anafion ana* Source: • I I 218 I I P.8 2. Will the project require process heat or steam? If so, describe the proposed system, the fuel type, and approximate fuel usage. I Explanation and Source; I I 3. Does the project include industrial processes that will release air contaminants to the atmosphere? If so, describe the process (type, material released, and quantity released). I Explanation and Source: I I 4. Are there any other sources of air contamination associated with the project (e.g. automobile traffic, aircraft traffic, volatile organic compound storage, construction dust)? I Explanation and Source: I I 5. Are there any sensitive receptors (e.g. hospitals, schools, residential areas) which would be affected by air contamination caused by the project? I Explanation and Source: I I G. Noise 1. Might the project result in the generation of noise? I (Include any source of noise during construction or operation, e.g., engine exhaust, pile driving, traffic.) I and Source: I I I 219 : .• . :--. -. - I P.9 2. Are there any sensitive receptors (e.g., hospitals, schools, residential areas) which would be affected by any noise caused by the project? _ Explanation and Source: • I 3. Is the project a sensitive receptor, sited in an area of significant ambient noise? I Explanation and Source: I I H. Wind and Shadow | 1. Might the project cause wind and shadow impacts on adjacent properties? Explanation and Source: I I I. Aesthetics I 1. Are there any proposed structures which might be considered incompatible with existing adjacent structures in the vicinity in terms of size, physical proportion and scale, or M significant differences in land use? I Explanation and Source: I I 2. Might the project impair visual access to waterfront or other scenic areas? • Explanation and Source; | I I I 220 I I I P.10 I IV. CONSISTENCY WITH PRESENT PLANNING Discuss consistency with current federal, state and local land use, transportation, open space, recreation and environmental plans and policies. Consult with local or regional planning ( authorities where appropriate. I I I I • V. FINDINGS AND CERTIFICATION A. The public notice of environmental review has been/will be published in the following newspaper(s): _ - B. This form has been circulated to all agencies and persons as required by 301 CMR 11.24. Date Signature of Responsible Officer Date Signature of person preparing or Project Proponent ENF (if different from above) Name (print or type) Name (print or type) Address Address _ .— Telephone Number .— Telephone Number 221 I I I I I 222 I I I I I I I I APPENDIX I MEETING SUMMARIES AND I COMMENTS FROM INTERESTED PARTIES I I I I I I I I 223 I I I RICHMOND POND FIRST PUBLIC MEETING 7-10 PM, TUES., JULY 14, 1987. • D. Thurlow introduced BEC. Representatives of Richmond Shores and the three camps on the pond were present, as well as a • reporter from the Berkshire Eagle. K. Wagner and D. Mitchell B represented BEC. K. Wagner described study findings to date and past efforts to I manage the pond. A slide show detailing the diagnostic/feasibility study approach was presented. Discussion was then opened. • Questions and Comments: 1. Macrophyte cycles noted; variable biomass over several years, • effects of drawdown and weather patterns noted. J 2. Interest shown in having a weed harvester on the pond. 3. Controversy over winter drawdown discussed; drawdown to occur g again this year to allow study. • 4. Drawdown believed to control milfoil in shallow areas, but replaced by Potamogetons and Valisneria in those areas. 5. Interest in grass carp expressed; current limitations in that fl regard discussed. • 6. Observations made on watershed activities and their influence on the pond. • 7. Interest in current water chemistry expressed; no obvious | pollution sources noted, but septic systems suspect. 8. Great interest shown in having Richmond Shores area hooked — into Pittsfield sewer system; pressure sewer needed, but trunk I lin not too far away. * 9. Water level discussed; during drawdown, a 2 inch storm in a 24 hr period can raise the pond level about 5 ft. • 10. Questions raised regarding circulation patterns and their | impact on plant distribution. 11. Concern expressed over possible harm to fish by harvester m usage; questions raised about effective depth to which harvester I can function. 12. Questions raised about bottom barriers; much interest in individual testing next year.- I 13. Concern expressed over application of herbicide (Rodeo) by • railroad along tracks; recommendations to be drafted urging minimal to no use along adjacent pond frontage. • 14. Questions raised about next step after study complete; plenty | of studies done with limited management action up to present; management program options and Clean Lakes Program approach — discussed. I I 224 I I I I I RICHMOND POND SECOND PUBLIC MEETING 7-9:30 PM, WED., AUGUST 31, 1988. I Pittsfield contact person, Ed Stockman could not attend. Holly Stover of the Richmond Conservation Commission was present. Representatives of Richmond Shores and Whitewood Associations present, plus Directors from Lakeside and Boys Club Camps. K. Wagner represented BEG and K. Keohane, I Project Officer for DWPC, was in attendance. K. Wagner described study findings using a slide show. The impacts of I watershed land use, stormwater drainage, nearshore septic systems, and internal recycling were described. Inputs from tributaries over a long period, coupled with internal recycling by plants and anoxic relesase, I are viewed as the major threat to the pond. Soil conditions minimize septic system impacts, and stormwater has only localized effects. Long term control of land use and macrophyte growths are the major management I needs • Questions and Comments: 1. How does Clean Lakes Program work in Phase II? I 2. Could Richmond or Pittsfield buy a harvester? 3. Could grass carp be used? 4. Would the use of a bottom barrier interfere with swimming, boating or fishing? I 5. Could more than one approach be tried? 6. Who is responsible for future grant filings? 7. How did experimental harvest at Boys Club Camp do? I 8. Why are there no smelt in the pond? 9. If there is no evidence of septic system influence on the pond, how can a sewer system be justified for funding? Most residents want sewers. I 10. Support shown for detention basins on tributaries wherever possible. 11. Support shown for testing of a variety of macrophyte control techniques in the pond. 12. Some support shown for chemical treatments. I 13. Violations of the Wetlands Protection Act noted. 14. Railroad herbicide applications cited as a possible problem. I 15. What other sources of monetary support are available? I 225 I TOWN OF RICHMOND I Richmond, Massachusetts Conservation Commission I July 17,1987 Mr. Douglas Thurlow I Project Director Richmond Pond j Clean Lakes Act Dear Doug: | Would you please advise BEG of the following: 1 i Conrail has sent the Richmond Conservation Commission notice that it has RWC, INC., of Westfield, MA, intending • to use the herbicides "Rhodeo" and "Round-Up" along the railroad tracks sometime between July 29 and Aug 15th. I am enclosing my letter of concerns. "Arsenal" and "Oust" i are two other products that are mentioned in the literature _ sent this Commission. "Oust" is a Sulfonylurea, manufactured | by Dupont. "Arsenal" is an imidazolinone, manufactured by American Cyanamid. "RoundUp" has no chemical name, but the I active ingredient is isopropylamine salt of glyphosate. "RODEO" has no chemical name. It's active ingredient is the • same. Both Rodeo and RoundUp are produced by Monsanto. I - am also enclosing a copy of RWC's letter of information to • this Commission, for your information. I This Commission is currently looking into the possibility I of obtaining a few acres of wetlands that are land-locked, somewhere off Osceola Rd. Extension. It's a part of the • Richmond Pond watershed that may be a feasible location for • a retention pond, in the future, v/e trust that you will keep _ this information confidential, until the land is securred. | The land in subject may border some land that was given to Wildlife and Fisheries a few years ago. I The Town of Richmond will be holding a public hearing on July 29th to enable the road superintendent to replace i the culvert at the bottom of the hill on the Boys' Club i 226 I I TOWN OF RICHMOND I Richmond, Massachusetts I Rd. that leads to Richmond Shores development. That culvert carries water from the apple orchard, and feeds I into the Pond inlet. The intent of the Town's road superintendent is to replace the damaged culvert and I to remove silt forward and after. Care will be taken to rip-rap and reseed. We will see that all measures are I taken to mitigate any downstream problems. I Sincerely, I Holly H. Stover Acting Chairman I Richmond Conservation I I I I I I I I I 227 I TOWN OF RICHMOND I Richmond, Massachusetts CONSERVATION COMMISSION I September 5, 1989 I Diana Bartlett RR #3 Swamp Road Pittsfield, MA 01201 I Dear Ms. Bartlett: I THE Richmond Conservation Commission has received incomplete forms, a Request for a Determination of Applicability and an Ab- breviated Notice of Intent to construct a deck on the north side I of your Swamp road home/ a deck which is currently in place. In addition, the Commission on the same day (8-29-89) received an incomplete Notice of Intent to construct a deck and a barn, as I well as an application request for a hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals. As I discussed with you in July, before the Town of Richmond I can issue you any relevant permits, the Enforcement Order dated 10-18-88 must be addressed. r,ivestock must be removed from the Swamp and its buffer zone, and the shed structure that was begun at the time of the ENforcement Order must be removed. The swamp I and its bordering vegetated wetlands are in very close proximity to your home. The resource area is a particularly sensitive area, and is an integral part of the inlet that supplies Richmond Pond. I Your horses have been pastured and are altering the resource area as well as the buffer zone. Water has been diverted from the wetlands to a pooling area, and the a forementioned structure has been built without the requi red permits or Order of Conditions. I These activities are all violations of the Wetland Protection Act, Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 131, section 'lO. The Richmond Conservation Commission believes that the entire I property north of your home is subject to protection under the Act Because you have taken no action in response to the Enforcement Order, the Commission has requested intervention from the Division I of Environmental Protection (formerly DEQE). i expect that you will be hearing from the Department soon. I Building Inspector Sincerely yours, Clean Lakes Committee/ T. Kelly IkiU //, ^i^uJL, Planning Board I Holly H. Stover, Chairman cc: Board of Selectman Conservation Commission Sarah Bell, Esq. Massachusetts D.E.P- I Env. Enforcement Officer Terry Whitney Dr. K. Wagner/ Baystate Environmental Consultants Inc Zoning Board of Appeals I noard of Hen 1th 228 I I I TOWN OF RICHMOND Richmond, Massachusetts I October 24, 1988 I Mr. Edward Stockman c/o The Pittsfield Conservation Commission City Hall I Pittsfield, MA 01201 I Dear Mr. Stockman: This letter is to follow up the Pittsfield Conservation Commission Hearing, 10/13/33, in regard to the seasonal drawdown of Richmond Pond. Thank you for being sensitive to the concerns I of Richmond residents as well as to those of the residents of Pittsfield, and for incorporating recommendations based on the recent diagnostic/feasibility studies and calculations provided ' I by Baystate Environmental Consultants. Richmond residents have long since been concerned about flooding of the West Pittsfield (Chapel Street) homes, but have been ecrually as concerned about I the annual full drawdown effect on Richmond Pond's infrastructure, ecosystem, wildlife and fisheries. For several years the Pond has been drawn down to Its current I maximum limit, about 4 1/2 feet. A broad bar of silt, approximately one hundred to two hundred feet in front of the dam has prevented any further drawdown for more than thirty years. Maximum drawdown I in recent years temporarily reduced the * 218 acre Pond by more than 70 acres and left the entire west/northwest shore with large areas of exposed muck/peat, and reduced the inlet at Richmond Shores to a very narrow stream. The Pond was lowered in past I years for the purposes of shore cleanup, dam and gate repair, to build the Richmond Town Beach and State boat ramp, to reduce spring flooding in West Pittsfield (found to be a secondary benefit), and I to freeze exposed weeds. It is generally felt that the practice of reducing the Pond annually to its maximum limit provided several benefits, but had many deleterious effects, some perhaps yet unknown, I and many persons opposed it. As Lois Kelly stated at the hearing, the Division of Fisheries no longer includes Richmond Pond in its fall trout-stocking program because of the drawdowns. I The Clean Lakes Act diagnostic/feasibility studies show that yearly drawdowns for purposes of weed control had little effect on many of the nuisance weeds, largely because pockets along the west, I shore prevented much of that area from draining enough to sufficiently expose weeds for freezing. Dr. Kenneth Wagner, from Baystate Environ- mental Consultants, suggested that subsequent drawdowns for Che pur- I poses of weed control might be warranted once every three to five years, a compromise between benef .t \-.s and the many undesirable effects I that one would expect from an exposed and vulnerable shore. I 229 I Mr. Edward Stockman ™ c/o The Pittsfield Conservation Commission page two I It is recognized that West Pittsfield, particularly along I Chapel Street, has a spring flooding problem that is enhanced by • the overflow of Richmond Pond. Drawdown of the Pond does seem to provide homeowners in that area with limited spring flooding relief. • The Richmond Conservation Commission subsequently feels that pre- Q vention of 'flooding is the most significant consideration on which to base drawdowns. _ Calculations made available to us by Dr. Wagner indicate that ™ a two to three foot drawdown .-would be sufficient to reduce most flooding by providing approximately thirty-five acres of flood • storage capacity. They further indicate that a lower drawdown would I not provide a substantial increase in the flood storage capacity, but would expose a disproportionate number of acres of lake bottom. • The gate to the outflow of Richmond Pond is a manually operated one, located near the base of the dam, and opens from the bottom up. Full drawdown of the dam is required at times for such things as gate I and flam repair and maintenance. Because of the location of the gate, • and because heavy precipitation and runoff can bring the Pond up so rapidly, the water level of the Pond is difficult to maintain defini- • tively, and therefore requires close monitoring. In addition. Chapel | Street residents have voiced a legitimate concern in retjard to current flooding that could be compounded this fall because of beaver • dams that are now impacting their homes. Those dams along Chapel • Street are severely flooding the yards after a relatively dry summer. Those residents are concerned that opening the gate to the Pond, increasing the volume and velocity of water leaving the Pond during • drawdown, could flood their homes. • The Richmond Conservation Commission feels that the City of • Pittsfield has a responsibility to those homeowners, having allowed | them to build homes in a flood plain. Although the beaver dams are a separate issue from the drawdown in some respects, it is a closely _ related issue that has a direct cause and effect relationship. I Furthermore, it would seem ironic that we could increase the flood- • ing of those homes during drawdown, the very homes that we are trying to protect from flooding by -the drawdown! • Subsequently, the Richmond Conservation Commission supports the £ittsfield Conservation Commission's approval of a closely moni- • tored drawdown of Richmond Pond that will be limited to lowering to I 2 1/2 feet - one foot to allow flexibility at times of heavy pre- cipitation and runoff. A slow, carefully monitored drawdown will help prevent any further fall flooding and help to mitigate- spring I flooding in the area of West Pittsfield. It will be important to • get feedback from residents and from those responsible for monitoring (Civil Defense in Pittsfield) after the first such controlled program, • 230 i I I _ Mr. Edward Stockman I c/o The Pittsfield Conservation Commission page three and to scrutinize it closely for subsequent impact that will effect • future decisions. Sincerely, I RICHMOND CONSERVATION COMMISSION By: Holly H. Stover _ Chairman i i i i i i i i i i i 231