Diagnostic Feasibility Study Jennings Pond Natick
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
DIAGNOSTIC/FEASIBILITY STUDY Jennings Pond Natick, Massachusetts APRIL 1986 i. JB/CV/S c v/ • ' .'<* *^^ST^;X<-^ ^\ft^ <A-J ••.,=) * 'StB£'OK/iL VV >»V?rrfff WHITMAN & HOWARD,INC. JENNINGS POND NATICK, MASSACHUSETTS DIAGNOSTIC/FEASIBILITY STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I. POND AND WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS PAGE A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY B. INTRODUCTION 1. Study Objectives 2. Jennings Pond Restoration Association, Inc C. JENNINGS POMP WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS , 1. Size and Location 9 2. Climatology 9 3 . Topography and Geology 15 4. Soils 21 5. General Hydrology 28 6. Population 32 7. Land Use 34 8. Zoning 36 D. JENNINGS POND CHARACTERISTICS 1. Size and Location 38 2. Mo rphome t ry 38 3. Jennings Pond Uses 42 a. Historical Use 42 b. Current Use 45 4. Public Access 45 E. PROBLEMS AND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES 1. Pertinent Findings of Past Reports 47 2. Past Pond Management 48 3. Current Watershed Management Practices 51 F. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION 52 SECTION II. DIAGNOSTIC STUDY A. INTRODUCTION 54 1. Sample Site Locations 55 2. Sampling Methodology 55 3. Sample Analyses 58 4. Basis of Data Analyses 58 PAGE B. PHYSICAL DATA 1. Temperature 58 2. Secchi-Disc Transparency 61 CHEMICAL DATA 1. Dissolved Oxygen 63 2. pH, Alkalinity and Salinity 68 3. Conductivity 74 4. Suspended Solids 76 5. Total Dissolved Solids 76 6. Total Phosphorus 79 7. Nitrogen 82 8. Summary of Chemical Data 90 D BIOLOGICAL DATA 1. Bacteriological 90 2. Phytoplankton and Chlorophyll a_ 94 3. Aquatic Macrophytes 98 4. Fisheries 105 5. Birds and Waterfowl 106 6. Surrounding Vegetation 106 E. ADDITIONAL SAMPLING . 1 Introduction 107 2 Precipitation Sampling 107 3 Groundwater Monitoring 112 4 Bottom Sediment Investigations 118 5 Stormwater Sampling/Sediment Loading 133 SECTION III NUTRIENT LOADING 1 Non-Point Source Pollutant Loading 142 2 Hydrologic Budget 148 3 Nutrient Budget 155 SECTION IV. FEASIBILITY STUDY 1 Introduction 158 2 Screening/Selection of Restoration- Preservation Alternatives 159 3 Detailed Alternative Evaluation 164 4 Environmental Evaluation 191 SECTION V. RECOMMENDED PLAN 1. Restoration Technique Synopsis 206 2. Project Implementation 209 ii PAGE 3. Implementation Phase - Permits/Reviews 211 4. Implementation Phase Funding 213 5. Monitoring Plan 214 REFERENCES APPENDICES Appendix A Hydrologic Budget Calculations Appendix B Nutrient Budget Calculations Appendix C Public Participation Appendix D Phytoplankton Enumeration Appendix E Boring Logs Appendix F Selected Zoning By-Laws Appendix G Lake/Pond Restoration Techniques Appendix H Letter of Comment iii LIST OF PLATES Plate Number Pa< 1 Watershed Delineation 10 2 Charles River Basin . 11 3 Bedrock Geology 16 4 Surficial Geology 17 5 Jennings Pond Watershed Land Use 20 6 General Soils Map 22 7 Hydrologic Soils Grouping 25 8. Jennings Pond Subwatersheds 31 9 Zoning Map for Jennings Pond Watershed 37 10 Jennings Pond Bathymetry-1984 39 11 Jennings Pond Bathymetry-1953 43 12 Jennings Pond Siltation Profile 44 13 Public Access 46 14 Sample Site Locations ' 56 15 Temperature/D.O. Profiles 59 16 Phytoplankton Population by Taxonomic Class 97 17 Aquatic Macrophytes 101 18 Sediment Depth Map 119 19 Sediment Sample and Boring Locations 121 20 Existing Storm Drainage . 134 21 Aquifer/Recharge Area Map 152 22 Potential Surface Aerator Locations 166 22a Potential Wetland Enhancement Locations 168 23 Existing Outlet Structure 171 24 Bathymetry - Drawdown 172 25 Proposed Outlet Structure 174 26 Sections - Proposed Outlet Structure 175 27 Storm Drainage Filtration 178 28 Remote Stormwater Filtration Sites 179 29 Typical Remote Filtration System 180 30 Proposed Bathymetry Following Drawdown 183 31 Dredge Material Disposal - Oak Street 185 32 Dredge Material Disposal - Town Forest 186 IV LIST OF TABLES Table Number Page 1 Climatological Data 14 2 Typical Watershed Discharge 30 3 Natick Population Trends 33 4 Natick vs. Watershed Land Use 35 5 Morphometric Data 40 6 Secchi-DisK Transparency 62 7 Temperature/D.O./% Saturation 64-65 8 pH Data • 69 9 Total Alkalinity Data 72 10 Chloride Data 73 11 Conductivity Data 75 12 Suspended Solids Data 77 13 Total Dissolved Solids Data • 78 14 Total Phosphorus Data 81 15 Ammonia-Nitrogen Data 85 16 Nitrate-Nitrogen Data 87 17 Total Kjeldahl-Nitrogen Data 88 18 Organic-Nitrogen Data 89 19 Fecal Coliform Data 92 20 Total Coliform Data 93 21 Chlorophyll a Data 95 22 Chlorophyll a Ranges and Related Trophic State 99 23 Rain Water Analysis 109 24 Groundwater Wells Physical Information 115 25 Groundwater Analysis .116 26 Core Sample Results 123 27 Boring Sample Results 124-125 28 Mean Results of Sediment Samples 126 29 CMR Guidelines 127 30 Sediment Nutrients & Volatile Solids 131 31 Stormwater Analysis 135-136 32 Land Use Distribution in Subwatersheds as Percentage 1«38 33 Projected Annual Sediment Loading 139 34 Runoff Values March, 1984-February, 1985 144 35 Non-Point Source Loadings 145 36 Retention Time Variations with Precipitation 154 37 Nutrient Budget Summary 156 38 Restoration/Preservation Alternatives Screening of Methodologies 161 39 Alternative Evaluation Summary 189 40 Jennings Pond Restoration Program 210 41 Monitoring Program and Cost Schedule 218 v SECTION I. POND AND WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS A. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Diagnostic/Feasibility study was conducted by 0 Whitman & Howard, Inc. for the Natick Conservation Commission. Funding for the study was provided by the Town of Natick and by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts under Chapter 628, "Clean Lakes Program." The purpose of the study was to quantify the physical characteristics of Jennings Pond and its watershed, determine the trophic state of the pond, and develop reasonable means of restoring the pond to a usable condition. The twelve (12) month "Diagnostic" phase concluded that the poor condition of Jennings Pond is strongly influenced by the urbanization of its watershed. The pond is highly sedimented due to direct and indirect runoff from the urbanized area surrounding it. Organic material in the upper layers of the sediment is a source of nutrients which contributes to the heavy weed growth in the pond. Lack of oxygen in the pond increases the release of these nutrients from the sediment, further increasing weed growth and stimulating algal growth during the summer months. The density of weed growth, profusion of algae, and the shallowness of the pond have prevented reasonable use of the pond, even for non-contact recreation. The "Feasibility" phase of the study reviewed the available methodologies for lake/pond restoration, selected those with reasonable applicability to Jennings Pond and -1- evaluated the selected alternatives based on their environmental impact, cost, and effectiveness. This exercise identified the elimination of sediments and the reduction of influent nutrients to the pond as the top priorities for pond restoration r Once these have been accomplished, removal of a large portion of the sediment in the pond will be required to reduce nutrient recycling and to allow maximum usage of the pond. The elimination of sediment entering the pond is proposed to be accomplished by improvements to and more frequent cleaning of catch basins in the watershed, thus enhancing their ability to trap sediments. The reduction of nutrients in the water(s) entering the pond will be accomplished by filtration of these waters both naturally (use of wetlands) and chemically (use of constructed filters). Filtration systems will be installed at each storm drain outlet and at the pond inlet (Oak Street). Removal of sediment (dredging) in the pond will be conducted in the "dry" by draining the pond. Although this dry dredging of the pond will have severe environmental impact on pond biota, it is the only reasonable means to accomplish the work. Introduction of new biota to the pond can restore the environment of the pond within a reasonable period (3-5 years). The construction of a new gate on the outlet structure will enhance the dewatering of the pond and allow for periodic drawdown for maintenance purposes. Public access to the pond will be improved by providing a canoe launch at the Oak Street filter area. -2- The cost of the work is estimated at $694,000 including contingencies and monitoring. The time frame of the project is approximately three years with work commencing in the summer/fall of 1986. Funding for the work is potentially available from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts at a 75% level. The Town of Natick will be required to raise the remainder of the necessary funds. -3- PROJECT COST SUMMARY JENNINGS POND PHASE II - RESTORATION A. STAGE I - Sediment/Nutrient Control $445,000.00 1. Project Design/Oversight ($53,500,00) 2. Outlet Control Structure ($16,500.00) 3. Remote Catch Basins - Sediment/Filtration ($70,000.00) 4. Oak Street Filtration System ($90,000.00) 5. Inlet Filtration System ($155,000) 6. Wetland Enhancement ($5,000.00) 7. Contingencies ($45,000.00) 8. Stage I Monitoring Program ($10,000.00) B. STAGE II $230,000.00 1. Project Design/Oversight ($25,000.00) 2. Dry Dredging ($160,000.00) 3. Shoreline Stabilization ($10,000.00) 4. Watershed Management ($9,000.00) 5. Stage II Monitoring Program ($5,000.00) 6. Contingencies @ 15% ($21,000.00) C. STAGE III 1. Update D/F Study $ 14,000.00 2. Project Report/Recommendations $ 5,000.00 Total Initial Project Cost $694,000.00 -4- NATICK, MASSACHUSETTS JENNINGS POND RESTORATION PROGRAM Restoration Methodology 1985 ,1986 •J987 ,1988 1989 1990 1. Phase I Report - Review and Approval H 2. Phase II Application and Grant I AwardCstate and local! 3. Design Selection I • 4. Phase I * Design 5. Phase I > Construction Phase i• 6. Phase I Monitoring Program • 1 7. Phase II Design •i 8. Phase II Construction Phase 1• 9. Phase II Monitoring Program •• OlIt» 10. Pond Maintenance c nuous Program iff -5- B. INTRODUCTION The Natick Conservation Commission is the local agency responsible for the management of Jennings Pond.