LIBRARY COPY PALIStf 71045 Wedge Pond. Winchester: Clean Lakes Program IDiagnostic/Feasibility Study of Wedge Pond, Winchester, MA DRAFT I I I I Clean Lakes Program I <5%S) I | Diagnostic/Feasibility Study • of Wedge Pond
J I Prepared by | \ Whitman & Howard, Inc. •S \ ' fot r uthe • 7 Town of Winchester . Department of Public Works
I AUGUST 1988
I
I I I I I I 1 I CLEAN LAKES PROGRAM
DIAGNOSTIC/FEASIBILITY STUDY OF WEDGE POND
PREPARED BY WHITMAN & HOWARD, INC. FOR THE TOWN OF WINCHESTER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
AUGUST 1988 DRAFT I
I TABLE OF CONTENTS I Section Page LIST OF FIGURES ,. . . vi I LIST OF TABLES vii 1.0 Pr o j ect Summary , 1-1 I 2,0 History of Wedge Pond and Its Environs 2-1 3.0 Watershed Characteristics 3-1 I 3 . 1 Introduction , 3-1 3 . 2 Climatology 3-1 3 . 3 Topography and Geology 3-3 3 . 4 Hydrology 3-5 I 3.5 Soils , 3-6 3 . 6 Land Use 3-12 3 . 7 Population 3-14 I 3.8 Fisheries and Wildlife..' 3-17 4.0 Pond Characteristics 4-1 I 4 . 1 Bathymetry and Morphometry 4-1 4 . 2 Public Access and Recreation , 4-5 I 5.0 Public Participation 5-1 6.0 Limnological Data 6-1 t 6 . 1 Sampling Methodology 6-1 6.2 Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, and Percent Saturation 6-3 6 . 3 Secchi Disc Transparency and Apparent I Water Color 6-11 6.4 pH and Alkalinity , 6-15 I 6 . 5 Conductivity and Chloride 6-19 6.6 Total Suspended Solids and Turbidity 6-22 6 . 7 Phosphorus , 6-24 1 6 . 8 Nitrogen 6-28 6.8.1 Organic Nitrogen 6-30 6.8.2 Ammonia Nitrogen..... 6-30 I 6.8.3 Nitrate Nitrogen 6-33 6.8.4 Total K j eldahl Nitrogen 6-35 I 6 . 9 Limnological Data Summary 6-35 I I I I I TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont) Section Page
7.0 Biological Data 7-1 • 7.1 Bacteriological 7-1 7.1.1 Bacterial Sampling Methodology 7-1 7.1.2 Results 7-1 i 7.2 Phytoplankton and Chlorophyll a 7-6 7.2.1 Methodology 7-6 7.2.2 Seasonal Trends of 1 Phytoplankton 7-6 — 7.2.3 Summary 7-11 • 7.2.4 Chlorophyll a Results 7-11 7. 3 Aquatic Vegetation Sampling 7-13 7.3.1 Methodology 7-13 i 7.3.2 Results 7-16 7.3.3 Discussion and Recommendations *. 7-18 i 8.0 Special Sampling Programs 8-1 _ 8.1 Tributary Sampling 8-1 ** 8.1.1 Discussion of Results , 8-7 i 8 .2 Stormwater Sampling 8-8 8.2.1 Discussion of Results 8-17 i 8.3 Groundwater Sampling 8-19 8.3.1 Discussion of Results 8-22 i 8.4 Sediment Sampling 8-23 8.4.1 Chemical Analysis 8-23 i 8.4.2 Sediment Investigations, 8-26 8.5 Priority Pollutant Sampling 8-28 i 9. 0 Annual Hydrologic Budget 9-1 9.1 Introduction 9-1 9.2 Watershed Comparison 9-4 i 9. 3 Flushing Rate/Retention Time 9-5 9.4 Flow Measurement 9-10 i 9.5 Implications of the Hydrologic Budget 9-10 i i 111 I I TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont) 1 Section Page 10.0 Annual Nutrient Budget 10-1 I 10.1 Introduction 10-1 10.2 Limiting Nutrient Analysis 10-5 10. 3 Trophic Status 10-5 I 10.4 Summary 10-8 11. 0 Discussion of Alternatives 11-1 I 11.1 Introduction 11-1 11.2 Selection of Restoration Alternatives 11-1 11. 3 Analysis of Alternatives 11-4 I 11.3.1 Inflow Diversion 11-4 11.3.2 Watershed Management 11-7 11.3.3 Nutrient Inactivation/ I Precipitation 11-12 11.3.4 Aeration/Mixing 11-13 11.3.5 Dilution/Flushing 11-19 11.3.6 Dredging 11-19 I 11.3.7 Bottom Sealing 11-20 11.3.8 Inflow Management 11-21 1 11. 4 Recommended Restoration Plan 11-25 11.4.1 Review of Alternatives 11-25 1 11.4.2 Selected Alternatives 11-26 12 . 0 Recommended Restoration Plan 12-1 I 12 .1 Restoration Plan Components 12-1 12.1.1 Inflow Management 12-1 12 .1. 2 Watershed Management 12-1 I 12.1.3 Nutrient Inactivation 12-2 12 . 2 Future Restoration Options 12-2 12 . 3 Trophic State Following Implementation 12-2 I 12 . 4 Project Implementation 12-3 12.5 Permits/Reviews 12-5 12 . 6 Funding 12-5 I 12 .7 Monitoring Program 12-5 12.7.1 Monitoring of Wetland Treatment System 12-7 I 12.7.2 Monitoring of Watershed Management 12-8 12.7.3 Monitoring of Nutrient I Inactivation 12-9 12.7.4 Monitoring of Overall I Restoration Program 12-9
I IV I I TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont) I Section Page 12.8 Implementation 12-10 I 12 . 9 Scope of Work 12-10 13 . 0 Environmental Evaluation 13-1
I BIBLIOGRAPHY I APPENDICES A Water Quality Standards B Phytoplankton Identification I and Enumeration C Ma} or Conclusions of the NURP Study D Priority Pollutant Scan I E Hydrologic Budget Calculations I F Environmental Notification Form i t i i i i i i i i I
I LIST OF FIGURES I Figure Page 1-1 Proposed Location of Wetland Treatment System 1-3 I 3-1 Wedge Pond Watershed 3-2 3-2 Evapotranspiration, Runoff, and Infiltration Characteristics of Different Surfaces 3-8 3-3 Soils by Hydrologic Group Within the I Wedge Pond Watershed 3-11 3-4 Land Use Within the Wedge Pond Watershed 3-15 4-1 1929 Bathymetric Map of Wedge Pond 4-2 I 4-2 Bathymetric Map of Wedge Pond 4-3 4-3 Public Access 4-6 6-1 Limnological Sampling Locations 6-2 6-2 Thermal Characteristics of Temperate Lakes 6-4 I 6-3 Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Profiles for Wedge Pond 6-5 6-4 Selected Secchi Disc Transparencies as I Compared to Chlorophyll a Values 6-14 6-5 Generalized Nitrogen Cycle for Freshwater Systems 6-29 7-1 Schematic Representation of Abundant I Phytoplankton in Wedge Pond (April - June 1987) 7-8 7-2 Schematic Representation of Abundant Phytoplankton in Wedge Pond I (July - September 1987) 7-10 7-3 Location and Composition of Aquatic Macrophyte Stands Within Wedge Pond 7-17 I 8-1 Tributary Sampling Locations and Drainage Subareas 8-2 8-2 Storm Drain Sampling Locations 8-9 8-3 Groundwater Well Locations 8-20 I 8-4 Sediment Sampling Locations 8-24 8-5 Characterization of Sediment Depth and Sediment Type in Wedge Pond 8-27 I 8-6 Priority Pollutant Sampling Locations 8-29 9-1 Simplified Representation of Annual Hydrological Cycle 9-2 10-1 Dillon/Rigler Trophic Status 10-7 I 11-1 Inlet Diversion Schematic 11-5 11-2 Erosion Control Schematic 11-9 11-3 Aeration Schematic 11-15 11-4 Inlet Diversion for Hypolimnetic Aeration 11-17 I 11-5 Hypolimnetic Withdrawal Schematic 11-18 11-6 Wetland Treatment System 11-22 11-7 Typical Cross-Section of the Wetland i Treatment System 11-24 12-1 Dillon/Rigler Trophic Status Following Implementation 12-4 12-2 Wedge Pond Restoration Program Schedule 12-6 I 12-3 Monitoring Program Schedule and Costs 12-11 i i VI I
I LIST OF TABLES 1 Table 3-1 Climatological Data 3-4 3-2 Subwatersheds Within the Wedge Pond I Watershed 3-7 3-3 Soils by Hydrologic Soil Group 3-10 3-4 MAES Winchester Land Use Study, 1951 to 1971 3-13 I 3-5 Land Use Summary per Subwatershed 3-16 3-6 Observed Bird Population 3-19 4-1 Morphometric Data 4-4 I 6-1 Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, and Percent Saturation - In-Pond Station 6-8 6-2 Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, and Percent Saturations - Inlet and Outlet 6-12 I 6-3 Secchi Disc Transparency and Apparent Water Color - In-Pond Station 6-13 6-4 pH 6-17 I 6-5 Alkalinity 6-18 6-6 Conductivity 6-20 6-7 Chloride 6-21 6-8 Total Suspended Solids 6-23 I 6-9 Turbidity 6-25 6-10 Total Phosphorus 6-26 6-11 Organic Nitrogen 6-31 6-12 Ammonia Nitrogen 6-32 I 6-13 Nitrate Nitrogen 6-34 6-14 Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen 6-36 7-1 Fecal Coliform 7-2 I 7-2 Fecal Streptococci 7-3 7-3 Fecal Coliform to Fecal Streptococci Ratios 7-5 7-4 Comparison of Microcvstis sp. and Aphanizomenon sp. in Wedge Pond 7-9 I 7-5 Characteristics of Common Major Algal Associations in Relation to Increasing Lake Fertility 7-12 I 7-6 Reported Chlorophyll a Concentrations as Related to Lake Trophic State 7-13 7-7 Chlorophyll a. 7-14 7-8 Distribution and Wet Biomass of Aquatic I Macrophytes Per Sample Quadrat. 7-16 7-9 Total Wet Biomass of Aquatic Macrophytes in Wedge Pond 7-18 I 8-1 Tributary Sampling 8-4 8-2 Fecal Coliform to Fecal Streptococci Ratios Wet and Dry Weather Tributary Sampling 8-6 I 8-3 Storm Drain Subsystems 8-8 8-4 Stormwater Analysis 8-11 8-5 Stormwater Analysis (1/18/88) Linden Street Storm Drain 8-12 I 8-6 Stormwater Analysis (2/2/88) I Linden Street Storm Drain 8-13
I VII I I LIST OF TABLES (Cont) I Table Page 8-7 Stormwater Analysis (1/18/88) Main Street Storm Drain 8-14 I 8-8 Stormwater Analysis (2/2/88) Main Street Storm Drain. 8-15 8-9 Comparison of Median Values of Pollutants Found in NURP Study vs. Wedge Pond Study 8-16 I 8-10 EPA Concentrations vs. Wedge Pond Stormwater Samples 8-18 8-11 Groundwater Analysis 8-21 8-12 Wedge Pond Sediment Analysis Compared I to 314 CMR 9.00 Dredging Constituents 8-25 8-13 Selected Priority Pollutant Concentrations Found in Wedge Pond Sediment Samples 8-30 I 9-1 Summary of the Hydrologic Budget for the Wedge Pond Watershed, April 1987 - March 1988 9-6 9-2 Seasonal Variations in Outflow from I Wedge Pond Based on the Water Balance Method 9*8 9-3 Seasonal Variations in Outflow from I Wedge Pond Based on the Watershed Comparison Method 9~9 10-1 Nutrient Budget Summary for Wedge Pond 10-2 10-2 Seasonal Phosphorus Loading '. 10-3 I 10-3 Seasonal Nitrogen Loading 10-4 11-1 Screening of Restoration Techniques 11-3 11-2 Impact of Inflow Diversion on Flushing Rate, Retention Time, and Phosphorus I Loading. - - - 11-6 I I I I I I I 1 Section I i Diagnostic Study I I
Section 1.0 | Project Summary I I 1.0 PROJECT SUMMARY
I 1-1 OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF STUDY Wedge Pond is a 22-acre, municipally-owned, Great Pond. It I is located along Lake Street and Main Street in the Town of I Winchester. In the past, the pond was an active recreation area . and was used for swimming, fishing, and boating. However, more I recently the pond has been closed to swimming due to violations of bathing beach standards. In response to the degradation of Wedge Pond, the Town of I ^ tdfcfc- Winchester sought and was awarded a/Clean Lakes grant to study the I pond. Whitman & Howard, Inc. conducted the Diagnostic/Feasibility x^7A~w of—"" study for the/Winchester Dppartmeftfe-of- Public Works. The diagnos- I tic portion of the study was intended to (1) describe the physical I characteristics of the pond, (2) determine the trophic state of the pond, and V(3) investigate probable causes of the degraded I condition of the pond. The feasibility portion of the study was designed to analyze potential engineering solutions which would I improve and protect the water quality of Wedge Pond. The diagnostic study was conducted over a year-long period I (April 1987 to March 1938). Sampling took place on a bi-weekly basis throughout thermal stratification and monthly during iso- I thermal conditions. / £s/ / Sampling stations included an in-pond, deep-ho!ba station, one I inlet (Horn Pond Brook), and one outlet. Water quality monitoring I results and data summaries are included in Section 6.0, Limnoloai- I cal Data. I
I 1-1 I I In addition to samples collected for chemical and bacterial analysis, biological and physical pond data were also collected. I These data included identification and enumeration of algae, ex- r feJ-W-^vUy. j_ s A*/D tent_<=n»t_ anaiiiMdi distributioU.XOL.X j.uuL.j.uini uoxf aaquati 1411 a i..LIc* weedswcczuo ,, 0.an1 di
The proposed location of the wetland treatment system is shown on Figure 1-1. 1-2 I I I I I
I Locus proposed I wetland treatment I system I I I I I I I
I Proposed Location of I Wetland Treatment System I Whitman & Howard, Inc Figure 1-1 I MAKEPEACE 1-3 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I Section 2.0 | History of Wedge Pond and Its Environs I
I 2.0 HISTORY OF WEDGE POND AND ITS ENVIRONS
The early history of Wedge Pond can be traced back to the r\ Aberjanian Indians who settled the Mystic River basin. This area » supplied many resources to the Aberjinians, including: wild • game, tree and plant materials, water resources, and lithic material for tool manufacturing. As european pioneers increased • their contact with the native population, a seasonal pattern of movement was established between indians and settlers. Their • relationship was organized around trading and the collection of food and other resources. I During the plantation period (1630-1675), european _ settlement intensified and rapidly made its way inland along the • Mystic River basin. A large core community was established in • Woburn and the town became incorporated in 1642. Wedge Pond and immediate area fell within the boundaries of Woburn, as • Winchester was still two centuries away from being incorporated. It was interesting to note that during this period a bridge was | built across Horn Pond at Horn Pond Brook (Chapman, 1975) . As _ stated by Sewall in Chapman (1975) , "the place was so boggy that • it swallowed up much wood before it was made passable". At this • time, Horn Pond Brook flowed directly into the Aberjona River. During the colonial period (1675-1775) , agriculture, tanning • and shoemaking were viable industries in Woburn. Water resources were an important source of power for many of the machines used I in these trades. In 1728, the first mill was established along Horn Pond Brook. The fulling mill, built by Mr. Belknap, was i• located off of present-day Canal Street. i 2-1 I
• As the core community and industries in Woburn prospered, trade was quickly hampered by slow stagecoach transportation. | However, the opening of the Middlesex Canal in 1803 allowed trade _ to flourish. The Middlesex canal paralleled Horn Pond Brook and • Wedge Pond (near Palmer Street) . Packet travel was not limited • to merchants, however, and trips to Woburn soon became a favorite excursion retreat for Boston residents. • During the early industrial period (1830-1870) , Boston's regional influence was dramatic. A growing number of people had P jobs in Boston or were otherwise dependant on frequent access to the city. Modes of transportation became extremely important, I especially rail travel. The Boston and Lowell Railroad became • operational in 1835, which impacted the canal business and tourist industries. Transportation and settlement pressures • resulted in the formation of many new towns during the early industrial period, one of which was Winchester (incorporated in I 1850) . By the late 1800's, several established families tried to I make Winchester the haven for the elite of eastern Massachusetts, _ albeit unsuccessfully. However, Fred O. Prince, reputedly the ™ wealthiest man in the northeast at that time, made his home on an • estate overlooking Wedge Pond (Chapman, 1975) . The elite appeal of Wedge Pond also attracted real estate entrepreneurs, several I of which laid out a surburban development called Wedgemere Estates. To finance their deal, the developers formed a land J syndicate and sold stocks to Boston investors (Chapman, 1975) . The deal brokers also wanted to change the name of Wedge Pond to iI Echo Lake, a name they thought was more appropriate. i I I Whereas Wedge Pond was a favorite spot for aquatic sports and an attraction to real estate investors, it was also | investigated as a potential water supply source. However, a _ municipal committee, formed in 1870, concluded that the pond was • too easily contaminated and therefore not suitable for a drinking • water supply. Technological advances in the early industrial period led to • an expansion of machine shops and tanning facilities in both Woburn and Winchester. In 1895, the Eastern Felting and Buffing | Wheel Company was established on Horn Pond Brook on the site of _ the old Belknap mill. • Unfortunately, along with industrial expansion came • industrial pollution, most of it from Woburn. Even though towns were sewering a large part of their wastes, the water quality of • Horn Pond Brook, Russell Brook, and the Aberjona River suffered. By 1889, Winchester had three trunk sewers, but by 1925, the | uppermost limit of planned expansion had been exceeded. Sewer _ surcharging was not uncommon. Whereas residents were concerned • about the degradation of their water resources, it was only in • 1932 that Woburn was given a citation by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH) ; the MDPH ordered Woburn to • build sewers to carry wastes from its tanneries and gelatin factories. Woburn compiled, but hooked up the sewers to an I fabsolete trunk system. This worsened the waste situation. In _ 1934, heavy rains overloaded the sewers which sent raw sewage • into Horn Pond Brook, Wedge Pond, and Russell Brook. This • prompted the MDPH and Massachusetts District Commission to draw up an emergency bill to build a new trunkline which was completed I in 1939. i I • There were various attempts, from the 1890's on through the • Great Depression, to beautify the waterways in Winchester. • However/ World War II and the period thereafter was one of neglect for Horn Pond Brook. A drought in 1950, which dried up • Horn Pond Brook, allowed town officials to see the serious state the brook was in. Industrial pollution, trash, and mud choked I the banks and streambed. In 1955, the Inland Waterways Division _ of the Massachusetts Public Works Department cleared, dredged, • and rip-rapped Horn Pond Brook. It was during this • rehabilitation effort, that the course of Horn Pond Brook was altered at the Canal Street bridge and channelled to its present • inlet location on Wedge Pond. i i i i i i i i i i i 2-4 Section 3.0 Watershed Characteristics I I 3 . 0 WATERSHED CHARACTERISTICS
3.1. INTRODUCTION The Wedge Pond watershed lies within the Town of Winchester I and the City of Woburn. The watershed is located in the _ northwestern portion of the Mystic River Basin and includes B mostly residential land uses. The watershed area equals • approximately 780 acres. A general watershed map is presented in Figure 3-1. The watershed is traversed by Route 38 which runs • northwest to southeast and passes in close proximity to Wedge Pondfs inlet, Horn Pond Brook. This route accesses Winchester I Center to and from Route 128. 3.2 CLIMATOLOGY I The Wedge Pond watershed is characterized by numerous weather changes throughout the year including large daily and I annual temperature ranges and abundant precipitation. • Predominant air flow (from the Gulf of Mexico) is warm and moist ™ during summer, with cold, dry, Canadian air during winter. The I United States Department of Agriculture (USDA, 1978) estimates an average annual mean temperature of 9.9 °C (50-0 °F). Summer I temperatures average between 21 °C (70 °F) and 23 °C (74 °F) , while winter temperatures average -1 °C (30 OF). / I Precipitation totalled 45,51 inches for the £ne study period?* which was''0.22 inches of rainfall less than the expected yearly | average. However, there were some months that deviated from _ normal monthly values. H April was the wettest April since 1901 and the coolest April • since 1975; it also had the second least amount of sunshine in 97 Im years. .During April, rainfall was 10.11 inches, which was 6.34 I 3-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I WATERSHED BOUNDARY I SUBWATERSHED BOUNDARY I I WEDGE POND WATERSHED I Whitman & Howard. Inc Figure 3-1 3-2 I • inches above normal. May, June, and July were dry. Rainfall was 4.16 inches, which was 5.37 inches below normal for these three I months. July was the driest July since 1978 and was the seventh driest July in 117 years. September, on the other hand, was a I wet month and had 7.81 inches of precipitation. It was the seventh wettest September in 117 years. I There were several notable snow storms throughout the winter • including: November 10th through 12th (9.0 inches of snow), • December 29th (6.2 inches of snow), January 8th and 9th (9.4 • inches of of snow), February 4th (7.6 inches of snow), and February 12th (5.7 inches of snow). Table 3-1 documents monthly I temperature and precipitation data. 3.3 TOPOGRAPHY AND GEOLOGY I The topography of the Wedge Pond watershed is predominantly gently rolling to nearly level. The watershed is located within | the upland area of the Middlesex Fells. Elevations within the' _ watershed range from 20 feet to 276 feet above mean sea level • (rasl). The watershed is in part delineated by areas of high • relief around the pond such as Blueberry Mountain. Portions of the watershed not delineated by topography are defined by the • storm drain system. Horn Pond Brook flows in a southeasterly direction from Horn I Pond to Wedge Pond. It represents the only direct tributary to Wedge Pond. The pond and brook constitute the lower lying areas | within the watershed. Wedge Pond, a "kettle lake" formed by glacial retreat, is located at an approximate elevation of 20 i• feet msl. i i 3-3 1
I TABLE 3-1 CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA(a) APRIL 1987 TO MARCH 1988 I WEDGE POND WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS
I Total Precipitation Average Per Month Temperature I Month (inches) (centimeters) (°F) (°C) April 10.11 25.68 45.9 7.7 May 1.44 3.66 57.7 14.3 I June 1.72 4.37 66.2 19.0 July 1.00 2.54 71.7 22.1 August 3.72 9.45 67.6 19.8 September 7.81 19.84 61.6 16.4 I October 2.76 7.01 48.9 9.4 November 3.43 8.71 40.6 4.8 December 2.84 7.21 32.6 0.3 I January 2.72 6.91 24.2 -4.3 February 4.21 10.69 28.6 -1.9 I March 3.75 9.53 37.2 2.9 (a) Climatological data source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Reading Station, 1987 and I 1988. (This weather station was selected because of its proximity to Wedge Pond.) Data from this sta- tion is compiled and analyzed by the New England I Climatic Service. I I I I I I I I 3-4 I • Wedge Pond is situated within the Fresh Pond Buried Valley that was formed by erosion from ancient streams (Chute, 1959) . I This bedrock valley is filled with unconsolidated glacial sediment and can be traced southward from Winchester through the | Mystic Lakes, across eastern Arlington and western Cambridge (LaForge in Chute, 1959) . Outcrops of the buried valley at Wedge I pond indicate a width of 2,500 feet. AS noted in the Upper Mystic Lake Water Quality study (Chesebrough and Screpetis, I 1975) , a great deal of groundwater is retained by these • unconsolidated glacial deposits. The surficial sediments of the Wedge Pond watershed are • dominated by glacial deposits. Surficial sediments consist of till, stream and swamp deposits, and outwash (consisting chiefly • of sand and gravel) . Till is found on topographic highs within the watershed. Areas of sand and gravel surround Wedge Pond and | were in part deposited by the melting of an ice block which originally formed the pond. • 3.4 HYDROLOGY m The hydrology of any particular watershed is dictated by its • physical characteristics and climatological location. H Climatology controls the amount of precipitation, whereas watershed characteristics control the volume of rainfall that is • converted to runoff (direct discharge) , groundwater (infiltration) and atmospheric loss (evapotranspiration) . These | three factors are the major components of Wedge Pond's hydrologic budget, which is developed in Section 9.0, Annual Hydroloqic i Budget. i i 3-5 I • The watershed is divided into five subwatersheds to more accurately evaluate its hydrology. Subwatersheds (shown I previously in Figure 3-1) are identified by the following subdrainage areas: Middlesex Street storm drain subsystem (1); | palmer Street and Wildwood Street storm drain subsystems (2) ; Vine, Glengarry, and Dix Street storm drain subsystems (3); Horn I pond Brook (4) ; Russell Brook (5) . Table 3-2 characterizes flow H contributions to Wedge Pond and acreages for each subwatershed. ™ Soil and land use characteristics for each subwatershed are M discussed in the following sections. 3.5 SOILS (USDA, 1982) I Soil properties are important factors in estimating total volume of direct runoff from various land use activities. Soil 1 infiltration and percolation rates indicate a soil's potential to absorb rainfall and thereby reduce direct runoff. Soils having I high infiltration rates (e.g., sands, gravels) have a low runoff _ potential. Conversely, soils having low infiltration rates • (e.g., clays, muck) exhibit a high runoff potential. Watershed • development has increased the overall runoff volume by creating • impervious surfaces upon soils which previously absorbed • rainfall. Runoff percentage is 10 percent from a natural ground cover whereas runoff percentage is 55 percent from surfaces I having between 75 and 100 percent paving. This is highlighted by Figure 3-2. | For the purpose of developing a hydrologic (and nutrient) budget, soil series are grouped according to their hydrologic I characteristics (USDA, 1982) . The groups are described as I follows : I I 3-6 I I TABLE 3-2 SUBWATERSHEDS WITHIN THE WEDGE POND WATERSHED I WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS
I Subwatershed a Number( ) Characterization of Flow I Name Designation Acreage Contribution to Wedge Pond Middlesex Street 56 Overland runoff combined with storm drain I contributions from the Middlesex Street area. 1 Palmer Street 76 Overland runoff combined with storm drain contributions from Wildwood Cemetary and the I Palmer/Wildwood Street area. I Vine Street 19 Overland runoff combined with storm drain contributions from the Vine, Dix, and Glengarry I Street area. Horn Pond Brook 147 Overland runoff and storm drain contributions to I Horn Pond Brook. Russell Brook 460 Runoff transported via I storm drains (the brook is culverted).
I (a) Subwatersheds are generally designated by numbers in report I figures. I 1 I I I 3-7 40% EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 38% EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
RUNOFF 20% RUNOFF
25% 21% SHALLOW SHALLOW INFILTRATION INFILTRATION 25% DEEP 21% DEEP INFILTRATION INFILTRATION
NATURAL GROUND 10-20% COVER PAVED SURFACES
35% EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 30% EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
30% RUNOFF 55% RUNOFF
fit 15% DEEP 5% DEEP 20% 10% INFILTRATION SHALLOW INFILTRATION SHALLOW INFILTRATION INFILTRATION
35-50% 75-100% PAVED SURFACES PAVED SURFACES
Evapotranspiration, Runoff, and Infiltration Characteristics of Different Surfaces
Whitman & Howard, Inc Figure 3-2
MAKEPEACE 3-8 I I Hydrologic Group Soil Characteristics 1 A These soils have high infiltration rates even when thoroughly wetted and consist chiefly of deep, excessively drained sand and/or gravel. These I soils have a high rate of water transmission and low runoff potential (e.g., Hinckley). B These soils have moderate infiltration rates when I thoroughly wetted; consist chiefly of moderately well drained-to-well drained soils with moderately coarse-to-medium textures. These soils have a I moderate rate of water transmission (e.g.. Canton). C These soils have slow infiltration rates when I thoroughly wetted; consist chiefly of: (1) soils with a layer that impedes downward movement of water or (2) soils with a high water table at or I near the surface for seven-to-nine months of the year. These soils have a slow rate of water transmission (e.g., Paxton). I D These soils have very slow infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted; consist chiefly of: (1) soils with a high permanent water table for most of the year or (2) shallow to bedrock, extremely rocky I soils. These soils have a very slow rate of water transmission and high runoff potential (e.g., I muck). Table 3-3 presents various hydrologic soil group percentages 1 within each subwatershed and Figure 3-3 depicts their locations. Percentages were used to compute runoff coefficients in the I annual hydrologic budget. __. I I 1 I I I 3-9 TABLE 3-3 SOILS BY HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP
Hydrologic Group
A B C D Watershed Divisions (Acres) (%) (Acres) (%) (Acres) (%) (Acres) (%)
Middlesex Street* 24 43 0 0 0 0 32 57 Palmer Street* 47 62 0 0 12 16 17 22 Vine Street* 8 42 0 - 0 0 0 11 58 Horn Pond Brook* 59 40 0 0 73 50 15 10 to I Russell Brook* 40 9 30 6 312 68 78 17 Wedge Pond Watershed 178 24 30 4 397 52 153 20
Note: These values exclude Wedge Pond.
'Subwatersheds Watershed Boundary
MydrolMic ^oi'l (3f»up A ic 6011 firoup & M-ydroloqic 5oil 6n>i; C
SOILS BY HYDROLOGIC GROUP WITHIN THE WEDGE POND WATERSHED
Whitman & Howard, Inc Figure 3-3
MAKEMACE I
• Overall, excessively drained soils (Group A) make up roughly 24 percent of the watershed but occur in areas of high | development. The capacity for soils in Group A and B to absorb _ rainfall has been reduced by the amount of impervious land cover " they now support. Group C soils, already exhibiting slow tt permeability, can also be impacted by urbanization. For example, Cfcarlton-Hollis-Rock Outcrop soils could approach Group D • classification when surface and subsurface soils are disturbed and land is left exposed with impervious bedrock. Finally, there d are 20 percent Group D soils within the watershed which, by definition, already exhibit a high runoff potential. • 3.6 LAND USE • The Wedge Pond watershed lies within the Mystic River Basin and includes the communities of Winchester and Woburn. Table 3-4 • contains information on land use development patterns for Winchester. This data was compiled by the Metropolitan Area • Planning Council (MAPC) and the Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station (MAES) . • The change in forested areas from small to large hardwoods • between 1951 and 1971 can be explained by forest maturation; the ™ small hardwood and mixed forests became mature tree stands. A • loss of 157 acres in agriculture and 204 acres in open space approximates the increase in light residential land use, which • grew by 386 acres between 1951 and 1971. In comparing the 1971 i MacConnell land use map with current field observations by i i 3-12 I I
I TABLE 3-4 MASSACHUSETTS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION WINCHESTER LAND USE STUDY I 1951 TO 1971 I 1951 1951-1971 1971 Land Use Category Acreage Change Acreage
I Urban Industrial 65 +13 78 Commercial 36 +20 56 Heavy Residential 324 -41 283 Light Residential 1335 +386 1721 I Transportation 5 +13 18 Open & Public 260 -51 209 I Agriculture Intensive 183 -153 30 Woody Perennials 8 -4 4 I Open Areas 275 -204 71 Forest Small Hardwoods 441 -170 271 Large Hardwoods 387 + 185 572 I Small Mixed Woods 348 -221 127 Large Mixed Woods 28 +191 219 Wetlands Open Water 164 +18 182 I Shallow Freshwater 8 -1 7 Deep Freshwater 25 +5 30 Notes : This table is based on the Classification Manual ; I Land Use and Vegetative Cover Mapping (MAES, 1975) . I I I I I I I 3-13 I I I Whitman & Howard, Inc., the most notable change has been the increase of commercial properties along Route 38. Land uses within the watershed are shown on Figure 3-4. Percentages of land use categories within each subwatershed are presented in Table 3-5. 1 Residential development is the most prominent land use comprising approximately 62 percent of the watershed. Commercial I and industrial land uses are concentrated in Woburn, although commercial development extends along Main Street in Winchester. I As mentioned previously, the urban nature of the watershed is largely responsible for the poor infiltration capacity of the land surface. The major implication of this is that storm water runs over the land surface rather than percolatin. g through it. Pollutants are transported to the pond without the benefit of soil purification. "— 3.7 POPULATION * The Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH, 1983) estimated that the population of Winchester would decrease between 1985 and 1990. Actual census data collected by the Town • of Winchester show that the population was 21,200 as of January 1, 1987. This value represents an increase in population numbers • rather than the decrease projected by the MDPH. Normally an increase in population would directly affect land uses within the I watershed. However, land availability precludes a substantial This information was compiled from MacGonnell maps (1971), from MAPC data (1975), and from field observations by Whitman I & Howard, Inc. I I 3-14 Aqn'euttuAil /Open
LAND USE WITHIN THE WEDGE POND WATERSHED
Whitman & Howard, Inc Figure 3-4
MAKEPEACE TABLE 3-5 LAND USE SUMMARY PER SUBWATERSHED WEDGE POND WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS
Middlesex Palmer Vine Horn Pond Russell Street Street Street Brook Brook (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) Land Use Categories (acres) (%) (acres) (%) (acres) (%) (acres) (%) (acres) (%)
Commercial 3 5 0 0 0 0 25 17 51 11 Agriculture/ Open Space 38 68 32 42 0 0 13 9 26 6
OJ Forest 5 9 0 0 0 0 27 18 23 5 I H- Industrial 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 41 9 Residential 10 18 44 58 19 100 78 53 319 69
TOTALS 56 100 76 100 19 100 147 100 460 100
NOTES; (1) Watershed acreage totals 780 acres with 22 acres devoted to Wedge Pond. (2) Land use acreages are derived from updated land use mapping consisting of the following sources: MacConnell's Massachusetts Map Down, Lexington Quadrangle (1971); M.A.P.C. Land Use Study (1975); and Whitman & Howard field investigations (1987). I I • increase in residential and commercial development. However, population growth may lead to an increased demand for multi- I family housing which could require variances from current zoning bylaws. While housing is a necessity, it is also necessary to V enforce strict environmental mitigation measures during both the « construction and maintenance of new development within proximity • to Wedge Pond. • 3.8 FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE Wedge Pond was stocked from the early 1900*3 to the early • 1950 's. Fish typical to Wedge Pond include: largemouth bass, chain pickerel, blue gills, brown bullheads, black crappies, I yellow perch, pumpkinseeds, golden chinas, lake chubsuckers, and 2 — freshwater American eels. • The water quality of Wedge Pond has degraded to the extent • that the pond is an inadequate habitat for stocked and endemic fish populations. Based on current Whitman & Howard, Inc. • observation, fishing is rarely practiced on Wedge Pond. The Wedge Pond watershed is very urban in nature which is | reflected in its wildlife, which include: raccoons, rabbits, squirrels, chipmunks, Canadian geese, seagulls, and other birds I and small mammals. The bird population is especially abundant at the park near the pond inlet. Numbers of Canadian geese, ducks, I seagulls, and pigeons were recorded during the study period • (Table 3-6) . In addition, bacterial samples were taken on five occasions adjacent to the park area. Results are listed below:
i 2 Personal communication with Madore, 1987. i 3-17 /
Sampling Fecal Coliform Fecal Streptococcus I Date fcells/100 ml) fcells/100 ml) 04/16/87 86 16 I 04/30/87 96 32 05/13/87 172 39 05/28/87 206 62 I 06/09/87 65 150 Results do not indicate that the water is becoming overly | contaminated by the resident bird population. However, their _ waste provides an added source of nitrogen to the pond and i* was factored into the nutrient budget. i i i i i i i i i i i • 3-18 I I TABLE 3-6 OBSERVED BIRD POPULATION WEDGE POND I WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS OBSERVATION CANADIAN I DATE GEESE SEAGULLS DUCKS PIGEONS 3/10/87 115(a) 46 54 0 I 3/30/87 50 0 0 30 4/16/87 15 25 0 0 4/30/87 30 35 0 0 5/13/87 30 20 10 0 I 5/28/87 30 20 20 0 6/9/87 20 20 0 0 6/22/87 18 15 0 0 I 7/9/87 0 6 10 25 7/22/87 55 25 23 0 8/4/87 50 25 5 0 8/18/87 50 10 0 30 I 9/3/87 (b) 30 35 0 35 9/15/87 40 12 6 15 9/30/87 15 50 0 10 10/22/87 40 74 0 20 I 11/23/87 22 40 2 14 12/15/87 30 50 0 10 1/18/88 15 25 2 0 I 2/26/88 18 40 2 0 3/17/88 15 55 5 0 I 3/29/88 30 50 15 0 I This flock was observed at the high school. (b) Eight ducks were found dead at the public park I during the week prior to this sampling date. I I I I I I 3-19 Section 4.0 Pond Characteristics I I 4.0 POND CHARACTERISTICS
I 4.1 BATHYMETRY AflP:MOR^«5METRY ^ £ 7^ 7^ Wedge Pond is a 9-hectare (22-acre), municipally-owned 1^ p/e^x**"1 • pond. The 1929 bathymetric map of Wedge Pond was provided I )C -feir a survey^ conducted by T. R. Symmes for the Winchester Department of Public Works (Figure 4-1). The Massachusetts I Department of Water Pollution Control (MDWPC) conducted a bathymetric survey of Wedge Pond in August 1985. Their survey was updated by Whitman & Howard, Inc. in June 1988
— (Figure 4-2). The major difference between the 1988 and 1985 • surveys is in the area of the inlet and outlet. It appears • that in the past three years sediment has built up near the inlet and that slight scouring occurred at the outlet. Bottom sediment investigations revealed a thick layer of • muck covering most of the pond (Section 8.5, Sediment I Sampling) . This finding led Whitman & Howard, Inc. to compare pond volumes from the past and present. Pond volume in 1929 was approximately 288,607 cubic meters versus 277,555 cubic meters as calculated from recent bathymetry. This i represents a four percent change in volume. This small change in pond volume suggests that/sediments may have been i for several decades. ^ i Morphoiitetric data (Table 4-1) were determined from the bathymetric map and from the USGS Topographic Map, Lexington i Quadrangle (7.5 minute series). i i i 4-1 I I I I I Flagpole I I I I I I I WEDGE POND I I NOTES'- I Contours in meters Redrawn from D.PW. survey done July 1929. I Scale P200O Calumet I Club I 1929 Bathymetric Map of Wedge Pond Figure 4-1
I 4-2 I I I I I I I I WEDGE POND I I I 7\ I I
I NOTES'- Contours in meters. Solid contours indicate 1985 survey conducted by MDWPC. I Dashed contours indicate 1988 survey conducted by WSH,lnc. I Scale I'ZOOO I
I Bathymetric Map of Wedge Pond Figure 4-2 I 4-3 I
I TABLE 4-1 MORPHOMETRIC DATA WEDGE POND I WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS
I Parameters Morphometric Measurements I Surface Area 9 hectares (22 acres) Maximum Depth 5 meters (17 feet) I Mean Depth 3 meters (10 feet) Volume 277,555 cubic meters (9,800,467 cubic feet) I Watershed Area 316 hectares (780 acres) I Maximum Length 508 meters (1,667 feet) Maximum Width 318 meters (1,042 feet) I Shoreline Length 1,372 meters (4,500 feet) Development of I Shoreline 1.29(a) (a) Development of shoreline is expressed as an index figure denoting the degree of regularity or irregularity of I shoreline. The quantity can be regarded as a measure of the potential effect of littoral (shoreline) processes on I the pond (MDWPC, 1982). I I I I I I I 4-4 I
4.2 PUBLIC ACCESS AND RECREATION Wedge Pond is centrally located in the Town of • Winchester and is readily accessible. Two public accesses • are located along the pond, one at the old town beach and the other at the town park near Horn Pond Brook and Main Street I (Figure 4-3) . At one time, Wedge Pond was heavily used by Winchester residents for recreational purposes such as • swimming, fishing, and boating. The beach has been closed for the past six years due to a violation of the minimum I transparency standards for water at bathing beaches. The • standard, set by the Massachusetts Department of Public • Health (1960), is 1.2 meters (4.0 feet). Bacterial • contamination has also been a problem ; some bathers 5051- i t^cted eye and ear-related bacterial infections . i i i i i i i i i Public Access
Whitman & Howard, Inc Figure 4-3
MAKEKACE 4-6. Section 5.0 Public Participation I
I 5.0 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
• As a part of the Diagnostic/Feasibility study of Wedge m Pond, a program was developed to engage public support and to receive public input. The program consists of two public • meetings coordinated by the Winchester Department of Public Works and Whitman & Howard, Inc. I The first meeting was held in May with the Winchester Conservation Commission. A representative from Whitman & I Howard, Inc. provided the Commission with study details. The _ second public meeting will be held in September 1988 to present • pond study results and potential restoration efforts. It is • hoped that the public will actively discuss restoration alternatives in terms of their application and potential I results. Public comments will be incorporated into the final i report. i i i i i i i i 5-1 Section 6.0 Limnological Data I I 6.0 LIMNOLOGICAL DATA • 6.1 SAMPLING METHODOLOGY Limnological sampling occurred biweekly from April I through September 1987 and in March 1988. Monthly sampling took place in October, November, and December (1987) . In I January and February (1988) ice conditions were such that L sampling was considered unsafe. Samples were collected from • the following locations: the deep hole (Station #1) / the • inlet (Station #2), and the outlet (Station #3). These sta- I tions are shown in Figure 6-1. I Temperature and dissolved oxygen readings were measured I in-situ using a dissolved oxygen and temperature meter (Yellow I Springs Instrument Model 54A). Readings were taken at the deep hole station at every meter to a depth of five meters J (16.4 feet). In-pond transparency measurements were made using a standard 20-centimeter Secchi disc. Apparent water I color was also noted on each sampling date. i In-pond surface grab samples were collected in prerinsed, I two-liter, polyethelene bottles. In-pond bottom and thermo- cline samples were collected using a Polypro Water Sampler and were transferred to prerinsed, polyethelene bottles. All samples were stored on ice for transport to Whitman & Howard, Inc.'s laboratory where they were then refrigerated. Samples I were analyzed for pH, alkalinity, chlorides, conductivity, P total suspended solids, turbidity, total phosphorus, nitrate | nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen, and total Kjeldahl nitrogen.1
i Chemical analyses were conducted in-house in accordance with Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and i Wastewater. 15th Edition, 1980. i 6-1 LEGEND limnological sampling location
Limnological Sampling Locations
Whitman & Howard, Inc Figure 6-1
MAKEPEACE 6-2 I I 6.2 TEMPERATURE. DISSOLVED OXYGEN. AND PERCENT SATURATION A representation of^the thermal characteristics of tem- perate lakes is shown in Figure 6-2. Temperature profiles for I -^**~—" / Wedge Pond (a/stratified, dl5to£ic pond) closely followed I these characteristics—(Ttgufe 6-3) . In April, temperatures were fairly uniform throughout the I water column (Table 6-1). This/indicates that the pond was undergoing Spring circulation/ In the beginning of May, there I was a warming of the/epilimnion), and thermal stratification I began. A ttfermocrine djStckly developed during May, as the epilimnion heated-mpfrom 11.2 °C to 26.0 °C between May 13 1 and May 28. There was a period of weak stratification during •(V.J( July when hypolimnetic waters warmed to 16 °C (the highest I temperature recorded at the five-meter depth) . Due to the shallowness of Wedge Pond, light was able to penetrate and ^ r~ ""N ^-—— -N I warm the (hypolimnion. ) The pond ^remained stratified /until late September—when cooling of the epilimnion Jsegan to break down r --^ ~~~~~~~^\ I thermal stratification Water temperatures became colder as fall progressed. Ice I formed on Wedge Pond at the end of December. The weather I produced unsafe ice conditions throughout January and Feb- ruary. This made in-pond sampling impracticable. I Spring circulation commenced in March, as evidenced by isothermal temperatures within the water column. This marked I the beginning of another thermal cycle for Wedge Pond. During Spring turnover, an ideal dissolved oxygen (D.O.) I level would be at or near 100 percent saturation throughout the water column. This occurred only on March 17, 1988 when I percent saturations ranged from 110 to 117. However, in April I I 6-3 Or*ItotfK^J
•Epilimnion
:Metalimnion •tthermocline) Depth (feet)
10 11 /2
SUMMER SPRING- FALL WINTER Dissolved Oxygen mg/l 0 2 4 6 ft 10 tZ K 0 2 4" 6 ft 10 12 14 O 2 4
Depth (feet) —Temp.
DO.— 10 II
9 47 54 £1 £6 7S 02. ^ ^ 47 5441 66 75 82 32 59 47 54 fci *6 7» Si Temperature *F STRATIFICATION ISOTHERMAL INVERSE STRATIFICATION
Source: EPA in Chesebrough and Screpetis, 1975.
Thermal Characteristics of Temperate Lakes
Whitman & Howard, Inc Figure 6-2
MAKEPEACE 6-4 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/i) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 3 6 9 12 15 ^ 6 9 12 15 1 T DO i , •P DO [ 5 2 •£•2. X / •P 3 • / -£P1 -33 , / a / J r y / 5- I y April 16, 1?8T April 30, 1?8T 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 Temperature (°C) Temperature (°'C) ^Q.%
Dissjalved Oxygen (mg/l) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 3/6 9 12 15 3 6 Q 12 IS 6§\ T DO ,T s I ^\, * /» -C vY^ •P -3 / x^ 0) / , 7^ 5 . yi / ' — -A ^ May I 3, 198 r May 28, 198 r 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 Temperature (°C) Temperature ( ° C )
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 3 6 9 12 15 1 6 9 12 15 1 . DO T DO. T S / / s / ^ 2' / 5 3 . J -^^ J3 P* ft J f O) / S^ ° U - K s / " y 5' / June !', 198' June I £?- 5 i J-7Q\iT 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 Temperature (°C) Temperature (°C)
Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Profiles for Wedge Pond Figure 6-3 Whitman & Howard, Inc (Sheet 1 of 3)
MAKEPEACE 6-5 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) 3 6 9 12 15 3 6 9 12 IS i DO T 1)0 T -^ 1 r r j / f / x ^^ •P "3 ir a J .- — / / x OJ , Q 1* Q U / / ' y ' / 5 5 / July <, 198- July 22, 1< 87 5 10 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 Temperature (° C ) Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) 3 6 9 12 , 15 3 6 9 12 15 ^1 i . /•^ Exait 3le of Posit Lve \ X ^ n^ w Hete rograd a Curv \^ ^ .& — -• j^ - —" i o, J K" o. J -/^ 0) V ^^ _ ' [^ •» ** • f~ DO ~~~~*'/ ^T DO ,/" s i August 4, 1987 Augus L 18, .98'j 5 -HO 15 20 25 5 10 15 20 25 Temperature (°C) Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) 3 6 9 12 15 3 6 9 12 15 DO T DO T 1 . . i . . Exam )le of b^ *•"• X ' 9 « ! a ^ gi CLUB \^^~ %«, ? . . Curv* ^ --•— - — 5 3 . . 4J / G. ~^\ v' ^^ O / ^>' OJ / Q A-i • C= 7 / / /: / / / Sept ember 3, 19 7 ^ Sept onber ! 5, 19 7 f / 5 10 15 2D 25 ^—^ 5 10 15 20 25 Temperature (°C) Temperature (°C)
Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Profiles for Wedge Pond Figure 6-3 Whitman & Howard, Inc (Sheet 2 of 3)
MAKEPEACE 6-6 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) 3 6 9 12 15 3 6 9 1? 15
I ir^^ *G 2 . DOX -c 3 f\ *^ •a 3 . ^^ ** T J §• j a. / t DO i ^^ o f ^ & -f 7 ~2 T \ j Septt mber ', 0, 19£ 7 Octobe r 22, 19* 7 5 10 15 20 25 ^-^ 5 10 15 20 25 Temperature (oc) Temperature (°C)
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) 3 6 9 12 15 3 6
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) 3 6 9 12 15 3 6 9 12 15
<£.! F js I DO
Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Profiles for Wedge Pond Figure 6-3 Whitman & Howard, Inc (Sheet 3 of 3)
MAKEPEACE 6-7 TABLE 6-1 TEMPERATURE, DISSOLVED OXYGEN, AND PERCENT SATURATION IN-POND STATION, WEDGE POND WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS
4/16/87 4/30/87 5/13/87 Percent Percent Percent Depth Temp. D.O. Sat. Depth Temp. D.O. Sat. Depth Temp. D.O. Sat. (m) (°C) (mg/1) (%) (m) (°C) (mg/1) <%) (m) (°C) (mg/1) -*•
1 9.5 10.0 88 1 10.3 10.6 95 1 11.2 \ 36 /T^ 2 9.5 10.0 88 2 10.3 9.0 80 2 10.0 ( 4.01 35 3 8.5 9.5 81 3 10.2 8.0 71 3 8.0 4.3 / 36 4 8.5 9.0 77 4 9.5 7.9 69 4 7.0 \ 4-3 // 35 5 8.0 7.0 59 5 8.8 7.7 66 5 6.5 \ 4.27 34
5/28/87 6/9/87 6/22/87 ON Percent Percent Percent I CO Depth Temp. D.O. Sat. Depth Temp. D.O. Sat. Depth Temp. D.O. Sat. (m) <°C) (mg/1) (%) (m) <°c> (mg/1) (%) (m) <°C) (mg/1) (%)
26.0 9.3 115 t 24.5 8.7 105 ! 25.2 8.2 100 1&? /CI« 18.3 11.2 119 ';2 23.0 7.3 85 ^*°~2 23.2 7.6 89 4C3 14.5 8.4 83 sQ\-\ 18.0 7.1 75 ./v<* 73 17.5 7.4 77 2- ^4 11.3 1.8 16 7^° A 16.0 5.2 53 0 4 14.0 6.2 60 1 <5 10.1 /TT) 11 Z-a<5 14.0 ^'3.0^ 29 l«o<5 13.0 5.6 53
7/9/87 7/22/87 8/4/87 Percent Percent Percent Depth Temp. D.O. Sat. Depth Temp. D.O. Sat. Depth Temp, D.O. Sat. (m) <°C) (mg/1) (%) (m) (°C) (mg/1) (%) (m) (°C) (mg/1) (%)
22.0 8.2 94 , 21.5 9.3 106 i£ 24.0 13.7 163 ^
8/18/87 9/3/87 Percent Percent Percent Depth Temp. D.O. Sat. Depth Temp. >'°- Sat. Depth D.O. Sat. (m) (mg/1) (m) (m) (mg/1)
28.0 14.5 186 94 121 23.5 15.2 179 92 93 21.0 7.2 81 45 16.0 5.9 60 9 13.0 33 7
9/30/87 10/22/87 11/23/87 I Percent Percent Percent VD Depth Temp. D.O. Sat. Depth Temp. D.O. Sat. Depth Temp. D.O. Sat. (m) <°c> (mg/1) (%) (m) (°C) (mg/1) (%) (m) (mg/1)
! 17.0 11.0 114 1 13.0 8.5 81 ) s2- 16.0 6.5 66 2 13.0 8.5 81 95 0 <3 15.0 4.0 40 3 12.5 7.8 73 94 Py* 15.0 /T7o^ 10 4 12.0 /L.4~^v __13—' 93 \f$$ 14.5 10.67 6 5 12.0 (l.Oy '"~9 93 12/15/87 3/17/88 3/29/88 Percent Percent Percent Depth Temp. D.O. Sat Depth Temp. D.O. Sat. Depth Temp. D.O. Sat. (m) (0C) (mg/1) (%) (m) (mg/1) (%) (m) (°C) (mg/1) (%)
4.0 11.4 87 2.5 16.0 117 3.8 8.6 65 4.0 11.4 87 2.5 16.0 117 3.8 8.6 65 4.0 11.3 86 2.5 15.8 116 3.5 8.6 65 4.0 11.2 86 2.5 15.1 111 3.3 8.5 64 4.0 8.4 64 2.5 15.0 110 3.0 7.8 58 I I 1987 and March 29, 1988, surface saturations were never higher than 95 percent, and bottom saturations fell as low as 58 percent (Table 6-1). I ^—^ --^^ "^^, During the first stages of thermal stratificatio I observed D.O. values were unusually low, ranging from 3.9 to 4.2 mg/1, top to bottom (Hay 13). During (thermal I 'stratification, thefhypolimnetic^D.O. content was depressed, reaching-a—low of 0.4 mg/1 (September 15). Total anoxia was I never recorded. The Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution I Control (MDWPC) also recorded low D.O. levels during their baseline sampling of Wedge Pond. Values ranged from 9.5 mg/1 I (surface) to 0.7 mg/1 (bottom).2 Toward the end of summer, dissolved oxygen profiles were typically clinograde (e.g., I September 3, Figure 6-3). This profile occurs when oxidative processes in the-'ISypolimnToj and sediment demand oxygen, thus I reducing D.O. concentrations at depth. on several occasions throughout the summer, D.O. profiles I exhibited positive heterograde curves (e.g., August 4, Figure « I 6-3). This profile occurs when (1) the tf-3/solubility W6t the /, t >h decreases with increasing summer temperatures and/ / I (2) oxygen consumption in the l^typolimnion) results in ei typica/L -fvf>' 3 oxygen reduction at depth. This causes an absolute oxygen I maximum in the metalimnion.S**~~7 -N) On these occasion^,; percent saturations (at or near the surface) were /always well above I 100 percent.(^On AugustLia,/ percent saturation at the surface I reached 186,xpercent. These supersaturated conditions are I indicative of algal photosynthesis. The MDWPC conducted a baseline survey of Wedge Pond August 27, 1986. All references made to MDWPC data I refers to th^® sampling date. I 6-10 fall circulation created a more uniform tem- perature profile within the pond,/It did little to oxygenate I water at depth. The D.O. concentrations ranged from 1.0 mg/1 (bottom) to 8.5 mg/1 (surface) on October 22. In November and tvOc/'dv^A* tA/vxX*5""i ^v^ x December,fthe D.O. profile was -Tsoase constant. Howuvui1, D.O;) I A jyatoes—neveg^excoodod-12. 2 mg/1 during theae months. ^\ I Inlet D.O. values ranged from/S'T^) mg/1 to 15.5 mg/1 — (Table 6-2). Although D.O. concentrations were generally • higher than in-pond surface values, the inlet did not provide • a consistent supply of oxygenated water. The inlet did not flow from June through .August and flowed minimally on other • occasions. /Outlet P.O. and temperature values more closely resembled in-pond values than inlet values d I 6.3 SECCHI DISC TRANSPARENCY AND APPARENT WATER COLOR Secchi disc transparency was routinely measured at the | in-pond station (Table 6-3). Measurements were made in feet and then converted to meters. Transparency/^wai) dependent on • several factors including: chlorophyll a, phytoplankton popu- g lations, turbidity, total suspended solids, and weather condi- " tions. Transparency trends from spring to fall turnover are • compared to chlorophyll a. values in Figure 6-4. The lowest transparency measurement (recorded on September /SOJ.was 0.7 • meters (2.3 feet). This coincided with the highest chloro- phyll a value (85.1 mg/m3) and the highest surface turbidit: I value (10.2 Nephelometric turbidity units). The highest transparency (recorded on June 22) was 2.4 meters (8.0 feet) I On this date, chlorophyll a and turbidity values were rela- — tively low, and total suspended solids were the lowest •i recorded throughout the study period (1.0 mg/1). i 6-11 I
TABLE 6-2 I TEMPERATURE, DISSOLVED OXYGEN, AND PERCENT SATURATIONS INLET AND OUTLET, WEDGE POND I WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS
Inlet Outlet I Dissolved Percent Dissolved Percent Sampling Temperature Oxygen Saturation Temperature Oxygen Saturation I Date (°C) (mg/1) (%) (°C) (mg/1) (%) 4/16/87 9.0 10.5 91 9.3 10.3 90 4/30/87 11.2 /•'Sri j (56^ 10.8 12.5 113 I 5/13/87 15.5 (3.3/ \33> 14.0 36 5/28/87 22.5 127T) 139 23.0
Secchi Disc Apparent I Sampling Transparency Water DaCe (meters) (feet) Color
I 4/16/87 greenish- brown 4/30/87 greenish- brown 5/13/87 greenish- brown I 5/28/87 greenish- brown 6/9/87 greenish- brown 6/22/87 green I 7/9/87 green 7/22/87 green 8/4/87 green 8/18/87 green I 9/3/87 green 9/15/87 green 9/30/87 green I 10/22/87 green 11/23/87 green 12/15/87 green 1/18/88 N.S. I 2/26/88 N.S. 3/17/88 greenish- brown I 3/29/88 greenish- brown I *N.S. - No sample taken due to unsafe ice conditions I I I I I I I 6-13 SECCHI DISK TRANSPARENCIES
80
TO
GO'
50-
4O-
3O-
20
to- Spring Fall Turnover Turnover CHLOROPHYLL & VALUES
APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER
Selected Secchi Disc Transparencies as Compared to Chlorophyll a Values
Whitman & Howard, Inc Figure 6-4
MAKEPEACE 6-14 I • Overall, transparency measurements tended to be low. On eleven of the eighteen sampling dates, transparency values fell below the minimum standard for bathing beaches (4.0 • feet) . This standard is set by the Massachusetts Department of Public Health (MDPH, Apparent water color (Table 6-3) varied from greenish- i brown (spring) to green (summer, fall, and winter). This indicates seasonal fluctuations in phytoplankton populations. i 6.4 pH AND ALKALINITY3 Throughout the study period, in-pond pH values were: i 0 Slightly alkaline to alkaline at the surface (7.1 to _ 9.3 standard units) • ° Neutral •t .o alkaline at thefthermocline^^— -"- -s). (7.0 to 7.5 standard units) Acidic to slightly alkaline at the bottom (6.1 to • 7.5 standard units). • This vertical distribution is explained by several factors. Phytoplankton densities were very high in Wedge Pond, espe- • cially during the summer. High surface pH values were most likely due to photosynthetic activity by which C02 was used by I algae in excess of respiration. This reduces overall CO2 _ - content and increases pH. Low bottom pH values were most • likely due to decomposition at the sediment/water interface. • This results in an increase in tGfea4=i-norganlc carbon/and a decrease in pH. • There were some low surface pH values recorded in April (7.1 and 7.2 standard units). \Acia precipitation most likely | influenced surface pH during thos month, which was extremely wet (6.34 inches of rainfall/above normal). i y^ 3Water quality criteria, if available^, are presented in Appendix i A for parameters measured in this study. L 6-15 \ I • Inlet and outlet pH values were slightly alkaline on al but one sampling date and ranged from 7.1 to 8.1 standard I units. The pH values were lower during periods of high flow (wet months) and were higher during periods of low flow (dry • months). Complete pH data are presented in Table 6-4. Data are consistent with pH readings taken by the MDWPC. I The alkalinity of a waterbody is an indication of its _ buffering capacity (ability to withstand changes in pH). As a • general guideline, a well-buffered lake has an alkalinity of • 20 mg/1 or more. The Ma'&sifc&ielit^ Division of Fisheries and r*- r'tl uJ*** ^ee-fo^o^i^llsfc, ^ fa I s^ !>*x^ Total Alkalinity • Lake Status fma/1) " Vulnerable 6-10 Endangered 3-5 • Critical 0-2 Wedge Pond had values in excess of 30 mg/1 on all sampling • dates and at all stations (Table 6-5). ^JlM^jtfxI \ ^ _ Generally, bottom alkalinity values were similar to sur- J face alkalinity values^/except during the months of August and September. During this period, bottom alkalinity values (69, | 109, and 75 mg/1) were much higher than surface values (50, sM.1**'} k*-^' _ 47, and 41 mg/1). This was coincidental to high bottom phos- • phorus concentrations. This relationship has been noted by • Einsele (Einsele in Wetzel, 1975). He observed that the release of phosphorus from lake sediments was repeatedly pre- • ceded by "the slow release of bases (alkalinity)". Alkalinity values recorded by the MDWPCyjshow the same • relationship. Bottom alkalinity was 85 mg/1 versus a surface i value of 42 mg/1. i 6-16 I
TABLE 6-4 I pH* WEDGE POND I WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS SanrolinE Stations Sampling /~"7i I &\*r 1 Date #1B #3 #1S y / #2
I 4/16/87 7.1 N.O. 7.0 7.2 7.1 4/30/87 7.2 N.O. 7.1 7.5 7.2 5/13/87 7.5 7.3 6.9 7.5 7.4 I 5/28/87 7.6 7.0 6.9 7.8 7.4 6/9/87 s^-^L 7.5 7.0 N.F. N.F. 6/22/87 (8j) 7.2 6.8 N.F. N.F. 7/9/87 7T5 7.3 6.9 N.F. N.F. I 7/22/87 7.4 & 7.0 6.9 N.F. N.F. 8/4/87 1^7 '& 7.2 6.8 N.F. N.F. 8/18/87 (9T* / '/ 7.2 6.7 N.F. N.F. I 9/3/87 VrV/U» 7.3 7.2 7.5 7.2 9/15/87 f^^l 7.1 6.1 7.8 7.6 9/30/87 ( s.oy N.O. 6.9 8.1 7.6 I 10/22/87 ^""7 — "l N.O. 6.8 7.4 7.1 11/23/87 N.O. 7.1 7^2 7.4 7.1 12/15/87 7.4 N.O. 7.3 7.7 7.4 1/18/88 N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. I 2/26/88 N.S. N.S. N.S. 7.3 6.9 3/17/88 7.1 N.O. 7.5 7.4 7.5 I 3/29/88 7.4 N.O. 7.5 7.5 7.5 Note: I #1S - In-pond Sui;fae^-C&>ilimnIpnj x 1 JK" #1T - In-pond Tfosraocllne-^HStalimniony ySrr'^' #1B - In-pond Bol:fom (HjrpolinniiftaO^^^^ I #2 - Horn Pond Brook (InlSr) — #3 - Outlet from Wedge Pond ^ N.O. - No observed thermocline N.F. - No flow / I N.S. - No sample taken due to unsafe ice conditions
I *Units are in standard units. I I I I 6-17 I
TABLE 6-5 I ALKALINITY* WEDGE POND I WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS I SanrolinE Stations Sampling I Date #1S / #1B #2 #3 4/16/87 35 N.O. 33 36 35 5/13/87 37 35 35 34 35 I 6/9/87 40 41 52 57 48 7/9/87 34 32 30 N.F. N.F. 8/4/87 50 55 69 N.F. N.F. 9/3/87 47 51 109 62 42 I 9/30/87 41 N.O. 75 62 42 10/22/87 44 N.O. 47 66 46 11/23/87 45 N.O. 45 57 46 I 12/15/87 47 N.O. 47 66 48 1/18/88 N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. 2/26/88 N.S. N.S. N.S. 39 38 I 3/17/88 41 N.O. 40 39 ,38 I Note: #1S - In-pond Surface (EpiMmnion) J-*- #1T - In-pond (Inlet) ,-- — #1B - In-pond Bottom (HypsJrjjpanlon^ ^)^ I #2 - Horn Pond Brook (Inlet) #3 - Outlet from Wedge Pond^ N.O. - No observed thermcrc'iine I N.F. - No Flow ^ I N.S. - No sample taken due to unsafe ice conditions *Units are in mg/1. I I I I I I 6-18 I • 6.5 CONDUCTIVITY AND CHLORIDE Specific conductance of lake water can be measured to I determine the resistance of the solution to electrical flow (electrical current). Resistance to electrical flow declines I with increasing ion content. Therefore, the purer the water low iav/saliaity). the greater its resistance to elec- trical flow/d^/and the lower its conductivity^fe\ m Natural ranges for specific conductancexare 1000 microjitthos/cm (EPA, 1976) . Conductivity values for Wedge I Pond fell within this range at all stations and on all sampling dates (Table 6-6). Conductivities ranged from: 305 | to 470 micrc^mhos/cm (surface), 330 to 400 micro mhos/cm (thermocline), 320 to 460 micro mhos/cm (bottom) , 300 to 500 I micro mhos/cm (inlet), and 305 to 495 micro mhos/cm (outlet). Overall, conductivity values were highest in February and sfd~&~&ty t?-~i} ( March. This corresponds to chloride data.C, Values .-of both • parameters were influenced by de-icing compounds used during the winter. Outlet conductivity values were nearly identical • to in-pond surface values on all sampling dates. Chloride is one of the ions which Bjajcftnnp t.hn' of fresh water. It is usually not the dominant anion in open lake systems. Chloride additions from industrial I processes, road salting, and municipal waste disposal can greatly modify natural concentrations. ~,7 /~~^n Ll^j ,^~^' I ,fChloride concentrations in Wedge Pond were relatively rt* n ~ —-—j*^"^ • constant from April to August (Table 6-7). In /April,? heavy rains and consequent runoff of road salts influenced chloride • values. It was expected that after spring rains/; chloride • / values would fall by a large percentage, much as they did in i 6-19 I TABLE 6-6 I CONDUCTIVITY* WEDGE POND I WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS
Sanroline Stations I Sampling I Date *ls */ «. #2 #3 4/16/87 360 N.O. 350 350 350 4/30/87 340 N.O. 340 345 340 5/13/87 330 330 320 310 330 I 5/28/87 350 350 350 340 320 6/9/87 325 340 350 N.F. N.F. 6/22/87 340 355 375 N.F. N.F. I 7/9/87 330 330 330 ' N.F. N.F. 7/22/87 370 370 365 N.F. N.F. 8/4/87 380 380 390 N.F. N.F. I 8/18/87 r390 400 - 420 \ N.F. N.F. 9/3/87 / 360 365 r,fl^' 425 / 360 360 a 9/15/87 U30 330 } 450f 390 330 9/30/87 305 N.O. 360 380 305 I 10/22/87 340 N.O. 350 455 350 11/23/87 330 N.O. 320 300 310 12/15/87 360 N.O. 360 350 360 I 1/18/88 N.S. N.S N.S. N.S. N.S. 2/26/88 N.S. N.S. N.S. /4^0A 39-°^ 3/17/88 /^570^ N.O. ,-460\ ( 500/ /49D\ 3/29/88 ( 460/ N.O. ( 1 480/ I ^460; ^470^ Notes: ^-^ x/ I #1S - In-pond Surface (Epilimriion) #1T - In-pond $hermoclin)B (^et.aJrimnion) #1B - In-pond BotreiB—fHypo>±mn ,ion) I #2 - Horn Pond Brook (Inlet) #3 - Outlet from We de"e Pond.-"" .^ ^^ N.O. - No observed thermpdine N.F. - No flow S I N.S. - No samples taken due to unsafe ice conditions
I *Units are in micro mhos/cm. I I I 6-20 I I TABLE 6-7 I CHLORIDE* WEDGE POND I WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS Sanroline Stations I Sampling Date #1S *T *XB #2 #3
I 4/16/87 78 N.O. 78 87 78 4/30/87 75 N.O. 75 77 75 5/13/87 72 70 70 70 71 I 5/28/87 70 70 69 66 69 6/9/87 81 83 84 N.F. N.F. 6/22/87 70 74 69 N.F. N.F. I 7/9/87 72 74 73 N.F. N.F. 7/22/87 78 79 76 N.F. N.F. 8/4/87 78 79 77 N.F. N.F. 8/18/87 78 80 77 N.F. N.F. I 9/3/87 72 74 . 76 72 72 9/15/87 57 57 71 67 57 9/30/87 56 N.O. 61 63 56 I 10/22/87 58 N.O. 60 67 60 11/23/87 60 N.O. 62 54 59 12/15/87 70 N.O. 70 66 69 I 1/18/88 N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. 2/26/88 N.S. N.S. N.S. r~%&105\ S^F\ 3/17/88 N.O. /^99^, } ( 102 ) I 3/29/88 N.O. V98y Vily \^} Note: I #1S - In-pond Surface (EpiWmnion), #1T - In-pond Thermoj:ttlne (Me£jriTimnion) #1B - In-pond Bottom (HyppilmniLon) #2 - Horn Pond Brook (Inlet) I #3 - Outlet from Wedge Pond^^ N.O. - No observed thermo^eline ^ N.F. - No flow ^ I N.S. - No samples taken due to unsafe ice conditions I I *Units are in mg/1. I I I 6-21 I I neighboring Horn Pond (W&H, 19&6)< However, this did not happen. Flow conditions and^-evaporation losses may have | caused the higher-than-expected) chloride concentrations in Wedge Pond. Chloride vaiues^did not fall by an appreciable • amount until September 15. As mentioned previously, chloride • values were highest in February and March which indicate an • influence by road salts. • 6.6 TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS AND TURBIDITY Suspended solids are indicative of the organic and inor- ». ' > I ganic particulate matter in water. Total suspended solids (TSS) are defined as those solids retained by a standard, I glass fiber filter and dried to a constant weight -(Standard Methods. 1980). | As shown in Table 6-8, total suspended solids ranged from _ 1 to 14 mg/1 (surface), from 3 to 19 mg/1 (thermecline), and • from 2 to 26 mg/1 (bottom) . Bottom values were generally • higher than surface values (13 out of 18 sampling occasions). • Data collected by the MDWPC indicate a bottom value of 23 mg/1 • and a surface value of 8 mg/1. Elevated bottom concentrations may be indicative of tfee-UfciCMpUbiCioAlPur uiijaiiiu luaLLea. .JL/^f ^ *to-u>*^A^ ]'J- -"* 1 and/or the settling of particulate matter^a^the sediment- water interface. | Water turbidity, measured in Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU), indicates the amount of light that is reflected I at a 90° angle. Turbidity measures not only nonfilterable • solids (TSS) but also colloidal material which is filterable. • It is not unusual, therefore, that the highest turbidity • values did not coincide with the highest TSS values. For i example, on September 15, bottom turbidity reached a high of i 6-22 I I TABLE 6-8 TOTAL SUSPENDED SOLIDS* WEDGE POND I WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS
I Sampling Stations Sampling / I Date #13 #rr #1B. #2 #3 4/16/87 3 N.O. 12 2 5 4/30/87 6 N.O. 14 7 8 I 5/13/87 JL__— L__ 8_ 9 8 5/28/87 r&~ ^ 10 14) 8 10 6/9/87 13 * __!£- -— J&J N .F. N.F. I 6/22/87 He 5 6 N.F. N.F. 7/9/87 6 4 12 N .F. N.F. 7/22/87 - 3 4 8 N.F, N.F. I 8/4/87 6 9 6 N.F. N.F. s/18/87 s rrr 261 N .F. N.F. 9/3/87 3 1_16 _ 19 / 1 1 9/15/87 9 3 6 7 9 I 9/30/87 9 N.O. 12 10 9 10/22/87 5 N.O. 16 5 13 11/23/87 10 N.O. 20 4 13 I 12/15/87 5 N.O. 7 2 6 1/18/88 N.S. N.S. N.S. N .S. N.S. 2/26/88 N.S. N.S. N.S. 11 3 3/17/88 11 N.O. 16 9 14 I 3/29/88 3 N.O. 2 1 1
I Note: #1S - In-pond Surface CEptTimnlon) I #1T - In-pond Thermotiline (Mej^tlmnion) #1B - In-pond Bottom (Hypo>lmnion) #2 - Horn Pond Brook (Inlet) #3 - Outlet from Wedge Pond^X I N.O. - No observed thermctTTine N.F. - No Flow S^ I N.S. - No sample taken due to unsafe ice conditions I *Units are in mg/1. I I I 6-23 I • 25.0 NTU. By comparison, the bottom TSS value was low (6.0 mg/1). Bottom turbidity values always exceeded surface values I (Table 6-9). This is similar to the vertical distribution of TSS. As mentioned previously, this trend may be indicative of I the decoffipssifeion and/or settling of particulate matter irf the
' 6.7 PHOSPHORUS • Phosphorus as phosphate is a major plant nutrient. Soluble reactive phosphorus can accumulate in the anoxic, or near anoxic,/liypolimnia/of lakes. Increased supplies of phos- I ^ ______^*-**^ phorus stimulate standing crops of aquatic plants and algae | (EPA, 1976) . Although phosphorus is not the sole cause of eutrophication, eyiSeijCQ^^d^x^^xit is frequently the I limiting nutrient. —EP- A (1976—--) has suggested that to prevent the develop- m ment of biological nuisances and to control eutrophication, • total phosphorus should not exceed 0.05 mg/1 in any stream entering a pond, and in-pond levels should not exceed 0.025 I mg/1. \~sijaxy'a^ /iKl^pond phosphorus /levels exceeded the above guidelines X1 ^ / 1 on all sampling dates/and at all stations (Table 6-10). — Highest phosphorus values in the €hermoclineywere coincidental I / / "^ "^ • with the highest phytpplankton densities. Bottom phosphorus • values always exceeded or equalled surface values. This is not unusual because organic matter (e.g., algal cells) settle • in the /hypolimnion/^"^ Ay Decompositio' n of organic matter can / recycle p&ospKorus to the water column. Additionally, bottom I phosphorus data indicate that pond sediments release phos- phorus during near anoxic conditions \Ui the hypolimnion. jThis I is highlighted by the following samplincjdatat) "~~ • 6~24 1 TABLE 6-9 1 TURBIDITY* WEDGE POND WINCHESTER. MASSACHUSETTS
• Same line Stations Sampling // Date #1S #\$/ #1B #2 #3 i f^ 4/16/87 0 .9 N.O. 1 .1 0.9 0.9 4/30/87 1.1 N.O. 1 .9 0.9 1.2 5/13/87 1.6 1.8 1 .8 1.3 1.8 5/28/87 1 .7 2.7 1 .8 1.2 2.0 6/9/87 1.5 2.0 4.9 N.F. N.F. 6/22/87 —pi.8 5.3 6 .5 N.F. N.F. i 7/9/87 1 .7 2.0 • 3 .8 N.F. N.F. 7/22/87 Hrl.6 2.0 3 .3 N.F. N.F. 8/4/87 J 3 .5 3.3 4.2 N.F. N.F. i 8/18/87 ' y*\ 7.5 8.6 9 .5 N.F. N.F. _ 9/3/87 -J^ £.1) 3.4 6^1 1.0 4.3 9/15/87 ^ 4_iJL 3.4 p5 .0\ 1.3 7.7 • 9/30/87 n.0~2| N.O. 113 1.2 9.8 •- Hl • 10/22/87 i5T76 N.O. LJ» .4 1.0 9.3 11/23/87 4.3 ^ N.O. 5 1.3 3.9 12/15/87 4.2 ^£/ N.O. 4.6 1.0 3.8 i 1/18/88 N .S N.S. N .3. N.S. N.S. 2/26/88 N .S N.S. N .S. 2.4 2.1 3/17/88 2 .91 N.O. 3 .0 1.7 2.4 3/29/88 3 .8 N.O. 4.1 3.0 3.4
Note • #13 - In-pond Surface CBpfLiamion)^ #1T - In-pond Thermetuine (Metailmnion) 1 #1B - In-pond Bottom (Hypglimnion) #2 - Horn Pond Brook (Inlet) #3 - Outlet from Wedge Pond^---^^'' N.O. - No observed thermo^r^ine 1 N.F. • No flow ^^^ 1 N.S. - . No samples taken due to unsafe ice conditions I ^s/a^L^rn Nephelometric turbidity units. I l I 6-25 I TABLE 6-10 I TOTAL PHOSPHORUS* WEDGE POND I WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS
Sanrolinff Stations ^^ / \ I Sampling / Bate #1S Tr -LjT ^#2 j* B A\ I ^ 4/16/87 0.06 N-rO. 0.08 0.08 / 0.06 1 4/30/87 0.08 -/"N.O. 0.09 0.08 / 0.07 L 5/13/87 0 . 07>& 0.07 0.08 0.08/ 0.07 V I 5/28/87 (oTTi?) 0.04 ro7i2\ COlS <^oTiir^> 6/9/87 0708 0.05 \0.2u-J 1TT7 N7TT 6/22/87 0.04-7- 0.06 0.19 N.F. N.F. I 7/9/87 0.05 0^09, N.F. N.F. 7/22/87 0.05/ 0.16 N.F. N.F. "• 1 8/4/87 0.07J " O."l2 N.F. N.F. I 8/18/87 0.09^- 0.28 N.F. N.F. 9/3/87 0.08 0.08 0.27 0.05 0.09 9/15/87 0.07 0,06 0.24 0.06 0.07 9/30/87 0.07 N.O. 0.15 <-OTIT> 0.07 I 10/22/87 ,Q_. 05 1 N.O. 0.12 0707 0.06 11/23/87 0.07 N.O. 0.09"~ 0.07 0.07 12/15/87 0.06 N.O. 0.07 0.04 0.05 - I 1/18/88 N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. 2/26/88 N.S. N.S. N.S. <(ttT) 0.06 3/17/88 0.07 N.O. 0.07 0703 0.05 I 3/29/88 0.07 N.O. 0.07 0.05 0.07 Note: I #1S - In-pond Surface (EpiTimnion) #1T - In-pond Thermpetine (MetaJUnnnion) #1B - In-pond Bottom (Hypo^irinion) I #2 - Horn Pond Brook (Inlet) #3 - Outlet from Wedge' Pond^/ N.O. - No observed thermocline N.F. - No flow /^ I N.S. - No sample taken due to unsafe ice conditions I I *Units are in mg/1. I I I 6-26 I
Bottom In-Pond Bottom Dissolved I Sampling Phosphorus Concentration Oxygen Concentration Date _. fncr/Ll 1 4/16/87 7.0 ( oxygenated ) 4/30/87 7.7 ( oxygenated ) 9/03/87 0.7 (near anoxic) I 9/15/87 0.4 (near anoxic) During April, theQiypolimnion)was adequately oxygenated I and phosphorus levels were relatively low. When near anoxic levels were recorded in th^fiypolimniony phosphorus concen- I trations were quite high. This observation is consistent with MDWPC data which document a^hypolimnetlb phosphorus I concentration of 0.37 mg/1 with a corresponding D.O. value of I 0.07 mg/1. Between April and September there were several occur- I rences of high bottom phosphorus concentrations that coincided with relatively high D.O. values. For example on August 18, a I bottom phosphorus value of 0.28 mg/1 was recorded concurrently with a D.O. concentration of 3.5 mg/1. This data may appear I contradictory to the principle of sediment nutrient release. However, in some very productive lakes, hydrogen sulfide is I ^r~ "" tlimnetie des
I organic compounds by blue-green algaef and (/2) release .of .trogen C9mpounds' from the decay of green/algae/ . I '6.8/2 Ammonia Nitrogen I An appreciable amount of ammonia nitrogen is derived from bottom sediments/ This is indicated by the high bottom values I recorded from May 28 through September, /^ypolimnetic^ammonia nitrogen values ranged from 0.84 mg/1 (June~^T^£o5.70 mg/1 I (September 15) during this period (Table 6-12). The MDWPC I recorded a hypolimnetic value of 2.1 mg/1 on August 27, 1985. I 6-30 I
TABLE 6-11 I ORGANIC NITROGEN* WEDGE POND 1 WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS Sampling / Samolinc Stations I Date #1S *7 #1B #2 #3 4/16/87 0.15 N.O. 0.23 0.11 0.12 I 4/30/87 0.17 N.O. 0.20 0.15 0.16 5/13/87 0.15 0.13 0.16 0.13 0.14 5/28/87 rp 0.04 0.32 0.69 S.L. 0.44 6/09/87 4 0.06 0.08 0.44 N.F. N.F. I 6/22/87 '? 0.15 0.01 ^ 1 0.34 N.F. N.F. 7/09/87 } 0.14 0.18 T/V\* d./ 0.34 N.F. N.F. 7/22/87 4 0.15 0.19 V*?V 0.21 N.F. N.F. I 8/04/87 ^ 0.34 0.54 &y> 0.79 N.F. N.F. 8^18/a7 ^ 0.30 0.24 jf N 0.59 . ^ N.F. N.F. <§/03/8J? 0 . 35 0.29 Ss I 6-31 I I TABLE 6-12 I AMMONIA NITROGEN* WEDGE POND I WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS Samuline Stations / I Sampling I Date #1S 1M/ #1B #2 #3 4/16/87 0.17 N.O. 0.15 / 0.23 0.18 4/30/87 0.18 N.O. 0.21/ 0.21 0.18 5/13/87 0.22 0.22 0.27/ 0.22 0.24 I 5/28/87 0.34 0.80 1T~~96^ | 0.37 0.40 6/9/87 0.30 0.60 0.84 N.F. N.F. 7/9/87 0.22 0.56 1.04 N.F. N.F. I 7/22/87 0.18 0.52 0. 96 N.F. N.F. 8/4/87 0.15 0.48 2. LO N.F. N.F. 8/18/87 0.28 0.67 1.51 N.F. N.F. 9/3/87 0.20 0.56 5. 25 0.12 0.14 I 9/15/87 — j-0.12 0.42 5. 70 0.22 0.20 9/30/87 0.28 N.O. 2.70 0.18 0.46 10/22/87 ^J> 0.22 N.O. 1. 10 0.25 0.30 I 11/23/87 \ j^T 1 0.38 N.O. 1. 30 0.13 0.24 12/15/87 F* ^ V 0.48 N.O. 0.B0j 0.50 0.46 1/18/88 N.S. N.S. irrsr N.S. N.S. 2/26/88 N.S. N.S. N.S. 0.40 0.33 1 3/17/88 0.36 N.O. 0.37 0.46 0.37 3/29/88 0.38 N.O. 0.34 0.43 0.39 I Notes : #1S - In-pond Surface ^gpiilmnion)^^-' I #1T - In-pond Thermotfline (MetaHmnion) #1B - In-pond Bottom (Hypo^imnion) #2 - Horn Pond Brook (Inlet) #3 - Outlet from Wedge Pond ^X 1 N.O. - No observed thermpeilTne N.F. - No flow I N.S. - No sample take^n due to unsafe ice conditions I *Units are in mg/1. I I I I 6-32 I B In a'strat^ied >wafee'i0#y>cli.sts Wedge Pond, ammonia nitrogen can accumulate at the sediment/water interface as a • result of several factors: ° Wedge Pond has a deep mucky substrate, much of which is organic. During the summer and early fall, dead algal cells contribute to this layer of organic I matter • Decomposition of organic matter by heterotrophic bacteria generates ammonia nitrogen. • ° Under anaerobic conditions, the adsorptive capacity of sediments is greatly reduced. This results in a marked release of ammonia from the sediments. During the month of September, bottom ammonia ( nitrogen values peaked. This coincided with the lowest bottom D.O. levels recorded during the study • - period. 0 Bacterial nitrification ceases under anaerobic con- ditions. As noted earlier, nitrification is the process by which ammonia is oxidized to NO?" and •— • Bottom ammonia nitrogen values declined with the onset of fall circulation. A concurrent rise in surface values were • noted during this period. By March, ammonia nitrogen concen- . trations at the surface were similar to bottom concentrations. • 6.8.3 Nitrate Nitrogen . Table 6-13 contains nitrate nitrogen sampling data. | Nitrate nitrogen values were (i) lower during anaerobic _ periods (e.g., low D.O. concentrations at the sediment/water •' interface) ajjdx^2lxliign'ei^d^ < m /j£^>>xJ6!i^ejjfer1^ons' 8^ This is • highlighted by the following data: Bottom D.O. Bottom • Sampling Concentrations Concentrations Date f ma/11 4/16/87 7.0 1.41 i 4/30/87 7.7 1.19 9/15/87 • 0.4 0.07 i 9/30/87 0.6 0.09 i i 6-33 I TABLE 6-13 I NITRATE NITROGEN* WEDGE POND I WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS Sampling Stations / I Sampling I Date #1S #1T #1B (*21 #3 4/16/87 -—1.41 N.O. 1.41 1.48 1.41 4/30/87 ) 1.25 N.O. 1.19 1.25 1.23 5/13/87 1 1-22 1.20 1.16 1.23 1.28 I 5/28/87 tiK i.oo 0.90 1.00 1.30 1.10 6/9/87 '[ 0.38 0.35 0.30 N.F. N.F. 6/22/87 J) ( 0.4G 0.38 0.30 N.F. N.F. I 7/9/87 / Q^O 0.42 0.36 N.F. N.F. 7/22/87 J 0732 0.22 ^0.1 \8 N.F. N.F. 8/4/87 (J 0.13 0.08 Cg. 06} N.F. N.F. 8/18/87 A °-l3 0.21 orrc N.F. N.F. I 9/3/87 P | 0.19 0.20 0.20 0.40 0.31 9/15/87 ^ 0.13 , 0.15 5^07) 1.90 0.30 9/30/87 0.19 4 N-°- (ciTqa 1.20 0.23 I 10/22/87 0.27 -y N N.O. CT23 1.10 0.29 11/23/87 0.38 N.O. 0.37 1.20 0.55 12/15/87 0.49 fi N.O. 0.50 1.50 0.48 I 1/18/88 N.S. i v " N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. 2/26/88 N.S. t N.S. N.S. 1.10 0.86 3/17/88 0.85. \) N.O. 0.86 1.10 1.08 I 3/29/88 1.70V N.O. 1.60 2.00 1.80 Note: i #1S - In-pond Surface CfiP^ imnionVx^ #1T - In-pond Therm^eline (Me£*£fmnion) #1B - In-pond Bottom (HypoJ•irnnion) #2 - Horn Pond Brook (Inlet) i #3 - Outlet from Wedge Pond^-^ N.O. - No observed thermae"!ine N.F. - No flow S i N.S. - No sample taken due to unsafe ice conditions i *Units are in mg/1. i i i i 6-34 The high N03~ values in Aprilresulted mainly/from nitri- I 7 • 'fication during which NH4+ isf reduced by bacteria to NO2~ and • NO3". This process requires oxygen. ^-^ The U.S. Council on Environmental Quality (USCEQ, 1975) • assigned a maximum nitrate nitrogen concentration of 0.6 mg/1 as a benchmark level for the protection of aquatic life. They 9 suggest that higher levels are indicative of undesirable — eutrophication. In-pond values exceeded the USCEQ guideline • throughout April/May 1987 and March 1988. Values during these m months ranged from 0.85 mg/1 (March 17, surface) to 1.70 mg/1 (March 29, surface). Outlet values were relatively consistent / with in-pond values. Inlet values exceeded this guideline on I all sampling dates except on September 3. AO 9 6.8.4 Total R-Jeldahl Nitrogen ™r Total Kjeldahl nitrogen is a measurement of ammonia • nitrogen and organic nitrogen. The seasonal and vertical « distributionv of TKN closely follows that of these nitrogen • forms. (Refer to previous explanations of the distribution of M ammonia nitrogen and organic nitrogen starting with paragraph 6.8.1). Table 6-14 lists -ofeserved TKN values for the study • period. Bottom TKN values were highest in September. This coincided with low dissolved oxygen levels reeoeeted at the P sediment/water interface. 6.9 LIMNOLOGICAL DATA SUMMARY 9 The following summarizes the salient water chemistry f issues related to Wedge Pond: -. ™ o Dissolved oxygen levels within the hypolimj^ion are at times insufficient to support either coldwater or warmwater fisheries. More importantly, low I jolimne^ic D.o. concentrations influence the i release of nutrients from the sediments. I 6-35 I I TABLE 6-14 TOTAL KJELDAHL NITROGEN* WEDGE POND I WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS I Samcline Stations Sampling I Date #1S #1T #1B #2 #3 4/16/87 0.32 N.O. 0.38 0.34 0.30 I 4/30/87 0.35 N.O. 0.41 0.36 0.34 5/13/87 0.37 0.35 0.43 0.35 0.38 5/28/87 0.38 1.12 1.65 S.L. 0.84 6/9/87 0.36 0.68 1.28 N.F. N.F. I 6/22/87 0.38 0.56 1.36 N.F. N.F. 7/9/87 0.36 0.74 1.38 N.F. N.F. 7/22/87 0.33 0.71 1.17 N.F. N.F. I 8/4/87 0.49 1.02 2.89 . N.F. N.F. 8/18/87 0.58 0.91 2.10 N.F. N.F. 9/3/87 0.55 0.85 6.90 0.26 0.28 9/15/87 0.84 0.76 6.54 0.34 0.41 I 9/30/87 0.75 N.O. 3.26 0.57 0.84 10/22/87 0.58 N.O. 1.40 0.44 0.63 11/23/87 0.75 N.O. 1.60 0.55 0.72 I 12/15/87 0.83 N.O. 1.23 1.05 0.85 1/18/88 N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. N.S. 2/26/88 N.S. N.S. N.S. 1.12 0.95 I 3/17/88 0.85 N.O. 1.10 0.9-9 0.89 3/29/88 0.68 N.O. 0.75 0.76 0.61 I Note: ^/" / #1S - In-pond Sur f ac eC&tfil imnitm)^ I #1T - In-pond Thermjodine (Mepdliimion) #1B - In-pond Botftom .(Hypolifimion) #2 - Horn Pond Brook (Inlet) #3 - Outlet from Wedge Pond I S.L. - Sample lost _ -\ N.O. - No observed ^£Kermocline ^S N.F. - No flow I N,S. - No sample take^n due^ to^ unsafe ice conditions I I *Units are in mg/1. I I 6-36 I I In-pond transparency measurements often fell below the minimum standard set for bathing beaches. The pond has a good capacity to buffer acid I deposition as indicted by its high alkalinity. In-pond and inlet phosphorus concentrations are high. Horn Pond Brook is a major source of I phosphorus. Phosphorus is released from during periods of low D.O. levels I An appreciable amount of ammonia nitrpaen is derived from bottom sediments. Increased (jjypol imnet ic^ ammonia nitrogen values coincided witn periods of I low D.O. levels at the sediment/water interface. In-ponf^-J\^ I * V f df " ^^nitrat t&f t^-fc-*— e—-£/•- nitroge• 1*>J f ^_i^«H^- i^b-^v njr - v^_b^concentrationn tH*G *T t_lf.-~J^T1 ""T '•^"shrf t/wer,4 f rtf ie f — «high •A^ill" and HA'jfeh samples/ /Values during these months I exceeded USCEQ guidelines for the protection of I aguatic life, A H-igh valuesrvere-a-ttributable to the I I I I I I I I I I I 6-37 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Section 7.0 | Biological Data I I 7.0 BIOLOGICAL DATA P 7.1 BACTERIOLOGICAL 7.1.1. Bacterial Sampling Methodology • Bacterial water samples (fecal coliform and fecal • streptococcus) were collected in sterilized glass bottles. Bacteria samples were collected by hand from the surface at the • in-pond station, inlet, and outlet. All samples were iced and s^c^^ analyzed upon receipt at fthe la$>. I 7.1.2. Results Fecal coliform counts were generally higher at the inlet'and • outlet than at the in-pond station (Table/7-1). This is probably due to the ajHQur&^of waterfowl that congregate at the park .which ?^ 17 r^ <> I lies adjacent to the inlet and outlet/ Overall, fecal coliform I values were highest on November 23. c. The Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control (1978) • has stated that the occurrence of fecal coliform (FC) bacteria in Class B waters shall not exceed a log mean of 200 per 100 | milliliters for a minimum of five samples taken over a 30-day period. This criterion sets the limit for fecal coliform^—^ /~^"y^"^ • bacteria based on a concern for public health. The/20Q/100 ml • limit was used as a general criterion for comparison of Wedge Pond FC data, although a minimum series of five samples were • never measured in any one month. In-pond surface grab samples indicate that the Class B criterion was neVe^/exceede(l#/5rvv AoXr*-' <_-^ I vFecal streptococci ya-lues ^are listed in Table 7-2. Inlet .XLf^A^M/Q it-w^AU*-- values always exceeded in-pond and outlet vstees. As with fecal i• coliform, bacteria counts were highest iLn i 7-1 TABLE 7-1 FECAL COLIFORM* WEDGE POND WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS Sanrolin^ Stations Sampling Date #1S #2 #3 4/16/87 72 144 103 4/30/87 176 150 126 5/13/87 79 220 86 5/28/87 74 r^oo1 ^~^*AS f^so'i 6/9/87 6 VTFT 6/22/87 6 ^FN.F^. N.F. 7/9/87 9 N.F. N.F. 7/22/87 2 N.F. N.F. 8/4/87 11 N.F. N.F. 8/18/87 5 N.F. N.F. 9/3/87 19 f42Cn 48 9/15/87 36 \462 . 58 9/30/87 74 42^ 35 10/22/87 £ _24.0 7 11/23/87 __ Ii4io " r 3040A- -T359C— 1) — 12/15/87 vT75- I 1430 \ 940\ 1/18/88 N.S. i--ITs. ' N.S. 2/26/88 N.S. 115 55 3/17/88 10 130 115 3/29/88 46 152 74 Notes: #1S - In-pond Surface (Ep^limnion) #2 - Horn Pond Brook (Inlet) ' #3 - Outlet from Wedge Pond N.F. - No flow N.S. - No sample taken due to unsafe ice conditions *Units are in number of ce 7-2 I TABLE 7-2 I FECAL STREPTOCOCCI* WEDGE POND I WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS Sanrolins Stations I Sampling I Date #1S #2 #3 4/16/87 15 32 17 4/30/87 20 48 24 5/13/87 18 35 20 I 5/28/87 2 174 N.F. 6/9/87 0 N.F. N.F. 6/22/87 0 N.F. N.F. I 7/9/87 2 N.F. N.F. 7/22/87 0 N.F. . N.F. 8/4/87 0 N.F. N.F. I 8/18/87 2 N.F. N.F. 9/3/87 2 98 12 9/15/87 0 230 12 9/30/87 10 325 35 I 10/22/87 10 215 24 11/23/87 Q940 1500 ~T270\ 12/15/87 • 49 ' "320 Ulj I 1/18/88 N.S. N.S. N.S. 2/26/88 N.S. 60 • 4 3/17/88 0 0 5 I 3/29/88 18 44 20 Notes: I #1S - In-pond Surface (EpifirtSnion) #2 - Horn Pond Brook (Inlet) #3 - Outlet from Wedge Pond I N.F. - No flow N.S. 'No sample taken due to unsafe ice conditions I *Units are in number of I I I I I 7-3 I xin^orde'r to better define sources of elevated bacteria • ^ ^ Si jGGfi£&fi:$c2&%d&&~~fcfawa^^ coliform CtsJ-e^jL^fe*} LS^ I (FC) to fecal streptococcus (FS) ratios were oxamlned. Standard Methods (1980) ootimateed per capita contributions of fecal • • I"^*"- V coliform and fecal streptococci for animals^-assdf developed the""} m (^following FC/FS ratiosY-" Human 4.4 Duck 0.6 • Sheep 0.4 Chicken 0.4 Pig 0.4 Cow 0.2 I Turkey 0.1 R A ratio greater than 4.1 is considered indicative of I pollution derived from domestic wastes composed of human sources^ i/ • whereas ratios less than 0.7 suggest pollution due to non-human sources. Ratios between 0.7 and 4.4 usually indicate wastes of , 0Ax | mixed human and animal sources. Standard Methods (1980) suggests^ — several precautions when interpreting FC/FS ratios, of which only • two pertain to this sampling program. They include: (1) sample • pH must be known because streptococcal densities can be altered significantly if water pH is above 9.0 or below 4.0 standard I units, and (2) ratios should not be used when fecal streptococcus counts are below 100 cells/100 ml. | pr^ecau^agn^^ _the pH of Wedge Pond water samples was never above 9.0 or below 4.0'T and whenever condition 2 was violated, FC/FS • ratios were not calculated. As can be seen from Table 7-3, there • were only nine occasions on which FC/FS ratios could validly be m calculated- Generally, these ratios suggest pollution due to a A mixture of human and animal sources. However, on December 15, the FC/FS ratio at the inlet was 4.5, indicating a potential m sewer surcharging condition. i . '- • I TABLE 7-3 I FECAL COLIFORM TO FECAL STREPTOCOCCI RATIOS WEDGE POND I WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS Sampling Sanroline Stations I Date #1S #2 #3 I 4/16/87 NA NA NA 4/30/87 NA NA NA 5/13/87 NA NA NA 5/28/87 NA 2.3 3.2 I 6/9/87 NA NF NF 6/22/87 NA NF NF 7/9/87 NA NF NF I 8/4/87 NA NF NF 8/18/87 NA NF NF 9/3/87 NA NA NA 9/15/87 NA 2.0 NA I 9/30/87 NA 2.0 NA 10/22/87 NA 1.1 NA 11/23/87 1.5 2.8 I 12/15/87 NA A^ NA & 2/26/88 NS S^. NA 3/17/88 NA NA NA I 3/29/88 NA NA NA I Notes: #1S - In-pond surface (Ep: lion) #2 - Horn Pond Brook (Inlet) I #3 - Outlet from Wedge Pond NA - FC/FS ration were invalid because FS values fell below 100 (cells)lOO ml. I NF - No flow iirtfilet or outlet. I I I I I I 7-5 I • 7.2. PHY^O?TANKTON AND CHLOROPHYLL a 7.2.1. Methodology Phytoplankton and chlorophyll a /were collected by lowering a I / weighted, polyethelene tube through the euphotic zone (Secchi x ~ disc depth times three )4 or to one meter above the pond bottom* t^~- • Phytoplankton samples were preserved with Lugol's solution. Samples taken from April to September were analyzed by Normandeau • Associates, inc., Bedford, New Hampshire. Samples taken from October on were analyzed by IEP, Inc., Northborough, • Massachusetts. Chlorophyll a samples were analyzed by Arnold Greene Testing Laboratories (AGTL), Natick, Massachusetts. | 7.2.2. Seasonal Trends of Phvtoplankton _ The following discussion highlights the seasonal trends of • phytoplankton identified in Wedge Pond.l • April 1987 to June 1987 In April, phytoplankton growth was stimulated by several factors, including: (1) circulation (spring turnover) of I --" ) -v nutrient-rich htfpolimnetijz water throughout the water column (the • nutrients having accumulated throughout the winter), (2) improved light conditions, and (3) increased temperatures. | Blue-green algae dominated the algal population at the beginning of April, accounting for 54 percent of the sample cell • count. This included 11,750 cells/ml of unidentified colonial • blue—green algae. ..__ AT 0 v "~"^in S >*—t' \r\j^ • ^-Microscopic phytoplankton examinations are included in i Appendix B, Table B-l. i 7-6 I At the end of April, diatoms dominated sample cell counts. _ This continued through May, after which dominance shifted back to • blue-green algae. Diatoms generally dominanted the spring • bloom. This has been documented by Wetzel (1975) and by Whitman & Howard (1984, 1985, 1986). It is also common for the diatom • Aster ionel la to precede other diatoms. Asterionella sp. was clearly the most prevalent diatom in Wedge Pond throughout the • spring maximum. At the end of June, dominance shifted to green algae. The | sample cell count for Sphaerocvstis sp. equalled 11,046 cells/ml or 83 percent of the green algae. Figure 7-1 depicts the • predominant algal species found within Wedge Pond during this • three-month period. July 1987 to September 1987 • Blue-green algae dominated the algal population from July through September. During August, a severe algal bloom was evident. Sample cell counts reached(^^unm?ecedented( 105,790 • l_. C/ —' cells/ml (August 4) and 104,747 cells/ml (August 18). | It was after this bloom that eight ducks were found dead at the park on Wedge Pond. Two of them were sent to the Tuft's • Veterinary School for autopsies. Unfortunately, test results m were inconclusive as to the cause of death. However, a few years ago, several other ducks were found dead at the pond. Based on • autopsies performed by DEQE's Lawrence Experimental Station, cause of death was determined to be due to algal toxicity. • During blooms experienced this year at Wedge Pond, Microcvstis sp. was clearly the most abundant algaef. i Additionally, Aohanizomenon sp.Aoccured in phytoplankton samples i from July on. Thji^algae, alone) with some species of i 7-7 Anabaena Schematic Representation of Abundant Phytoplankton in Wedge Pond (April - June 1987) Whitman & Howard, Inc Figure 7-1 7-8 I I Microcvstis. contain pseudovacuoles (gas pobxets/. Their buoyancy allows them to become concentrated at/the surface and I produce floating scums. As they deteriorate/there is a release of cell-contents (including endotoxins in some species). I Prescott (1978) notes that Microcvstis and/Aphanizomenon can fl I directly or indirectly cause the death of fish (by suffocation or poisoning), or can cause the death of birds (by poisoning). I Interestingly, "...a lake may be densely overgrown with either Microcvstis sp. or with Aphanizomenon sp. but seldom, if I ever, the two together" (Prescott, 1978). Thus, it was unusual to have found both genera of blue-green algae concurrently in I Wedge Pond. Their sample cell counts are listed in Table 7-4. TABLE 7-4 .-> ^/ COMPARISON OF MICROCYSTIS SPKI^S AND I APHANIZOMENON SPB£ItfS IN WEDGE POND ^-***^ I Microcvstis sp. Aphanizomenon sp. Sample Cell Percentage of Sample Cell Percentage of Samp liney Count Blue-Green Count Blue-Green I Date (cells/ml) Population (cells/ml) Population I 7/22/87 7,929 23 6,092 18 8/4/87 32,536 36 27,955 31 8/18/87 61,387 60 11,484 11 9/3/87 5,998 / 353 4 I 9/15/87 27,808 70 \J^ 387 1 WV^ I As mentioned previously , //Microcvsti^ g sp. and Aphan i z omenon sp. were very abundant from July through September. Other I abundant blue-greens included: Aphanocapsa sp., Gloeocapsa sp., *aena ^p., Gomphosphaera sp., and Oscillatoria sp. (Figure I 7-2) . The^Vellow-greeri algae?x ; Uroalenopsis sp.-/was abundant on 1 7—; ^ I July 22, account-ing for 42 percent of the sample cell count. This genus fre%tfents/water that is contaminated by nitrogenous I wastes/(Prescott/ , 1978). I 7-9 r ' I ' ' ' j Anabatfna dp. t and 00mpho#pHar»'a *p- were dunna I'tfd- "they are depi'cftd dn ftd^rc 7—/• Schematic Representation of Abundant Phytoplankton in Wedge Pond (July - September 1987) Whitman & Howard, Inc Figure 7-2 MAKEPEACE 7-10 I I November 1987 to March 1988 Diatoms dominated algal populations from fall through I spring. Asterionella sp. was the predominant algap/, as was _ experienced the previous spring. Sample cell counts were lowest • during winter. Phytoplankton growth is typically reduced during • winter due to low light and low temperature conditions. 7.2.3 Summary ^Aa^i^^k— I Algal blooms arV^^erloiis^thrMtZ'Ifo the water quality of Wedge Pond. The sheer abundance of algae have diminished the | aesthetic character of thepond. The organic build up of dead . algal cells/provides d uontfeq^l. couroo of phoaphoiub to pond • sediments. It is not suprising that algal associations in Wedge Pond are typical to those found in eutrophic lakes (Table 7-5). ^-xtfCff-^-^ I It appears that certainfspecies may have caused the death of I \f\ uJ&&cJ2- waterfowl. Because algae are such a problem/feo^^iA e -gpondf /, their I elimination will be a key focus of the restoration program. I 7.2.4 chlorophyll a Results Chlorophyll a is an indicator of the standing crop of | phytoplankton present at sampling. It is related to the _ fertility of the pond as measured by the ability of phytoplankton • to use available nutrients. Several researchers have grouped • chlorophyll & values with associated trophic states as indicated i in Table 7-6. i i i i TABLE 7-5 CHARACTERISTICS OF COMMON MAJOR ALGAL ASSOCIATIONS IN RELATION TO INCREASING LAKE FERTILITY General Lake Trophic Water Other Commonly State Characteristics Dominant Algae Occurring Algae Eutrophic Usually alkaline lakes Diatoms much of Many other algae, espe- with nutrient enrich- year, especially cially greens and blue- ment Asterlonella spp., greens during warmer Fragtlaria periods; desmids if crotonensis. Svnedra. dissolved organic matter Stephanodiscus. and is fairly high Melosira granulata Eutrophic Usually alkaline; nu- Blue-green algae, Other blue-green algae; trient enriched; com- especially Anacvstls euglenophytes if or- mon in warmer periods (=Microcystis^, ganically enriched or of temperate lakes Aphanizomenon. Ana- polluted or perennially in baena enriched tropical lakes NOTE: Taken from Wetzel( I I TABLE 7-6 REPORTED CHLOROPHYLL a CONCENTRATIONS AS RELATED I TO LAKE TROPHIC STATE I Reported Chlorophyll * Concentrations National I Academy of Trophic Sakamoto Sciences Dobson, et al. EPA I State (1966) (1972) (1974) (1974) Oligotrophic 0.3 - 2.5 0-4 0-4.3 7 I Mesotrophic 1-14 4-10 4.3-8.8 7-12 Eutrophic 5 - 140 ( ^> 8 . 8 } ( ^ ) I NOTE: Source (EPA, 1979a. ; ,. f J Uc;'4- Us-Hd v &|*rJLt^ff-^- I Chlorophyll a values in Wedge Pond ranged from 8.5 to 85.1 mg/m3 (Table 7-7). Regardless of the criterion used, overall I chlorophyll a concentrations collected during the study indicate I eutrophic conditions. 7.3 AQUATIC VEGETATION SAMPLING I 7.3.1 Methodology Sampling of aquatic plants was performed on August 19, 1987 I by Gulf of Maine Research Center, Inc. >3amglingr~"§*Jlys;g_- ~~~~~ *de£qzm^ied^^^)^the distribution, composition, and density of I aquatic vegetation, &fr the biomass (wet and dry) of the aquatic plant community, and ($ the amount of nutrients (nitrogen, I phosphorus, and carbon) tied up in the vegetational community of Wedge Pond,« I/J^\IL^ AjaJu2A ^J^Q& -Unlo^ K ' *" in {/ J^AV"l^ \S~^^ /V ( " I Pond vegetation was (lel^rain^d^by running transects across /\ I the pond at continuous ^intervals. All stands of aquatic vegetation were inventoried along each sampling transect. Plant I samples were collected by dragging a grappling hook along each transect. Each time a stand was encountered, the location, areal I 7-13 I I TABLE 7-7 CHLOROPHYLL a WEDGE POND I WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS Samolin? Station I Sampling I Date #1 - In-pond Surface* 4/16/87 17.0 4/30/87 21.5 5/13/87 15.8 I "5/28/87 8.5 6/9/87 S.L. 6/22/87 27.3 I 7/9/87 34.0 7/22/87 . 12.6 8/4/87 | 41 . 1 8/18/87 J 61.0 I -*rt . -» 'J 9/3/87 extent, relative species composition, and average density were • recorded.2 Density determinations were based on visual |observation and followed the Clean Lakes Program PALIS 3- nomenclature: sparse (0-afe percent areal coverage) , moderate (26-50 percent areal coverage) , dense (51-75 percent areal I coverage) , and very dense (76-100 percent areal coverage) . In addition to the sampling of transects within Wedge Pond, I stand mapping was also conducted. The standing crop of aquatic and emergent vegetation was sampled at six locations in square meter quadrats< Quadrat 'locations ranged in depth from 0.6 to I A 1.2 meters and were chosen to be representative of the stands of I vegetation present in Wedge Pond. To conduct sampling, a cubic meter frame was held on the pond bottom. The frame te^s open sale's I / A on the top and bottom which allows removal of all vegetation I enclosed within the four-sided frame. Vegetation, including roots, were removed with a metal rake. Vegetation was sorted to I specxes and the biomass^determined. The total wet biomass (wet weight) of aquatic and emergent I vegetation present in the pond was calculated by (1) summing the areal coverage within each density class, (2) by multiplying the areal values by the mean biomass value for that density I class* and (3) summing the values for all density classes. Total wet biomass was converted to approximate dry biomass (dry weight) I by a factor of^O.08 (FAO, 1966) . The total mass of macronutrients in tsf^/g&lKl was determined by multiplying the total I dry biomass by typical macronutrient percentages contained in plant 2 I A stand of aguatic plants, as used in this rep'prt, refers to a vegetational community that has a minimum\areal extent I of one-quarter of a square meter. I I tissue. Typical macronutrient percentages were taken from • determinations made by the USEPA (1973) as shown below. Percentage Contained Nutrient in Aquatic Macrophvtes • Nitrogen 3 Phosphorus 0.3 ( Carbon 35 _ 7.3.2 Results ' Transect sampling revealed that the pond is almost completely • devoid of aquatic macrophytes. Macrophytes are limited to the shoreline except in the shallow areas near Station Q-4 (Figure I 7-4'). stands .of vegetation along the shoreline are largely composed of upright emergent plants. The distribution and wet I biomass of the predominant aquatic macrophytes for each of the six quadrats are listed in Table 7-8. TABLE 7-8 DISTRIBUTION AND WET BIOMASS OF AQUATIC MACROPHYIES PER i SAMPLE QUADRAT* Predominant Quadrat i Species Q-l Q-2 Q-3 Q-4 Q-5 Q-6 i White water lily 702 _ Pickerel weed 837 305 Burr-reed • tfaterweed Total . 1,539 305 | *Values in grams. In comparing current stand mapping with that conducted by the i MDWPC in 1985, it appears that (1) there is new evidence of yellow i water lilies in the northeastern part of the pond and (2) there i 7-16 I I Location and Composition of Aquatic Macrophyte Stands within Wedge Pond I Legend I Q-5 Quadrat Location Flagpole I Aquatic Macrophyte I Stand -Current Survey Aquatic Macrophyte I Stand-1985 MDWPC I Survey I I I WEDGE POND I SPECIES LIST NYMPHAEA ODORATA (WHITE WATER LILY) I NUPHAR VARIEGATUM (YELLOW WATER LlLY) I Q-2 PONTEDERIA CORDATA (PlCKERELWEED) NOTES' PELTANDRA VIRGINICA (ARROW ARUM) Contours in feet. I Redrawn from D.PW. survey SPARGANIUM SP. (BUR-REED) done July I929. Scale 1 = 2000 SAGITTARIA LATIFOLIA (ARROWHEAD) I Calumet SCIRPUS VALIDUS (SOFT~STEM BULRUSH) Club I ELQDEA CANADENSIS (WATERWEED) I Location and Composition of Aquatic Macrophyte Stands within Wedge Pond Figure 7-3 I 7-17 U~ A^-^-v M I r O.ICD is new evidence of white water lilies and pickerelweed along e^^i^L^ l the southern shore. However, ffi^scol-lan^ous- shoreline stands have. I less areal coverage than noted in the 1985 survey^ 'biomass of aquatic macrophytes calculated for the Wedge l Pond community (Table 7-9) is equivalent to approximately 1.8 x—• * -s 10~2 kg wet biomass/m2 and 1.4 x 10"3 kg dry biomass/mj_.J The ----- __ _. ___ _- - —- •- —- • I total areal extent of coverage (considering all density classes) was approximately 0.8 percent of the total pond area. The total I nutrient mass contained in the aquatic vegetation of Wedge Pond I was calculated to equaljA/->/ -2-0~~"kg of nitrogen, ^2-Hc•. g of phosphorus, and 240 kg of carbon. TABLE 7-9 I TOTAL WET BIOMASS OF AQUATIC MACROPHYTES IN WEDGE FOND } J 1 .> / ™> ""I b' -1 vfa-O y^^- -3.3 2 I v1 * L i " aM Total Wet Density Sample Biomass Mean Biomass Area Total Mass I 2 2 2 Class Quadrats (Kg/m ) (Kg/m ) (m ) (Kg) -r1 jfi. •,'. S I Sparse 2 0.305 0.305 ' X 9.3 2.8 /"n CO o ^i 'H Moderate 1 1.539 , 1.539 K 40.4 O^ . L ^^ ** Dense 3.4,6 6.817 * 2.292 -\ 239.2 543.5 p« ' u° I Very Dense 5 6.831 6.831 x; 9.8 66.9 fv° NOTES : 675 Kg times 0.08 (wet/ dry conversion) - 54 Kg 'dry/mass I Mean biomass times area equals total mass. / I 7.3.3 Discussion and Recommendations Historically, Wedge Pond had a^severe weed problem. However, I the current aquatic macrophyte community in the pond is not repre- sentative of a eutrophic-state moorophyte eomauHTEy. The areal I extent of macrophyte coverage in the .pond is less than one percent. Total biomass and macronutrient masses of the macrophyte community I are elevated^—lovolo.,' it is therefore recommended, : t i ' i I 7'1/8 \./ I ' rt, u d \ I ^ I • that no steps be taken to harvest, erradicate, or otherwise impair the growth of this community. I The aquatic macrophyte community is a typical part of all pond systems. The community in Wedge Pond is neither an aesthetic nor | recreational problem nor is it an impairment to the remaining seg- ments of the pond biota. On the contrary, it seems that fish cover • in Wedge Pond is scarce and may be limiting portions of the fish • community. The macrophyte and emergent vegetative communities ^ jZoiig--th^pofi5^pera^e£er-'also provide an important function in • stabilizing the steep banks which are located in many areas along i the pond. i i i i i i i t i i 7-19 Section 8.0 Special Sampling Programs I I 8-0 SPECIAL SAMPLING PROGRAMS I 8.1 TRIBUTARY SAMPLING Tributaries to Wedge Pond were studied to locate point and I nonpoint sources of pollution. Based on field investigations, no I point sources of pollution were found along either Horn Pond Brook or Russell Brook. I Nonpoint sources, being much harder to locate than point sources, were investigated by sampling key locations along both I tributaries. Four locations (Station #'s 2, 5, 6, and 7) were sampled along Horn Pond Brook, and two locations (Station #'s 8 I and 9) were sampled along Russell Brook (Figure 8-1). Locations along Russell Brook were selected during a site I visit (May 13) with Dom Serratore, Director of Public Works for the Town of Winchester. Because the brook is culverted, access/to I / u is minimal. Locations along Horn Pond Brook were I selected based on the influence of storm drain discharge and overland runoff into the tributary system. I Tributary sampling was conducted on six occasions. Station #9 was nailed shut/on the August and February sampling dates and, I therefore, samples were not collected. Sampling took place during storm events on all dates except on May 13. (J^s^T^^sf*"-^ CM I Overall, data values were difficult to interpret for nonpoint J/"-— —J sources of^pollution because (1) not one sampling station had data I L- (values^that consistently exceeded^data value^collected at other 1 sampling stations, and (2) 'no-bother data trends were observed. I \A I I 8-1 I I I I I I I I Tributary sampling I locations I I I I I Tributary Sampling Locations I and Drainage Subareas I NOtGS' Each sampling station drains a specific subarea which is defined by the storm drain system and topography. Drainage subareas are highlighted by contrasting shade patterns. Sampling stations at Russell Brook include #8 and #9. Together these stations drain 460 acres of the Wedge Pond I watershed. Sampling stations at Horn Pond Brook include #2, #5, #6, and //7. I Together they drain 147 acres of the watershed. Whitman & Howard, Inc Figure 8-1 I MAKEPEACE 8-2 /Y / ITtX'^ v^U f Uo I Conductivity and chloride values were lower in samples collected during August and September than they were in samples | collected on other dates. High values in spring and winter are most likely related to deicing compounds present in runoff. ^^_^r I Generally, the highest turbidity, nutrient, and fecal coliform • concentrations were observed during August sampling. This sampling date was preceded by an extremely dry period; • the seventh driest July in 117 years. Particulate matter which accumulated on the land surface during the antecedent dry weather • subsequently showed up in wet weather tributary samples taken in ^ August. Comme'€eVsamplin- - L_ g results are listed in Table 8-1. ^ I Ratios of fecal coliform (FC) to fecal streptococcus (FS) are _ presented in Table 8-2. Ratios greater than 4.1 are indicative of • pollution derived from domestic human wastes. Ratios between 0.7 • and 4.1 are indicative of wastes derived from both human and animal sources (Standard Methods. 1980). J • ^-f In August, overall bacterial samples were high. However, FC/FS ratios during this period indicate a greater influence of • animal waste than human waste. Bacterial samples taken in September were anomalous in that FC | values of zero were coincidental^ with high FS counts (FS counts from 2740 to 6000'cell^lOO ml). It appears that FC I bacteria did not grow on the filter media used during sample • evaluation. This would yield erroneous FC data. Ratios of 4.2 and 4.1 were calculated for Station #8 (May 13) • and Station #5 (February 1), respectively. This suggests that sewer overflows impacted Horn Pond Brook. Sewer surcharging in • Woburn and Winchester has been well documented over many years^ I I 8-3 I TABLE 8-1 I TRIBUTARY SAMPLING* WEDGE POND I WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS Sanrnline Locations Sampling Date: 3/10/87 Date : 4/6/87 I Parameters #2 #5 #6 #7 #2 #5 #6 #7 I pH 7.6 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 6.9 7.2 7.1 Alkalinity 39 41 35 37 32 32 33 32 Total Suspended Solids 9 7 20 11 12) I Turbidity 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.5 1.5 1T7- — 1.6 1.5 Conductivity 420 430 430 390 390 400 4llT\ Chloride 92 93 91 85 87 88 89^ I Total Kjeldahl- 4 Nitrogen 0.3Z__ 0.43 0.35 0.37 0.48 0.44 0.39 0.40 Ammonia Nitrogen 0.24 0.25 0.25 0.25 CT.2'6 OT25~ 0.251 Nitrate Nitrogen I' 1^62 1.73 1.50 1.88 1.58 1.69 1.47 _ 1..7.2j I Total Phosphorus 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.0V " 0.08 0.07 0.08 Fecal Coliform 58 236 29 74 .305 347 298 314 I Fecal Streptococci 12 21 26 53 582 470 372 430 Date: 5/13/87 Date : 8/3/87 I #8 #9 #2 #5 #6 #8 pH 7.3 7.1 7.2 7.2 7.2 7.1 7.1 Alkalinity 66 68 50 38 28 32 33 4 Total Suspended ~> 4 5 &> (ft) (18) I Solids 0_9 Turbidity 3.0 3.0 8.3 5.5 Conductivity 410 \ 360 ^2690 200 2"4'0 220 — Chloride 78 52 34 23 29 27 _ I (5° -J Total Kjeldahl- T».33 tt6 1.34 1.86 1.54 1.26 1.64 Nitrogen Ammonia Nitrogen ,0.2— '5 — . —— 0.31 fo^73 0.35 0.56 0.387 I Nitrate Nitrogen 1.42) 1.82 1.78 2.Q8__-J..J2J Total Phosphorus Or07 • o.of ^0.09)-< co.j^y- Fecal Coliform 193 (2250r- C?l"70> ( Q080)- I Fecal Streptococci 125 50 2900 4200 3300 2400 2^200 Note: I #2 Horn Pond Brook @ Inlet #5 Horn Pond Brook @ Foot Bridge #6 Horn Pond Brook @ Sylvester Avenue I #7 Horn Pond Brook @ Junior High #8 Russell Brook @ Horn Pond Brook I #9 Russell Brook @ Railroad *A11 units are in mg/1, except: pH in standard units, turbidity in Nephelometric turbidity units, conductivity in micro mhos/cm, and I fecal coliform and fecal streptococci in number^ceils/lOO ml. I 8-4 I TABLE 8-1 (cont.) I TRIBUTARY SAMPLING* WEDGE POND I WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS Sampline Locations Sampling Date: 9/17/87 I Parameters #2 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 I pH 7.4 7.5 7.5 7.2 7.1 6.9 Alkalinity 52 55 54 56 45 54 Total Suspended Solids (L§) 9 3 3 (14^ 3 Turbidity 4.8 2.8 2.2 3.4 4.7 2.2 I Conductivity 360 355 350 370 305 330 Chloride 52 50 50 54 42 49 Total Kjeldahl-Nitrogen lJ37^_g_^6-__0J_49_ 0.58 0.70 0.52 I Ammonia Nitrogen IT. 80 0.42 0.40 ~~6751 D762 0733P) Nitrate Nitrogen (l.32 1.50 1.43 1.38 1.42 1.38J Total Phosphorus 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.08 O.OT Fecal Coliform 0 0 340 0 0 0 I Fecal Streptococci 3480 5100 6000 2860 4800 2740 Date : 2/1/88 I #2 #5 #6 #7 #8 pH 7.5 7.3 7.3 7.2 7.2 Alkalinity 44 45 42 45 55 I Total Suspended Solids O& 5 ^_^6 6 ^_7 Turbidity 033 3.8 (s7v> 2.6 '^5^3^ Conductivity 425 420 405 425 440- - Chloride 77 .74 71 77 76 I Total Kieldahl-Nitroeen 1..06 0.58 0.65 0.55 -— 0-5-2^ Ammonia Nitrogen fO.71 0.. 37 0.38 0.40 0.37 Nitrate Nitrogen 1 0.88 0.88 _C),69 0.81 1.19 C( 07 ^Q.jJD 0.06 0.07 I Total Phosphorus v L5?^ °* ^ Fecal Coliform 290 420 260 110 Q.020) Fecal Streptococci 120 102 180 150 *^ I Note : #2 - Horn Pond Brook @ Inlet I #5 - Horn Pond Brook @ Foot Bridge #6 - Horn Pond Brook @ Sylvester Avenue #7 - Horn Pond Brook @ Junior High #8 - Russell Brook @ Horn Pond Brook I #9 - Russell Brook {§ Railroad I *A11 units are in mg/1, except: pH in standard units, turbidity in Nephelometric turbidity units, conductivity in^micro mhos/cm, and fecal I coliform and fecal streptococci in number jcelIs/100 ml. I * if I 8-5 I TABLE 8-2 I FECAL CQLIFORM TO FECAL STREPTOCOCCI RATIOS WET AND DRY WEATHER TRIBUTARY SAMPLING WEDGE POND I WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS Sampling Sampling Stations I Date #2 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 I 3/10/87 N.A. * N.A. N.A. N.A. N.S. N.S. I V6/87 0.5 0.7 0.8 0-.7 N.S. N.S. 5/13/87 N.S. ** N.S. N.S. N.S. (Q^ N'A- I 8/3/87 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.8 1.0 N.S. I 9/17/87 N.A. N.A. 0.1 N.A. N.A. N.A. I 2/1/88 t 2.4 (Q} 1-4 0.7 2.1 N.S. I No teg, : I #2 - Horn Pond Brook @ Inlet #5 - Horn Pond Brook (3 Foot Bridge #6 - Horn Pond Brook @ Sylvester Avenue I #7 - Horn Pond Brook @ Junior High #8 - Russell Brook @ Horn Pond Brook #9 - Russell Brook @ Railroad I *N.A. - FC/FS ratios are invalid because FS values fell below 100 ,cells;/100 ml. I **N.S. - No sample was taken. I I I I I 8-6 I I 8.1.1 Discussion of Results • During the early industrial period, Horn Pond Brook and — • Russell Brook were responsible fof^conveyrajg^ndustrial pollutants to Wedge Pond. Of special importance was the felt mill which I w A discharged its wastewater into Horn Pond Brook. The felt ^ • processing industry h&s/wastewater. characterized by high zinc / concentrations. It is therefore not surprising that high zinc • levels were found in pond sediments collected during the study (see Section 8.4, Sediment Sampling.) , ^^^-o- ? — 8-7 1 1 8,2 STORMWATER SAMPLING Most of the runoff from the Wedge Pond watershed is 1 conveyed by the storm drain system. There are eleven major storm drain subsystems, six of which discharge to Horn Pond Brook and five of which outlet directly to Wedge Pond. Because 11 1 of this/ storm drain sampling was considered an important aspect • in analyzing the source of water quality degradation of Wedge 1 Pond. ^-^ On September 15 ,f^(M^ samples^ were taken at all actively flowing n) 1 storm drains discharging to Wedge PondJL / 2 TJie Nationwide Urban^^unoff Program (NURP) concluded that I there were no truly discernible and consistent effects of land use on quality of urban runoff (EPA, 1983). The study concluded thatf if land use effects do exist, they I are eclipsed by storm to/storm variabilities (e.g., storm I duration, storm intensity, and antecedent dry weather). I 8-10 I TABLE 8-4 I STORMWATER ANALYSIS WEDGE POND I WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS Storm Drains \ Sampling I Parameters* ISO #2SD #3SD #4SD \ I pH 7.5 7.5 7.1 7.3 Total Suspended Solids Conductivity 38 46 42 I Total Kjeldahl- Nitrogen 1.60 Ammonia Nitrogen 0.10 I Nitrate Nitrogen Total Phosphorus Chloride I Coliform ;Fecal Streptococ Cadmium Chromium I Copper Iron Manganese I Zinc sad FC/FS** I Notes: #1SD - Grassmere Street I #2SD - Palmer Street #3SD - Linden Street #4SD - Main Street I This sampling represents flow-weighted composites of all actively-flowing storm drains discharging to Wedge Pond on September 15, 1987< I For storm drain locations, see Figure 8-2v I * All measurements are in mg/1 except pH measured in standard units, conductivity measured in micro mhos/cm, and fecal coliform and fecal I streptococci measured in number/cells/lOO ml. I ** FC/FS represents the fecal coliform to -fecal streptococci ratio. I I 8-11 I I I 8-5 STORMWATER-ANALYSIS I LINDEN ^STREET_SXORM DRAIN WEDGE POND I WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS I I Total Suspended Solids 510 477 323 390 370 420 Conductivity 10 , 700 10,400 10,300 10,400 7,600 7,600 Chloride 3,532 3,310 3.260 3.285 . 2,420.. , 2.470_j Total Kjeldahl-Nitrogen -—2.64 3.60 1.58 . _2.9 ^ 0, _ 2.20 1.92 I Ammonia Nitrogen fl.42 1.98— 2 6 g l.'es 1.54 Nitrate Nitrogen 1.38 1.19 1.19 1.06 1.00 1.00 ^0.39 0.27 0.18 0.40 /0 . 08N 0.1 Oj I Coliform _Strep t oc o c c i* Cadmium N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. Chromium N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. I Copper N.R. N.R, N.R. N.R. H.R. N.R. Iron N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. Lead N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. I Manganese N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. JZinc N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. I FC/FS** Notes: I N.R. - Not required as per substate agreement. This sampling was done in accordance with the substate agreement. Sample numbers 1 through 6 represent discrete samples, and sample number 7 I represents a composite sample. I For storm drain locations see Figure 8-2. * All measurements are in mg/1, except conductivity measured in micro mhos/cm, and fecal coltform and fecal streptococci measured in number .cells/100 ml. I ** FC/FS represents the fecal coliform to fecal streptococci ratio. I I 8-12 I I I I TABLE 8-6 STORMWAJER^ANALYSIS---^ /2./Rft*r===~') < .^r C£ I LINDEN STREET-STORM DRAIN \\y \ r WEDGE POND I AT **& ~^-^ WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS \ ~^\ ^\ I Sampling ^^x- ~~"~ Sample "Numbers Parameters* 1 2 / 5 6 7 I • Total Suspended Solids ] 158 • 178 154 158 122 140 A N.R. Conductivity / 625 460 460 450 420 410 N.R. Chloride / 160 147 140 120 103 101 N.R. I 0.74 \ N.R. Total Kjeldahl-Nitrogen 1.66 1.10 1.13 0.89 0.75 Ammonia Nitrogen 0.78 0.63 0.70 0.54 0.39 0.42 N.R. Nitrate Nitrogen 0.50 0.47 0.50 0.40 0.37 0.47 N.R. I Total Phosphorus 0.24 0.25 0.37 0.16 0.15 0.15 N.R. -FecaT^Coliform 1,150 1,220 980 490 410 400 N.R. -FecaVStreptococci 205 235 160 175 215 190 N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. 0.040 I Chromiuin N.R. . N.R. N.R. N.-R. N.R. N.R. 0.09 Copper N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. 0.06 Iron N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. 9.5 Lead N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. fOrl"5"\ I 4 Manganese N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. U-J- .Zinc N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. ] 1. 28 I ^FC/FS** fs.V) rr.r* /6 . lx 2.8 1.9 2.1 C1-_J Notes: I N.R. - Not required as per substate agreement. This sampling was done in accordance with the substate agreement. I Sample numbers 1 through 6 represent discrete samples and sample number 7 represents a composite sample. I For storm drain locations see Figure 8-2. I * All measurements are in rag/1, except conductivity measured in micro mhos/cm, and fecal coliform and fecal streptococci measured in number cells/100 ml. I ** FC/FS represents the fecal coliform to fecal streptococci ratio. I 8-13 I I I I TABLE 8-7 STORMWATER ANALYSIS I tfV (1/18/88) MAIN STREET STORM DRAIN WEDGE POND I WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS I Sampling Sanrole Numbers \ I Parameters* 1 2 3 4 5 6 i — .— -• n . —- — - — - — „ — \ Total Suspended Solids V 604 470 450 465 553 570\ N.R. Conductivity 8,600 8,900 7,900 8,100 6,300 6,000 \ N.R i I Chloride 2,800 2,865 2,519 2,618 1,902 1,828 N.R! Total Kjeldahl- Nitrogen 2.19 2.62 1.68 1.80 1.12 1.32 N.R/1. Ammonia Nitrogen 1.70 1.45 1.26 1.12 0.70 0.70 N.R'. I Nitrate Nitrogen 1.88 1.88 1.50 1.88 1.38 1.31 N.R. Total Phosphorus \ 0.16 0.19 0.08 0.10 0.09 0.06 ) NJL^ 'fecati Coliform - - - - - ( 52(T\ ^Ffeoa"! Streptococci ------V640.X I Cadmium N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. 0.013 Chromium N.R. ' N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. 0.02 Copper N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. .N.R. C°H23> I Iron N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. 'N.R. 31.3 Lead N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. (qTrp Manganese N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. $L-?2> Zinc N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. (i\ i#3 I "FC/FS** ------0.8 I Notes: N.R. - Not required as per substate agreement. I This sampling was done in accordance with the substate agreement. Sample numbers 1 through 6 represent discrete samples and sample number 7 represents a composite sample. I For storm drain locations, see Figure 8-2. I * All measurements are in mg/1, except conductivity measured in micro mhos/cm, and fecal coliform and fecal streptococci measured in number cells/100 ml. I ** FC/FS represents the fecal coliform to fecal streptococci ratio. I 8-14 I I I I TABLE 8-8 -? STORMWATER ANALYSIS I (2/2/88) ^ MAIN STREET STORM DRAIN WEDGE POND I WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS I Sampling ^>\ Samole Numl V^ I Parameters* 1 2 /3 4 /' 5 & 7 Total Suspended Solids 280 302 285 290 372 356^ N.R. Conductivity 1,020 1,000 1,000 850 810 760 N.R. I Chloride 270 250 245 210 205 195 N.R. Total Kjeldahl-Nitrogen if 1.85 1.53 0.96 0.95 0.77 0.58 N.R. Ammonia Nitrogen 0.86 0.78 0.70 0.70 0.54 0.38 N.R. Nitrate Nitrogen 0.60 0.47 0.47 0.53 0.-42 0.33 N.R. I 0.38 0.32 0.29 0/42 0.35 0.30 N.R. Tot aj.-. Phosphorus 'f'ecal Coliform 1,620 1,250 1,300 950 640 350 N.R. _FecaL'/Streptococci ~~ 290 "ISO" 160 . 210 200 180 " N.R. I -Cadmium N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. 0.013 Chromium N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. <0.02 Copper N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. 0.08 Iron N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. 10.2' I Lead N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. £j£32b Manganese N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. N.R. ifc 5~D .Zinc N.R. N R N,R. N * All measurements are in mg/1, except conductivity measured/in micro mhos/cm, and fecal I coliform and fecal streptococci measured in numbei( cells/100 ml. I ** FC/FS represents the fecal coliform to fecal streptoetfcci ratio. I 8-15 I TABLE 8-9 COMPARISON OF MEDIAN VALUES OF POLLUTANTS FOUND IN NURP STUDY VS. WEDGE POND STUDY NURP Studv Results** Wedge Pond Studv Results Range of Median Range of Values Median Value Values for Lake Median Value for for Wedge Pond for Wedge Pond Pollutant * Quins igamond Data Urban Site Data Data Data Total Suspended Solids 30 - 154 100 41 -(6M) (JIT) Total Phosphorus 0,21 - 1.00 0.33 %> v.0 . 10^ - 0 . 42 0.19 Total Kjeldahl I Nitrogen 0.91 - 2.19 1.50 0.69 - 3.60 1.43 M (Tl Copper 0.05 - 0.10 0.03 0.05 - 0.28 ^67o8") Lead 0.14 - 0.31 0.14 0.05 - 0.45 0.10 Zinc 0.10 - 0.23 0.16 0.05 - 1.26 /'O5\ \ ^-—^ Notesj (\ 1 - / — ( (L*Slt J Median range for Lake Quins igamond /data base^d o n thre^e sites/: 0y Median value for urban site data based on 73 NURP study site's. / Values for Wedge Pond data based on four sites. ./ -. ? ^—-r^rt^ ' Source: NURP (EPA, 1983). ^ 7 ^ji^Jyt '* * All values in mg/1. ** NURP refers to the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program I I the protection of aquatic organisms and (2) the EPA criterion) for human ingestion (Table 8-10) . EPA Guidelines for AQUA tic T,if« (See Notes'* EPA Criterion Threshold Human Range of Value EPA Effects Significant Mortality Ingestion for Wedge Pond Pollutant* Maximum (a) (b) (c) (d) Data Cadmium 0.150 0.003 0.007 0.160 0.010 <0.002 - 0.086 Copper 0.012 0.020 0.050 0.090 NP 0.05 - 0.28 00 Lead 0.074 0.150 0.350 3.200 0.050 0.05 - 0.45 1 CO Zinc 0.180 0.380 0.870 3.200 NP 0.05 - 1.26 Notes: (a) - Mortality of the most sensitive individual of the most sensitive species (b) - Mortality of 50 percent of the most sensitive species (c) - Mortality of the most sensitive individual of 25th percentile of the most sensitive species (d) - Related to finished water quality at the point of delivery for consumption NP - No criterion proposed Source: NURP (EPA, 1983). * All values in mg/1. I I I 8.3 GROUNDWATER SAMPLING _, , / a - Groundwater monitoring was conducted to (qualify Jionpoint / I nutrient additions to the pond. To accomplish^Enis, three • groundwater wells were installed on July 22 at the locations shown in Figure 8-3. Each well consisted of a three-foot, • slotted screen attached to a five-foot, galvanized extension pipe. | Initially, wells were left for a period of five days and were then pumped to ensure that groundwater was entering the I wells. Samples were extracted on three occasions. At least one m liter of water (four times the well screen volume) was pumped B prior to drawing each sample. This ensured that fresh •• groundwater was entering the well. The results of sampling are presented in Table 8-11. The I results indicate that nutrient concentrations were relatively fa high. These values are higher than should be expected) from < I groundwater samples. This is mostp-^"likel- y~ ~explaine "d by thJ$ porosity of the well screen which allowed particulate matter MI • into the groundwater samples. For example:P/] Total phosphorus _ measures not only dissolved phosphorus but also particulate * forms (e.g., plant tissue and other organic detritus). • Generally, groundwater entering the pond would have filtered through the soil surface and nutrients would have adhered to I small soil particles. Therefore, the particulate matter and its nutrient content (present in collected samples) would not I be normal components of groundwater entering Wedge Pond. I I 8-19 Groundwoter well location Groundwater Well Locations Whitman & Howard, Inc Figure 8-3 UAKEPCACt 8-20 TABLE 8-11 GROUNDWATER ANALYSIS* WEDGE POND WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS Sampling Locations (See Note) Sampling #1G #2G #3G #1G #3G #1G #2G #3G Fatameters (7/22/87) (9/15/87) (5/31/88) Total Nitrogen 1.63 1.56 2.14 0.89 1.74 4.16 7.10 3.40 3.60 CO Total Phosphorus 0.10 0.44 0.31 0.13 0.28 0.25 0.93 0.54 0.36 I to Total Phosphorus (F)** 0.14 0.23 0.21 #1G - Beach #2G - Church #3G - Retirement Housing * All measurements are in mg/1 ** (F) - Filtered Samples I I if I support this/fthikpry,/ samples taken in May were split into filtered—atfcPur&i&rt^red/(directly from well) halves and I then analyzed for total phosphorus. Filtered samples had lower I phosphorus levels than unfiltered^samples./^Nonethless^ phos- t u-r^ phorus concentrations were still high. c^" I 8.3.1 Discussion of Results Groundwater investigations were conducted to analyze the I major nutrient constitutents in groundwater influent to Wedge co*» Pond. Groundwater analyses were limited in scope and can only M I be considered as preliminary investigations. As such, st&dy f S$ findings are indicative of the need for further study since the I groundwater had high concentrations of nutrients. Groundwater I may /potentially^e a significant source of nutrients to the pond. An expanded well-testing program is needed to accurately I define the quantity and quality of groundwater entering Wedge I Pond. I I I I I I I 8-22 I I I 8.4 SEDIMENT SAMPLING Sediment sampling consisted of the following components: I o Collection of sediment samples on April 16 and August 7, • 4, 1985 at the locations shown in Figure 8-4 o Measurement and characterization of pond sediments by • probing to first refusal 8.4.1 Chemical Analysis , ^_^^-~-'~ I Chemical analyses were conducted^to categorize potential dredge materials by their chemical and physical character- m istics. This information will be used to complete "Certification for Dredging, Dredged Materials^xDisposal, and i Filling in Waters of the Commonwealth" (314 CMR 9',00) . The • classification information is used by the State^to determine the degree of regulatory control to exercise during dredging and disposal operations. The chemical analysis of pond sedi- • ments is presented in Table 8-12 along with the 314 CMR 9.00 | dredging constituents. ^ The sediments of Wedge Pond have a high concentration of ™ zinc fa chemical ouiiL.LlbuuiiL) which places the sediments in Category #3^ w***efefU~- is the most regulated category of the chem- I ical constituents. It is interesting to note that zinc • concentrations were highest(fromythe deep-hole station, continues to enter the pond system via storm drains< • sediments in the deep hole were probably influenced by the historic felt,mill wJja^A^was located along Horn Pond Brook. | ga&&&s6&^ffi 314 CMR 9.00 Dredeine Constituents^ Chemical Physical J Samoline Stations (See Note) Constituents Characteristics # ID #1D #2D #3D #1 #2 #3 A B £ y Sampling Parameters (4/16/87) (8/4/87) (mg/kg) (per cents) ^^^-Enysica l Characteristics:/ (%) ]J •— ~- -~^ /Tota^ Volatile Solids \^/ 22.9 ^" (SzXiO^ ^15-^ N/A N/A N/A <5 5-10 >' /J ixOtl & Grease Cg. 70) N/A N/A N/A <0.5 0.5-1.0 ? N ££ /'A/ / Nutrient Characteristics (mg/kg) Total Nitrogen 13,270 12,500 6,510 8,520 NGS NGS NGS NGS NGS co Total Phosphorus 1,290 2,192 1,080 1,470 NGS NGS NGS NGS NGS I N) [0.$:/ 5T^"D ui Chemical Constituents (mg/kg) (^jl^^-^ \ fc;o;| — ""~^ ^(^> "2£=- -^ an. / Arsenic N C^l^ "d^ Cojj> Note: J / For sediment sample locations see Figure 8-4. t *& r& ^ - Parameters are not required for non-dredge site evaluations as per project scope ~ No guidelines are set for these dredging constituents. N/A/A-- Not applicable. I I I physical characteristics. analysis of total volatile solids (TVS) gives the per- I centage of organic versus inorganic content in the sediment. Kie-highe^fehe>~perOTnta^e''~^ I Sediments from the deep-hole station had the highest organic content of all the sampled locations; nearly 25 percent of the I sediment I amount of organin material. I 8.4.2 Sediment Investigations I 'Sediment investigations revealed that the majority of the pond is covered with a thick layer of muck (Figure 8-5) . In I addition, there are small sand and gravel strips located along the shoreline of the pond, and there is a patch of sand located I near the inlet. It is not surprising that the inlet has a sandy S LAAi^cy. bottom since sand is typically used £&r road/aei^,ng. Also, f* ^. I oted that sediments taken from the inlet area were black in color and had an oil/gasoline odor. I As mentioned previously in this report, bacterial decom- I position of organic material at the sediment/water interface depletes the amount of oxygen within the hypolimnion. Under I anaerobic conditions, phosphorus and ammonia nitrogen are released from the sediments. As such, the mucky sediment is a I source of nutrients to the pond. An estimate of the amount of nutrient release from pond sediments is included in Section 9.0, Annual Nutrient Budget. In terms of pond restoration, methods for controlling sediment nutrient release wae' examined,^" &* § I k 8-26 \ muck/sand 0.5-1 m gravel/sand sand 0-5 cm 7-25 cm sand 5-8 cm gravel/sand 0-5 cm NOTES1 Mop based on 1988 field survey conducted by WSH, Inc. Scale 1-2000 Characterization of Sediment Depth and Sediment Type in Wedge Pond Figure 8-5 8-27 I I I 8.5 PRIORITY POLLUTANT SAMPLING Priority pollutant sampling was^carried out on September 15, / I 1987. Sampling was conducted in/response to a special request by the Winchester Department of Public Works. Two locations were • sampled (Figure 8-6), including the in-pond, deep hole (IIP) and _ the area adjacent to the town park (#2P) . " A Phlager Corer was/used to collect bottom sediments. Speci- m men bottles and ^Jgjai analyses were provided by Arnold Greene v Testing Laboratories. /Samples were analyzed for purgeable halo- • carbons, purgeable aromatics, organochlorine pesticides, PCB's, total cyanide, phenol, and herbicides. Heavy metals were __^__ V^L/Ol-- (^ ^ tCT"T A^^~& •" analyzed^in-house^andr^included: arsenic, barium, cadmium, lead, , mercury, selenium, silver, and chromium. 3 ^ | Table 8-13 lists compounds that were detected in sediment samples taken from Wedge Pond. These cannot be compared with any m Federal or State criteria because no^cr^e^a are given for sedi- g ment samples (e.g., EPA's 1986 water quality criteria in Appendix A are based on concentrations of parameters in water). *f • Priority pollutants within the sediments can be detrimental in several ways, including: (1) their presence can limit sediment • disposal options if the pond were to be dredged; (2) under favorable chemical or physical conditions, pollutants may be P released or suspended into the water column; and (3) benthic bottom-feeding organisms may ingest contaminated sediments. _ Priority pollutant results are given in Appendix D.. •-» I I I I I LEGEND I Priority Pollutant I Sampling Station I I I I I \Vs I I I I I Priority Pollutant Sampling Locations I Whitman & Howard, Inc Figure 8-6 I MAKEPEACE 8-29 I I TABLE 8-13 PRIORITY POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS FOUND IN I WEDGE POND SEDIMENT SAMPLES I Compound Wedge Pond Stations Carcinogen I #1P Aldrin <1.8 <1.8 Yes Chlordane <1.28 <1.15 Yes DDT <5 <5 Yes I <10 Dieldrin <10 Yes Endosulfan <2.0 <2.0 No Endrin <3.5 <3.5 Yes I Heptachlor <2.4 <2.4 Yes Methoxychlor <6.6 <6.6 No PCS <1.50 <1.37 /• Yes Toxaphene <80 <80 // Yes I Arsenic <2 <2 / Yes Barium C?2Qr— ^. C28g> ^ , No Cadmium <2 2 No Lead > \ " * y No I Mercury <1 \ " I 9.0 ANNUAL HYDRQLOGIC BDDGET ™ 9-1 INTRODUCTION • A hydrologic budget approximates the distribution of precipitation falling on a watershed (Figure 9-1) . Inputs to any I watershed must equal outputs in order to have a balanced hydrologic budget. Inputs to the Wedge Pond watershed consist of | precipitation (P) and inflow from the Horn Pond watershed (HP) . Outputs from the watershed consist of: total runoff (R) to I streams, waterbodies, or wetlands; infiltration (I) to groundwater m which eventually feeds streams, wetlands, and/or the pond; evapotranspiration (ET) which is the evaporation from all soil, • snow, ice, vegetation, and other surfaces plus transpiration; and direct evaporation (E) from Wedge Pond. I . To compute the hydrologic budget, the following equations must be solved:! I P=R+I+ET+E _ • 0 » P + HP - (ET + E) • 0 = R + I + HP Where: P = Precipitation • R = Total Runoff 1 = Infiltration | ET = Evapotranspiration E = Direct Evaporation m HP = Inflow from Horn Pond Watershed i O = Outflow from Wedge Pond • 1 Appendix E details the methodology used in assessing the hydrologic budget. i 9-1 SIMPLIFIED REPRESENTATION OF ANNUAL HYDROLOGICAL CYCLE Precipitation IP) 964 mgy o Evopotronspiration (ET) tt ^^••^ Total Runoff CR) Inflow from 436 mgy _ , . Horn Pond Watershed (HP) P Direct Evaporation (El ,1,325 mgy 16 mgy Tj (Q' C ^•Groundwater Flow Water Table cS Water'Table CIO mgy=million gallons/year I I Precipitation data were gathered from the National Oceanic — and Atmospheric Administration, Reading Station, for the period • April 1987 to March 1988. Precipitation for the study period was • 45.51 inches (115.60 centimeters), which approximates 963.85 million gallons/year (3.65 million cubic meters/year) over the • entire watershed.2 Total runoff was calculated with knowledge of land use, • slope, and soil types for the five subwatersheds within the watershed. Total runoff to Wedge Pond was 435.35 mgy (1.65 x 106 I m3/yr). _ Potential evapotranspiration (PET) is defined as the • evapotranspiration that would occur if there was an adequate water • supply available to a fully-vegetated surface. Potential evapotranspiration was determined by the Thomthwaite Method as • described by Mather and Rodriguez (1978). This method uses mean monthly air temperatures to estimate the amount of energy • available for evapotranspiration. Actual evapotranspiration was then calculated based on monthly and subwatershed variations in | temperature, precipitation, direct runoff, and soil storage properties. Actual evapotranspiration was roughly 300.04 mgy • (1.14 x 106 m3/yr). m Evaporation loss from the pond was approximately 16.13 mgy m (0.06 x 106 m3/yr) . This was based on the average annual • evaporation from shallow lakes equal to 27 inches/year and reported by the United States National Weather Service (Linsley, • et al., 1975). 2 Million gallons/year is abbreviated mgy and million cubic i 3 i meters/year is abbreviated as x 10^ m /yr. i 9-3 I I Infiltration was calculated as the end product of the equation: I P = R+I + ET + E Solving for I: • I-P-R-ET-E • - 963.85 mgy - 435.35 mgy - 300.04 mgy - 16.13 mgy ™ I « 212.33 mgy • Infiltration to groundwater sources equalled 212.33 mgy (0.80 x 106 m3/yr)• This was the total infiltration for the • watershed. Based on available information, it was impossible to determine I 'groundwater flow direction to Wedge Pond. Therefore, in final — calculations, infiltration quantities were considered to flow • through the pond. It was assumed that flow rates to the pond were • similar from all directions. The Horn Pond watershed is tributary to Wedge Pond via Horn I Pond Brook and was considered in the hydrologic budget. Inflow from the Horn Pond watershed (HP) was calculated using the I computed outflow volume of Horn Pond (W&H, 1987) . This value was proportionately weighted by the amount of rainfall volume measured I during the Horn Pond D/F Study versus the amount of rainfall volume measured during the Wedge Pond D/F study. This calculation I yielded 1,324.77 mgy (5.01 x 106 m3/yr.)« • Subtracting water losses of direct pond evaporation and watershed evapotranspiration, the equation , o » R + I + HP, I yielded approximately 1,972.45 mgy (7.47 x 10s m3/yr). 9.2 WATERSHED COMPARISON | The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) maintains a flow measurement station on the Aberjona River just above the Mystic Lakes. The drainage area for the river encompasses the watersheds of both i 9-4 I I Wedge Pond and Horn Pond. This makes it possible to calculate outflow from Wedge Pond and Horn Pond based on a comparison of I watershed areas and land uses. Data from the Aberjona River gage (unpublished USGS, I 1987-1988) were interpolated based on the following relations: I o The watershed area for Horn Pond and Wedge Pond totals 9.11 square miles. The Aberjona River watershed equals 24.10 square miles. The former watersheds are 37.8 percent of the I overall drainage area of the Aberjona River. This value was used in calculating a prorated discharge value for Wedge Pond. I o The Wedge Pond and Horn Pond watersheds have an average of. 21.8 percent impervious covering whereas the Aberjona River watershed has an average of 27.3 percent impervious covering (COM, 1981). This implies that there would be approximately I 20 percent less runoff from the former watersheds. * I Interpretation of the gaged flow data for the twelve-month study yielded an annual discharge volume of 2.52 x 109 gallons for I Wedge Pond. Table 9-1 summarizes the major components of the I hydrologic budget using both the water balance and watershed comparison methods. I 9.3 FLUSHING RATE/RETENTION TIME Flushing rate is the number of times per year a waterbody has I a. complete change of water volume. It is the reciprocal of retention time which is lake volume divided by the.outlet I discharge. The following values were calculated for Wedge Pond: Flushing Rate Retention Time I Method (volume chanaes/vearV fdavs) Water Balance 26.9 13.6 I Watershed Comparison 34.4 10.6 I I 1 9-5 I I TABLE 9-1 SUMMARY OF THE HYDROLOGIC BUDGET FOR THE WEDGE POND WATERSHED I APRIL 1987 - MARCH 1988 I Hydrologic Budget Component Volume I (mgy) (x ]LO6 m-Vyr) I Inputs* Direct Precipitation (P) 963.85 3.65 Inflow from Horn Pond I Watershed (HP) 1,324.77 5.01 I Outputs* Total Runoff (R) 435.35 1.65 Infiltration to Groundwater (I) 212.33 0.80 Evapotranspiration (ET) 300.04 1.14 I 0.06 Direct Evaporation (E) 16.13 Outflow from Wedge Pond (0) 1,972.45 7.47 I Output** I Outflow from Wedge Pond (O) 2,520 9.54 I * Based on water balance method I ** Based on watershed comparison method I I I I I I 9-6 I I I The flushing rate of Wedge Pond is quite high in comparison _ to that of Horn Pond which is 1.5 volume changes/year. However, • calculation of the flushing rate does not account for the unusual • configuration of Wedge Pond (i.e, the physical proximity of the inlet to the outlet) . This arrangement potentialy allows for the • short-circuiting of influent flow. The pattern of sediment depo- sition around the inlet and outlet indicates that this occurred. I Hydrologic calculations also include inflow from the Horn Pond watershed (which is basically outflow from Horn Pond) . This I biases the flushing rate towards the high end. A flushing rate in _ the range of 26.9 to 34.4 volume changes/year suggests that Wedge • Pond is capable of flushing nutrients and algal biomass out of • the pond system. However, it is the opinion of Whitman & Howard, Inc. that the major body of the pond undergoes minimal flushing • action. As discussed in Section 11, Discussion of Alternatives, a dye study could document the extent of short-circuiting. • Retention time and flushing rate were calculated seasonally to determine deviations from yearly values for the water balance I and watershed comparison methods. Tables 9-2 and 9-3 present the _ seasonal variations of these factors. Retention time in the sum- • mer was roughly double the annual value (for respective methods). • Flushing rates in the summer were only 12.7 and 10.1 percent of the annual rates for the water balance and watershed comparison • methods,.respectively. This reflects minimal flows observed in the summer. Although storms in August increased flushing for ig short durations, they did not provide for continuous baseflow. i I I TABLE 9-2 I SEASONAL VARIATIONS IN OUTFLOW FROM WEDGE POND I BASED ON THE WATER BALANCE METHOD Seasonal I Seasonal Retention Total Runoff Infiltration Ouflow Flushing Time I Season (mg)* (mg) (mg) Rate (days) I Spring 591.44 115.55 706.99 9.64 9.54 Summer 250.35 0.00 250.35 3.41 26.94 I Fall 541.9.1 0.00 541.91 7.39 12.31 I Winter 376.93 96.78 473.71 6.46 14.08 Note: Spring includes April, May, and June in 1987. I Summer includes July, August, and September in 1987. Fall includes October, November, and December in 1987. I Winter includes January, February, and March in 1988. I *mg - million gallons/season I I I I I 9-8 I I I I TABLE 9-3 I SEASONAL VARIATIONS IN OUTFLOW FROM WEDGE POND I BASED ON THE WATERSHED COMPARISON METHOD Seasonal Total Seasonal Retention Ouflow Flushing Time I Season (mg)* Rate (days) I Spring 1324.5 18.07 4.98 I Summer 256.0 . 3.49 25.77 Fall 304.0 4.15 21.70 I Winter 643.6 8.78 10.25 I Spring includes April, May, and June in 1987. Summer includes July, August, and September in 1987. I Fall includes October, November, and December in 1987 I Winter includes January, February, and March in 1988. I *mg - million gallons/season I I I I 9-9 I I I I I On the other hand, during the spring, flushing rates ranged from 35.8 percent to 52.5 percent of the annual flushing rates I (Based on the water balance and watershed comparison methods, respectively). i 9.4 FLOW MEASUREMENT • In-situ measurements of inlet flows and discharge from the pond were taken on the limnological sampling event dates. These I measurements were both velocity-based and depth-based at the inlet and were depth-based at the outlet. Horn Pond Brook did not g contribute a measurable flow during June, July, and August. Measurements at the outlet were taken on all occasions. I However, during the summer, no visible flow of water occurred. • Due to the inconsistency of inflow and outflow data, they were not • factored into the hydrologic budget. • 9.5 IMPLI-CATIONS OF THE HYDROLOGIC BUDGET Potentially, the high flushing rate of the pond should flush I nutrients from the pond basin. However, as mentioned previously, this may not be a realistic representation of the hydrologic | condition of the pond. The proximity of the inlet to the outlet _ may potentially allow for the short-circuiting of inflow from Horn ' pond Brook. This would imply that the major body of water • undergoes minimal circulation. This reduces the positive implications of a high flushing rate. I Factors controlling the flushing rate are (1) the outflow from Horn Pond and (2) the stormwater flow to the inlet. Alteration of | outflow from Horn Pond is beyond the control of the Town. However, discharge locations of stormwater flow can be engineered. iI These factors are addressed in the restoration program. i 9-10 I I Another issue worth mentioning is the seasonal variation in — the flushing rates and retention times. During the summer, • reduced inflow combined with increased retention times are • potentially major factors in the poor water quality evident in summer. The assumed circulation problem would only amplify this • condition. i i i i i i i i i i i i i i 9-11 Section 10.0 Annual Nutrient Budget I I 10.0 ANNUAL NUTRIENT BUDGET I 10.1 INTRODUCTION The nutrient budget is a quantification of source and sink terms for nutrient movement at the pond interface (Reckhow and I Simpson, 1983) . The level of nutrient loads determined in this approximation can be used in establishing the trophic level of the I pond. Nutrient load determinations are based on the water quality sampling data collected during the study. Factors impacting the I nutrient budget include: 0 Hydrologic Budget (specifically infiltration to groundwater, stormwater, runoff, and precipitation) ° Pond Sediment (Internal Loading) I 0 Aquatic Birds 0 Outflow i Table 10-1 summarizes the nutrient budget of Wedge Pond. As • noted in the table, Horn Pond Brook contributed the largest • percentage of the phosphorus load and nitrogen load (81-87 percent • and 91-95 percent, respectively). The restoration program will focus on methods for reducing nutrient loading from this I tributary. In addition to the summary provided in Table 10-1, the I nutrient budget was also calculated on a mean seasonal basis, with the following seasonal breakdowns: spring (April, May, and June), P summer (July, August, and September), fall (October, November, and _ December), and winter (January, February, and March). This • analysis shows that storm flows in spring and winter influence the • nutrient loadings during those seasons (Tables 10-2 and 10-3). For example, phosphorus loading is consistently higher in the • spring than in the summer; loading is roughly two to three and i one-half times i 10-1 • 1 1 TABLE 10-1 NUTRIENT BUDGET SUMMARY 1-, FOR WEDGE POND* Inputs to Total Phosphorus Total Nitrogen ( Nutrient Method #1 Method #2 Method #1 Method #2 Budget (kg/yr) (%) (kg/yr) (%) (kg/yr) (%) (kg/yr) (%) Horn Pond Brook Subwatershed • (Runoff) 458.0 87 510.9 81 11,761.5 95 12,005.2 91 Middlesex Street Subwatershed (Runoff) 9.7 2 18.2 3 142 . 1 " 1 200 . 8 2 1 (Infiltration) 12.9 2 23.0 4 136.9 1 245.2 2 Palmer Street 1 Subwatershed (Runoff) ' 7.4 1 13.6 2 . 89.5 . 1 165.0 1 (Infiltration) 20.1 4 33.2 5 165.7 1 272.9 2 1 Vine Street Subwatershed (Runoff) 4.8 1 10.4 2 46.4 <1 98.4 1 1 (Infiltration) 1.2 <1 6.9 1 6.3 <1 36.6 Sediment Nutrient 1 Release 4.9 1 7.3 1 ... - Direct Bulk m Precipitation 1.6 <1 6.4 1 38.4 <1 179.2 1 Aquatic Birds 4.5 1 4.5 <1 22.3 <1 22.3 <1 Total Inputs 525.1 100 634.4 100 12,409.1 100 13,224.7 100 - — . _ 1 * The nutrient budget was calculated using the hydrologic budget from both the watershed comparison (#1) and water balance methods. These are designated as • Method #1 and Method #2, respectively. I I l l 10-2 I TABLE 10-2 E SEASONAL PHOSPHORUS LOADING I Inputs by Spring Summer Fall Winter Subwatershed to I Nutrient Budget* (kg/yr) (%) (kg/yr) (%) (kg/yr) (%) (kg/yr) (%) Horn Pond Brook I Runoff (#1) 164.0 36 68.6 15 67 .0 14 158.4 35 Runoff (#2) 217.2 42 65.8 13 117 .3 13 110.6 22 Middlesex Street I Runoff (#1) 4.1 42 1.8 19 2.1 22 1.7 17 Infiltration (#1) 8.3 64 - - - - 4.6 36 Runoff (#2) 6. 1 34 2.6 14 5.6 31 3.9 21 I Infiltration (#2) 12.3 53 - - - - 10.7 47 Palmer Street I Runoff (#1) 3.1 42 1.3 18 1.5 20 1.5 20 Infiltration (#1) 13.5 67 . - - - - 6.6 33 Runoff (#2) 4.6 34 1.9 14 4.2 31 2.9 21 I Infiltration (#2) 20.2 61 - - - - 13.0 39 Vine Street Runoff (#1) 2.3 48 0.7 14 0.9 19 0.9 19 Infiltration (#1) 0.7 58 - - - - 0.5 42 Runoff (#2) 3.5 34 1.5 14 3.2 31 2.2 21 Infiltration (#2) 4.1 59 - - - - 2.8 41 I NOTES: Sediment nutrient release, direct bulk precipitation, and aquatic bird loadings were calculated on an annual basis only. Percentages are representative of the seasonal phosphorus load as related to the annual phosphorus load for each input (e.g., in the spring, Horn Pond Brook contributes 36 percent of its annual phosphorus load to Wedge Pond). * The seasonal phosphorus loading values were calculated using the hydrologic budget from both the watershed comparison method (#1) and water balance method (#2). The numbers, #1 and #2, refer to those methods. I I 10-3 I TABLE 10-3 I SEASONAL NITROGEN LOADING I Inputs by Spring Summer Fall Winter Subwatershed to I Nutrient Budget* (kg/yr) (%) (kg/yr) (%) (kg/yr) (%) (kg/yr) (%) Horn Pond Brook I Runoff (#1) 3,113 .7 26 1,466. 7 12 2,177,4 18 5,247.4 44 Runoff (#2) 2,881 .0 25 1,405. 7 12 3,810.5 32 3,664.3 31 I Middlesex Street Runoff (#1) 87 .3 62 17.1 12 23.1 16 14.6 10 Infiltration (#1) 88 .1 64 - - - 48,8 36 Runoff (#2) 67 .5 34 28.5 14 61.8 31 43.0 21 I Infiltration (#2) 131 .0 53 - - - 114. 2 47 Palmer Street I Runoff (#1) ' 37.2 42 16.3 18 18.1 20 17.9 20 Infiltration 111 .1 67 - - 54.6 33 (#1) - Runoff (#2) 55 .5 34 23.3 14 50.8 31 35.4 21 I Infiltration (#2) 166 .0 61 - - - 106. 9 39 Vine Street Runoff (#1) 23 .2 50 6.6 14 8.4 18 8.2 18 Infiltration 3.8 60 - - I (#1) - 2.5 40 Runoff (#2) 33 .2 34 13.9 14 30.3 31 21.0 21 Infiltration (#2) 21 .6 59 - - . 15.0 41 I NOTES: Sediment nutrient release, direct bulk precipitation, and aquatic bird loadings were calculated on an annual basis only. Percentages are representative of the seasonal nitrogen load as related to the annual nitrogen load for each input (e.g., in the spring, Horn Pond Brook contributes 26 percent of its annual nitrogen load to Wedge Pond). I * The seasonal nitrogen loading values were calculated using the hydrologic budget from both the watershed comparison method (#1) and water balance method (#2). The numbers, #1 and #2, refer to those methods. I I I I I 10-4 I • greater in spring than in summer. Control technologies should therefore be designed to handle the high storm flow periods. I 10.2 LIMITING NUTRIENT ANALYSIS An analysis of the limiting nutrient in Wedge Pond provides I information as to which major nutrient, nitrogen or phosphorus, is • responsible for controlling rates of primary productivity. Theoretically, the uptake weight ratio of these nutrients by algae • is 7.5 nitrogen to 1 phosphorus. If the N:P ratio is greater than or equal to ten, the limiting nutrient is most likely to be I phosphorus (Dillon and Rigler, 1975). However, Wanielista, et. al., (1981) state that a N:P ratio greater than five indicates a | limiting nutrient of phosphorus. _ The mean of all surface, in-pond* total phosphorus 9 concentrations (June to September) was 0.07 mg/1. the respective • total nitrogen (total Kjeldahl and nitrate-nitrogen) in-pond ™ values indicate a mean summer concentration of 0.77 mg/1. Hence, • the N:P ratio is 11 to one, indicating that the pond is phosphorus-limited. fl 10.3 TROPHIC STATUS Determination of the trophic status of a pond involves j comparing the actual total phosphorus loading with the maximum permissible loading the pond can tolerate prior to the occurrence | of excessive algae and weed growth. Models developed by several ^ researchers provide classification of the lake as oligotrophic, mi mesotrophic, or eutrophic. i i i 10-5 I I The following is a list of alternative models used to predict the tolerance of a lake for phosphorus as a function of (1) mean depth I (2) and (2) hydraulic retention time (T). Predicted In-Pond I ConcentratConcentratioi n Researcher(s\ Model* for Wedae Pond i Vollenweider (1975) P=Lp/(10-fqs) 0.044 - 0.053 Chapra-Reckhow (1979) P=Lp/(16+qs) 0.042 - 0.051 i Dillon-Kirchner (1975) P=Lp/(13.2+qs) 0.043 - 0.052 Jones-Bachmann (1976) P=O.84 Lp/ 0.065 Z+qs) 0.047 - 0.057 i Dillon-Rigler (1974) P=Pi/(l-R) 0.049 - 0.059 *Where Pi=Lp/(Z/T) i 949Z Where R~(0.426e-Q'271Z/T + o.574e-0-0° /T) i The preceding predictions of in-lake phosphorus concentrations m are based on an areal water loading (qs) for Wedge Pond of 124.8 m2/yr. Areal water loading was determined by dividing the total • inflow to the pond by the surface area of the pond. Areal phosphorus loading (Lp) is equal to 5.90 to 7.12 gm/m2/yr based on I the nutrient budget analysis. Figure 10-1 is a diagrammatic representation of the trophic | status of Wedge Pond based on the Dillon/Rigler model. This model predicts the existing in-pond phosphorus concentration to be • 0.049-0.059 mg/1. The actual average epilimnetic phosphorus m concentration in Wedge Pond was 0.069 mg/1. As can be seen, the • models all underestimate the in-pond phosphorus concentration. • This may be attributed to the high areal water loading of the pond i and low estimate of internal sediment nutrient release. i i 10-6 I I I mean depth = 3.0 m I 1.0 I I 5.90 gm/m I E o> 7.12 gm/m2 I 0.1 I Mid-range I • mesotrophic = 2 gm/m I I 0.01 I 1.0 10.0 100.0 I Mean Depth (meters) L Areal Phosphorus Loading (gm/m2/yr) I R Phosphorus Retention Coefficient (dimensionless) I T Hydraulic Retention Time (yr~1) I Dillon/Rigler Trophic Status I Whitman & Howard, Inc Figure 10-1 I MAKEPEACE 1 1 10.4 Summary Chapra and Reckhow, 1979, and Dillon and Rigler, 1975, have proposed relationships among phosphorus concentrations, trophic state, and pond use for north temperate lakes. These researchers estimate an in-lake phosphorus concentration ranging from 0.020-0.050 iag/1 as indicative of a eutrophic waterbody. 1^v Bartsch (1975) has related the concentration of phosphorus in 1 a lake to the algal population (measured by secchi-disk readings) . The trophic state index developed by Bartsch follows : 1 Total • Trophic Chlorophyll a Phosphorus Secchi- State (mcr/m3} fmcr/11 Disk (Feet). 1 Oligotrophic 7 0.01 12 Mesotronhic 12 0.02 6 Eutrophic 3-200 0.01-0.15 6 August 18, 1987* 61.0 0.09 2.5 *Wedge Pond sample results 1 From these analyses, it is concluded that Wedge Pond is 1 eutrophic . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 10-8 Section 11.0 - Discussion of Alternatives I I 11.0 DISCUSSIONS OF ALTERNATIVES I 11.1 INTRODUCTION The Diagnostic Study chronicled the physical condition of I Wedge Pond. Data analyses conducted during the study indicated I that the following factors contributed to the poor water quality of Wedge Pond: I ° In-pond nutrient concentrations were high and exceeded both EPA and USCEQ guidelines for certain water quality parame- ters. I 0 The pond endured extensive algal blooms; algae were poten- tially responsible for waterfowl kills. I 0 Wet-weather discharges from tributaries and storm drains. were high in suspended solids and nutrients. Additionally, storm drain effluent had high concentrations of certain I heavy metals. 0 Horn Pond Brook contributed the single highest nutrient I input of all potential sources examined during the study. In the Feasibility portion of the study, potential methods to I reverse these conditions were examined. The restoration program I was ultimately aimed at: reopening the pond to swimming, enhancing the aesthetic nature of the pond, and improving the quality of the I fishery. To accomplish these goals, successful restoration tech- niques should, at a minimum, improve water quality in the following I ways: increase oxygen levels in the hypolimnion, reduce algal populations, decrease sediment loading/deposition, reduce I allochthonous and autochthonous sources of nutrient loading, and increase in-pond transparency. I 11.2 SELECTION OF RESTORATION ALTERNATIVES I To develop a pond restoration program, technologies were iden- I tified that would affect positive changes in the water quality I 11-1 I I indicators previously mentioned (e.g., oxygen and nutrient concen- trations, algal populations). I There are numerous restoration methods and as would be ex- pected they vary with respect to technique, cost, success, and I environmental impact. Table 11-1 arrays common control technol- I ogies in relation to selected water quality indicators. This screening system was used to determine which methodologies should I be explored in more detail versus those that are not applicable to stated goals. Section 11.2 details those methods that warrant I further consideration and examines their overall viability. Re- jected alternatives are those that scored below a total score of 4 I and include the following: riparian regulation, product modifica- tion, level manipulation, pH adjustment, shoreline modification, I weed harvesting, weed screens, algacides/herbicides, biomanipula- I tion, and tinting/shading. These techniques were not applicable to the restoration of I Wedge Pond and were dismissed for the following reasons: ° Weed control technologies are inappropriate for Wedge Pond I because the pond does not have a weed control problem. ° The pond has a good buffering capacity and this would make it difficult to substantially reduce pH. I 0 The regulation of shoreline activities, in and of them- selves, was not deemed to be significant to the enhancement of water quality within Wedge Pond.1 Two common land-uses I which are generally detrimental to pond water quality are subsurface sewage disposal and agriculture. However, these issues are not relevant to Wedge Pond because (1) the area I is sewered and (2) agriculture is not practiced along the I shoreline. I 1 Certain shoreline activities are addressed collectively I under watershed management. I 11-2 TABLE 11-1 SCREENING OF RESTORATION TECHNIQUES Selected Water Oualltv Indicators Restoration Reduced Reduced Reduced Techniques Sediment External Increased Reduced Sediment Increased (See Note) Loading/ Nutrient In -pond Algal Nutrient Hypolimnetic Total Deposition Loading Transparency Populations Release Dissolved Oxygen Score Inflow Diversion 1 1 1 1 0 0 4 Inflow Management 1 1 1 1 0 0 4 Watershed Management 1 1 1 1 0 0 4 Riparian Regulation 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 Product Modification 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 Dredging 0 0 1 1 1 1 4 Level Manipulation 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 Dilution/Flushing 0 0 1 1. 1 1 4 Nutrient Precipitation/ 0 0 1 1 1 1 4 Inactivation Bottom Sealing 0 0 1 1 1 1 4 pH Adjustment 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Shoreline Modification 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 Weed Harvesting 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Weed Screens 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Algae ide s/Herbic ide s 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 Biomanipulation 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 Aeration/Mixing 0 0 1 1 1 1 4 Tinting/Shading 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 NOTES: A point was assigned to each technique that could affect a change in the respective water quality category. Points do not reflect the effectiveness or the viability of a given technique. I 0 Biomanipulation is an experimental technology. Successful I implementation would require an extensive analysis of the biological community within the pond, at a minimum. I ° Apparently, selfshading was not a factor in restricting algal populations even though transparencies were low throughout the summer. Therefore, tinting and shading I could have limited success in Wedge Pond. I 11.3 ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES As reviewed in the preceding section, there are many options I available for pond restoration. Alternatives which best meet the stated goals are reviewed in the following analysis. I 11.3.1 Inflow Diversion Inflow diversion consists of bypassing all or part of the I inflow to the pond directly to the outlet to reduce external load- ing of nutrients and sediments. Since the main tributary (Horn I Pond Brook) is proximate to the outlet, this is a very feasible I alternative. The disadvantages to inflow diversion are (1) the impact on the flushing rate and retention time and (2) the impact I on downstream water resources, especially the Aberjona River and Mystic Lakes. I To implement inflow diversion, it would be necessary to con- struct new inlet and outlet controls. A control at the outlet I would be necessary to eliminate bypass flow from reentering the pond since the downstream water level is nearly equal to the water I level in the pond. Figure 11-1 depicts the diversion layout. I The impact of diversion would vary with the volume of water diverted. Table 11-2 lists the impacts of possible diversion com- I binations on flushing rate, retention time, and phosphorous load- ing. The flushing rate would be reduced by 73 percent if all flow I were diverted, whereas the reduction in flushing rate would be 1.3 I percent if only the Lake Avenue storm drain were diverted. I 11-4 133810 bypassed flow inflow remove control weir existing ft) 3 concrete weir new concrete IE weir control w/gate O Lake St. / storm drain ••• 0 Wedge Pond TJ CQ' c not to scale 3 Inlet Diversion Schematic Table 11-2 IMPACT OF INFLOW DIVERSION ON FLUSHING RATE, RETENTION TIME, AND PHOSPHORUS LOADING Combination of Lake Avenue and Stormwater Diversion: Stormwater Diversion of Factors* Horn Pond Brook Lake Avenue Horn Pond Brook Lake Ave. and Brook Flushing Rate 7.4 26.6 25.8 25.5 Retention Time 49.2 13.7 14.1 U.3 Phosphorus Loading 82-88 1 4-5 5 * Flushing rate is expressed as volume changes/year; retention time is expressed in days; phosphorus and sediment loading are expressed as percentage of reduction in external loading. I I Initially, stonnwater flows from Lake Avenue and Horn Pond Brook should be diverted. Diversion impacts should be assessed in I terms of the hydrologic budget and reductions in nutrient and sedi- I ment loadings. Potentially, this diversion alone would reduce the external phosphorus loading by five percent. Seasonal rainfall I conditions should be used to determine the volume of flow that should be diverted on an annual basis and the timing of diversions. I Project cost would vary with respect to the amount of capacity and flexibility built into the diversion system. A fundamental I system would include: a diversion drain from Lake Avenue, a simple side outlet weir for inlet overflow of stormwater, and an adjust- I able outlet control weir. Estimated costs follow: I Inflow Diversion Components Estimates 1. Lake Avenue Drain Diversion (200 feet @ $50/foot) $10,000 2. By-pass line (400 feet @ $100/foot) $40,000 I 3. Inlet Control Weir $50,000 4. Manholes $6,000 5. Outlet Weir $65,000 6. Engineering and Contingencies @ 40 percent 569.000 I Total Estimated Cost: $240,000 I The operation and maintenance of the diversion system would be relatively simple and would include: minor cleaning and oiling at I the weir controls, periodic adjustments of the overflow level, and periodic cleaning of the storm drain bypass. Overall, annual main- I tenance and operation should be less than $1,500. I 11.3.2 Watershed Management The primary emphasis of the watershed management program I should be on the cleaning of streets, catch basins, and parking lots. Based on the NURP studies done by EPA (EPA, 1986), pollutant I loading from streets can be reduced by two to eleven percent by I effective street sweeping. Similarly, routine catch basin cleaning I 11-7 I I can reduce sediment loading by as much as 30 percent. A high level maintenance program would cost the Town approximately $33,750 per I year. This is based on roughly 15 miles of streets to be cleaned I three times a year ($50 per mile) and 300 catch basins to be cleaned three times per year ($35 per catch basin). I While this program would only account for the removal of less than one percent of the external phosphorus load, removal of other I contaminants (e.g., heavy metals, oil and grease, and salt) would enhance water quality. I In addition to street sweeping and catch basin cleaning, another external source of sediment comes from soil erosion. In I particular, Horn Pond Brook and the shoreline of Wedge Pond are potential sources of sediment loading due to poor shoreline condi- I tions. The Town should ensure that all permitted activities pro- I posed along these areas have adequate erosion control measures to curtail potential siltation. I In regards to Wedge Pond, an existing erosion area is located at the park area across from the DPW building. Gabion-type ret- I ainers should be installed along this area to prevent further ero- sion and to filter runoff from land surfaces. Figure 11-2 depicts I how such a system could be constructed to accomplish stabilization I and filtration. The cost of this system would be as follows: Shoreline Erosion Control Components ^ Estimates I 1. 500 Linear Feet of Gabion Wall $50,000 2. 500 Linear Feet of Filter Material $2,000 3. Excavation and Restoration $10,000 I 4. Engineering and Contingencies 6 40 percent $25,000 I Total Estimated Cost: $87,000 I 2 This assumes drawdown of the pond level below excavation. I 11-8 for detail see below \> gabion/filter system not to scale runoff pea gravel (1/4"stone) existing grass I 61 -0" gabions water level filter fabric •-'*a*tf Wedge Pond gabion tie back C20 ft. o.c.) DETAIL Erosion Control Schematic Whitman & Howard, Inc Figure 11-2 MAKEPEACE 11-9 I I Land use regulation is another area by which the Town can exercise some control to improve the quality of surface runoff I reaching Wedge Pond. The following suggestions could be imple- mented on a town-wide basis. Also, coordination with the City of I Woburn is encouraged since (1) Woburn is interested in preserving I their water resources (as evidenced by their participation in the Clean Lakes Program) and (2) a portion of the Wedge Pond water- I shed falls within their political boundary. It is suggested that the following zoning districts (or I similar) be designated: "wetland resource" and "erosion-sensi- tive area." Construction within these districts should automat- I ically require site plan review under the current zoning ordi- nance . I Wetland resources protected under the Wetlands Protection I Act should be identified as such under the current zoning bylaw. This would reiterate the importance of the resource areas and I would clarify the land use restrictions applicable to them. At a minimum, the following requirements should be established for I "wetland resources": 0 Increase buffer requirements to 200 feet for all areas I adjacent to wetland resources ° Increase minimum lot size requirements I 0 Require low road salt usage o Impose strict drainage requirements for commercial I properties o Require oil and grease traps for storm drains in parking lots I ° Reject the storage of materials (including compost piles or other disintegratable matter) or equipment within any I wetland resource or its buffer zone I I 11-10 I "Erosion-sensitive areas" could be defined as areas that have highly erodible soils and severe slope conditions. The purpose of • this designation would be to control the effects of siltation M throughout the watershed. The Conservation Commission has juris- • diction over activities within the 100-foot buffer zone of wetland • resources. However, sediment can enter storm drains from distances greater than 100 feet and can still discharge into a wetland re- • source. Review of site plans for "erosion-sensitive areas" will enable the Town to enforce proper sedimentation control practices I at such sites. These sites should require a "land disturbance permit." • A final aspect of watershed management should include a public _ awareness program aimed at informing residents on the values of • their water resources, namely Wedge Pond and Horn Pond Brook. This • program should incorporate the publication of a brochure including such topics as: (1) the ecosystem of the pond, (2) activities that I impact the pond and how they impact the pond, (3) mitigation meas- ures that protect water quality, and (4) an outline of the overall | restoration program. . In particular, residents should be made aware of the impacts I of waterfowl on the aquatic environment. Waterfowl contribute to _ both the nutrient load and coliform load entering the pond. Signs • should be posted in the park requesting that people not feed the ft birds. The signs could have explanatory text describing the impact of waterfowl wastes on the pond. Such signs are rapidly becoming a I management/public education tool, especially on the Cape where i shellfish beds have become contaminated by waterfowl. i i 11-11 I Finally, public meetings should be held throughout the restor- ation effort. The estimated cost of the public education program • is roughly $11,000, including production, printing, and mailing of the brochures and conducting the meetings. I 11.3.3 Nutrient Inactiyat ion/Precipitation • Nutrient inactivation/precipitation is a commonly practiced procedure for the immediate improvement of water quality. The use • of aluminum sulfate (alum) in conjunction with other chemicals can reduce algal populations by removing soluble phosphorus from the I water column. The resultant floe settles to the bottom. Immediate results of phosphorus precipitation include decreased turbidity and B decreased algal growth (EPA, 1984). Two environmental issues of this treatment are (1) the toxicity I of the alum on aquatic organisms and (2) the impact on in-pond pH • levels. Proper testing and dosage control can alleviate the im- pacts of toxicity. Also, the present aquatic community is not I diverse or necessarily desirable. An alum treatment may improve water quality to a point which allows for the establishment of I desirable aquatic species. The apparent buffering capability of Wedge Pond and/or, the use of additives in conjunction with the alum I treatment will control the potential impacts of pH. — Assuming a 50 percent effectiveness in the reduction of sedi- • ment nutrient release (Kennedy & Cooke, 1982) it would only be ft possible to reduce the annual phosphorus loading to the pond by less than one percent (mean value) . An alum treatment would have • no impact on the hydrologic budget. Overall, results would be short-term in nature and would require a repeat application every I two to four years. Overall, the use of alum to increase water clarity, to reduce m algal populations, and to reduce in-pond phosphorus concentrations i 11-12 1 I is a viable option in Wedge Pond. The implementation of this op- tion would involve minimal permitting and engineering requirements. I Project costs follow: I Alum Treatment Components Estimates 1. Water Testing for Dosage (field & lab) $ 5,000 2. Permitting & Contract Documents $ 7,500 I 3. Contractor Mobilization $ 5,000 4. Treatment at $400/acre x 20 Ac) $ 8,000 5. On-site Testing (Before & After) $ 2,000 6. Contingencies at 30% S 7.500 I Total Estimated Cost: $35,000 I 11.3.4 Aeration/Mixing Wedge Pond has been shown to have anoxic conditions in the I hypolimnion during stratification and to have poorly saturated oxygen conditions throughout a good portion of the year. This I situation can be improved by the artificial introduction of oxygen I to the water column (aeration) or by mixing influent water of higher dissolved oxygen content with pond water (mixing). Each of I these options has advantages over the other. These options are outlined in the following discussions. I With respect to aeration, oxygen can be added to the water via two methods, hypolimnetic and complete mix systems. The hypolim- I netic system oxygenates the bottom of the pond without impacting temperature stratification, while the complete mix system oxygen- I ates the entire water column and breaks down thermal stratifica- I tion. The complete mix aeration system appears to be a better alternate for Wedge Pond for the following reasons: I ° Wedge Pond does not support a cold-water fishery. 0 The portion of the hypolimnion which is anoxic occupies a I small portion of the pond. i i 11-13 I I This system would consist of a series of floating aerators that would mix the pond water to a variable depth while oxygenating I air to the water to increase oxygen levels. Figure 11-3 depicts a schematic for the layout of the aerators. An oxygen concentration I study would have to be conducted to size the aerators at the vari- I ous locations. Aeration mixing should potentially shift the algae population I from blue-green to green algae as a result of oxygenation. An additional benefit would include the potential reduction in I hypolimnetic nutrient release due to oxidation near the sediment water interface. Aeration can also oxidize trace metals in the I sediment and in the water column, causing adsorption of such metals as iron and manganese. Overall, increased oxygen levels in the I water column should be beneficial to the aquatic community. I The approximate cost of an aeration system for Wedge Pond would be as follows: I Aeration System Components Estimates 1. Floating Aerators $50,000 (four aeration @ $12,000/unit) 2. Controls and Wiring $15,000 I 3. Engineering and Contingencies $26.000 1 Total Estxmated Cost: $91,000 The following discussion involves the mixing alternative. As I noted in the hydrologic budget, the flushing rate and the retention time in Wedge Pond should assist in the maintenance of good water quality. However, based on (1) visual observation of sediment deposition near the inlet and (2) the proximity of the inlet to the outlet, it appears that the inflow is "short-circuited" to the outlet. This potentially results in limited flushing along the i park shoreline and in stagnation within the major body of the pond. i This lack of circulation could be one reason for the buildup of i 11-14 I I I I I I 1 aerator I CtypicaO I I I powepScahcnpt cables; : control' I cabinet I I I I I Aeration Schematic I Whitman & Howard. Inc Figure 11-3 I MAKEPEACE 11-15 I I organic and inorganic sediments in the deep hole of the pond. Poor circulation also lessens the ability of tributary flow to oxygenate I the pond. To increase circulation and to increase mixing of water within I the pond, it would be necessary to construct an inlet flow diver- I sion pipe. This would carry inlet flow to the far end of the pond, which could then flow the length of the pond to the outlet. An I optional means of providing circulation would be the construction of a hypolimnetic withdrawal system within the pond in conjunction I with an outlet control structure to limit surface outflow. Both of these options would increase circulation within the pond. Figures I 11-4 and 11-5 depict the layout of each system. I The estimated costs of these options follow: Option A - Inlet Diversion Components Expenses I 1. Inlet Control Structure $50,000 2. 24" Diversion Pipe - (600 feet @ $100/ft) $60,000 3. 16" Header Outlet $40,000 4. Anchor System $10,000 I 5. Engineer & Contingencies 6 40 percent 564.000 Total Estimated Cost: $224,000 I Option B - Hypolimnetic Withdrawal Components Expenses 1 New Outlet Control Structure w/gates $65,000 2 24" Withdrawal Pipe $60,000 I 3 Anchor System $10,000 4 Dredging @ Outlet Area $20,000 5 Engineering & Contingencies @ 40 percent 562,000 I Total Estimated Cost: $217,000 I The advantage of these mixing systems is the minimal amount of maintenance required after construction. Maintenance would consist I of: adjustments to the level controls at the inlet and outlet, and periodic flushing of the inlet distribution system to eliminate I potential clogging of sediment. Based on this and the rate of I I 11-16 I I I I I coristniSt ' existing diversion; outlet, I structure structure I I *?£*?:. I polyethylene^ diversion pipe anchored I bottom I 16 polyehtylene I pipe with 12 I outlets 1 I I I Inlet Diversion for Hypolimnetic Aeration I Whitman & Howard. Inc Figure 11-4 I MAKEPEACE 11-17 I I I I I I new outlet with weir control gate I and shutoff valve for hypolimnetic I withdrawal I system I I I /24 polyethylene /outlet pipe with I ' dual intakes A anchored I to bottom I I I I Hypolimnetic Withdrawal Schematic I Whitman & Howard, Inc. Figure 11-5 MAKEPEACE 11-18 I I successful projects presented in the literature, a hypolimnetic withdrawal system is preferable to an inlet distribution system. 11.3.5 Dilution/Flushing The use of an outside source of dilution water to flush nutri- I ents, algae, and other contaminants from the pond would be an ideal • method to improve the water quality of Wedge Pond. However, there are no potential sources of water available for such a system. The only options would be to construct a well to tap groundwater or diversion of the Aberjona River. A groundwater source is not • available in the area of the pond, and the Aberjona River is not of suitable quality to use as dilution water. As such, this option will not be considered* 11.3.6 Dredging ™— The removal of organic sediment is often a viable means of • reducing phosphorus loading to the water column. Due to anoxic conditions in the hypolimnion of Wedge Pond, phosphorus is released from the sediment. However, as noted in the nutrient budget, sedi- • ment nutrient release accounts for only one percent of the overall • phosphorus load to the pond. Based on this minor contribution, dredging would not significantly impact nutrient loading. Any sediment removal which is undertaken at the pond would be for aesthetic and recreational purposes only. If such dredging i were considered, it is suggested that the shallow sediments in proximity to the inlet (corner of Lake Street and Main Street) be i dredged. Sediments should be removed to at least a depth of four i feet. A six-inch layer of gravel should be placed over the dredged area to prevent future scouring and resuspension of fine particu- i late matter. i i 11-19 I I Benefits would include: enhanced potential for fishing and boating, aesthetic renovations, and improved circulation. Dredging I could be done in conjunction with other modifications. Because this option addresses aesthetic and recreational improvements, the I Department of Public Works (DPW) should determine the actual areas I to be dredged. This should be done in consultation with the Winchester Conservation Commission. An estimate of the volume of I dredged material and costs are shown below: I Dredging Components Expenses 1. Dredged material (9,000 cu yds @ $10/cu yd)3 $90,000 2. Gravel cover $1,500 cu yds I @ $8/cu yd) $12,000 3. Disposal site preparation and hauling $40,000 4. Engineering and contingencies @ 40 percent 557,000 I Total Estimated Cost: $199,000 I li.3.7 Bottom Sealing An alternate method of limiting nutrient release from sedi- I ments is to place a semipermeable or impermeable cover over the i sediments. This can be done with plastic or vinyl sheeting, sand, or aluminum sulfate (alum). As noted in the discussion on dredg- i ing, phosphorus release from the sediments is only a minor part of the overall phosphorus loading. The cost of lining the pond does i not justify the negligible reduction in phosphorus loading. However, an aluminum sulfate treatment is warranted because it i would strip phosphorus from the entire water column. The benefit it provides as a bottom sealant is secondary to its primary func- i tion of nutrient inactivation. i 3 Removal cost is based on lowering the pond level so that sediment removal can be conducted by excavation i equipment. i 11-20 I • 11.3.8 Inflow Management As noted in the nutrient budget, the phosphorus load from Horn Pond Brook is 81 to 87 percent of the total phosphorus load. Con- I trol of this nutrient source would be the most worthwhile means to reduce the overall nutrient load and to improve the trophic state I of the pond. Reduction of phosphorus from influent flow can be achieved by g two processes: natural and chemical. A natural removal process would use constructed settling ponds and artificial wetlands. A • chemical removal process would involve treatment of inflow with M alum. Both methods require large land areas; the settling/wetland ™ ponds requiring more than chemical treatment. Alum additions are • more equipment-regulated, labor-intensive, and costly than natural treatment. For these reasons, the natural treatment method was • explored more thoroughly and is described below. The general layout of a wetland treatment system is depicted • in Figure 11-6. Initially, flow would be diverted from Horn Pond Brook into the settling ponds; these would remove floating debris I and settleable solids. Each pond should be designed for a minimum g removal efficiency of 50 percent and a design flow of 15 cubic feet • per second (cfs). This would allow for a settling pond capacity of • 45 cfs. This would exceed the average discharge of the brook by 400 percent. This excess storage capacity would be used during I storm flows which have been shown to contribute high nutrient and sediment loads. Excess capacity would also allow for a higher | residence time of dry-weather flows which would improve the capac- ity of the ponds to remove sediments. • Assuming that 50 percent of the influent phosphorus is con- _ tributed from sediment loading and assuming a conservative sediment • retention/ settleability rate of 50 percent, the settling ponds 11-21 outlet pipe Parks & / Recreation garage footbridge*: diversion dam -* not to scale Wetland Treatment System Whitman & Howard, Inc Figure 11-6 MAKEPEACE 11-22 I could remove up to 25 percent of the influent phosphorus load (114 _ to 128 kg/yr) . Phosphorus uptake in these ponds could be enhanced • by the use of duckweed as a floating growth media. However, no •j reductions in loading should be assumed from this since it would vary with operating conditions. • The wetland ponds would handle overflow from the settling ponds and would be constructed as cat-tail marshes. Based on EPA • data, the phosphorus removal efficiency of artificial wetlands to treat stormwater runoff ranges from 40 to 80 percent (EPA, 1988, | unpublished) . Using a conservative rate of 40 percent, phosphorus _ loading could be reduced by 138 to 153 kg/yr. B The entire wetland system would treat approximately 79 percent • of the annual flow from Horn Pond Brook which, in addition to its own subwatershed, also includes the drainage from the Russell Brook • subwatershed. Based on the assumed removal efficiencies, wetlands treatment would remove approximately 199 to 222 kg of phosphorus year. This translates to 35.6 to 38.7 percent of the total external phosphorus load to the pond. Figure 11-7 shows a typical | cross-section of the wetland treatment system. The system will require an operational commitment from the • Town in order to maximize the efficiency of the system. Mainten- • ance requirements will include the following at a minimum: o Cleaning of settling ponds biannually (late spring or late I fall> o Harvesting of wetland plants biannually (June and September) ™ Cleaning of the settling ponds is necessary to sustain the design • volume of the ponds. Harvesting will stimulate plant growth and will remove accumulated plant biomass which if not eliminated could • export phosphorus. ™ 11-23 133910 wetland vegetation I collection crushed stone berm o manhole. inflow 3. •% *Ej™WtfiH'gl•'•W&y * *•• •^ ...... '4J ...... ''WjyHM'^^^^'i-*-"• *-"«i3 .> " * ^As settlinga •« * pon_ d. P 18 gravel base •» outlet to brook not to scale 3 co' c-^ CD Typical Cross-Section of Wetland Treatment System I • The cost of the proposed system, including estimated opera- i tional costs, is as follows: Construction Components of Wetland Treatment System Estimates 1. Site Preparation and Grading $20,000 i 2. Pond and Wetland Excavation (5000 yds) $50,000 3. Wetland Construction $64,000 4. Piping and Structures $83,000 i 5. Engineering and Contingencies 8 40 percent $87.000 Total Estimated Cost: $304,000 i Operational Components of Wetland Treatment System Estimates 1. Sediment Pond Cleaning (twice per year) $6,000 2. Plant Harvesting (twice per year) $1,600 i 3. Disposal of Cuttings and Sediment $2.000 i Total Estimated O&M Cost: $9,600 Operation and maintenance costs could be reduced if work was i performed by the Town. The O&M cost estimate is based on work being supplied by outside contractors. i 11.4 RECOMMENDED RESTORATION PLAN 11-4.1 Review of Alternatives i The preceding section evaluated the following alternatives: o Inflow Diversion i o Inflow Management i o Watershed Management o Dilution/Flushing i o Nutrient Inactivation (alum) o Bottom Sealing i o Aeration/Mixing o Dredging i As mentioned previously, bottom sealing and dredging were not considered viable alternatives in that they would not significantly i alter the nutrient loading to Wedge Pond. Dilution/flushing is an i unworkable solution because no source of dilution water exists. i 11-25 I • Inflow diversion, while seemingly an attractive solution to the M loading imposed by Horn Pond Brook, could potentially cause pollu- ™ tional impacts in the Aberjona River and Mystic Lakes. • 11.4.2 Selected Alternatives The most practical method to deal with the major contributor of nutrients is to treat influent flow from Horn Pond Brook. This • should be done in conjunction with improved watershed management practices. If tributary flow can be satisfactorily improved, it could be rerouted to the in-pond, deep-hole for aeration purposes. I This should be considered as a secondary restoration alternative. « In conjunction with inflow management and watershed management, an • alum application is recommended. This should immediately suppress • algal growth since inflow treatment and watershed management will not produce overnight changes in water quality. I .Overall, the recommended restoration program will therefore consist of the following: i o Inflow diversion: total estimated cost - $313,600 o Watershed management: total estimated cost - $131,750 i o Alum treatment: total estimated cost - $35,000 i i i i i i i 11-26 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • Section 12.0 | Restoration Plan Implementation I I 12 . 0 RECOMMENDED RESTORATION PLAN I 12.1 RESTORATION PLAN COMPONENTS The previous section discussed potential restoration altema- I tives for the pond and their impact on the nutrient and hydrologic H budgets. The components in the recommended plan address (1) the ™ short-term need to improve the water quality and aesthetics of the • pond and (2) the long-term need to reduce the external phosphorus load from Horn Pond Brook. This plan, in conjunction with poten- • tial water quality improvements in Horn Pond (restoration work is scheduled to begin in 1989), offers the most reasonable means' of | improving the trophic state of the pond. The components of the recommended restoration plan are reiterated in the following • discussion. • 12.1.1 Inflow Management ™ This phase of the program will involve construction of a • wetland treatment system on town-owned property that is located adjacent to the bicycle path. The treatment system will consist • of three settling ponds and three vegetated wetland ponds. This alternative is aimed at removing settleable and soluble phosphorus | that is contributed from Horn Pond Brook. The estimated cost of this component is approximately I $313,600. Of this amount, roughly $2,000 (permitting costs) and • $9,600 (O & M costs) will not be eligible for state aid. This ™ leaves approximately $302,000 which is fundable at a 75 percent • level, pending report approval. 12.1.2 Watershed Management I Watershed management involves the following components: (1) implementation of a street and catch basin cleaning program to improve the quality of stormwater and to eliminate the "trashing" i 12-1 I I of the pond with debris, (2) development of a public awareness program, and (3) construction of a shoreline stabilization/ fil- • tration system adjacent to the park area. The estimated cost of the last two portions of this program • is approximately $98,000, all of which should be eligible for • state funding to a maximum 75 percent, pending report approval. The annual O & M costs associated with the street and catch basin • cleaning are $33,750. This cost may be eligible for funding dur- ing the initial year or two, pending state review. However, this • cost is assumed to be noneligible at this time. 12.1.3 Nutrient Inactivation I Nutrient inactivation will involve treatment of the pond with alum to precipitate phosphorus from the water column. This will • increase in-pond transparency and reduce algal populations. The estimated cost of this alternative is $35,000, which would be • eligible for state funding up to the maximum level, pending report • approval. This does not include funding for permitting (approxi- mate cost of $1,000). • 12.2 FUTURE RESTORATION OPTIONS The Town may wish to explore the possibility of limited I dredging near the inlet. This would improve aesthetics and recre- ation potential. Future restoration efforts in the pond may also | include some form of aeration/mixing. This would enhance circula- _ tion in the pond and increase oxygen levels. These alternatives I should be evaluated in detail after implementation of the selected • restoration plan. • 12.3 TROPHIC STATE FOLLOWING IMPLEMENTATION • The present trophic state of Wedge Pond is eutrophic due to high external nutrient loading. The pond receives approximately I 512 to 681 kilograms of total phosphorus annually. This is i 12-2 I I equivalent to a an areal pond loading rate of 5.90 to 7.12 gm/m2/yr. I Upon implementation of the restoration program, it is _ projected that the annual phosphorus load will be reduced by 35 to ' 39 percent. The resultant areal loading rate will be 3.6 to 4.6 • gm/m2 /yr. The impact of the restoration program on the current trophic state is depicted in Figure 12-1. • As discussed in Section 10.0, Chapra and Reckhow (1979) and Dillon and Rigler (1975) have estimated that phosphorus concentra- i tions in the range of 0.020 to 0.050 mg/1 are indicative of a eutrophic lake. Implementation of the restoration project will i lower the long-term trophic state of the pond but only to the » eutrophic state. 12.4 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION i The restoration effort requires the following actions: o Review and acceptance of the Diagnostic/Feasibility • (D/F) study by the Town o Filing of a Phase II application for funding (Clean Lakes Program) by the Town (DPW and Conservation i Commission) o Acceptance of the D/F study and funding application by MDWPC i o Filing a request for matching funds for Town Meeting approval (local share equals $154,850 which includes i the non-fundable portion of the program) i i i i i 12-3 mean depth = 3.0 m CM E O) ? 0.1 mesotrophic = 2 gm/m 0.01 10.0 100.0 Mean Depth (meters) L - Areal Phosphorus Loading (gm/m2/yr) R- Phosphorus Retention Coefficient (dimensionless) T - Hydraulic Retention Time (yr~1) Dillon/Rigler Trophic Status Following Implementation Whitman & Howard, Inc Figure 12-1 MAKEPEACE I I Figure 12-2 shows the sequence of engineering and construct- ion steps required for the Phase II Restoration program. No ease- I ments are necessary for construction of and for operation/mainte- nance of the recommended plan. I 12.5 PERMITS/REVIEWS I The Town must file an ENF under MEPA guidelines (see com- pleted ENF in Section 13.0, Environmental Impact1. This filing I will establish the need for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). A review of the MEPA regulations indicates that no aspect of the I program will require an EIR. The following list summarizes the various permits associated I with each component of the restoration plan. I Restoration Component Permitting Requirements Inflow Management Notice of Intent Corps 404 Permit I DEQE Water-Quality Certification DEQE Chapter 91 Permit Watershed Management Notice of Intent I (for shoreline stabilization) I Nutrient Inactivation Notice of Intent 12.6 FUNDING I Based on all the recommended project components, it is ex- pected that the Town will have to appropriate $154,850 prior to I May 1989 for the local share. This amount assumes that the Town I will receive the maximum available funding of 75 percent of the project cost under a 1989 Clean Lakes Program grant. Expenditures I will commence in fall 1989 and will end in 1995. 12.7 MONITORING PROGRAM I A monitoring program should be employed before and after I construction and/or implementation of each component in the I 12-5 Restoration Flan Components 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Phase I Report ' 1 Review & Approval Phase II Application and Grant Award (state and local) Design Selection Program Design, Review Approval, and Permitting Construction Monitoring (—I (-H D/F Study Update FIGURE 12-2 WEDGE POND RESTORATION PROGRAM SCHEDULE WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS , I I recommended plan. This will serve several purposes: (1) monito- ring will evaluate actual nutrient removal from external sources, I a major goal of the restoration program; (2) monitoring will be H used to adjust restoration efforts as deemed necessary; and • (3) monitoring will assess the need for further restoration • actions. The monitoring program is described below. 12.7.1 Monitoring of Wetland Treatment System I The goal of this restoration alternative is (1) to reduce soluble and particulate phosphorus and (2) to reduce suspended and I dissolved solids, all of which are contained in influent flow from Horn Pond Brook. Monitoring of these parameters should be I conducted one to six months prior to construction and for two years after construction of the system. Pre- implementation moni- I toring will provide a benchmark by which an assessment of the • efficiency of the system can be made. Post-implementation should continue for at least a two-year period. This will allow wetland • plants to become established. Specifically, the system should be monitored for the follow- I ing: total phosphorus, soluble phosphorus, total and suspended solids, nitrate-nitrogen, and total Kjeldahl nitrogen. Each of I these parameters should be measured on a flow-weighted basis and _ should be measured at the following locations: o Above the diversion dam | o Influent to the settling ponds o Effluent from the settling ponds i• o Effluent from the wetland ponds i i 12-7 Based on flow-measuring devices built into the system, a measure- ment of (1) the flow rate entering the system and (2) the flow rate of the brook, below the diversion dam, should be made. To determine both seasonal and weather-related variations in the quality of influent flow from Horn Pond Brook, annual sampling should incorporate the following seasons and events: Seasons Recommended Sampling Events " Spring o Wet-weather event in early April o pry-weather and wet-weather event in May Summer o Dry-weather event during a low-flow condition o A summer rain event after a period of heavy runoff Fall o Dry-weather event o Wet-weather event after rainfall Winter o Dry-weather event to assess limited vegetation activity 12.7.2 Monitoring of Watershed Management in order to assess the decrease in solids loading to the pond from improved street cleaning and catch basin maintenance, sam- pling should be conducted prior to implementation and at three-, six-, and nine-month intervals after implementation. Sampling should be conducted on a flow-weighted basis (com- posite samples) to determine solids loading. Analysis for total and suspended solids, oil and grease, heavy metals (lead, zinc, iron, and manganese), fecal coliform, and fecal streptococcus should be measured for each sample collected. A total of two storms should be monitored for each period (e.g, three-month period, six-month period, etc.). 12-8 I I Sampling should be collected at the storm drain which dis- charges to Horn Pond Brook and at a suitable location in the Vine I Street subwatershed. The Horn Pond Brook drain is located across • from the DPW garage (Main Street subwatershed). This will allow for a comparison of urban and residential areas. • 12.7.3 Monitoring of Nutrient Inactivation Parameters to be monitored for this phase of the restoration • effort include: total phosphorus, turbidity, secchi disc, chloro- phyll a, and phytoplankton. Sampling should occur prior to the I chemical treatment, directly after the treatment, and two months after the treatment. Measurements should be (1) taken at the in- I pond, deep hole and at one other in-pond location and (2) taken at m the same depths required by the current D/F scope. 12.7.4 Monitoring of the Overall Restoration Program • • The overall goal of the monitoring program is to establish the success of the restoration alternatives and to direct changes i in the ongoing program. Once the initial monitoring is complete and all restoration techniques have been implemented, an evalua- i tion of the pond should be conducted to update the Diagnostic/Fea- sibility (D/F) study. Monitoring should include an abbreviated i sampling program including the same parameters as per the current • D/F study. Measurements should be taken at the inlet, the outlet, and the in-pond station. Sampling should occur once during i spring, fall, and winter and twice during the summer. Data should be evaluated to assess overall improvements to the trophic state i and the need for additional restoration actions. Hydrologic bud- i gets and nutrient budgets should be reassessed. i i 12-9 I I The cost of the monitoring program is estimated to be $20,990, while an update of the D/F study is approximately I $17,000. Figure 12-3 presents the schedule for the monitoring program and for the update of the D/F study. I 12.8 JMPT.FMTgNTATION I Since the program is oriented to DPW-related activities, it is suggested that the DPW continue as the lead agency in the I implementation of the restoration program. Support of the Winchester Conservation Commission, especially in the public I awareness program, will be needed. As a part of the implementation program, the Town will be I responsible for (1) appropriating the local share of the project, (2) filing all applications for funding, and (3) selecting a con- I sultant to design the project, conduct the monitoring program, and I update the D/F study. These activities are best administered by the DPW with necessary assistance from the Town Manager's office. I The following paragraph describes the suggested work scope for the consultant phase of the restoration plan. I 12.9 SCOPE OF WORK In order to implement the project, the Town will be required I to hire a consultant to perform various services on its behalf. I The following is a recommended scope for these outside services. o Provide the final construction plans and specifications necessary for open and competitive bidding for the I following: (1) wetland treatment system (including diversion dam with flow measurement, settling ponds, piping and control structures with flow measurement, and wetland ponds); (2) shoreline erosion control system I (including gabions and filter blanket material); and (3) alum treatment (including chemical testing, I application, and all mobilization/demobilization). o Provide assistance during the bid phases of the project including: respond to contractor inquiries, attend bid I opening, and review bid documents. I 12-10 1992 1993 1994 1995 Monitorv Activitv A S 0 N D JFMAMJJASOND JFMAMJJASOND JFMAMJJASOND Monitor Wetland* ($2,100) ($5,600) ($3,500) . Treatment System - - Monitor Alum ($990) Treatment - - Monitor Street/Basin _ ($6,600) ($2,200) Maintenance - H Update D/F Study ($3,600) ($5,400) H 1-1 Prepare Final Report ($8,000) Annual Costs $2,100 $13,190 $9,300 $13,400 *In addition to monitoring depicted in this schedule, pre-implementation monitoring should be done one to two months prior to project construction. FIGURE 12-3 MONITORING PROGRAM SCHEDULE AND COSTS I I o Prepare permits for the applicable portions of the project components, including those identified previously in Sec- tion 12.5, at a minimum. I o Conduct the monitoring program as outlined previously in Section 12.7, at a minimum. I o Provide full-time, on-site observation of the construction of the wetland treatment system and shoreline erosion control system. Provide part-time construction observa- I tion for the alum application. o Provide office and field engineering in regard to overall project observation, including: (1) shop drawing review of specified material, (2) review of monthly pay estimates I for the contractor(s), (3) coordination of overall project with the Town, and (4) review and report on the I acceptability of the final project(s). I o Conduct an update of the D/F study as outlined. I I I I I I I I I I I 12-12 Section 13.0 Environmental Evaluation I • 13.0 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I The components of the restoration plan have been assessed in relation to their potential impact on a variety of resources. | These evaluations are included in the Environmental Notification — Form (ENF), which is contained in its entirety in Appendix F. A • finalized ENF will be submitted to the DPW upon acceptance of the • D/F study. The focus of the ENF is on the impact assessment of inflow • management and nutrient precipitation. In regard to watershed management, the activities recommended by Whitman & Howard are not • typically regulated by MEPA. Typical items excluded from the MEPA process include: plan- | ning, design, policy development, setting of standards, budget — development, research, surveying, and sampling. Also excluded are • the following: the maintenance, repair and minor alteration of • existing structures, facilities, or equipment; the replacement, rehabilitation, or reconstruction of existing structures and fa- • cilities to new uses; routine maintenance of land, water, and vegetation; and the acquisition or disposition of interests in I real property. These exclusions cover a broad range of activities, allowing | the Town wide scope in the application of a watershed management _ program. In general, watershed management practices are put into B effect to protect the natural resources in the watershed and when • implemented would have little, if any, negative impact upon them. i i i 13-1 Bibliography I I BIBLIOGRAPHY Bogue, G.D., Letter to M. Howard. Winchester Conservation I Commission dated March 31, 1986. Boyte, F.L., S.E. Bayley and J. Zoltek "Removal of Nutrients from Treated Municipal Wastewater by Wetland Vegetation" Journal of I the Water Pollution Control Federation (1977), 49:789. Chap in, J.D. and P.O. Uttormark "Atmospheric Contributions of I Nitrogen and Phosphorus." Resource Center, University of Wisconsin, Tech Report 73-2, Wisconsin: 1973. Chapman, H.S. History of Winchester. West Hanover, MA: Halliday I Lithograph Corp., 1975. Chapra, S.C. and K.H. Reckhom "Expressing the Phosphorus Loading, I concept in Probablistic Terms." J. Fish. Res. Sd. Canada (1979), 36:225-229. Chesebrough, E.W. and A.J. Screpetis. Upper Mvstic Lake Water I Quality Study - April 1974 to April 1975. Westhorough, MA: Water Quality Section; Division of Water Pollution Control. Chute, N.E. Glacial Geology of the Mvstic Lakes - Fresh Area, I Massachusetts. U.S. Dept of Interior: Geologic Survey Bulletin 1061F. Washington D.C.: 1959. I Cooke, G.D., E.B. Welch, S.A. Peterson, and P.R. Newroth. Lake and Reservoir Restoration. Ann Arbor, Mich: Butterworths Publishing, 1986. I Department of Public Health. "Massachusetts Sanitary Code." Article 7, Regulation 10.2B, 1969. I Dillon, P.J. and W.B. Kirchner. "The Effects of Geology and Land Use on the Export of Phosphorus from Watershed" Water Research (1975), 9:135-148. I Dillon, P.J. and F.H. Rigler. "A Test of a Simple Nutrient Budget Model Predicting the Phosphorus Concentration in Lake Water." J. Fish Res. Bd. Can (1974), 31:1771-1778. I European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission. "Water Quality Criteria for European Freshwater Fish - Extreme pH Values and Inland Fisheries." Prepared by EIFAC Working Party on Water I Quality Criteria for European Freshwater Fish. Water Research (1969), 3:593. Fassett, N.C. A Manual of Aquatic Plants. Madison, Wise: I University of Wisconsin Press, 1957. Fast, A.W. "Artificial Aeration as a Lake Restoration Technique." I Clean Lakes Program Guidance Manual. (1975). I I I I Fast, T.H. "Sediment Water Interchange of Plant Nutrients in Lakes" Water Resources Research Center, publ. No. 16. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts: 1967. I Fink, E.A. "Absorption of Anionic Detergents by Soil." Water Pollution Control Fed. (1970), 42:2. Fleischer, S. "Evidence for the Anaerobic Release of Phosphorus I from Lake Sediment as a Biological Process." Nuturwissenschaffen (1978), 65:109. I Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. (1969) Handbook of Utilization of Aquatic Plants Edited by E.C.S. Little. I Freeze, R.A. and J.A. Cherry. Groundwater Englewood Cliff, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc., 1979. I Fisser, M.J. (ed) Cycling of Mineral Nutrients in Agricultural Ecosystems New York, New York: Elsevier Scientific Publishing Co., 1978. I Geldreich, E.E. and B.A. Kenner. "Concepts of Fecal Streptococci in Stream Pollution." Journal Water Pollution Control Federation (1969), 41:336-352. I Geo-Technical Equipment Catalogue No. 6. "Piezometer Research and Development." Stanford, Conn., 1981. I Hayes, F.R.- "The Mud-Water Interface" Qceanar. Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev (1957) 2:121-145. Hoeft, R.G., Dr. Keeney, and L.M. Walsh "Nitrogen and Sulfur in I Precipitation and Sulfur Dioxide in the Atmosphere in Wisconsin." J. Environ. Oual. (1972), 27:203-208. I Hulsey, A.H. "A Proposal for the Management of Reservoirs for Fisheries." Proc. Southeast Assoc. Game Fish Comm. 1958. 12:132-143. I Hunt, P.C. and J.W. Jones "The Effects of Water Level Fluctuations on a Littoral Fauna." J. Fish. Biol. (1972), 4:385-394. I Jacoby, J.M., E.B. Welh and J.T. Michaud. "Control of Internal Phosphorus Loading in a Shallow Lake by Drawdown and Alum." Lake Restoration Protection and Management. U.S. EPA, EPA I 600/9-80-086, pp 112-118: Washington, D.C. 1983. Jones J.R. and R.W. Bachmann. "Prediction of Phosphorus and Chorophyll Levels in Lakes" J. Water Poll. Control Fed. I (1976), 48:2176-2182. Juday, C. "Quantative studies of the Bottom Fauna in the Deeper Waters of Lake Mendota." Trans. Wis. Acad. Sci. Arts Let. I (1921), 20:461-49. I I I I Kautz, Harold, M. et.al. Engineering Field Manual. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 1975. Kluesner, J.W. and G.F. Lee. "Nutrient Loading from a Separate I Storm Sewer in Madison Wisconsin." J. Water Poll. Control Fed. 1974, 46(5): 920-936. Kluesner, J.W. "Nutrient Transport and Transformations in Lake I Wingra, Wisconsin." Ph.D. Disertation University of Wisconsin, 1972. I Konrad, J.C., S.G. Chester and K.W. Bauner "Menomonee River Basin, Wisconsin: Summary Pilot Watershed Report." PLUARG Technical Report Series, pp. 77, 1978. I Ku, W.C. and T.H. Feng "Equilibrium Absorption of Inorganic Phosphate by Lake Sediments." Report No. Env. E. 45-71-1. Dept. of Civil Eng., University of Massachusetts, Amherst, I Mass., 1975. Landon, R.J. Michigan Tri-County Regional Planning Commission, "Characterization of Urban Stormwater Runoff in Tri-Country I Region, 208 Water Quality Management Plan." pp. 136, 1977. Lee, D.R. "A Devise for Measuring Seepage Flux in Lake and I Estuaries." Limol Oceanoa (1977), 22(1): 140-147. Lee, G.F. and R.A. Jones. "An Approach for Assessing the Water Quality Significance of Chemical Contaminants in Urban Lakes." I U.S. EPA, EPA 600/9-80-056, pp. 32-57. Washington, D.C.: 1980, Linsley, R.K. Jr., M.A. Kohler, and J.L.H. Paulhus. Hvdroloay for I Engineers. New York, New York: McGraw Hill, inc. Livingstone, D.A. "Chemical Composition of Rivers and Lakes." Data I of Geochemistry. 6th Ed. Prof. Paper, U.S. Geol. Survey (1963), 440-G pp. 64. Leorh, R.c. "Characteristics and Comparative Magnitude of Non-Point I Source" Water Poll. Control Fed. (1974), 46:8. McConnel, W.P. and M. Cobb Remote Sensing: 20 Years of Change in Middlesex County. Amherst, MA: Massachusetts Agricultural I Experiment Station, 1974. Martin, D.C. and D.A. Bella. "Effects of Mixing on Oxygen Uptake I Rate of Estuarine Bottom Deposits." J. Water Poll. Control Fed. (1971), 43:1865. McKee, G.D., et. al. "Sediment-Water Nutrient Relationship." Part I 1 and 2 Water and Sewage Work (1970), 117:203-206:246-249. Massachusetts, Department of Environment Quality Engineering. I Massachusetts Water Quality Standards, Boston, MA. I Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control, 1985. I I Massachusetts, Department of Environmental Quality Engineering. I Clean Lake Program Guidelines. Boston, MA. Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control, 1987. I Massachusetts Historical Commission. Historic and Archaeological Resources of the Boston Area. Boston, MA., Mass Historical Coimn. , 1982. I Mather, J.R. and P.A. Rodriques. The Use of the Water Budget in Evaluating Leaching Through Solid Waste Landfills. Newark, I Del. Water Resource Center, University of Delaware, 1978. Mortimer, C.H. "The Exchange of Dissolved Substances Between Mud and Water in Lakes." J. Ecol. (1941), 29:280-329. I palmer, C.M. "A Composite Rating of Algae Tolerating Organic Pollution." J. of Phycholocrv (1969), 5:78-82. Palmer, C.M. Alaae in Water Supplies. U.S. Dept. of Health I Education and Welfare. Public Health Services Publication No. 657., 1962. I Prescott, G.W. How to Know the Freshwater Alaae. Third Edition, Dobuque, Iowa: William C. Brown Company Publisher, 1978. Reckhow, K.H. "Empirical Lake Model for Phosphorus Development, I Applications, Limitation and Uncertainty." In D. Scavia and A. Robertson, eds. Perspectives on Lake Exosvstem Modeling. I Ann Arbor SC. Publ., pp 193-221., 1979. Reckhow, K.H. and S. C. Chapra. Engineering Approaches for Lake Management Volume 1: Data Analysis and Empirical Modeling. I Boston, MA: Butterworth Publishers, 1983. Reckhow, K.H. and J.T. Simpson. "A Procedure Using Modeling and Error Analysis for the Prediction of Lake Phosphorus Concentration from Land Use Information." Canadian J. of I Fish. Aquatic Sciences. (1980). Vol. 37. Reckhow, K.H., M.N. Beaulac, and J.T. Simpson. "Modeling I Phosphorus Loading and Lake Response Loading and Lake Response Under Uncertainty: A Manual and Compilation of Export Coefficient." U.S. EPA, EPA 440/S-80-011. Washington, D.C.: I 1980. Richardson, C.J. and G.E. Merva. "The Chemical Composition of Atmospheric Precipitation From Selected Stations in Michigan." I Water. Air and Soil Pollution (1976), 6:373-383. Sartor, J.D. et at. "Water Pollution Aspect of Street Surface I Contamination." Journal WPCE (1974), 45:3. Sawyer, C.N. "Fertilization of Lakes by Agricultural and Urban Drainage." J. New England Water Works Assoc. (1974), I 61:109-127. I I I Schindler, D.W. "Eutrophication and Recovery in Experimental Lakes: I Implications for Lake Management." Science (1974), 194897-899. I Smith, C.N., R.A. Leonard, G.W. Langdale and B.W. Bailey. Transport of Agricultural Chemicals from Small Urban Watersheds.. 1978. I Snow, P.O. and F.A. DiGiano. "Relationship Between Trophic State and Chemical Parameters in Sediment Water Systems of Selected Western Massachusetts Lakes." Civil Engineering Dept., I University of Massachusetts, Report No. 32-73-3. Amherst, MA: 1973. Snow, P.D. and F.A. DiGiano. (1976) "Mathematical Modeling of I Phosphorus Exchange Between Sediment and Overlyina Water in Shallow Eutrophic Lakes." Environmental Engineering Dept. of Civil Engineering. Univ. of Mass., Report No. Env. E. I 54-76-3. Amherst, MA: 1973. U.S. EPA. "Quality Criteria for Water." U.S. EPA, Washington, I D.C.: 1976. U.S. EPA. "Technical Support Manual: Water Surveys and Assessment for Conducting of Lakes from Non-Point Sources (1983), EPA - I 660/3-74-020. U.S. EPA. Results, of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program, Volume 1 - Final Report. Washington, D.C.: Water Planning Division, I WH-554., 1980. U.S. Geological Survey. "Source, Movement, and Effect of Nitrogen and Phosphorus in Three Pond, in the Headwaters of Hop Brook, I Marborough, Massachusetts." U.S. Geological Survey, Water Resource Investigation Report 84-4077. Boston, MA.: 1984. Vollenweider, R.A. "Scientific Fundamental, of the Eutrophication I of Lake and Flowing Waters, with Paticular Reference to Nitrogen and Phosphorus as factors in Eutrophication." Paris, Rep. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. I DAS/CSI/68.27, pp. 192. Walker, W.W., Jr. "Variability of Trophic state Indicators in Reservoirs." U.S. EPA, EPA 440/5-81-010. Washington D.C.: I 1980. Wanielista, W.P., Y.A. Yousef B. Golding, and C.E. Cassacfnol. I Storm Water Management Manual." Dept. of Civil Engineering and Environmental Sciences, Univ. of central Florida, Orlando, Florida: 1981. I Wetzel, Limnology. Philadelphia, PA.: W.B. Saunder Company, 1975. Wetzel, R.G. Limnology. Second Edition. Philadelphia, PA.: W.B. I Saunder Company, 1983. I I I ,A Report of the Committee on Water Quality Criteria. I Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences and Natural Academy of Engineering (NAS-NAE), 1972. I ,"Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater 15th Edition." Washington D.C.: American Public Health Association, 1980. I ."Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds." United States Department of Agriculture, I ."Northern Massachusetts Interim Soil Survey Report." EPA, I Washington, D.C.: 1982. I I I I I I I I I I I I I Appendices I I Appendix A Water Quality Standards I .. I CRITERION: • 20 mg/L or more as CaC03 freshwater aquatic life except where • natural concentrations are less. :• INTRODUCTION; Alkalinity is the sum total of components in the water that • tend to elevate the pH of the water above a value of about 4.5. It is measured by titration with standardized acid to a pH value I of about 4.5 and it is expressed commonly as milligrams per liter m of calcium carbonate. Alkalinity, therefore, is a measure of the buffering capacity of the water, and since pH has a direct effect I on organisms as well as an indirect effect on the toxicity of certain other pollutants in the water, the buffering capacity is ~B important to water quality. Examples of commonly occurring _ materials in natural waters that increase the alkalinity are • carbonates, bicarbonates, phosphates and hydroxides. m RATIONALE; m The alkalinity of water used for municipal water supplies is important because it affects the amounts of chemicals that need I to be added to accomplish calculation, softening and control of corrosion in distribution systems. The alkalinity of water I assists in the neutralization of excess acid produced during the _ addition of such materials as aluminum sulfate during chemical • coagulation. Waters having sufficient alkalinity do not have to • be supplemented with artificially added materials to increase the alkalinity. Alkalinity resulting from naturally occurring EPA, Quality Criteria for Hater 1986, EPA 440/5-86-001 i a i materials such as carbonate and bicarbonate is not considered a - health hazard 'in drinking water supplies, per se, and naturally | occurring maximum levels up to approximately 400 mg/L as calcium _ carbonate are not considered a problem to human health (NAS, ™ 1974). i Alkalinity is important for fish and other aquatic life in freshwater systems because it buffers pH changes that occur naturally as a result of photosynthetic activity of the I chlorophyll ^bearing vegetation. Components of alkalinity such as carbonate and biocarbonate will complex some toxic heavy metals J and reduce their toxicity markedly. For these reasons, the » National Technical Advisory Committee (NATC, 1968) recommended a ™ minimum alkalinity of 20 mg/L and the subsequent NAS Report • (1974) recommended that natural alkalinity not be reduced by more than 25 percent but did not place an absolute minimal value for I it. The use of the 25 present reduction avoids the problem of establishing standards on waters where natural alkalinity is at • or below 20 mg/L. For such waters, alkalinity should not be further reduced. I The NAS Report recommends that adequate amounts of alkalinity • be maintained to buffer the pH within tolerable limits for marine • waters. It has been noted as a correlation that productive waterfowl habitats are above 25 mg/L with higher alkalinities I resulting in better waterfowl habitats (NATC, 1968). I i A-2 I I Excessive alkalinity can cause problems for swimmers by altering the pH of the lacrimal fluid around the eye, causing I irritation. • For industrial water supplies, high alkalinity can be • damaging to industries involved in food production, especially those in which acidity accounts for flavor and stability, such as I the carbonated beverages. In other instances, alkalinity is desirable because water with a high alkalinity is much less • corrosive. ^ A brief summary of maximum alkalinities accepted as a source _ of raw water by industry is included in Table 1. The ™ concentrations listed in the table are for water prior to • treatment and thus are only desirable ranges and not critical i ranges for industrial use. The effect of alkalinity in water used for irrigation may be • important in some instances because it may indirectly increase • the relative proportion of sodium in soil water. As an example, ; when bicarbonate concentrations are high, calcium and magnesium • ions that are in solution precipitate as carbonates in the soil \' water as the water becomes more concentrated through evaporation I and transpiration. As the calcium and magnesium ions decrease in m concentration, the percentage of sodium increases and. results in soil and plant damage. Alkalinity may also lead to chlorosis in • plants because it causes the iron to precipitate as a hydroxide i (NAS, 1974). Hydroxyl ions react with available iron in the soil i A-3 I I TABLE I* Alkalinity in Waters Used As A Source I Of Supply Prior To Treatment Alkalinity I Industry mg/L as CaC03 Steam generation boiler makeup 350 Steam generation cooling 500 I Textile mill products 50-200 Paper and allied products. 75-150 | Chemical and Allied Products 500 • Petroleum refining. 500 . Primary metals industries 200 I Food canning industries 300 Bottled and canned soft drinks 85 M * HAS, 1974 • i I I I i I i A-4 i I ™ water and make the iron unavailable to .plants. Such deficiencies • induce chlorosis and further plant damage. Usually alkalinity I must exceed 6 mg/L before such effects are noticed, however. i i i (QUALITY CRITERIA FOR WATER, JULY 1976) PB-263943 • SEE APPENDIX C FOR METHODOLOGY i i i l i i i j i * i i i A-5 I I Non-Text Page ™ i i i i i i i^y i i i i i i i i A- 6 I • *ALDRIN-DIELDRIN • ^ CRITERIA; Aquatic Life • Dieldrin For dieldrin the criterion to protect freshwater aquatic life | as derived using the Guidelines is 0.0019 ug/L as a 24-hour . average, and the concentration should not exceed 2.5 ug/L at any i time. i For dieldrin the criterion to protect saltwater aquatic life as derived using the Guidelines is 0.0019 ug/L as a 24-hour i average, and the concentration should not exceed 0.71 ug/L at any i time. Aldrin i For freshwater aquatic life the concentration of aldrin I should not exceed 3.0 ug/L at any time. No data are available concerning the chronic toxicity of aldrin to sensitive | freshwater aquatic life. • For saltwater aquatic life the concentration of aldrin should not exceed 1.3 ug/L at any time. No data are available • concerning the chronic toxicity of aldrin to sensitive saltwater aquatic life. I Human Health _ For the maximum protection of human health from the potential ™ carcinogenic effects of exposure to aldrin through ingestion of fl contaminated water and contaminated aquatic organisms, the * Indicates suspended, canceled or restricted by U.S. EPA Office • of Pesticides and Toxic Substances i A-7 I ambient water concentration should be zero, based on the I non threshold assumption for this chemical. However, zero I level may not be attainable at the present time. Therefore, the levels which may result in incremental increase of cancer • risk over the lifetime are estimated at 10~5, 10"6 and 10~7 The corresponding recommended criteria are 0.74 ng/Lr 0.074 ng/L, | and 0.0074 ng/L, respectively. If these estimates are made for — consumption of aquatic organisms only, excluding consumption ™ of water, the levels are 0.79 ng/L, 0.079 ng/L, and 0.0079 • ng/L, respectively. For the maximum protection of human health from the potential I carcinogenic effects of exposure to dieldrin through ingestion of contaminated water and contaminated aquatic organisms, the m ambient water concentration should be zero, based on the • nonthreshold assumption for this chemical. However, zero level may not be attainable at the present time. Therefore, the levels I which may result in incremental increase of cancer risk over the lifetime are estimated at 10~5, 10"6 and 10~7. The ( corresponding recommended criteria are 0.71 ng/L, 0.071 ng/L, and _ 0.0071 ng/L, respectively. If these above estimates are made for * consumption of aquatic organisms only, excluding consumption of • water, the levels are 0.76 ng/L, 0.076 ng/L, and 0.0076 ng/L, respectively. • (45 F.R. 79318, November 28, 1980) I SEE APPENDIX B FOR METHODOLOGY I I A-8 i I I AMMONIA • SUMMARY: ' All concentrations used herein are expressed as un-ionized ;• ammonia (NH3), because NH3, not the ammonium ion (NH4 ) has been • demonstrated to be the principal toxic form of ammonia. The data used in deriving criteria are predominantly from flow I through tests in which ammonia concentrations were measured. Ammonia was reported to be acutely toxic to freshwater organisms I at concentrations (uncorrected for pH) ranging from 0.53. to 22.8 • mg/L NH3 for 19 invertebrate species representing 14 families and 16 genera and from 0.083 to 4.60 mg/L NH3 for 29 fish species • from 9 families and 18 genera. Among fish species, reported 96* hour LC50 ranged from 0.083 to 1.09 mg/L for salmonids and from | 0.14 to 4.60 mg/L NH3 for nonsalmonids. Reported data from M chronic tests on ammonia with two freshwater invertebrate • species, both daphnids, showed effects at concentrations • " (uncorrected for pH) ranging from 0.304 to 1.2 mg/L NH3, and with nine freshwater fish species, from five families and seven | genera, ranging from 0.0017 to 0.612 mg/L NH3. Concentrations of ammonia acutely toxic to fishes may cause • loss of equilibrium, hyperexcitability, increased breathing, • cardiac output and oxygen uptake, and, in extreme cases, convulsions, coma, and death. At lower concentrations ammonia I has many effects on fishes, including a reduction in hatching success, reduction in growth rate and morphological development, I and pathologic changes in tissues of gills, livers, and kidneys. I A-9 i I Several factors have been shown to modify acute NH3 toxicity I in fresh water. Some factors alter the concentration of un- ionized ammonia in the water by affecting the aqueous ammonia I equilibrium, and some factors affect the toxicity of un-ionized • ammonia itself, either ameliorating or exacerbating the effects of ammonia. Factors that have been shown to affect ammonia • toxicity include dissolved oxygen concentration, temperature, M pH, previous acclimation to ammonia, fluctuating or intermittent exposures, carbon dioxide concentration, salinity, and the • presence of other toxicants. The most well-studied of these is pH; the acute toxicity of | NH3 has been shown to increase as pH decreases. Sufficient data m exist from toxicity tests conducted at different pH values to • formulate a mathematical expression to describe pH-dependent • acute NH3 toxicity. The very limited amount of data regarding effects of pH on chronic NH3 toxicity also indicates increasing I NH3 toxicity with decreasing pH, but the data are insufficient to derive a broadly applicable toxicity/pH relationship. Data on • temperature effects on acute NH3 toxicity are limited and • somewhat variable, but indications are that NH3 toxicity to fish is greater as temperature decreases. There is no information I available regarding temperature effects on chronic NH3 toxicity. Examination of pH and temperature-corrected acute NH3 | toxicity values among species and genera of freshwater organisms _ showed that invertebrates are generally more tolerant than ™ fishes, a notable exception being the fingernail clam. There is • no clear trend among groups of fish; the several most sensitive I A-10 I I tested species and genera include representatives from diverse _ families (Salmonidae, Cyprinidae, Percidae, and Centrarchidae). • Available chronic toxicity data for freshwater organisms also • indicate invertebrates (cladocerans, one insect species) to be more tolerant than fishes, again with the exception of" the I fingernail clam. When corrected for the presumed effects of temperature and pH, there is also no clear trend among groups of • fish for chronic toxicity values, the most sensitive species K including representatives from five families (Salmonidae, Cyprinidae, Ictaluridae, Centrarchidae, and Catostomidae) and • having chronic values ranging by not much more than a factor or two. The range of acute-chronic ratios for 10 species from 6 | families was 3 to 43, and acute-chronic ratios were higher for _ the species having chronic tolerance below the median. • Available data indicate that differences in sensitivities between .,- warm and coldwater families of aquatic organisms are inadequate I -•- to warrant discrimination in the national ammonia criterion • between bodies of water with "warm" and "coldwater" fishes; rather, effects of organism sensitivities on the criterion are • most appropriately handled by site-specific criteria derivation • procedures.. • Data for concentrations of NH3 toxic to freshwater I phytoplankton and vascular plants, although limited, indicate that freshwater plant species are appreciably more tolerant to • NH3 than are invertebrates or fishes. The ammonia criterion M appropriate for the protection of aquatic animals will therefore in all likelihood be sufficiently protective of plant life. i i A-ll I Available acute and chronic data for ammonia with saltwater I organisms are very limited, and insufficient to derive a I saltwater criterion. A few saltwater invertebrate species have been tested, and the prawn Macrobrachium rosenbergii was the • most sensitive. The few saltwater fishes tested suggest greater sensitivity than freshwater fishes. Acute toxicity of NH3 | appears to be greater at low pH values, similar to findings in _ freshwater. Data for saltwater plant species are limited to diatoms, which appear to be more sensitive than the saltwater • invertebrates for which data are available. More quantitative information needs to be published on the m toxicity of ammonia to aquatic life. Several key research needs must be addressed to provide a more complete assessment of ™ ammonia toxicity. These are: (l) acute tests with additional • saltwater fish species and saltwater invertebrate species; (2) life-cycle and early life-stage tests with representative • freshwater and saltwater organisms from different families, with particular attention to trends of acute-chronic ratios; (3) I• fluctuating- and intermittent exposure tests with a variety of • species and exposure patterns; (4) more complete tests of the individual and combined effects of pH and temperature, especially I for chronic toxicity; (5) more histopathological and histochemical research with fishes, which would provide a rapid | means of identifying and quantifying sublethal ammonia effects; and (6) studies on effects of dissolved and suspended solids on • acute and chronic toxicity. i £-12 l i I I NATIONAL CRITERIA: _ The procedures described in the Guidelines for Deriving ™ Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of • Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses indicate that, except possibly where a locally important species is very sensitive, freshwater • aquatic organisms and their uses should not be affected unacceptably if: i (1) the 1-hour* average concentration of un-ionized ammonia i (in mg/L NH3) does not exceed, more often than once every 3 years on the average, the numerical value given by 0.52/FT/FPH/2, i where : FT * 100.03.(20-TCAP) ;TCA p < T < 30 i 100.03(20-T); o < T < TCAP i FPH =1 ; 8 < pH < 9 1.25 ; 6.5 • (in mg/L NH3) does not exceed, more often than once every 3 years on the average, the average* numerical value given by - 0.80/FT/FPH/RATIO, where FT and FPH are as above and: i i A-13 I RATIO =16 ; 7.7 < pH <9 I - 24 -|n7.7-BH I 1+107-4PH ;6.5< pH < 7.7 TCAP = 15 C; Salmonids or other sensitive • coldwater species present = 20 C; Salmonids and other sensitive | coldvater species absent (*Because these formulas are nonlinear in pH and temperature, the I criterion should be the average of separate evaluations of the formulas reflective of the fluctuations of flow, pH, and I temperature within the averaging period; it is not appropriate in m general to simply apply the formula to average pH, temperature, and flow.) ' I The extremes for temperature (0, 30) and pH (6.5, 9) given in the above formulas are absolute. It is not permissible with | current data to conduct any extrapolations beyond these limits. _ In particular, there is reason to believe that appropriate * criteria at pH > 9 will be lower than the plateau between pH 8 • and 9 given above* Criteria concentrations for the pH range 6.5 to 9.0 and the I temperature range 0 C to 30 C are provided in the following tables. Total ammonia concentrations equivalent to each un- ™ ionized ammonia concentration are also provided in these tables. • There are limited data on the effect of temperature on chronic toxicity. EPA will be conducting additional research on the I effects of temperature on ammonia toxicity in order to fil1 perceived data gaps. Because of this uncertainty, additional | site-specific information should be developed before these I A-14 I I • criteria are used in wasteload allocation modeling. For example, H the chronic criteria tabulated for sites lacking salmonids are less certain at temperatures much below 20 C than those tabulated • at temperatures near 20 C. Where the treatment levels needed to meet these criteria below 20 C may be .substantial , use of site- | specific criteria is strongly suggested. Development of such M criteria should be based upon site-specific toxicity tests. • Data available for saltwater species are insufficient to • derive a criterion for saltwater. The recommended exceedence frequency of 3 years is the | Agency's best scientific judgment of the average amount of time it will take an unstressed system to recover from a pollution 9 event in which exposure to ammonia exceeds the criterion. A • stressed system, for example, one in which several outfalls occur in a limited area, would be expected to require more time for • — recovery. The resilience of ecosystems and their ability to ^ recover differ greatly, however, and site-specific criteria may • be established if adequate justification is provided. • The use of criteria in designing waste treatment facilities requires the selection of an appropriate wasteload allocation • model. Dynamic models are preferred for the application of these ' criteria. Limited data or other factors may make their use I impractical, in which case one should rely on a steady-state — model. The Agency recommends the interim use of 1Q5 or 1Q10 for i • ! * Criterion Maximum Concentration design flow and 7Q5 or 7Q1O for i . I • the Criterion Continuous Concentration design flow in steady- 1 state models for unstressed and stressed systems respectively. I A-15 I (2) 4-day avaraga concentrations for uamonla, I 0 C 5 C to c 15 C 20 C 15 C 30 C I A, Salmon Ids orLJXthar Sanaltlva Coldwatar Soacles Prasant Un*lonlzad Ammonia (mg/lltar NHj) 6.50 0.0007 0.0009 0.0013 0.0019 0.0019 0.0019 0.0019 I 6.73 0.0012 0.00)7 0.0023 0.0033 0.0033 0.0033 0.0033 7.00 0.0021 0.0029 0.0042 0.0059 0.0059 0.0039 0.0059 7.25 0.0037 0.0032 0.0074 0.0105 0.0103 0.0105 0.0103 7.50 0.0066 0.0093 0.0132 0.0186 0.0186 0.0186 0.0186 7.73 0.0109 0.0193 0.022 0.031 - 0.031 0.031 0.031 I 6.00 0.0126 0.0177 0.023 0.035 0.035 0.033 0.035 8.23 0.01 26 0.0177 0.025 0.035 0.035 0.033 0.035 8.50 0.0126 0.0177 0,023 0.033 0.035 0.033 0.033 8.75 0.0126 0,0177 0.02S 0.035 0.035 0.033 0.033 9.00 0.0126 0.0177 0.023 0.035 0.035 0.033 0.033 I Total Ammonia B_«__.. Salmon I d» and Qthar Sansltlva Coldwatar Spaclas Abaant* I Un-lonlzad Ammonia (mg/lltar NHi 6.50 0.0007 0.0009 0.0013 0.0019 0.0026 0.0026 0.0026 6.73 0.0012 0.0017 0.0023 0.0033 0.0047 0.0047 0.0047 I 7.00 0.0021 0.0029 0.0042 0.0039 0.0083 0.0083 0.0083 7.23 0.0037 0.0052 0.0074 0.0103 0.0148 0.0146 0.0148 7.50 0.0066 0.0093 0.0132 0.0186 0.026 0.026 0.026 7.73 0.0109 0.0153 0.022 0.031 0.043 0.043 0.043 8.00 0.0177 I 0.0126 0.023 0.033 0.030 0.030 0.030 8.23 0.0126 0.0177 0.025 0.033 0,030 0.050 0.030 8.50 0.0126 0.0177 0.023 0.033 0,030 0.030 0.050 6.73 0.0126 0.0177 0.025 0.033 0,030 0.050 0.050 9.00 0.0126 0.0177 0.023 0.035 0,050 0.030 0.050 I Total Ammonia (mg/lltar NHj) 6.50 2.3 2.4 2.2 2.2 2.1 .46 1.03 I 6.73 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.2 2.1 .47 1.04 7.00 2.3 2.4 2.2 23 2.1 .47 1.04 7.23 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.2 2.1 .46 1.05 7.30 2.5 2.4 2.2 2.2 2,1 .49 1.06 7.73 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.0 1,98 .39 1.00 I 8.00 1.33 1.44 1.37 1.33 1,31 0.93 0.67 6.23 0.87 0.82 0.78 0.76 0.76 0.34 0.40 8.50 0.49 0.47 0.45 0.44 0.45 0.33 0.25 8.73 0.28 0.27 0.26 0.27 0.27 0.21 0.16 9.00 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.14 I 0.11 ' To eonvart tn*M values to mg/lltar H, multiply by 0.822. I t Slta-spactflc erltarla davalopmant Is strongly suggested at tmwparaturas abova 20 C bacausa of tn« llmltad data avallabla to ganarata tha er I tart a racommandatlon, md at tanparaturvs balow 20 C bacausa of tha llmltad data and bacausa SIM! I cnangas In tha erltarla may hava significant Impact on tha laval of traatmant raqulrad In maatlng tn«> raconmandad crltarta. I A-16 I I I (1) On«-hour •v«r«g« conevntrstlon* for ammonia.* pH 0 C 3 C tO C 15 C 20 C 25 C 30 C I 1. Salmonlds or Ottw S«naltlv> Cotd»at«r Sp»el«« Pr>»»nt Un-lonlz»4 Amonla (mq/Ht«r NM) I 6.50 0.0091 0.0129 0.0182 0.026 0.036 0.036 0.036 6.73 0.0149 0.021 0.030 0.042 0.099 0.039 0.039 7.00 0.023 0.033 0.046 0.066 0.093 0.093 0.095 I 7.25 0.034 0.048 0.066 0.099 0.133 0.135 0.135 7.30 0.043 0.064 0.091 0.128 0.181 0.181 0.181 0.056 0.080 0.113 0.199 0.22 0.22 0.22 8.00 0.063 0.092 0.130 0.184 0.26 0*26 0.26 8.23 0.063 0.092 0.130 0.164 0.26 0.26 0.26 8.30 0.069 0.092 0.130 0.184 0.26 0.26 0*26 I 8.79 0.069 0.092 0.130 0.184 0.26 0.26 0.26 9.00 0.069 0.092 0.130 0.184 0*26 0*26 0*26 I Total Amnonla <««/.. tar NHj) 6.30 35 33 31 30 29 20 14 .3 6.73 32 30 28 27 27 18.6 13.2 7.00 28 26 23 24 23 16.4 11.6 I 20 19.7 19.2 13.4 9.5 7.23 23 22 7.30 17.4 16*3 15.5 14.9 14.6 10.2 7,3 7.73 12.2 11.4 10.9 10.5 10.3 7*2 3.2 6.00 6.0 7.5 7.1 6.9 6 .8 4.8 3.3 I 8.25 4.5 4.2 4,1 4.0 3.9 2.8 2.1 8.50 2.6 2,4 2.3 2.3 2*3 1.71 . 1.28 8.75 1.47 1.40 1.37 1.38 1.42 1.07 0.83 I 9.00 . 0.86 0.63 0.83 0.86 0.91 0.72 0.38 8. Sali*jnldi and Othar S«n«ltlv« Coltfwatvr So«e1«* At>s*nt I Un-lonlzttd Amnonla (mg/Htar NHj) 6.50 0.0091 0.0129 0.0182 0.026 0.036 0.051 0.051 6.73 0.0149 0.021 0.030 0.042 0.059 0.084 0.084 I 7.00 0.023 0.033 0.046 0.066 0.093 0.131 0.131 7.23 0.034 0.046 0.068 0.095 0.133 0.190 0.190 7.50 0.045 0.064 0.091 0.128 0.181 0.26 0.26 7,73 0.056 0,080 0.113 0.139 0.22 0.32 0.32 8.00 0.065 0.092 0.130 0.184 0.26 0*37 0.37 I 6.25 0.065 0.092 0.130 0.184 0.26 0.37 0.37 8.50 0.065 0.092 0.130 0.184 0.26 0.37 0.37 8.73 0.063 0.092 Q.I 30 0.184 0.26 0.37 0.37 I 9.00 0.065 0.092 0.130 0.184 0,26 0.37 0.37 Total Ammonia (mg/tltar NHj) 6.30 33 33 34 30 29 ^ 29 20 6.73 32 30 28 27 27 26 16.6 Ii I 7.00 28 26 23 24 23 23 16.4 7.23 23 22 20 19.7 19.2 19.0 13.3 7.30 17.4 16*3 15.3 14.9 14.6 14.3 10.3 i 7.73 12.2 11.4 10.9 10.5 10*3 10.2 7.3 8.00 8.0 7.3 7.1 6.9 6.8 6.8 4.9 8.25 4.3 4.2 4,1 4.0 3.9 4,0 2.9 8.30 2.6 2.4 2.3 2*3 2J 2.4 1.81 li 8.73 t.47 1.40 1.37 1.38 t.42 1.32 1.18 9.00 0.86 0.83 0.83 0.86 0.91 1.01 0.82 I ( it * To convert -the** valUM to mg/llt«r N, multiply by 0.822. i A-17 I The Agency acknowledges that the Criterion Continuous I Concentration stream flow averaging period used for steady-state wasteload allocation modeling may be as long as 30 days in I situations involving POTWs designed to remove ammonia where • limited variability of effluent pollutant concentration and resultant concentrations in receiving waters can be demonstrated. | In cases where low variability can be demonstrated, longer — averaging periods for the ammonia Criterion continuous ™ Concentration (e.g., 30-day averaging periods) would be • acceptable because the magnitude and duration of exceedences above the Criterion Continuous Concentration would be 1 sufficiently limited. These matters are discussed in more detail in the Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control (U.S. EPA, 1985a). i i (50 F.R. 30784, July 29, 1985) SEE APPENDIX A FOR METHODOLOGY • i i I I i l I ARSENIC m AQUATIC LIFE SUMMARY: ™ The chemistry of arsenic in water is complex and the form • present in solution is dependent on such environmental conditions as Eh, pH, organic content, suspended solids, and sediment. The I relative toxicities of the various forms of arsenic apparently — vary from species to species. For inorganic arsenic(III) acute • values for 16 freshwater animal species ranged from 812 ug/L for • a cladoceran to 97,000 ug/L for a midge, but the three acute- chronic ratios only ranged from 4.660 to 4.862. The five acute | values for inorganic arsenic (V) covered about the same range, but _ the single acute-chronic ratio was 28.71. The six acute values • for MSMA ranged from 3,243 to 1,403,000 ug/L. The freshwater • residue data indicated that arsenic is not bioconcentrated to a high degree but that lower forms of aquatic life may accumulate I higher arsenic residues than fish. The low bioconcentration m factor and short half-life of arsenic in fish tissue suggest that residues should not be a problem to predators of aquatic life. • . The available data indicate that freshwater plants differ a great deal as to their sensitivity to arsenic (III) and m arsenic(V). In c o mp a rable tests, the alga, S_e I en a s_ t r urn :• capricornutum, was 45 times more sensitive to arsenic(V) than to • arsenic (III) , although other data present conflicting I information on the sensitivity of this alga to arsenic(V). Many plan' t values for inorganic arsenic(III) were in the same range as I the available chronic values for freshwater animals; several i I • A-19 I plant values for arsenic(V) were lower than the one available | chronic value. — TUe other toxicological data revealed a wide range of ™ toxicity based on tests with a variety of freshwater species and • endpoints. Tests with early life stages appeared to be the most sensitive indicator of arsenic toxicity. Values obtained from | this type of test with inorganic arsenic(III) were lower than ^ chronic values contained in Table 2. For example, an effect * concentration of 40 ug/L was obtained in a test on inorganic I arsenic(III) with embryos and larvae of a toad. Twelve species of saltwater animals have acute values for I inorganic arsenic(III) from 232 to 16,030 ug/L and the single « acute-chronic ratio is 1.945. The only values available for * inorganic arsenic(V) are for two invertebrate and are between 8 2,000 and 3,000 ug/L. Arsenic(III) and arsenic(V) are equally toxic to various species of saltwater algae, but the | sensitivities of the species range from 19 ug/L to more than M 1,000 ug/L. In a test with an oyster, a BCF of 350 was obtained for inorganic arsenic(III). I NATIONAL CRITERIA: • The procedures described in the Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of I Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses indicate that, except possibly where a locally important species is very sensitive, freshwater ™ aquatic organisms and their uses should not be affected • unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of arsenic(III) does not exceed 190 ug/L more than once every 3 years on the I A-2Q i I I average and if the 1-hour average concentration does not exceed • 360 ug/L more than once every 3 years on the average. The procedures described in the Guidelines indicate that, • except possibly where a local ly important species is very sensitive, saltwater aquatic organisms and their uses should not | be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of « arsenic(III) does not exceed 36 ug/L more than once every 3 years on the average and if the 1-hour average concentration does not I exceed 69 ug/L more than once every 3 years on the average. This criterion might be too high wherever Skeletonema cos_ra^rum or • Thalassiosira aestivalis are ecologically important. H Not enough data are available to allow derivation of numerical national water quality criteria for freshwater aquatic .1 life for inorganic arsenic(V) or any organic arsenic compound. Inorganic arsenic (V) is acutely toxic to freshwater aquatic • animals at concentrations as low as 850 ug/L and an acute-chronic • ratio of 28 was obtained with the fathead minnow. Arsenic(V) affected freshwater aquatic plants at concentrations as low as 48 • ug/L. Monosodium methanearsenace (MSMA) is acutely toxic to aquatic animals at concentrations as low as 1,900 ug/L, but no ; B data are available concerning chronic toxicity to animals or j toxicity to plants. I Very few data are available concerning the toxicity of any 1 1 form of arsenic other than inorganic arsenic(III) to saltwater \ i aquatic life. The available data do show that inorganic ;• {• arsenic(V) is acutely toxic to saltwater animals at i :• concentrations as low as 2,319 ug/L and affected some saltwater i A-21 I plants at 13 to 56 ug/L. No data are available concerning the I chronic toxicity of any form of arsenic other than inorganic • arsenic(III) to saltwater aquatic life. EPA believes that a measurement such as "acid-soluble" would • provide a more scientifically correct basis upon which to — establish criteria for metals. The criteria were developed on * this basis. However, at this time, ho EPA approved methods for • such a measurement are available to implement the criteria through the regulatory programs of the Agency and the States. | The Agency is considering development and approval of methods for _ a measurement such as acid-soluble. Until available, however, * EPA recommends applying the criteria using the total recoverable • method. This has two impacts: (1) certain species of some metals cannot be analyzed directly because the total recoverable method | does not distinguish between individual oxidation states, and (2) . these criteria may be overly protective when based on the total ™ recoverable method. I The recommended exceedence frequency of 3 years is the Agency's best scientific judgment of the average amount of time | it will take an unstressed system to recover from a pollution _ event in which exposure to arsenic(III) exceeds the criterion. a stressed system, for example, one in which several outfalls occur I in a limited area, would be expected to require more time for recovery. The resilience of ecosystems and their ability to | recover differ greatly, however, and site-specific criteria may _ be established if adequate justification is provided. * The use of criteria in designing waste treatment facilities I requires the selection of an appropriate wasteload allocation A-22 I I • model. Dynamic models are preferred for the application of these criteria. Limited data or other factors may make their use • impractical, in which case one should rely on a steady-state • model. The Agency recommends the interim use of 1Q5 or 1Q10 for • Criterion Maximum Concentration design flow and 7Q5 or 7Q1O for :• the Criterion Continuous Concentration design flow in steady- _ state models for unstressed and stressed systems respectively. • These matters are discussed in more detail in the Technical • Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control (U.S. EPA, 1985). HUMAN HEALTH CRITERIA: _ For the maximum protection of human health from the potential * carcinogenic effects due to exposure of arsenic through ingestion • of contaminated water and contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambient water concentration should be zero based on the non- | threshold assumption for this chemical. However, zero level may _ not be attainable at the present time. Therefore, the levels which may result in incremental increase of cancer risk over the I lifetime are estimated at 10"6, and 10~7. The corresponding criteria are 22 ng/L, 2.2 ng/L, and .22 ng/L, respectively. If I the above estimates are made for consumption of aquatic m organisms only, excluding consumption of water, the levels are 175 ng/L, 17.5 ng/L, and 1.75 ng/L, respectively. Other I concentrations representing different risk levels may be calculated by use of the Guidelines. The risk estimate range is presented for information purpoes and does not represent an i Agency judgment on an "acceptable" risk level. i A-23 I (45 F.R. 79318 Nov. 28,1980) (50 F.R. 30784, July 29, 1985) I SEE APPENDIX A FOR METHODOLOGY I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I A-24 I I I BARIUM • CRITERION; 1 mg/L for domestic water supply (health). • INTRODUCTION: '. • Barium is a yellowish-white metal of the alkaline earth group. It occurs in nature chiefly as barite, BaS04 and • witherite, BaC03, both of which are highly insoluble salts. The metal is stable in dry air, but readily oxidized by humid air or • water. • Many of the salts of barium are soluble in both water and acid, and soluble barium salts are reported to be poisonous I (Lange, 1965; NAS, 1974). However, barium ions generally are thought to be rapidly precipitated or removed from solution by ™ absorption and sedimentation (McKee and Wolf, 1963 NAS, 1974). • While barium is a malleable, ductile metal, its major commercial value is in its compounds. Barium compounds are used I in a variety of industrial applications including the _ metallurgic, paint, glass and electronics industries, as well as • ™ for medicinal purposes. ; I RATIONALE; i ;• Concentrations of barium drinking water supplies generally ! range from less than 0.6 ug/L to approximately 10 ug/L with upper i' •• limits in a few midwestern and western States ranging from 100 to } 3,000 ug/L (PHS, 1962/1963; Katz, 1970; Little, 1971). Barium .! • enters the body primari ly through air and water, since i* i appreciable amounts are not contained in foods (NAS, 1974). i A-25 I The fatal dose of barium for man is reported to be 550 to 600 I mg. Ingestion of soluble barium compounds may also result in • effects on the gastrointestinal tract, causing vomiting and diarrhea, and on the central nervous system, causing violent | tonic and clonic spasms followed in some cases by paralysis (Browning, 1961; Patty, 1962, cited in Preliminary Air Pollution • Survey of Barium and Its Compounds, 1969). Barium salts are • considered to be muscle stimulants, especially for the heart muscle (Sollman, 1957). By constricting blood vessels, barium | may cause an increase in blood pressure. On the other hand, it _ is not likely that barium accumulates in the bone, muscle, kidney ™ or other tissues because it is readily excreted (Browning, 1961; • McKee and Wolf, 1963). Stokinger and Woodward (1958) developed a safe concentration | for barium in drinking water based on the limiting values for _ industrial atmospheres, an estimate of the amount absorbed into the blood stream, and daily consumption of 2 liters of water. I From other factors they arrived at a limiting concentration of 2 rag/L for a healthy adult human population, to which a safety | factor was applied to allow for any possible accumulation in the « body. Since barium is not removed by conventional water treatment processes and because of the toxic effect on the heart I and blood vessels, a limit of 1 mg/L is recommended for barium in domestic water supplies. | Experimental data indicate that the soluble barium • concentration in fresh and marine water generally would have to exceed 50 jng/L before toxicity to aquatic life would be expected. • In most natural waters, there is sufficient sulfate or carbonate A-26 • I • to precipitate the barium present in the water as a virtually _ insoluble, non-toxic compound. Recognizing that the physical and • chemical properties of barium generally will preclude the • existence of the toxic soluble form under usual marine and fresh water conditions, a restrictive criterion for aquatic life | appears unwarranted. i i (QUALITY CRITERIA FOR WATER, JULY 1976) PB-263943 i SEE APPENDIX C FOR METHODOLOGY i i i i i i i i i i A-27 Non-Text Paqe A-28 i I CADMIUM • AQUATIC LIFE SUMMARY; • Freshwater acute values for cadmium are available for species • in 44 genera and range from 1.0 ug/L for rainbow trout to 28,000 ug/L for a mayfly. The antagonistic effect of hardness on acute I toxicity has been demonstrated with five species. Chronic tests g have been conducted on cadmium with 12 freshwater fish species • and 4 invertebrate species with chronic values ranging from 0.15 • ug/L for Paphnia maqna to 156 ug/L for the Atlantic salmon. Acute-chronic ratios are available for eight species and range I from 0.9021 for the Chinook salmon to 433.8 for the flagfish. _ Freshwater aquatic plants are affected by cadmium at • concentrations ranging from 2 to 7,400 ug/L. These values are in • the same range as the acute toxicity values for fish and invertebrate species, and are considerably above the chronic • values. Bioconcentration factors (BCFs) for cadmium in fresh water range from 164 to 4,190 for invertebrates and from 3 to • 2,213 for fishes, • Saltwater acute values for cadmium and five species of fishes range from 577 ug/L for larval Atlantic silverside to 114,000 • ug/L for juvenile mummichog. Acute values for 30 species of invertebrates range from 15.5 ug/L for a mysid to 135,000 ug/L . I for an ol igochaete worm. The acute toxicity of cadmium • general ly increases as salinity decreases. The effect of temperature seems to be species-specific. Two life-cycle tests • with Mysidopsis bahia under different test conditions resulted in similar chronic values of 8.2 and 7.1 ug/L, but the acute-chronic | ratios were 1.9 and 15, respectively. The acute values appear to i A-29 I I reflect effects of salinity and temperature, whereas the few available chronic values apparently do not. A life-cycle test I with Mysidopsis bigelowi also resulted in a chronic value of 7.1 ug/L and an acute-chronic ratio of 15. Studies with microalgae H and macroalgae revealed effects at 22.8 to 860 ug/L. • BCFs determined with a variety of saltwater invertebrates ranged from 5 to 3,160. BCFs for bivalve molluscs were above • 1,0.00 in long exposures, with no indication that steady-state had been reached. Cadmium mortality is cumulative for exposure | periods beyond 4 days. Chronic cadmium exposure resulted in • significant effects on the growth of bay scallops at 78 ug/L and on reproduction of a copepod at 44 ug/L. I NATIONAL CRITERIA: The procedures described in the Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of I Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses indicate that, except possibly where a locally important species is very sensitive, freshwater I aquatic organisms and their uses should not be affected • unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration (in ug/L) of cadmium does not exceed the numerical value given by I e(0.7852 [In(hardness) ]-3.490) more than once every 3 years on the . average and if the one-hour average concentration (in ug/L) does J not exceed the numerical value given by e(l.l28[In(hardness)]- — 3.828) more than once every 3 years on the average. For • example, at hardnesses of 50, 100, and 200 mg/L as CaCO3 the 4- • day average concentrations of cadmium are 0.66, l.l, and 2.0 ug/L, respectively, and the 1-hour average concentrations are I A-3C I I 1.8, 3.9 and 8.6 ug/L. If brook trout, brown trout, and striped • bass are as sensitive as some data indicate, they might not be protected by this criterion. • The procedures described in the Guidelines indicate that, except possibly where a locally important species is very | " sensitive, saltwater aquatic organisms and their uses should not m be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of • cadmium does not exceed 9.3 ug/L more than once every 3 years on • the average and if the 1-hour average concentration does not exceed 43 ug/L more than once every 3 years on the average. The • little information that is available concerning the sensitivity of the American lobster to cadmium indicates that this important • species might not be protected by this criterion. In addition, • data suggest that the acute toxicity of cadmium is salinity dependent; therefore, the 1-hour average concentration might be I >x underprotective at low salinities and overprotective at high ri- salinities. I EPA believes that a measurement such as "acid-soluble11 would • provide a more' scientifically correct basis "upon which to establish criteria for metals. The criteria were developed on I this basis. However, at this time, no EPA-approved methods for such a measurement are available to implement the criteria ;p through the regulatory programs of the Agency and the States. i { _ The Agency is considering development and approval of methods for : * a measurement such as acid-soluble. Until available, however, I EPA recommends applying the criteria using the total recoverable * method. This has two impacts: (1) certain species of some metals i A-31 i I cannot be analyzed directly because the total recoverable method I does not distinguish between individual oxidation states, and (2) I these criteria may be overly protective when based on the total recoverable method. I The recommended exceedence frequency of 3 years is the • Agency's best scientific judgment of the average amount of time it will take an unstressed system to recover from a pollution I event in which exposure to cadmium exceeds the criterion. A stressed system, for example, one in which several outfalls occur | in a limited area, would be expected to require more time for _ recovery. The resilience of ecosystems and their ability to ™ recover differ greatly, however, and site-specific criteria may • be established if adequate justification is provided. The use of criteria in designing waste treatment facilities I requires the selection of an appropriate wasteload allocation model. Dynamic models are preferred for the application of these • criteria. Limited data or other factors may make their use • impractical, in which case one should rely on a steady-state model. The Agency recommends the interim use of 1Q5 or 1Q1O for I Criterion Maximum Concentration design flow and 7Q5 or 7Q1O for the Criterion Continuous Concentration design flow in steady- | state models for unstressed and stressed systems, respectively. • These matters are discussed in more detail in the Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control (U.S. I EPA, 1985). HUMAN HEALTH CRITERIA: | The ambient water quality criterion for cadmium is recommended to be identical to the existing drinking water I• A-32 I I I standard which is 10 ug/L. Analysis of the toxic effects data I resulted in a calculated level which is protective of human health against the ingestion of contaminated water and I contaminated aquatic organisms. The calculated value is • comparable to the present standard. For this reason a selective criterion based on exposure solely from consumption of 6.5 grams I ' of aquatic organisms was not derived. i (45 F.R. 79318 Nov. 28,1980) (50 F.R. 30784, July 29, 1985) • SEE APPENDIX A FOR METHODOLOGY . . I l I I I I I I I I A-33 (Non-Text Page) A-34 1 1 CHLORDANE CRITERIA: Aquatic Life 1^^^ 1 For chlordane the criterion to protect freshwater aquatic life as derived using the Guidelines is 0.0043 ug/L as a 24-hour i average, and the concentration should not exceed 2.4 ug/L at any time. For chlordane the criterion to protect saltwater aquatic life i as derived using the Guidelines is 0.0040 ug/L as a 2 4 -hour average, and the concentration should not exceed 0.09 ug/L at any i time. iV Human Health i For the maximum protection of human health from the potential carcinogenic effects of exposure to chlordane through ingestion iV of contaminated water and contaminated aquatic organisms, the i ambient water concentration should be zero based on the nonthreshold assumption for this chemical. However, zero level i may not be attainable at the present time. Therefore, the levels which may result in incremental increase of cancer risk over the lifetime are estimated at 10~5, 10"6, and 10~7. The I • corresponding recommended criteria are 4.6 ng/L, 0. 46 ng/L, and ! 0.046 ng/L, respectively. If these estimates are made for consumption of aquatic organisms only, excluding consumption of i i \m water, the levels are 4.8 ng/L, 0.48 ng/L, and 0.048 ng/L, 1 respectively . ' 1 (45 F.R. 79318, November 28, 1980) 1- SEE APPENDIX B FOR METHODOLOGY 1 A-35 (Non-Text Page) A-36 i I I *COPPER AQUATIC LIFE SUMMARY: • Acute toxicity data are available for species in 41 genera of I freshwater animals. At a hardness of 50 mg/L the genera range in sensitivity from 16.74 ug/L for Ptychochei 1 us to 10,240 .ug/L for I Acroneuria. Data for eight species indicate that acute toxicity _ decreases as hardness increases. Additional data for several ™ species indicate that toxicity also decreases with increases in • alkalinity and total organic carbon. Chronic values are available for 15 freshwater species and | range from 3.873 ug/L for brook trout to 60.36 ug/L for northern pike. Fish and invertebrate species seem to be about equally • sensitive to the chronic toxicity of copper. • Toxicity tests have been conducted on copper with a wide range of freshwater plants and the sensitivities are similar to I those of animals. Complexing effects of the test media and a lack of good analytical data make interpretation and application I of these results difficult. Protection of animal species, •j however, appears to offer adequate protection of plants. Copper does not appear to bioconcentrate very much in the edible portion I of freshwater aquatic species. The acute sensitivities of saltwater animals to copper range from 5.8 ug/L for the blue mussel to 600 ug/L for the green crab. A chronic life-cycle test has been conducted with a mysid, and i adverse effects were observed at 77 ug/L but not at 38 ug/L, i which resulted in an acute-chronic ratio o"f 3.346. Several '. *Indicates suspended, canceled or restricted by U.S.EPA Office •" of Pesticides and Toxic Substances i A-37 I I saltwater algal species have been tested, and effects were observed between 5 and 100 ug/L. Oysters can bioaccumulate | copper up to 28,200 times, and become bluish-green, apparently — without significant mortality. in long-term exposures, the bay • scallop was killed at 5 ug/L. • NATIONAL CRITERIA: • The procedures described in the Guidelines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality criteria for the Protection of I Aquatic Organisms and Uses indicate that, except possibly where a locally important species is very sensitive, freshwater aquatic | organisms and their uses should not be affected unacceptably if _ the 4-day average concentration (in ug/L) of copper does not ™ exceed the numerical value given by e(0.8545 [In(hardness) ] -1.465) • more than once every 3 years on the average and if the 1-hour average concentration (in ug/L) does not exceed the numerical I value given by e(0.9422 [ In(hardness) ] -1.464) more than once every 3 years on the average. For example, at hardnesses of 50, 100, • and 200 mg/L as CaCO^ the 4-day average concentrations of copper • are 6.5, 12, and 21 ug/L, respectively, and the 1-hour average concentrations are 9.2, 18, and 34 ug/L. I The procedures described in the Guidelines indicate that, except possibly where a locally important species is very | sensitive, saltwater aquatic organisms and their uses should not • be affected unacceptably if the 1-hour average concentration of ™ copper does not exceed 2.9 ug/L more than once every 3 years on B the average. EPA believes that a measurement such as "acid-soluble" would I* A-3S i I I. provide a more scientifically correct basis upon which to establish criteria for metals. The criteria were developed on • this basis. However, at this time, no EPA approved methods for • such a measurement are available to implement the criteria through the regulatory programs of .the Agency and the States. I The Agency is considering development and approval of methods for a measurement such as acid-soluble. Until • available, I however, EPA recommends applying the criteria using the total • recoverable method. This has two impacts: (1) certain species of some metals cannot be analyzed directly because the total I recoverable method does not distinguish between individual oxidation states, and (2) these criteria may be overly protective | _ when based on the total recoverable method. ^ The recommended exceedence frequency of 3 years is the • Agency's best scientific judgment of the average amount of time • ^ it will take an unstressed system to recover from a pollution ,; event in which exposure to copper exceeds the criterion. A • stressed system, for example, one in which several outfalls occur in a limited area, would be expected to require more time for • recovery. The resilience of ecosystems and their ability to • recover differ greatly, however, and site-specific criteria may be established if adequate justification is provided. I The use of criteria in developing waste treatment facilities requires the selection of an appropriate wasteload allocation | model. Dynamic models are preferred for the application of these • criteria. Limited data or other factors may make their use ' impractical, in which case one should rely on a steady-state I model. The Agency recommends the interim use of 1Q5 or 1Q10 for A-39 • I Criterion Maximum Concentration design flow and 7Q5 or 7Q10 for . I the Criterion Continuous Concentration (CCC) design flow in I steady-state models for unstressed and stressed systems respectively. These matters are discussed in more detail in the | Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control _ (U.S. EPA, 1985). • HDMAN HEALTH CRITERIA: • Sufficient data is not available for copper to derive a level which would protect against the potential toxicity of this I compound. Using available organoleptic data, for controlling undesirable taste and odor quality of ambient water, the I estimated level is 1 mg/L. It should be recognized that • organoleptic data as a basis for establishing a water quality criteria have limitations and have no demonstrated relationship I to potential adverse human health effects. i (45 F.R. 79318 Nov. 28,1980) (50 F.R. 30784, July 29, 1985) * SEE APPENDIX A FOR METHODOLOGY I I I I P.-40 • I 1 .-• ENDOSULFAN CRITERIA: ' Aquatic Life 1 For endosulfan the criterion to protect freshwater aquatic life as derived using the Guidelines is 0.056 ug/L as a 24-hour i average and the concentration should not exceed 0.22 ug/L at any time. For endosulfan the criterion to protect saltwater i aquatic life as derived using the Guidelines is 0.0087 ug/L as a 24-hour average and the concentration should not exceed 0.034 i ug/L at any time. Human Health For the protection of human health from the toxic properties i of endosulfan ingested through water and contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambient water criterion is determined to be 74 i ug/L. For the protection of human health from the toxic properties i of endosulfan ingested through contaminated aquatic i organisms alone, the ambient water criterion is determined to be i 159 ug/L. • (45 F.R. 79318, November 28, 1980) i SEE APPENDIX B FOR METHODOLOGY I I I A-41 (tlon-Text Page) i i i A-42 i CONTRACT ATTACHMENT A The Project SECTION I A.l This attachment is incorporated by reference into the foregoing Agreement by Paragraphs I.A, IV.A, IV.B. A. 2 General Objective and Description of Project The Consultant shall complete a diagnostic/feasibility study of Wedge Pond in the Town of Winchester hereinafter referred to as the lake/pond. The scope of work to be completed under this Agreement for the study is specified in this Attachment. A. 3 Description of Discrete Reimbursable Tasks The following constitutes the scope of work to be completed by the Consultant under this Agreement. A.3.1 Diagnostic Study. For the tasks listed below all data shall be reported in metric units. A description of the historical lake recreational uses up to the present, the public access (es) to the lake/pond, and the suitability of the access (es) to the recreational uses of the lake/pond by the general public. An identification and review of all available reports, studies and data which relate to the lake/pond and/or its watershed. The review shall-determine the applicability of such information to the diagnostic/feasibility study and all significant findings and information shall be incorporated into the draft Final Report and Final Report. These reports shall include, but not be limited to: "The Upper Mystic Lake Watershed Nationwide Urban Runoff Case Study", 1982, by Camp Dresser & McKee, INC. and the "The Horn Pond Diagnostic/Feasibility Study", 1986, by Whitman and Howard, INC. An identification and description of the lake/pond and its '^ watershed. The watershed description should include an accurate delineation of its boundary, area, topography, and development. A description and map of the land uses in the watershed including any historical activities that may have adversely affected the water quality. The discussion shall include a listing of each current land use classification as a percentage of each drainage sub-basin, and of the entire watershed, and an accounting of the 1\ amount of non-point source loading produced by each category. 1 of 14 A geological description of the drainage basin taking into account bedrock geology, surficial geology, major soil types, and their relationship to the water quality. Morphometric data shall be calculated (if not available) or verified (if available) using U.S.G.S. topographic maps or maps of equal quality for area! determinations and using a bathymetric map for depth and volume determinations. A bathymetric map for the lake/pond shall be generated (or verified) from at least one transect for every 2 hectares (5 acres) of surface area. Each transect shall have a minimum of one sounding per 50 meters of transect length. Additional transects should be established as conditions warrant. The following morphometric determinations shall be made: (a) surface area (b) maximum depth (c) mean depth (d) volume (e) maximum length (f) maximum width (g) shoreline length (h) development of shoreline An annual hydrolcgic budget shall be determined for the lake/pond taking into account, at least, the following inputs and outputs: tributaries, outlet(s), storm drains, precipitation, direct overland runoff, and groundwater. The budget must utilize or otherwise take into account the data generated in Paragraph A.3.1,10(r) of this Afpendix. Retention time, flushing rate and response time shall be calculated for the lake/pond. An annual phosphorus budget shall be determined for the lake/pond taking into account, at least, the following inputs and outputs: non-point source loading from various land use types (via tributaries or overland runoff), outlet (s), storm drains, wet and dry precipitation, groundwater, water fowl, and internal loading. This budget shall utilize or otherwise take into account the data generated under Paragraphs A.3.1.7, A.3.1.1Q, A.3.1.11, A.3.1.14, and A.3.1.15 of this Attachment. If nitrogen is determined to be a limiting nutrient, then an annual nitrogen budget shall be determined for the lake/pond taking into account, at least, the following inputs and outputs: non-point source loading from various land use types (via tributaries or overland runoff), outlet(s), storm drains, wet and dry precipitation, grounSwater, water fowl, and internal loading. This budget shall utilize or otherwise take into account the data generated under Paragraphs A.3.1.7, A.3.1.10, A.3.1.11, A.3.1.14, and A.3.1.15 of this Attachment. If nitrogen is determined not to be a limiting nutrient, then the interconversion of the various forms of nitrogen shall be discussed. 2 of 14 .10 A discussion and analysis of historical baseline limnological data and one year of current limnological data must include, but not be limited to, the following parameters: (a) temperature profiles (one meter intervals) (b) dissolved oxygen profiles (one meter intervals) (c) percent saturation of dissolved oxygen (d) pH (e) total alkalinity (f) suspended solids (g) turbidity (Nephelometric turbidity units) (h) conductivity (i) chlorides (j) total Kjeldahl-nitrogen (k) ammonia nitrcgen (1) nitrate nitrcgen (m) total phosphorus (n) fecal coliform and fecal streptococci bacteria (o) Secchi disk transparency (p) phytoplankton identification (iriinimum to genus level) (q) chlorophyll - a (r) discharge (either instantaneous or time integrated) Parameters a-q (above) shall be measured at the depression constituting the major basin in the lake/pond. The tributary and outlet shall be sampled for parameters a-n and r (above). : The in-lake station shall be sampled, at a minimum, in the epilimnion, "metalimnion, and hypolimnion during periods of stratification. At other times, or in unstratified lakes/ponds, samples shall be collected near the top and near the bottom of the water column. Bacteria sampling shall be from the surface only. Phytoplankton and chlorophyll a samples shall be depth integrated to the limit of the euphotic zone (Secchi disk depth, x 3) or to 1.0 meter above the lake/pond bottom when the entire water column is euphotic. Depth-integrated samples shall not extend into an anoxic zone, however. The in-lake station, tributary, and outlet shall be surveyed for the above parameters on a biweekly schedule from March to fall circulation and monthly for the remainder of the year. Alkalinity, however, shall be sampled on a monthly schedule throughout the year. Upon completion of a subset of sampling, the Consultant and the Division may agree to substitute replacement parameters, to add a parameter, or to delete a parameter. In the event that this discretion is exercised, the Substate Agreement and the Contract shall be amended accordingly. L~ 11 Should there be tributary systems that could prove to be major contributors to the nutrient and/or pollutant load of the lake/pond, a thorough investigative survey shall be completed on each system to accurately determine the quality and quantity of 3 of 14 point and non-poiivt nutrient and/or pollutant loads entering the tributary (ies). .12 A macrophyton survey shall be conducted during mid-August and , shall be in sufficient detail to describe the area! coverage of total macrophyton and the frequency of occurrence of individual genera/species. The data shall be reported in a format compatible with the Divisions's Pond and Lake Information System (PALIS). .13 A discussion and evaluation of current fishery data available from the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife shall include, but not be limited to, the following parameters: (a) species composition (b) relative abundance (c) growth rates for selected species populations (d) proportional stock density for game species (e) status of recreational fishery If fishery data is acquired from another source, then the itiethod(s) of collection shall be described. 14 A field investigation shall be performed to identify and locate all storm drains that discharge directly, or proximally, into the lake/pond and a map shall be drawn that indicates the location of each storm drain. The construction, size, and the area drained by each storm drain shall be determined. Qualitative and quantitative data shall be generated during at least three (3) separate storm events. During the first storm event only, a flow-weighted composite sample shall be taken at each of the actively flowing storm drains discharging directly into the lake/pond. All flow-weighted composite samples shall include the first hydraulic flush and shall extend for a cumulative period of two hours, or one hour after peak hydraulic flow,, whichever is the shorter time period. For the remaining two (2) "storm events, sampling shall be on either two (2) storm drains or 10% of the active storm drains, . whichever is the higher number. Selection of these storm drains shall be made in consultation with the Division. In both storm events, discrete samples shall be collected over a timed interval. The first hydraulic flush shall be sampled, and thereafter individual samples shall be collected at ten (10) minute intervals for the first thirty (30) minutes and then at fifteen (15) minute intervals for a cumulative period of two (2) hours, or one (1) hour after peak hydraulic flow, whichever is the shorter time period. Sampling of storm drains should coincide with routine sampling of the inlet(s). Parameters measured from both composite and discrete samples shall include, at a minimum, the following: (a) suspended solids (b) conductivity (c) total Kjeldahl-nitrogen 4 of 14 (d) ammonia nitrogen (e) nitrate nitrogen (f) total phosphorus (g) chloride (h) fecal coliform and fecal streptococci bacteria Heavy metals shall be determined from separate flow-weiahted composite samples collected during each of the three (3) storm events. Each composite sample shall include the first hydraulic flush and shall extend for a cumulative period of two hours, or one hour after peak hydraulic flow, whichever is the shorter time period. The following heavy metals must be quantified for each composite sample: (a) cadmium (b) chromium (c) copper (d) iron (e) lead (f) manganese (g) zinc In addition to the parameters listed above, instantaneous discharge shall be monitored for each storm drain. On-site volumetric measurement of rainfall (i.e., rain gauge) shall be measured as well. 15 At the in-lake station (s) the bottom sediments shall be sampled on at least one. occasion and analyzed for the following parameters: (a) total nitrogen (b) total phosphorus (c) organic/inorganic fraction (loss on ignition) (d) heavy metals (cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, and zinc) (e) other parameters as deemed necessary by the Division to meet appropriate permit requirements. .16 If dredging is recommended as a feasible alternative then the bottom sediments shall be sampled at each proposed dredging site on at least one occasion. Sediment core samples to the depth of proposed dredging shall be taken and analyzed for the following parameters: (a) total nitrogen (b) total phosphorus (c) organic/inorganic fraction (loss on ignition) (d) heavy metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, vanadium, and zinc) (e) oil and grease (f) any other hazardous or toxic material as deemed necessary by the Division to meet appropriate permit requirements. 5 of 14 A map depicting the depth and physical characteristics of sediments in the lake/pond shall be generated. Sediment depth Tnsasurements shall be made by driving a probe to first refusal. These depth measurements shall be taken in a quantity and manner described in A.3.1.6 of this Appendix in areas where the water depth is 6.1 m (20 ft) or less. The sediment assessment shall yield information necessary to complete an application for certification required under the 'Ttegulations for Water Quality Certification for Dredging, Dredged Materials Disposal, and Filling in the Waters of the Commonwealth" and to complete an application for an Army Corps of Engineers 404 Permit. 17 Sampling, sample preservation and analytical methodology shall be conducted in conformance with the Division's Standard Operating Procedure and EPA's Methods for Chemical Analysis of Water and Wastes, or other references approved by the Division. A list of the field and laboratory methods used in this study shall be included in an appendix to the draft Final Report and Final Report. The field methods shall include a list of instrumentation and sampling techniques as well as sample handling, storage, and reservation. 18 The diagnostic data collected and developed under this project shall be keyed to disk or tape, or punched on cards, so that it can be entered into the Division's Pond and lake Information System (PALIS). The Consultant should contact the Division's Electronic Data Processing Section in Westborough prior to the transfer of data and/or for specific information on format. 19 An Environmental Notification Form must be prepared and it shall include a description of each of the proposed alternatives that _. are recommended in the Final Report. The Environmental Notifi- cation Form shall include the following attachments: a) site plan; and b) locus map of proposed project. Blank Environmental Notification Forms are available from: Dick Foster Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act Unit 100 Cambridge Street, 20th floor Boston, MA 02202 A.3.2 Feasibility Study 6 of 14 This study shall include an identification and discussion of the alternatives considered for pollution control, restoration, preservation, or maintenance. Justification of the reasonable and feasible selected alternative (s) that address the in-lake and watershed problems and their causes, whether they are in-lake or watershed based, shall be included. The study shall also include a discussion of reasons for rejecting alternatives. Alternatives shall emphasize swimming as the goal for pond restoration. The selection of alternatives (s) shall be followed by a discussion of technical feasibility, cost-effectiveness and anticipated water quality and recreational improvements. In this regard a nutrient budget analysis, selected in consultation with the Division, shall be performed using data generated from the diagnostic study to evaluate the alternative (s) . The discussion shall include an analysis of the impact that the selected alternative (s) will have on the annual nutrient budget. The study shall include a detailed description specifying what activities would be undertaken and identifying responsibilities among various groups and agencies to implement each selected alternative. Preliminary engineering drawings and specifications shall be provided to show the basic construction aspects of the project, if construction is part of the selected alternative. The study shall include a discussion of the anticipated effects of the selected alternative (s) on tributary, in-lake, and downstream fish and wildlife resources. A discussion of activities to mitigate any adverse effects shall be included along with estimates of their respective costs. Comments on the proposed project by the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife and the local conservation commission shall be included in the Final Report. If the selected alternatives involve in-lake chemical treatment, the study shall include a detailed discussion specifying the short-term and long-term effects of such treatment. A discussion of activities to mitigate any adverse effects shall be included along with estimates of their respective costs. If the selected alternatives involve lake drawdown, or construction of a lake drawdown structure, the study shall include a detailed discussion specifying the immediate and long-term effects of this alternative on wetlands, fisheries, and wells of abutters to the lake. A discussion of activities to mitigate any adverse effects shall be included along with estimates of their respective costs. If any type of dredging is proposed, the study shall include a detailed discussion of the steps that will be taken to miniinize any immediate and long-term adverse effects of this selected alternative. Answers to the following questions shall be provided in the discussion: a) where will the dredge spoils be deposited; b) how will the dredge spoils be transported to the site of deposition; c) how will the dredge spoils be dewatered and where will this process occur; and d) will there be any problem(s) in securing the necessary permits and licenses for such activities? 7 of 14 .8 A comprehensive watershed management plan for the control of point and non-point sources of nutrients and pollutants shall be developed. A comprehensive list of alternatives for controlling nutrients and other major pollutants specific to the lake/pond watershed shall be compiled. Each alternative shall be assessed for technical feasibility and cost-effectiveness. Specific alternatives shall be recommended to control all point and non-point sources of nutrients and/or pollutants to the lake/pond. .9 A list of local, state and federal permits, licenses, and other governmental approvals necessary for the implementation of the selected alternatives (s) as well as the identification of those responsible for the filing and approval of same shall be included in the feasibility study. ,10 A task by task cost breakdown of the recommended implementation (Phase II) project shall be developed and it shall include an estimate of the operation and maintenance costs over the life of the project. The cost breakdown shall include the monitoring program described in Paragraph A.3.2.13. 11 A detailed description of funding sources and how they may be obtained for the implementation project shall be presented, particularly for items which are ineligible for funding under the Qiapter 628 Massachusetts Clean Lakes Program. , 12 A proposed milestone work schedule for the completion of the implementatipn (Phase II) project shall be developed. The milestone schedule shall include the monitoring program stated in Paragraph A. 3.2.13. Details of the schedule shall show when each task should be completed; how the task relates to other tasks; what person, group, or agency shall perform the task; and the approximate cost of each task in the work schedule. .13 An implementation (Phase II) monitoring program shall be developed. The first element of the monitoring program shall be conducted during the project iirplementation period to ensure that desired objectives are achieved. This is particularly important for construction or in-lake treatment projects to provide sufficient data for the project officer to redirect the project, if necessary. The'second element shall be a three year post-implementation or post-construction monitoring phase' to evaluate project effectiveness. The monitoring prcgram(s) shall be individually tailored to the specific implementation alternative (s) and shall detail the sampling stations, sampling schedule, and parameters. ,14 A discussion of the public participation used in the development and review of the selected alternative (s) shall be included. A minimum of two public meetings are required. The first should be an informational meeting early in the diagnostic study program. The second should be conducted to present findings and recommended alternatives prior to developing the final alternative (s). Discussion of the public participation shall include major public 8 of 14 I *ENDRIN I/ I CRITERIA: Aquatic Life I For endrin the criterion to protect freshwater aquatic life as derived using the Guidelines is 0.0023 ug/L as a 24-hour I average, and the concentration should not exceed 0.18 ug/L at any time. I For endr in the criterion to protect saltwater aquatic life as r derived using the Guidelines is 0.0023 ug/L as a 24-hour average, i and the concentration should not exceed 0.037 ug/L at any time. Human Health i The ambient water quality criterion for endrin is recommended to be identical to the existing water standard which is 1.0 ug/L. i Analysis of the toxic effects data resulted in-a calculated level which is protective of human health against the ingestion of i contaminated water and contaminated aquatic organisms. The i calculated value is comparable to the present standard. For this reason a selective criterion based on exposure solely from i consumption of 6.5 g of aquatic organisms was not derived. *Indicates suspended, canceled or restricted by U.S. EPA Office ji of Pesticides and Toxic Substances (45 F.R. 79318, November 28, 1980) i SEE APPENDIX B FOR METHODOLOGY i i A-43 I (lion-Text Page) * i i i i i A-44 I 1C HEPTACHLOR ™ x- • •. CRITERIA: I Aquatic Life M For heptachlor the criterion to protect freshwater aquatic ™ life as derived using the Guidelines is 0.0038 ug/L as a 24-hour • average, and the concentration should not exceed 0.52 ug/L at any time. • For heptachlor the criterion to protect saltwater aquatic life as derived using the Guidelines is 0.0036 ug/L as a 24-hour • average, and the concentration should not exceed 0.053 ug/L at i any time. Human Health im For the maximum protection of human health from the potential • carcinogenic effects of exposure to heptachlor through ingestion of contaminated water and contaminated aquatic organisms, the • ambient water concentration should be zero, based on the non threshold assumption for this chemical. However, zero level • may not be attainable at the present time. Therefore, the levels • which may result in incremental increase of cancer risk over the lifetime are estimated at 10~5, 10~ , and 10" . The I corresponding recommended criteria are 2.78 ng/L, 0.28 ng/L, and 0.028 ng/L, respectively. If these estimates are made for | consumption of aquatic organisms only, excluding consumption of g water, the levels are 2.85 ng/L, 0.29 ng/L, and 0.029 ng/L, respectively. i (45 F.R. 79318, November 28, 1980) i SEE APPENDIX B FOR METHODOLOGY i A-45 i i (Non-Text Page) i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i A-46 i 1 I IRON ' I CRITERIA; I 0.3 mg/L for domestic water supplies (welfare). I l.O mg/L for freshwater aquatic life. INTRODUCTION: 'I Iron is the fourth most abundant, by weight, of the elements that make up the earth's crust. Common in many rocks, it is an | important component of many soils, especially the clay soils '_ where usually it is a major constituent. Iron in water may be ™ present in varying quantities dependent upon the geology of the • area and other chemical components of the waterway. Iron is an essential trace element required by both plants J, and animals. In some waters it may be a limiting factor for the growth of algae and .other plants; this is true especially in some » marl lakes where it is precipitated by the highly alkaline • conditions. It is a vital oxygen transport mechanism in the blood of all vertebrate and some invertebrate animals. I The ferrous, or bivalent (Fe++), and the ferric, or trivalent (Fe j irons-, are the primary forms of concern in the aquatic • • — environment, although other forms may be in organic and inorganic • wastewater streams. The ferrous (Fe++) form can persist in waters void of dissolved oxygen and originates usually from ' I groundwaters or mines when these are pumped or drained. For | practical purposes the ferric (Fe+++> form is insoluble. Iron i!p can exist in natural organometallic or humic compounds and lm colloidal forms. Black or brown swamp waters may contain iron I i", concentrations of several mg/L in the presence or absence of • dissolved oxygen, but this iron form has little effect on aquatic I A~47 I I I" I I I I (QUALITY CRITERIA FOR WATER, JULY 1976) PB-263943 SEE APPENDIX C FOR METHODOLOGY • I l l I i l l l l l A-4S I I LEAD I AQUATIC UFE SUMMARY; The acute toxicity of lead to several species of freshwater | animals has been shown to decrease as the hardness of water • increases. At a hardness of 50 mg/L the acute sensitivities of 10 species range from 142.5 ug/L for an amphipod to 235,900 ug/L I for a midge. Data on the chronic effects of lead on freshwater animals are available for two fish and two invertebrate species. | The chronic toxicity of lead also decreases as hardness increases £ and the lowest and highest available chronic values (12.26 and "^ 128.1 ug/L) are both for a cladoceran, but in soft and hard • water, respectively. Acute-chronic ratios are available for three species and range from 18 to 62. Freshwater algae are • affected by concentrations of lead above 500 ug/L, based on data for four species. Bioconcentration factors are available B for four invertebrate and two fish species and range from 42 to • 1,700. Acute values are available for 13 saltwater animal species • and range from 315 ug/L for the mummichog to 27,000 ug/L for the soft shell clam. A chronic toxicity test was conducted • with a mysid; unacceptable effects were observed at 37 ug/L but i ; n not at 17 ug/L and the acute-chronic ratio for this species is j 124.8, A species of macroalgae was affected at 20 ug/L. ' • • Available bioconcentration factors range from 17.5 to 2,570. I • NATIONAL CRITERIA; 1 '_ The procedures described in the Guidelines for Deriving ; I Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of i A-49 I I Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses indicate that, except possibly aquatic organisms and their uses should not be affected « unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration (in ug/L) of lead m does not exceed the numerical value given by • e(1.273 [In(hardness) ]-4.705) more than once every 3 years on the average and if the 1-hour average concentration (in ug/L) does g not exceed the numerical value given by e(1.273[In(hardness)]- _ 1.460) more than once every 3 years on the average. For example, ™ at hardnesses of 50, 100, and 200 mg/L as CaC03 the 4-day average • concentrations of lead are 1.3, 3.2, and 7.7 ug/L, respectively, and the 1-hour average concentrations are 34, 82, and 200 ug/L. I The procedures described in the Guidelines indicate that, except possibly where a locally important species is very m sensitive, saltwater aquatic organisms and their uses should not • be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of lead does not exceed 5.6 ug/L more than once every 3 years on • the average and if the 1-hour average concentration does not exceed 140 ug/L more than once every three years on the average. | EPA believes that a measurement such as "acid-soluble" would « provide a more scientifically correct basis upon which to * establish criteria for metals. The criteria were developed on tt this basis. However, at this time, no EPA-approved methods for such a measurement are available to implement the criteria • through the regulatory .programs of the Agency and the States. The Agency is considering development and approval of methods for • a measurement such as acid-soluble. Until available, however, • EPA recommends applying the criteria .using the total recoverable A-50 i I I method. This has two impacts: (1) Certain species of some metals _ cannot be analyzed directly because the total recoverable method ™ does not distinguish between individual oxidation states, and (2) • these criteria may be overly protective when based on the total recoverable method. • The recommended exceedence frequency of 3 years is the Agency's best scientific judgment of the average amount of time • it will taKe an unstressed system to recover from a pollution • event in which exposure to lead exceeds the criterion. A stressed system, for example, one in which several outfalls occur • in a limited area, would be expected to require more time for recovery. The resilience of ecosystems and their ability to I recover differ greatly, however, and site-specific criteria may g be established if adequate justification is provided. The use of criteria in designing waste treatment facilities B ~~ requires the selection of an appropriate wasteload allocation ~ model* Dynamic models are preferred for the application of these | criteria. Limited data or other factors may make their use — impractical, in which case one should rely on a steady-state ™ model. The Agency recommends the interim use of 1Q5 or 1Q10 for • Criterion Maximum Concentration design flow and 7Q5 or 7Q1O for the Criterion Continuous Concentration design flow in steady- " state models for unstressed and stressed systems, respectively. i I These matters are discussed in more detail in the Technical m Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control (U.S. EPA, 1985). I A-51 i i I I HUMAN HEALTH CRITERIA; The ambient water quality criterion for lead is recommended I to be identical to the existing drinking water standard which is 50 ug/L. Analysis of the toxic effects data resulted in a • calculated level whic is protective to human health against the • ingestion of contaminated water and contaminated aquatic organisms. The calculated value is comparable to the present I standard. For this reason a selective criterion based on exposure soley from consumption of 6.5 grams of aquatic organisms I was not derived. • i (45 F.R. 79318 Nov. 28,1980) (50 F.R. 30784, July 29, 1985) SEE APPENDIX A FOR METHODOLOGY • I I I I i i I i A-52 I I ,•• MANGANESE CRITERIA: • 50 ug/L for domestic water supplies (welfare); • 100 ug/L for protection of consumers of marine molluscs. INTRODUCTION; I Manganese does not occur naturally as a metal but is found in m various salts and minerals, frequently in association with iron compounds. The principal manganese-containing substances are • manganese dioxide (Mn02), pyrolusite, manganese carbonate (rhodocrosite) and manganese silicate (rhodonite). The oxides M are the only important minerals mined. Manganese is not mined in mm the Dnited States except when manganese is contained in iron ores that are deliberately used to form ferro-manganese alloys. I The primary uses of manganese are in metal alloys, dry cell batteries, micro-nutrient fertilizer additives, organic compounds | used in paint driers and as chemical reagents. Permanganates are — very strong oxidizing agents of organic materials. • Manganese is a vital micro-nutrient for both plants and • animals. When manganese is not present in sufficient quantities, plants exhibit chlorosis (a yellowing of the leaves) or failure I of the leaves to develop properly. Inadequate quantities of manganese in domestic animal food results in reduced reproductive |™ capabilities and deformed or poorly maturing young. Livestock ;• feeds usually have sufficient manganese, but beef cattle on a i high corn diet may require a supplement. ' ( A-53 i RATIONALE: I Although inhaled manganese dusts have been reported to be • toxic to humans, manganese normally is ingested as a trace nutrient in food. The average human intake is approximately 10 I mg/day (Sollman, 1957). Very large doses of ingested manganese can cause some disease and liver damage but these are not known m to occur in the United States. Only a few manganese toxicity m problems, have been found throughout the world and these have occurred under unique circumstances, i.e., a well in Japan near a I deposit of buried batteries (McKee and Wolf, 1963). It is possible to partially sequester manganese with special fl treatment but manganese is not removed in the conventional • treatment of domestic waters (Riddick et al. 1958; Illig, 1960). . Consumer complaints arise when manganese exceeds a concentration I of ISO ug/L in water supplies (Griffin, 1960). These complaints are concerned primarily with the brownish staining of laundry and | objectionable tastes in beverages. It is possible that the _ presence of low concentrations of iron may intensify the adverse ™ effects of manganese. Manganese at concentrations of about 10 to • 20 ug/L is acceptable to most consumers. A criterion for domestic water supplies of 50 ug/L should minimize the I objectionable qualities. McKee and Wolf (1963) summarized data on toxicity of I manganese to freshwater aquatic life. Ions of manganese are • found rarely at concentrations above 1 mg/L. The tolerance values reported range from 1.5 mg/L to over 1000 mg/L. Thus, I manganese is not considered to be a problem in fresh waters. Permanganates have been reported to kill fish in 8 to 18 hours at | A-54 i I concentrations of 2.2 to 4.1 mg/L, but permanganates are not I persistent because they rapidly oxidize organic materials and are thereby reduced and rendered nontoxic. . I Few data are available on the toxicity of manganese to marine m organisms. The ambient concentration of manganese is about 2 ug/L (Fairbridge, 1966). The material is rapidly assimilated and I bioconcentrated into nodules that are deposited on the sea floor. The major problem with manganese may be concentration in the | edible portions of molluscs, as bioaccumulation factors as high g as 12,000 have been reported (NAS, 1974). In order to protect against a possible health hazard to humans by manganese • accumulation in shellfish, a criterion of 100 ug/L is recommended for marine water. | Manganese is not known to be a problem i1 water consumed by m '" livestock. At concentrations of slightly less than 1 mg/L to a • "* few milligrams per liter, manganese nay be toxic to plants from • irrigation water applied to soils with pH values lower than 6.0. The problem may be rectified by liming soils to increase the pH. I Problems may develop with long-term (20 year) continuous irrigation on other soils with water containing about 10 mg/L of • manganese (NAS, 1974). But, as stated above, manganese is rarely • found in surface waters at concentrations greater than 1 mg/L. Thus, no specific criterion for manganese in agricultural waters I is proposed. In select areas, and where acidophilic crops are cultivated and irrigated, a criterion of 200 ug/L is suggested for consideration. I A-55 l Most industrial users of water can operate successfully where I the criterion proposed for public water supplies is observed. I Examples of industrial tolerance of manganese in water are summarized for industries such as dyeing, milk processing, paper, | textiles, photography and plastics (McKee and Wolf, 1963). A more ^ restrictive criterion may be needed to protect or ensure product * quality. ft (QUALITY CRITERIA FOR WATER, JULY 1976) PB-263943 ™ SEE APPENDIX C FOR METHODOLOGY i i i i i i i i i A-56 • i I I *MERCURY AQUATIC LIFE SUMMARY: Data are available on the acute toxicity of mercury(II) to 28 I genera of freshwater animals. Acute values for invertebrate species range from 2.2 ug/L for Daphnia pulex to 2,000 ug/L for • three insects. Acute values for fishes range from 30 ug/L for • the guppy to 1,000 ug/L for the Mozambique tilapia. Few data are available for various organomercury compounds and mercurous • nitrate, and they all appear to be 4 to 31 times more acutely toxic than mercury(II). " Available chronic data indicate that methylmercury is the • most chronically toxic of the tested mercury compounds. Tests on methylmercury with Daphnia magna and brook trout produced chronic • values less than 0.07 ug/L. For mercury(II) the chronic value obtained with Daphnia magna was about 1.1 ug/L and the acute- • chronic ratio was 4.5. In both a life-cycle test and an early • life-stage test on mercuric chloride with the fathead minnow, the chronic value was less than 0;26 ug/L and the acute-chronic ratio • was over 600. — Freshwater plants show a wide range of sensitivities to • . . • mercury, but the most sensitive pi ants appear to be less • sensitive than the most sensitive freshwater animals to both mercury(II) and methylmercury. A bioconcentration factor of J 4,994 is available for mercury(II), but the bioconcentration — factors for methylmercury range from 4,000 to 85,000. m * Indicates suspended, canceled or restricted by U.S. EPA • Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances i A-57 I Data on the acute toxicity of mercuric chloride are available I for 29 genera of saltwater animals, including annelids, molluscs, • crustaceans, echinoderms, and fishes. Acute values range from 3.5 ug/L for a mysid to 1,678 ug/L for winter flounder. Fishes I tend to be more resistant and .molluscs and crustaceans tend to be more sensitive to the acute toxic effects of mercury(II). • Results of a life-cycle test with the mysid show that mercury(II) • at a concentration of 1.6 ug/L significantly affected time of first spawn and productivity; the resulting acute-chronic ratio I was 3.1. _ Concentrations of mercury that affected growth and " photosynthetic activity of one saltwater diatom and six species • of brown algae range from 10 to 160 ug/L. Bioconcentration factors of 10,000 and 40,000 have been obtained for mercuric I chloride and methylmercury with an oyster. _ NATIONAL CRITERIA: Derivation of a water quality criterion for mercury is more • complex than for most metals because of methylation of mercury in • sediment, in fish, and in the food chain of fish. Apparently almost all mercury currently being discharged is mercury(II). • Thus mercury(II) should be the only important possible cause of acute toxicity and the Criterion Maximum Concentrations can be I based on the acute values for mercury(ll). £ The best available data concerning long-term exposure of fish to mercury(II) indicates that "concentrations above 0.23 ug/L I caused statistically significant effects on the fathead minnow and caused the concentration of total mercury in the whole body m A-58 • I • to exceed 1.0 ing/kg. Although it is not known what percent of the mercury in the fish was methylmercury, it is also not known | whether uptake from food would increase the concentration in the . _ fish in natural situations. Species such as rainbow trout, coho • salmon, and especially the bluegill, might suffer chronic effects '• and accumulate high residues of mercury about the same as the fathead minnow. | With regard to long-term exposure to methylmercury, McKim et _ al. (1976) found that brook trout can exceed the FDA action level • without suffering statistically significant adverse effects on I survival, growth, or reproduction. Thus for methylmercury the Final Residue Value would be substantially lower than the Final p Chronic Value. • Basing a freshwater criterion on the Final Residue Value of 0.012 ug/L derived from the bioconcentration factor of 81,700 for I methylmercury with the fathead minnow (Olson et al. 1975) essentially assumes that all discharged mercury is methylmercury. | On the other hand, there is the possibility that in field M situations uptake from-food might add to the uptake from water. Similar considerations apply to the derivation of the saltwater • criterion of 0.025 ug/L using the BCF of 40,000 obtained for methylmercury with the Eastern oyster (Kopfler, 1974). Because I the Final Residue Values for methylmercury are substantially • below the Final Chronic Values for mercury(II), it is probably not too important that many fishes, including the rainbow trout, • coho salmon, bluegill, and haddock might not be adequately protected by the freshwater and saltwater Final Chronic Values • for mercury(II). • A-5 9 I In contrast to all the complexities of deriving numerical | criteria for mercury, monitoring for unacceptable environmental « effects should be relatively straightforward. The most sensitive adverse effect will probably be exceedence of the FDA action I level. Therefore, existing discharges should be acceptable if the concentration of methylmercury in the edible portion of I exposed consumed species does not exceed the FDA action level. • The procedures described in the Guide1ines for Deriving Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of • Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses indicate that, except possibly where a locally important species is very sensitive, freshwater » aquatic organisms and their uses should not be affected • unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of mercury does not exceed 0.012 ug/L more than once every 3 years on the average • and if the 1-hour average concentration does not exceed 2.4 ug/L more than once every 3 years on the average. If the 4-day I average concentration exceeds 0,012 ug/L more than once in a 3- • year period, the edible portion of consumed species should be analyzed to determine whether the concentration of methylmercury I exceeds the FDA action level. The procedures described in the Guidelines indicate that, •• except possibly where a localy important species is very • sensitive, saltwater aquatic organisms and their uses should not be affected unacceptably if the 4-day average concentration of I mercury does not exceed 0.025 ug/L more than once every 3 years on the average and if the 1-hour average concentration does not • exceed 2,1 ug/L more than once every 3 years on the average. If • the 4-day average concentration exceeds 0.025 ug/L more than once A-60 i I • in a 3-year period, the edible protion of consumed species should i>e analyzed to determine whether the concentration of • mathylmercury exceeds the FDA action level. :• EPA believes that a measurement such as "acid-soluble" would ; provide a more scientifically correct basis upon which to !| establish criteria for metals. The criteria were developed on this basis. However, at this time, no EPA approved-methods for • . such a measurement are available to implement the criteria • through the regulatory programs of the Agency and the States. The Agency is considering development and approval of methods for • a measurement such as acid-soluble. Until available, however, EPA recommends applying the criteria using the total recoverable • method. This has two impacts: (1) certain species of some metals • cannot be analyzed directly because the total recoverable method does not distinguish between individual oxidation states, and (2) • these criteria may be overly protective when based on the total recoverable method. ^ The recommended exceedence frequency of 3 years is the • Agency's best scientific judgment of the average amount of time it will take an unstressed system to recover from a pollution • event in which exposure to mercury exceeds the criterion. A ! stressed system, for example, one in which several outfalls occur I . [• in a limited area, would be expected to require more-time for i !• recovery. The resilience of ecosystems and their ability to I recover differ greatly, however, and site-specific criteria may - ' I be established if adequate justification is provided. i A-61 i I The use of criteria in designing waste treatment facilities | requires the selection of an appropriate wasteload allocation « model. Dynamic models are preferred for the application of these criteria. Limited data or other factors may make their use • impractical, in which case one should rely on a steady-state model. The Agency recommends the interim use of 1Q5 or 1Q10 for I Criterion Maximum Concentration design flow and 7Q5 or 7Q10 for £ the Criterion Continuous Concentration design flow in steady- state models for unstressed and stressed systems respectively, I These matters are discussed in more detail in the Technical Support Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control (U.S m EPA, 1935), HUMAN HEALTH CRITERIA I For the protection of human health from the toxic properties • of mercury ingested through water and contaminated aquatic organisms, the ambient water criterion is determined to be 144 • ng/L. • For the protection of human health from the toxic properties of mercury ingested through contaminated aquatic organisms alone, I the ambient water criterion is determined to be 146 ng/L. NOTE: These values include the consumption of freshwater, estuarine, and marine species. • (45 F.R. 79318 Nov. 28,1980) (50 F.R. 30784, July 29, 1985) * SEE APPENDIX A FOR METHODOLOGY A-G: I I METHOXYCHLOR CRITERIA: I 100 ug/L for domestic water supply (health); I 0.03 ug/L for freshwater and marine aquatic life. RATIONALE: • The highest level of methoxychlor found to have minimal or no • long-term effects in man is 2.0 mg/kg of body weight/day (Lehman, 1965). Where adequate human data are available for corroboration • of the animal results, the total "safe" drinking water intake level is assumed to be 1/100 of the no-effect or minimal effect • level reported for the most sensitive animal tested, in this M case, man. Applying the available data and based upon the assumptions I that 20 percent of the total intake of methoxychlor is from drinking water, and that the average person weighs 70 kg and | consumes 2 liters of water per day, the formula for calculating a — criterion is 2.0 mg/kg x 0.2 x 70 kg x 1/100 x 1/2 = 0.14 rog/L. • A criterion level for domestic water supply of 100 ug/L is • recommended. Few data are available on acute and chronic effects of J methoxychlor on freshwater fish. Merna and Eisele (1973) f observed reduced hatchability of fathead minnow (Pimephales • promelas) embryos at 0.125 ug/L and lack of spawning at 2.0 • ug/L. Yellow perch, Perca flavescens, exposed to 0.6 ug/L for 8 months exhibited reduced growth. The 96-hour LC50 concentration I was 7.5 and 22 ug/L for the fathead minnow and yellow perch, respectively. Korn and Earnest (1974) obtained a 96-hour LC50 i A-63 I of 3.3 ug/L with juvenile stripped bass, Morone saxatilis, I exposed to methoxychlor in a flowing-water bioassay. • Sanders (1972) determined a 96-hour LC50 value of 0.5 ug/L for the crayfish, Orconectes nais. Merna and Eisele (1973) | obtained a 96-hour LC50 value of 0.61 ug/L for the scud, Gammarus « pseudol imnaeus and 96-hour LCSO's ranging from 1.59 to 7.05 ug/L for the crayfish, Qrconectes nais, and three aquatic insect 8 larvae. In 28-day exposures, reduction in emergence of mayflies, Stenonema sp., and in pupation of caddisflies, Cheumatospsyche I sp,, were observed at 0.5 and 0,25 ug/L concentrations, _ respectively. They also found methoxychlor to be degraded in a ™ few weeks or less in natural waters. • Eisele (1974) conducted a study in which a section of a natural stream was dosed at 0.2 ug/L methoxychlor for 1 year. . • The near extinction of one species of scud, Hyallella azteca, and reductions in populations of other sensitive species, as well as I biomass, were observed. Residue accumulation of up to 1,000 • times the level in the stream was observed in first-year crayfish, Orconectes nais. Metcalf et al. (1971) traced' the I rapid conversion of methoxychlor to water soluble compounds and elimination from the tissues of snails, mosquito larvae and | mosquitofish. Thus, methoxychlor appears to be considerably less _ bioaccumlative in aquatic organisms than some of the other * chlorinated pesticides. • Methoxyhlor has a very low accumulation rate in birds and mammals (stickel, 1973), and relatively low avian (Heath et al. I 1972) and mammal ian (Hodge et al. 1950) toxicities. No administrative guidelines for acceptable levels in edible fish • A-64 • I • tissue's have been establ ished by the U.S. Food and Drug • Administration. The above data indicate that 0.1 ug/L methoxychlor would be • just below chronic effect level for the fathead minnow and one- fifth the acute toxicity level in a crayfish species. Therefore, I a criterion level of 0,03 ug/L is recommended. This criterion • should protect fish as sensitive as striped bass and is 10 times lower than the level causing effects on some invertebrate • populations in a 1-year dosing of a natural stream. Banner and Nimmo (1974) found the 96-hour LC50 of | methoxychlor for the pink shrimp, Penaeus duorarum, to be' 3.5 _ ug/L and the 30-day LC50 to be 1.3 ug/L. Using an application ™ factor of 0.01 with the pink shrimp's acute toxicity of 3.5 fl ug/L, the recommended criterion for the marine environment is 0.03 ug/L. | ,. Butler (1971) found accumulation factors of 470 and 1,500 for _ the molluscs, M e r c e n a r jl a m e r c e n a r _i a and M v_ a a r e n a r j. a, ™ respectively, when exposed to 1 ug/L methoxychlor for 5 days. • Using the 1,500 accumulation factor as a basis, a water concentration of 0.2 ug/L would be required to meet the U.S. Food • and Drug Administration's guideline for methoxychlor in meat products. Thus, the recommended marine criterion of 0.03 ug/L is • an order of magnitude lower than this concentration. i (QUALITY CRITERIA FOR WATER, JULY 1976) PB-263943 • SEE APPENDIX C FOR METHODOLOGY I • A-65 (I-Ion-Text Page) A-66 I I NITRATES/NITRITES CRITERION: 10 mg/L nitrate nitrogen (N) for domestic water supply (health). I INTRODUCTION: • Two gases (molecular nitrogen and nitrous oxide) and five forms of nongaseous, combined nitrogen (amino and amide groups, • ammonium, nitrite, and nitrate) are important in the nitrogen cycle. The amino and amide groups are found in soil organic B matter and as constituents of plant and animal protein. The m ammonium ion either is released from proteinaceous organic matter and urea, or is synthesized in industrial processes involving I .atmospheric nitrogen fixation. The nitrite ion is formed from the nitrate or the ammonium ions by certain microorganisms found I in soil, water, sewage, and the digestive tract. The nitrate ion — is formed by the complete oxidation of ammonium, ions by soil or • water microorganisms; nitrite is an intermediate product of this • nitrification process. In oxygenated natural water systems nitrite is rapidly oxidized to nitrate. Growing plants J assimilate nitrate or ammonium ions and convert them to protein. — A process known as denitrification takes place when nitrate- • containing soils become anaerobic and the conversion to nitrite, tf molecular nitrogen, or nitrous oxide occurs. Ammonium ions may also be produced in some circumstances, • Among the major point sources of nitrogen entry into water bodies are municipal and industrial wastewaters, septic tanks, • and feed lot discharges. Diffuse sources of nitrogen include • ( I farm-site fertilizer and animal wastes, lawn fertilizer, leachate I A-67 I from waste disposal in dumps or sanitary landfills, atmospheric I fallout, nitric oxide and nitrite discharges from automobile • exhausts and other combustion processes, and losses from natural sources such as mineralization of soil organic matter (NAS, J 1972). Water reuse systems in some fish hatcheries employ a _ nitrification process for ammonia reduction; this may result in H exposure of the hatchery fish to elevated levels of nitrite • (Russo et al. 1974). RATIONALE: I In quantities normally found in food or feed, nitrates become toxic only under conditions in which they are, or may be, reduced I to nitrites. Otherwise, at "reasonable" concentration nitrates • are rapidly excreted in the urine. High intake of nitrates constitutes a hazard primarily to warmblooded animals under I conditions that are favorable to reduction to nitrite. Under certain circumstances, nitrate can be reduced to nitrite in the | gastrointestinal tract which then reaches the bloodstream and _ reacts directly with hemoglobin to produce methemoglobin, * consequently impairing transport. • The reaction of nitrite with hemoglobin can be hazardous in infants under 3 months of age. Serious and occasionally fatal • poisonings in infants have occurred following ingestion of untreated well waters shown to contain nitrate at concentrations I greater than 10 mg/L nitrate nitrogen (N) (NAS, 1974). High • nitrate concentrations frequently are found in shallow farm and rural community wells, often as the result of inadequate • protection from barnyard drainage or from septic tanks (USPHS, i A-6 8 i I 1961; Stewart et al. 1967). Increased concentrations of nitrates m also have been found in streams from farm tile drainage in areas • of intense fertilization and farm crop production (Harmeson et • al. 1971). Approximately 2,000 cases of infant methemoglobinemia have been reported in Europe and North America since 1945; 7 to • 8 percent of the affected infants died (Walton, 1951; Sattelmacher, 1962). Many infants have drunk water in which the I nitrate nitrogen content was greater than 10 mg/L without • developing methemoglobinemia. Many public water supplies in the United States contain levels that routinely exceed this amount, • but only one U.S. case of infant methemoglobinemia associated with a public water supply has ever been reported (Virgil et al. | 1965). The differences in susceptibility to methemoglobinemia — are not yet understood but appear to be related to a combination • of factors including nitrate concentration, enteric bacteria, and • the lower acidity characteristic of the digestive systems of baby mammals. Methemoglobinemia systems and other toxic effects were • observed when high nitrate well waters containing pathogenic bacteria were fed to laboratory mammals (Wolff et al. 1972). • Conventional water treatment has no significant effect on nitrate • removal from water (NAS, 1974). Because of the potential risk of methemoglobinemia to bottle- • fed infants, and in view of the absence of substantiated physiological effects at nitrate concentrations below 10 mg/L . I nitrate nitrogen, this level is the criterion for domestic water I supplies. Waters with nitrite nitrogen concentrations over 1 I l A-69 I I mg/L should not be used for infant feeding. Waters with a significant nitrite concentration usually would be heavily • polluted and probably bacteriologically unacceptable. Westin (1974) determined that the respective 96-hour and 7- | day LC50 values for Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, • were 1,310 and 1,080 mg/L nitrate nitrogen in fresh water and 990 and 900 mg/L nitrate nitrogen in 15 o/oo saline water. For • fingerling rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri/ the respective 96-hour and 7-day LC50 values were 1,360 and 1,060 mg/L nitrate nitrogen | in fresh water, and 1,050 and 900 mg/L nitrate nitrogen in 15 _ o/oo saline water. Trama (1954) reported that the 96-hour LC50 • for bluegills, Lepontis macrochirus, at 20°C was 2,000 mg/L • nitrate nitrogen (sodium nitrate) and 420 mg/L nitrate nitrogen (potassium nitrate). Knepp and Arkin (1973) observed that I largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides, and channel catfish, Ictalurus punctatus/ could be maintained at concentrations up to I 400 mg/L nitrate (90 mg/L nitrate nitrogen) without significant • effect upon their growth and feeding activities. The 96-hour and 7-day LC50 values for Chinook salmon, I Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, were found to be 0.9 and 0.7 mg/L nitrite nitrogen in fresh water (Westin, 1974). Smith and | Williams (1974) tested the effects of nitrite nitrogen and _ observed that yearling rainbow trout, Salmo gairdneri, suffered a ™ 55 percent mortality after 24 hours at 0.55 mg/L; fingerling • rainbow trout suffered a 50 percent mortality after 24 hours of exposure at 1.6 mg/L; and Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus I tshawytscha, suffered a 40 percent mortality within 24 hours at A-70 I I I 0.5 mg/L. There were no mortalities among rainbow trout exposed to 0.15 mg/L nitrite nitrogen for 48 hours. These data indicate that salmonids are more sensitive to nitrite toxicity than are • other fish species, e.g., minnows, Phoxinus iaevi^, that suffered a 50 percent mortality within 1.5 hours of exposure to I 2,030 mg/L nitrite nitrogen, but required 14 days of exposure M for mortality to occur at 10 mg/L (Klingler, 1957), and carp, Cyprinus carpio, when raised in a water reuse system, tolerated • up to 1.8 mg/L nitrite nitrogen (Saeki, 1965). Gillette, et al. (1952) observed that the critical range for | creek chub, Semotilus atromacu 1 atus , was 80 to 400 mg/L nitrite . nitrogen. Wallen et al. (1957) reported a 24-hour LC50 of 1.6 • mg/L nitrite nitrogen, and 48- and 96-hour LC50 values of 1.5 .• mg/L nitrite nitrogen for aosquitofish, Gambusia affinis. McCoy (1972) tested the nitrite susceptibility of 13 fish species and | found that logperch, Percina caprodes, were the most sensitive species tested (mortality at 5 mg/L nitrite nitrogen in less • than 3 hours of exposure) whereas carp, Cyprinus carpio, and black bullheads, Ictalurus melas, survived 40 mg/L nitrite I nitrogen for a 48-hour exposure period; the common white sucker, • Catostomus commersoni, and the guillback, Carpi odes cyprinus, survived 100 mg/L for 48 and 36 hours, respectively. • Russo et al. (1974) performed flow-through nitrite bioassays '• in hard water (hardness = 199 mg/L CaC03; alkalinity = 176 mg/L CaCO3; pH = 7.9) on rainbow trout, §al.rno gairdneri, of four I different sizes, and obtained 96-hour LC50 values ranging from 0.19 to 0.39 mg/L nitrite nitrogen. Duplicate bioassays on 12- gram rainbow trout were continued long enough for their toxicity i A-71 I I curves to level off, and asymptotic LC50 concentrations of 0.14 and 0.15 mg/L were reached in 8 days; on day 19, additional I mortalities occurred. For 2-gram rainbow trout, the minimum tested level of nitrite nitrogen at which no mortalities were | observed after 10 days was-0.14 mg/L; for the 235-gram trout, the _ minimum level with no mortality after 10 days was 0.06 mg/L. It is concluded that (1) levels of nitrate nitrogen at or • below 90 mg/L would have no adverse effects on warmwater fish (Knepp and Arkin, 1973); (2) nitrite nitrogen at or below 5 mg/L | should be protective of most warmwater fish (McCoy, 1972); and _ (3) nitrite nitrogen at or below 0-06 mg/L should be protective • of salmonid fishes (Russo et al. 1974; Russo and Thurstoh, • 1975). These levels either are not known to occur or would be unlikely to occur in natural surface waters. I Recognizing that concentrations of nitrate or nitrite that would exhibit toxic effects on warm- or coldwater fish could I rarely occur in nature, restrictive criteria are not recommended. i i i (QUALITY CRITERIA FOR WATER, JULY 1976) PB-263943 SEE APPENDIX C FOR METHODOLOGY _ I i I A-72 • I I OIL AND GREASE I CRITERIA: For domestic water supply: Virtually free from oil and grease, particularly from the tastes I and odors that emanate from petroleum products. For aquatic life: I (1) 0.01 of the lowest continuous flow 96-hour LC50 to several important freshwater and marine species, each having a demonstrated high susceptibility to oils and I petrochemicals. (2) Levels of oils or petrochemicals in the I sediment which cause deleterious effects to the biota should not be allowed. I (3) Surface waters shall be virtually free from floating nonpetroleum oils of vegetable or animal origin, as well as petroleum-derived I oils. INTRODUCTION: I It has been estimated that between 5 and 10 million metric tons of oil enter the marine environment annually (Blumer, 1970). I A major difficulty encountered in the setting of criteria for I oil and grease is that these are not definitive chemical categories, but include thousands of organic compounds with I varying physical, chemical, and toxicological properties. They may be volatile or nonvolatile, soluble or insoluble, persistent I or easily degraded. I RATIONALE; Field and laboratory evidence have demonstrated both acute I lethal toxicity and long-term sublethal toxicity of oils to aquatic organisms. Events such as the Tampico Maru wreck of I 1957 in Baja, California, (Diaz-Piferrer, 1962), and the No. 2 ' ( I fuel oil spill in West Falmouth, Massachusetts, in 1969 I A-73 I (Hampson and Sanders, 1969), both of which caused immediate death I to a wide variety of organisms, are illustrative of the lethal • toxicity that may be attributed to oil pollution. Similarly, a gasoline spill in South Dakota in November 1969 (Bugbee and I Walter, 1973) was reported to have caused immediate death to the majority of freshwater invertebrates and 2,500 fish, 30 percent I of which were native species of trout. Because of the wide • range of compounds included in the category of oil, it is impossible to establish meaningful 96-hour LC5Q values for oil • and grease without specifying the product involved. However, as the data in Table 6 show, the most susceptible | category of organisms, the marine larvae, appear to be intolerant » of petroleum pollutants, particularly the water soluble * compounds, at concentrations as low as 0.1 mg/L. ' I The long-term sublethal effects of oil pollution refer to interferences with cellular and physiological processes such as I feeding and reproduction and do not lead to immediate death of the organism. Disruption of such behavior apparently can result • from petroleum product concentrations as low as 10 to 100 ug/I* • (see Table 7). Table 7 summarizes some of the sublethal toxicities for I various petroleum pollutants and aquatic species. In addition to sublethal effects reported at the 10 to 100 ug/L level, it has | been shown that'petroleum products can harm aquatic life at « concentrations as low as 1 ug/L (Jacobson and Boylan, 1973). ™ Bioaccumulation of petroleum products presents two especially • important public health problems: (1) the tainting of edible, i A-74 i I aquatic species, and (2) the possibility of edible marine m organisms incorporating the high boiling, carcinogenic polycyclic ™ aromatics in their tissues. Nelson-Smith (1971) reported that • 0.01 mg/L of crude oil caused tainting in oysters. Moore et al. (1973) reported that concentrations as low as 1 to 10 ug/L could I lead to tainting within very short periods of time. It has been shown that chemicals responsible for cancer in animals and man • (such as 3,4-benzopyrene) occur in crude oil (Blumer, 1970). It • alsohasbeen shown that marine organisms are capable of incorporating potentially carcinogenic compounds into their body • fat where the compounds remain unchanged (Blumer, 1970). Oil pollutants may also be incorporated into sediments. I There is evidence that once this occurs in the sediments below _ the aerobic surface layer, petroleum oil can remain unchanged and ™ toxic for long periods, since its rate of bacterial degradation • is slow. For example, Blumer (1970) reported that No. 2 fuel oil incorporated into the sediments after the West Falmouth spill I persisted for over a year, and even began spreading in the form of oil-laden sediments to more distant areas that had remained • unpolluted immediately after the spill. The persistence of • unweathered oil within the sediment could have a long-term effect on the structure of the benthic community or cause the demise of I specific sensitive important species. Moore et al. (1973) reported concentrations of 5 mg/L for the carcinogen 3, 4- | benzopyrene in marine sediments. m Mironov (1967) reported that 0.01 mg/L oil produced deformed i and inactive flatfish larvae. Mironov (1970) also reported • inhibition or delay of cellular division in algae by oil • A-75 ' I concentrations of 10~4 to 1CT1 mg/L. Jacobson and Boylan (1973) I reported a reduction in the chemotactic perception of food by the fl snail, Nassarius obsoletus, at kerosene concentrations of 0.001 to 0.004 mg/L. Bellen et al. (1972) reported decreased survival | and fecundity in worms at concentrations of 0.01 to 10 mg/L of detergent. • Because of the great variability in the toxic properties of • oil, it is difficult to establish a numerical criterion which would be applicable to all types of oil. Thus, an application I factor of 0.01 of the 96-hour LC50 as determined by using continuous flow with a sensitive resident species should be I employed for individual petrochemical components. • There is a paucity of toxicological data on the ingestion of the components of refinery wastewaters by humans or by test I animals. It is apparent that any tolerable health concentrations for petroleum-derived substances far exceed the limits of taste | and odor. Since petroleum derivatives become organoleptically _ objectionable at concentrations far below the human chronic ' toxicity, it appears that hazards to humans will not arise from • drinking oil-polluted waters (Johns Hopkins Univ., 1956; Mckee and Wolf, 1963). Oils of animal or vegetable origin generally I are nontoxic to humans and aquatic life. In view of the problem of petroleum oil incorporation in I sediments, its persistence and chronic toxic potential, and the m present lack of sufficient toxicity data to support specific criteria, concentrations of oils in sediments should not approach I levels that cause deleterious effects to important species or the i £.-76 i I I bottom community as a whole. H Petroleum and nonpetroleum oils share some similar physical • and chemical properties. Because they share common properties, • they may cause similar harmful effects in the aquatic environment by forming a sheen, film, or discoloration on the • surface of the water. Like petroleum oils, nonpetroleum oils may occur at four levels of the aquatic environment: (a) floating • on the surface, (b) emulsified in the water column, (c) • solubilized, and (d) settled on the bottom as a sludge. Analogous to the grease balls from vegetable oil and animal fats are the I tar balls of petroleum origin which have been found in the marine environment or washed ashore on beaches. I Oils of any kind can cause (a) drowning of waterfowl because H of loss of buoyancy, exposure because of loss of insulating capacity of feathers, and starvation and vulnerability to • predators because of lack of mobility; (b) lethal effects on fish by coating epithelial surfaces of gil Is, thus preventing I respiration; (c) potential fishkills resulting from biochemical _ oxygen demand; (d) asphyxiation of benthic life forms when • floating masses become engaged with surface debris and settle on • the bottom.; and (e) adverse aesthetic effects of fouled shorelines and beaches. These and other effects have been I documented in the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare report on Oil Spills Affecting the Minnesota and I Mississippi Rivers and the 1975 Proceedings of the Joint • Conference on Prevention and Control of Oil Spills. T Oils of animal or vegetable origin generally are chemically I nontoxic to humans or aquatic life; however, floating sheens of i A-77 I such oils result in deleterious environmental effects described ™ in this criterion. Thus, it is recommended that surface waters • shall be virtually free from floating nonpetroleum oils of vegetable or animal origin. This same recommendation applies to I floating oils of petroleum origin since they too may produce similar effects. iI (QUALITY CRITERIA FOR WATER, JULY 1976) PB-263943 i SEE APPENDIX C FOR METHODOLOGY i i i i i i i i i i i A-78 i I DISSOLVED OXYGEN • NATIONAL CRITERIA; • The national criteria for ambient dissolved oxygen concentra- • tions for the protection of freshwater aquatic life are presented in Table 1. The criteria are derived from the production impair- • ment estimates which are based primarily upon growth data and information on temperature, disease, and pollutant stresses. The • average dissolved oxygen concentrations selected are values 0.5 • mg/L above the slight production impairment values and repre- sent values between no production impairment and slight • production impairment. Each criterion may thus be viewed as an estimate of the threshold concentration below which detrimental I effects are expected. • Criteria for coldwater fish are intended to apply to waters containing a population of one or more species in the family I Salmonidae {Bailey et al., 1970) or to waters containing other coldwater or coolwater fish deemed by the user to be closer to | salmonids in sensitivity than to most warmwater species. _ Although the acute lethal limit for salmonids is at or below 3 • mg/L, the coldwater minimum has been established at 4 mg/L • because a significant proportion of the insect species common to salmonid habitats are less tolerant of acute exposures to low I dissolved oxygen than are salmonids. Some coolwater species may require more protection than that afforded by the other life • stage criteria for warmwater fish and it may be desirable to • protect sensitive coolwater species with the coldwater criteria. Many states have more stringent dissolved oxygen V, . I standards for cooler waters, waters that contain either I A-79 I salmonids, nonsalmonid coolwater fish, or the sensitive centra- I chid, the smallmouth bass The warmwater criteria are necessary I to protect early life stages of warmwater fish as sensitive as as channel catfish and to protect other life stages of fish as | sensitive as largemouth bass. Criteria for early life stages are • intended to apply only where and when these stages occur. These criteria represent dissolved oxygen concentrations which EPA 8 believes provide a reasonable and adequate degree of protection for freshwater aquatic life. | The criteria do not represent assured no-effect levels. _ However, because the criteria represent worst case conditions • (i.e. for wasteload allocation and waste treatment plant design), • conditions will be better than, the criteria nearly all of the time at most sites. In situations where criteria conditions are • just maintained for considerable periods the proposed criteria represent some risk of production impairment. This impairment I would depend on innumerable other factors. If slight production • impairment or a small but undefinable risk of moderate impairment is unacceptable, than one should use the "no production impair- I ment" values given in the document as means and the "slight production impairment" values as minima. The table which pre- | sents these concentrations is reproduced here as table 2. _ The criteria do represent dissolved oxygen concentrations * believed to protect the more sensitive populations of organisms • against potentially damaging production impairment. The dissolved oxygen concentrations in the criteria are intended to I be protective at typically high seasonal environmental tempera- tures for the appropriate taxonomic and life stage classi- I A-80 I I Table 1. Water quality criteria for ambient dissolved oxygen I concentrat ion. I Coldwater Criteria Warmwater Criteria Early Life Other Life Early Life Other Life I Stages1 '2 Stages Stages2 Stages 30 Day Mean NA3 6 . 5 NA 5.5 I 7 Day Mean 9.5 (6.5) NA 6.0 NA 7 Day Mean NA 5.0 NA 4.0 I Minimum 1 Day 8.0 (5.0) 4.0 5.0 3.0 I Minimum 4' I 1 These are water column concentrations recommended to achieve the required intergravel dissolved oxygen concentrations shown in parentheses. The 3 mg/L differential is discussed in I the criteria document. For species that have early life stages exposed directly to the water column, the figures in parentheses apply. 2 I * Includes all embryonic and larval stages and all juvenile forms to 30-days following hatching. I 3 NA (not applicable). 4 For highly manipulatable discharges, further restrictions I apply (see page 37) All minima should be considered as instantaneous I concentrations to be achieved at all times. I fications, temperatures which are often higher than those used in the research from which the criteria were generated, especially I for other than early life stages. Where natural conditions alone create dissolved oxygen concentrations less than 110 percent of the applicable criteria I\ I means or minima or both, the minimum acceptable concentration is I A-81 I 90 percent of the natural concentration. These values are * similar to those presented graphically by Doudoroff and • Shumway (1970) and those calculated from Water Quality Criteria 1972 (NAS/NAE, 1973). Absolutely no anthropogenic dissolved I oxygen depression in the potentially lethal area below the 1-day minima should be allowed unless special care is taken to I ascertain the tolerance of resident species to low dissolved I oxygen. If daily cycles of dissolved oxygen are essentially I sinusoidal, a reasonable daily average is calculated from the day's high and low dissolved oxygen values. A time-weighted | average may be required if the dissolved oxygen cycles are « decidedly non-sinusoidal. Determining the magnitude of daily * dissolved oxygen cycles requires at least two appropriate- • ly timed measurements daily, and characterizing the shape of the cycle requires several more appropriately spaced measurements. I Once a series of daily mean dissolved oxygen concentrations are calculated, an average of these daily means can be calcu- m lated (Table 3). For embryonic, larval, and early life stages, • the averaging period should not exceed 7 days. This short time is needed to adequately protect these often short duration, most I sensitive life stages. Other life stages can probably be adequately protected by 30-day averages. Regardless of the | averaging period, the average should be considered a moving H average rather than a calendar-week or calendar-month average. i• A-82 i I I Table 2. Dissolved Oxygen Concentrations (mg/L) Versus I Quantitative Level of Effect. 1. Salmonid Waters I a. Embryo and Larval Stages No Production Impairment = 11* (8) Slight Production Impairment - 9* (6) I Moderate Production Impairment = 8* (5) Severe Production Impairment - 7* (4) I Limit to Avoid Acute Mortality = 6* (3) (* Note: These are water column concentrations recommended to achieve the required intergravel dissolved oxygen I concentrations shown in parentheses. The 3 mg/L difference is discussed in the criteria document.) I b. Other Life Stages No Production Impairment = 8 light Production Impairment = 6 I Moderate Production Impairment = 5 Severe Production Impairment = 4 Limit to Avoid Acute Mortality « 3 2. Nonsalmonid Waters I a. Early Life Stages No Production Impairment =6.5 Slight Production Impairment = 5.5 I Moderate Production Impairment » 5 Severe Production Impairment » 4.5 Limit to Avoid Acute Mortality - 4 I b. Other Life Stages No Production Impairment - 6 I Slight Production Impairment • 5 Moderate Production Impairment = 4 Severe Production Impairment = 3.5 I Limit to Avoid Acute Mortality.= 3 3. Invertebrates I No Production Impairment = 8 Some Production Impairment = 5 Acute Mortality Limit = 4 I I A-83 I I Table 3. Sample calculations for determining daily means and 7-day mean dissolved oxygen concentrations (30-day • averages are calculated in a similar fashion using 30 • days data). Dissolved Oxygen (mq/L) i Day Daily Max. Daily Min. Daily Mean i 1 9.0 7.0 8.0 2 10.0 7.0 8.5 3 11.0 8.0 9.5b" 1 4 12.Oa 8.0 9.5 • 5 10.0 8.0 9.0 6 11.0 9 0 10.O • 7 12.Oa 10.0 10.5° | 57.0 65.0 _ 1-day Minimum 7.0 7-day Mean Minimum 8.1 • 7-day Mean 9.3 a Above air saturation concentration (assumed to be 11.0 rl mg/L for this example). b (11.0 + 8.0)2. C (11 0 +10.0)2. I The criteria have been established on the basis that the _ maximum dissolved oxygen value actually used in calculating any * daily mean should not exceed the air saturation value. This • consideration is based primarily on analysis of studies of cycling dissolved oxygen and the growth of largemouth bass I (Stewart et al., 1967), which indicated that high dissolved oxygen levels (> 6 mg/L) had no beneficial effect on growth. I During periodic cycles of dissolved oxygen concentrations, • minima lower than acceptable constant exposure levels are toler- able so long as: I A-34 I I I 1. the average concentration attained meets or exceeds the criterion; I 2. the average dissolved oxygen concentration is calculated as "* recommended in Table 3; and • 3. the minima are not unduly stressful and clearly are not lethal A daily minimum has been included to make certain that no | acute mortality of sensitive species occurs as a result of lack _ of oxygen. Because repeated exposure to dissolved oxygen ^ concentrations at or near the acute lethal threshold will be • stressful and because stress can indirectly produce mortality or other adverse effects (e.g., through disease), the criteria I are designed to prevent significant episodes of continuous or regularly recurring exposures to dissolved oxygen concentrations I at or near the lethal threshold. This protection has been • .achieved by setting the daily minimum for early life stages at the subacute lethality threshold, by the use of a 7-day averaging I period for early life stages, by stipulating a 7-day mean minimum value for other life stages, and by recommending additional I limits for manipulatable discharges. _ The previous EPA criterion for dissolved oxygen published in Quality Criteria for Water (USEPA, 1976) was a minimum of 5 mg/L • (usually applied as a 7Q10) which is similar to the current criterion minimum except for other life stages of warmwater fish . I which now al lows a 7-day mean minimum of 4 mg/L. The new 1 criteria are similar to those contained in the 1968 "Green Book" il of the Federal Water Pollution Control Federation (FWPCA, 1968). i i A-85 I I A. The Criteria and Monitoring and Design Conditions The acceptable mean concentrations should be attained most of I the time, but some deviation below these values would probably not cause significant harm. Deviations below the mean will I probably be serially correlated and hence apt to occur on • consecutive days. The significance of deviations below the mean will depend on whether they occur continuously or in daily • cycles, the former being more adverse than the latter. Current knowledge regarding such deviations is limited primarily to labo- | ratory growth experiments and by extrapolation to other activity- • related phenomena. ™ Under conditions where large daily cycles of dissolved oxygen • occur, it is possible to meet the criteria mean values and consistently violate the mean minimum criteria. Under these I conditions the mean minimum criteria will clearly be the limiting regulation unless alternatives such as nutrient • control can dampen the daily cycles. • The significance of conditions which fail to meet the recommended dissolved oxygen criteria depend largely upon five I factors: (1) the duration of the event; (2) the magnitude of the dissolved oxygen depression; (3) the frequency of recurrence; (4) I the proportional area of the site failing to meet the criteria, M and (5) the biological significance of the site where the event occurs. Evaluation of an event's significance must be largely I case- and site-specific. Common sense would dictate that the magnitude of the depression would be the single most important | factor in general, especially if the acute value is violated. A I A-36 I I I logical extension of these considerations-is that the event must be considered in the context of the level of resolution of the I monitoring or modeling effort. Evaluating the extent, duration, I and magnitude of an event must be a function of the spatial and temporal frequency of the data. Thus, a single deviation below | the criterion takes on considerably less significance where j continuous monitoring occurs than where sampling is com- prised of once-a-week grab samples. This is so because based on I continuous -monitoring the event is provably small, but with the much less frequent sampling the event is not provably small | and can be considerably worse than indicated by the sample. The — frequency of recurrence is of considerable interest to those ' modeling dissolved oxygen concentrations because the return • period, or period between recurrences, is a primary modeling consideration contingent upon probabilities of receiving water I volumes, waste loads, temperatures, etc. It should be apparent that return period cannot be isolated from the other four factors • discussed above. Ultimately, the question of return period may • be decided on a site-specific basis taking into account the other factors (duration, magnitude, area1 extent, and bio1og i- • cal significance) mentioned above. Future studies of temporal patterns of dissolved oxygen concentrations, both within and ' | between years, must be conducted to provide a better basis for I 1 selection of the appropriate return period. - i I In conducting wasteload allocation and treatment plant design I • computations, the choice of temperature in the models will be • ^ important. Probably the best option would be to use temperatures • consistent with those expected in the receiving water over the i A-87 I I critical dissolved oxygen period for the biota. B. The Criteria and Manipulatable Discharges I If daily minimum DOs are perfectly serially correlated, ^ i.e, if the annual lowest daily minimum dissolved oxygen concen- • tration is adjacent in time to the next lower daily minimum • dissolved oxygen concentration and one of these two minima is adjacent to the third lowest daily minimum dissolved oxygen I concentration, etc., then in order to meet the 7-day mean three or four consecutive daily minimum values below the accept- « able 7-day mean minimum. Unless the dissolved oxygen pattern is extremely erratic, it is also unlikely that the lowest • dissolved oxygen concentration will be appreciably below the acceptable 7-day mean minimum .or that daily minimum values • below the 7-day mean minimum will occur in more than one or two weeks each year. For some discharges, the distribution of B dissolved oxygen concentrations can be manipulated to varying • degrees. Applying the daily minimum to manipulatable discharges would allow repeated weekly cycles of minimum acutely acceptable I dissolved oxygen values, a condition of unacceptable stress and possible adverse biological effect. For this reason, the I application of the one day minimum criterion to manipulatable • discharges must limit either the frequency of occurrence of values below the acceptable 7-day mean minimum or must impose I further limits on the extent of excursions below the 7-day mean minimum. For such controlled discharges, it is recommended that I the occurrence of daily minima below the acceptable 7-day mean i A-88 i I I iftinimum be limited to 3 weeks per year or that the acceptable one-day minimum be increased to 4.5 mg/L for coldwater fish and I 3.5 mg/L for warmwater fish. Such decisions could be site- I specific based upon the extent of control and serial correlation. i i I i i i i i i i i i I i i A-89 I I (NON-TEXT PAGE) I I I I l i i i i i i i i i i ,-90 I I I EH CRITERIA: I Range 5 - 9 Domestic water supplies (welfare) 1 6.5 - 9.0 Freshwater aquatic life 6.5 - 8.5 Marine aquatic life (but not more than 1 0.2 units outside of normallyoccurring range.) | INTRODUCTION: "pH11 is a measure of the hydrogen ion activity in a water ( sample. It is mathematically related to hydrogen ion activity I according to the expression: pH = -log 10 (H+), where (H+) is the hydrogen ion activity. | The pH of natural waters is a measure of acid-base _ equilibrium achieved by the various dissolved compounds, salts, • and gases. The principal system regulating pH in natural waters • is the carbonate system which is composed of carbon dioxide (C02), carbonic acid, (H2C03), bicarbonate ion (HC03) and I carbonate ions (C03). The interactions and kinetics of this . system have been described by Stumm and Morgan (1970). • pH is an important factor in the chemical and biological • systems of natural waters. The degree of dissociation of weak acids or bases is affected by changes in pH. This effect is I important because the toxicity of many compounds is affected by the degree of dissociation. One such example is hydrogen cyanide | (HCN). Cyanide toxicity to fish increases as the pH is lowered • because the chemical equlibrium is shifted toward an increased concentration of HCN. Similar results have been shown for • hydrogen sulfide (H2S) (Jones, 1964). I A-91 I I (NON-TEXT PAGE) • 1 I I I A-92 1 I Im The solubility of metal compounds contained in bottom • sediments or as suspended material also is affected by pH. For example, laboratory equil ibrium studies under anaerobic M conditions indicated that pH was an important parameter involved in releasing manganese from bottom sediments (Delfino and Lee, I 1971) . kg The pH of a water does not indicate ability to neutralize additions of acids or bases without appreciable change. This I characteristic, termed "buffering capacity,11 is controlled by the amounts of alkalinity and acidity present. I RATIONALE; * Knowledge of pH in the raw water used for public water supplies is important because without adjustment to a suitable I level , such waters may be corrosive and adversely affect treatment processes including coagulation and chlorination. I Coagulation for removal of colloidal color by use of aluminum _ or iron salts generally has an optimum pH range of 5.0 to 6.5 • (Sawyer, 1960). Such optima are predicated upon the availability ft of sufficient alkalinity to complete the chemical reactions. The effect of pH on chlorine in water principally is on the A equilibrium between hypochlorous acid (HOC1) and the hypochlorite ion (OC1~) according to the reaction: • HOC1 = H+ + OC1" • Butterfield (1984) has shown that chlorine disinfection is more effective at values less than pH 7. Another study (Reid and I Carlson, 1974) has indicated, however, that in natural waters no t significant difference in the kill rate for Escherichia coli was i A-93 I observed between pH 6 and pH 8. I Corrosion of plant equipment and piping in the distribution • system can lead to expensive replacement as wel1 as the introduction of metal ions such as copper, lead, zinc, and I cadmium. Langelier (1936) developed a method to calculate and m control water corrosive activity that employs calcium carbonate saturation theory and predicts whether the water would tend to • dissolve or deposit calcium carbonate. By maintaining the pH at the proper level, the distribution system can be provided with J _• a protective calcium carbonate lining which prevents metal pipe — corrosion. Generally, this level is above pH 7 and frequently W approaches pH 8.3, the point of maximum bicarbonate/carbonate ft buffering. Since pH is relatively easily adjusted prior to and during I water treatment, a rather wide range is acceptable for waters serving as a source of public water supply. A range of pH from I 5.0 to 9.0 would provide a water treatable by typical • (coagulation, sedimentation, filtration , and chlorination) treatment plant processes. As the range is extended, the cost of I neutralizing chemicals increases. A review of the effects of pH on fresh water fish has been 41 published by the European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission u (1969). The commission concluded: 1•' There is no definite pH range within which a fishery is • unharmed and outside which it is damaged, but rather, there f is a gradual deterioration as the pH values are further removed from the normal range. The pH range which is not M directly lethal to fish is 5 - 9; however, the toxicity of I several common pollutants is markedly affected by pH changes within this range, and increasing acidity or alkalinity may make these poisons more toxic. Also, an acid discharge may I liberate sufficient C02 from bicarbonate in the water either I A-94 1 1 . '• to be directly toxic, or to cause the pH range 5 - 6 to become lethal. 1 Mount (1973) performed bioassays on the fathead minnow, Pimephales promelas, for a 13-month, one generation time period 1^B to determine chronic pH effects. Tests were run at pH I levels of 4.5, 5.2. pH Range Effect on Fish* 5.0 - 6.0 Unlikely to be harmful to any species unless either the . concentration of free CO2 is greater than 20 ppm, or the water contains iron salts which are precipitated as 1. ferric hydroxide, the toxicity of which is not known. 6.0 - 6.5 Unlikely to be harmful to fish unless free carbon dioxide I is present in excess of 10O ppm. 1^H 6.5 - 9.0 Harmless to fish, although the toxieity of other poisons may be affected by changes within this range. I EIFAC, 1969 1 1 t I 1 1 I I A-95 I 5.9, 6.6, and a control of 7.5. At the two lowest pH values (4.5 I and 5.2} behavior was abnormal and the fish were deformed. At pH • values less than 6.6, egg production and hatchability were reduced when compared with the control. It was concluded that a I pH of 6.6 was marginal for vital life functions. Bell (1971) performed bioassays with nymphs of caddisflies • (two species) stoneflies (four species), dragonflies (two A species), and mayflies (one species). All are important fish food organisms. The 30-day TL50 values ranged from 2.45 to 5.38 I with the caddisflies being the most tolerant and the mayflies being the least tolerant. The pH values at which 50 percent of | the organisms emerged ranged from 4.0 to 6.6 with increasing ^ percentage emergence occurring with the increasing pH values. ™ Based on present evidence, a pH range of 6.5 to 9.0 appears • to provide adequate protection for the life of freshwater fish and bottom dwelling invertebrates fish food organisms. Outside of • this range, fish suffer adverse physiological effects increasing in severity as the degree of deviation increases until lethal P levels are reached. * Conversely, rapid increases in pH can cause increased NH3 concentrations that are also toxic. Ammonia has been shown to be I 10 times as toxic at pH 8.0 as at pH 7.0 (EIFAC, 1969). water because of the large concentration of salts present. In _ addition to alkalinity based on the carbonate system, there is ' also alkalinity from other weak acid salts such as borate. ft Because of the buffering system present in seawater, the 1 A-96 i I ™ natural-ly occurring variability of .pH is less than in fresh • water. Some marine communities are more sensitive to pH change than others (NAS, 1974). Normal pH values in seawater are 8.0 to I 8.2 at the surface, decreasing to 7.7 to 7.8 with increasing depth (Capurro, 1970). The NAS Committeefs review (NAS, 1974) I indicated that plankton and benthic invertebrates are probably f more sensitive than fish to changes in pH and that mature forms and larvae of oysters are adversely affected at the extremes of I the pH range of 6.5 to 9.0. However, in the shallow, biologically active waters in tropical or subtropical areas, | large diurnal pH changes occur naturally beca-use of f photosynthesis. pH values may range from 9.5 in the daytime to • 7.3 in the early morning before dawn. Apparently, these • communities are adapted to such variations or intolerant species are able to avoid extremes by moving out of the area. •' For open ocean waters where the depth is substantially greater than the euphotic zone, the pH should not be changed more ™ than 0.2 units outside of the naturally occurring variation or in m any case outside the range of 6.5 to 8.5. For shallow, highly productive coastal and estuarine areas where naturally occurring I variations approach the lethal limits for some species, changes in pH should be avoided, but in any case not exceed the limits J' established for fresh water, i.e., pH of 6.5 to 9.0. As with _ freshwater criteria, rapid pH fluctuations that are caused by ^ waste'discharges should be avoided. Additional support for these • limits is provided by Zirino and Yamamoto (1972). These V investigators developed a model which illustrates the effects of H variable pH on copper, zinc, cadmium, and lead? small changes in i A-97 I pH cause large shifts in these metallic complexes. Such changes may affect toxicity of these metals. | For the industrial classifications considered, the NAS report « (NAS, 1974) tabulated the range of pH values used by industry for ™ various process and cooling purposes. In general, process waters • used varied from pH 3.O to 11.7, while cooling waters used varied from 5.0 to 8.9. Desirable pH values are undoubtedly closer to 1 neutral to avoid corrosion and other deleterious chemical reactions. Waters with pH values outside these ranges are fl considered unusable for industrial purposes. • The pH of water applied for irrigation purposes is not normally a critical parameter. Compared with the large buffering I capacity of the soil matrix, the pH of applied water is rapidly changed to approximately that of the soil. The greatest danger m in acid soils is that metallic ions such as iron, manganese, or « aluminum may be dissolved in concentrations which are subsequently directly toxic to plants. Under alkaline conditions, ft the danger to plants is the toxicity of sodium carbonates and bicarbonates either directly or indirectly (NAS, 1974). I To avoid undesirable effects in irrigation waters, the pH ^ should not exceed a range of 4.5 to 9.0. * 1 ,» .- , , .. ,_ i SEE APPENDIX C FOR METHODOLOGY i i A-93 I I I POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS CRITERIA: • Aquatic Life For polychlorinated biphenyls the criterion to protect I freshwater aquatic life as derived using the Guidelines is 0.014 ug/L as a 24-hour average. The concentration of 0.014 ug/L is i probably too high because it is based on bioconcentration factors I measured in laboratory studies, but field studies apparently produce factors at least 10 times higher for fishes. The P available data indicate that acute toxicity to freshwater aquatic life probably will occur only at concentrations above 2.0 ug/L ( and that the 24-hour average should provide adequate protection against acute toxicity. • For polychlorinated biphenyls the criterion to protect saltwater aquatic life as derived using the Guidelines is 0.030 • ug/L as a 24-hour average. The concentration of 0.030 ug/L is probably too high because it is based on bioconcentration factors measured in laboratory studies, but field studies apparently I produce factors at least 10 times higher for fishes. The i available data indicate that acute toxicity to saltwater aquatic life probably will only occur at concentrations above 10 ug/L and t that the 24-hour average criterion should provide adequate it protection against acute toxicity. Human Health !i For the maximum protection of human health from the potential carcinogenic effects of exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls i through ingestion of contaminated water and contaminated aquatic i i i A-99 I organisms, the ambient water concentration should be zero, based on the nonthreshold assumption for this chemical. However, • zero level may not be attainable at the present time. Therefore, the levels which may result in incremental increase of cancer • risk over the lifetime are estimated at 10~5, 10~6, and 10~7. • The corresponding recommended criteria are 0.79 ng/L, 0.079 ng/L, and 0.0079 ng/L, respectively. If these estimates are made for I consumption of aquatic organisms only, excluding consumption of water, the levels are 0.79 ng/L, 0.079 ng/L, and 0.0079 ng/L, J respectively. i• i (45 F.R. 79318, November 28, 1980) . * SEE APPENDIX B FOR METHODOLOGY I I I I i I I l A-100 1 I ' SOLIDS (DISSOLVED) AND SALINITY I CRITERION: 25O mg/L for chlorides and sulfates I in domestic water supplies (welfare). 1 INTRODUCTION: Dissolved solids and total dissolved solids are terms p generally associated with freshwater systems and consist of — inorganic salts, small amounts of organic matter, and dissolved ™ materials (Sawyer, 1960). The equivalent terminology in Standard M Methods is filtrable residue (Standard Methods, 1971). Salinity is an oceanographic term, and although not precisely equivalent . 1 to the total dissolved salt content it is related to it (Capurro, 1970). For most purposes, the terms total dissolved salt content B and salinity are equivalent. The principal inorganic anions M dissolved in water include the carbonates, chlorides, sulfates, and nitrates (principally in ground waters); the principal _f^ • cations are sodium, potassium, calcium, and magnesium. RATIONALE: I Excess dissolved solids are objectionable in drinking water * because of possible physiological effects, unpalatable mineral tastes, and higher costs because of corrosion or the necessity fl; for additional treatment. The physiological effects directly related to dissolved £ solids include laxative effects principally from sodium sulfate and magnesium sulfate and the adverse effect of sodium on certain I patients afflicted with cardiac disease and women with toxemia I associated with pregnancy. One study was made using data I A-101 colleeted from welIs in North Dakota. Results from a I questionnaire showed that with wells in which sulfates ranged • from 1,000 to 1,500 mg/L, 62 percent of the respondents indicated laxative effects associated with consumption of the water. J| However, nearly one-quarter of the respondents to the questionnaire reported difficulties when concentrations ranged ' from 200 to 500 mg/L (Moore, 1952). To protect transients to an ft area, a sulfate level of 250 mg/L should afford reasonable protection from laxative effects. I As indicated, sodium frequently is the principal component of dissolved solids. Persons on restricted sodium diets may have an m intake restricted from 500 to 1,000 mg/day (Nat. Res. Coun., * 1954). That portion ingested in water must be compensated by reduced levels in food ingested so that the total does not exceed I the allowable intake. Using certain assumptions of water intake (e.g., 2 liters of water consumed per day) and sodium content of || food, it has been calculated that for very restricted sodium ^ diets, 20 mg/L in wateT would be the maximum, while for ™ moderately restricted diets, 270 mg/L would be maximum. Specific fe sodium levels for entire water supplies have not been recommended but various restricted sodium intakes are recommended because: m (1) the general population is not adversely affected by sodium, but various restricted sodium intakes are recommended by » physicians for a significant portion of the population, and (2) • 27O mg/L of sodium is representative of mineralized waters that may be aesthetically unacceptable, but many domestic water I supplies exceed this level. Treatment for removal of sodium in A-102 i I I water supplies is costly (NAS,- 1974). A study based on consumer surveys in 29 California water 1 I systems was made to measure the taste threshold of dissolved • salts in water (Bruvold et al., 1969). Systems were selected to eliminate possible interferences from other taste-causing m substances than dissolved salts. The study revealed that ^ consumers rated waters with 319 to 397 mg/L dissolved solids as " "excellent" while those with 1,283 to 1,333 mg/L dissolved solids I were "unacceptable" depending on the rating system used. A "good" rating was registered for dissolved solids less than 658 to 755 1 mg/L. The 1962 PHS Drinking Water Standards recommended a A maximum dissolved solids concentration of 500 mg/L unless more • suitable supplies were unavailable. • Specific constituents included in the dissolved solids in water may cause mineral tastes at lower concentrations than other constituents. Chloride ions have frequently been cited as having • a low taste threshold in water. Data from Ricter and MacLean \ (1939) on a taste panel of 53 adults indicated that 61 mg/L NaCl _ .was the median level for detecting a difference from distilled * water. At a median concentration of 395 mg/L chloride a salty A taste was distinguishable, although the range was from 120 to 1,215 mg/L. Lockhart, et al. 1955) evaluated the effect of m chlorides on water used for brewing coffee indicated threshold concentrations for chloride ranging from 210 mg/L to 310 mg/L (^ depending on the associated cation. These data indicate that a • level of 250 mg/L chlorides is a reasonable maximum level to i protect consumers of drinking water. i A-103 I The causation of corrosion and encrustation of metallic surfaces by water containing dissolved solids is well known. In • water distribution systems corrosion is controlled by insulating dissimilar metal connections by nonmetallic materials, using pH 8 control and corrosion inhibitors, or some form of galvanic or • impressed electrical current systems (Lehmann, 1964). In household systems water piping, wastewater piping, water heaters, • faucets, toilet flushing mechanisms, garbage grinders and both clothes and dishwashing machines incure damage. p By using water with 1,750 mg/L dissolved solids as compared — with 250 mg/L, service life was reduced from 70 percent for • toilet flushing mechanisms to 30 percent for washing equipment. ft Such increased corrosion was calculated in 1968 to cost the consumer an additional $0.50 per.1,000 gallons used. • All species of fish and other aquatic life must tolerate a range of dissolved solids concentrations in order to survive '•• under natural conditions. Based on studies in Saskatchewan it • has been indicated that several common freshwater species survived 10,000 mg/L dissolved solids, that whitefish and pike- I perch survived 15,000 mg/L, but only the stickleback survived 20,000 mg/L dissolved solids. It was concluded that lakes with (& dissolved solids in excess of 15,000 mg/L were unsuitable for m most freshwater fishes (Rawson and Moore, 1944). The 1968 NTAC I• Report also recommended maintaining osmotic pressure levels of • less than that caused by a 15,000 mg/L solution of sodium chloride. • I A-104 I I I Marine fishes also exhib'it variance in ability to tolerate salinity changes. However, fishkills in Laguna Madre off the I Texas coast have occurred with salinities in the range of 75 to I 100 o/oo. Such concentrated seawater is caused by evaporation and lack of exchange with the Gulf of Mexico (Rounsafell and • Everhart, 1953). • Estuarine species of fish are tolerant of salinity changes ranging from fresh to brackish to seawater* Anadromous species W likewise are tolerant although evidence indicates that the young cannot tolerate the change until the normal time of migration £ (Rounsefell and Everhart, 1953). Other aquatic species are more dependent on salinity for protection from predators or require certain minimal salinities for successful hatching of eggs. The oyster drill cannot tolerate salinities less than 12.5 o/oo. Therefore, estuarine segments containing salinities below about 12.5 o/oo produce most of the seed oysters for planting (Rounsefell and Everhart, 1953). Based on similar examples, the 1968 NTAC Report recommended that to protect fish and other marine animals no changes in hydrography or stream flow should be allowed that permanently change isohaline patterns in the estuary M by more than 10 percent from natural variation. Many of the recommended game bird levels for dissolved solids J? concentrations in drinking water have been extrapolated from data col lected on domestic species such as chickens. However, young • I ducklings were reported poisoned in Suisan Marsh by salt when ^• maximum summer salinities varied from 0.55 to 1.74 o/oo with i means as high as 1.26 o/oo (Griffith, 1963). i A-105 Indirect effects of excess dissolved solids are primarily the 1 elimination of desirable food plants and other habitat-forming I plants. Rapid salinity changes cause plasmolysis of tender leaves and stems because of changes in osmotic pressure. The m 1968 NTAC Report recommended the following limits in salinity • variation from natural to protect wildlife habitats: Natural Salinity Variation Permitted •I- (o/oo) (o/oo) 0 to 3.5 . 1 I 3.5 to 13.5 2 13.5 to 35 4- I Agricultural uses of water are also limited by excessive • dissolved solids concentrations. Studies have Indicated that chickens, swine, cattle, and sheep can survive on saline waters • up to 15,000 mg/L of salts of sodium and calcium combined with - bicarbonates, chlorides, and sulfates but only 10,000 mg/L of w corresponding salts of potassium and magnesium. The approximate • limit for highly alkaline waters containing sodium and calcium carbonates is 5,000 mg/L (NTAC, 1968). ]• irrigation use of water depends not only upon the osmotic effect of dissolved solids, but also on the ratio of the various '• cations present. In arid and semiarid areas general « classification of salinity hazards has been prepared (NTAC, 1968) ™• (see Table 9). • Table 9.-Dissolved Solids Hazard for Irrigation Water (mg/L). water from which no detri- I mental effects will usually be noticed 500 _ I A-106 i I I water which can have detri- mental effects on sensi- 1 tive crops 500-1,000 water that may have adverse effects on many crops and requires careful manage- I ment Practices 1,000-2,000 water that can be used for I tolerant plants on perme- able soils with careful management practices 2,000-5,000 I TJie amount of sodium and the percentage of sodium in relation 1 to other cations are often important. In addition to contributing to osmotic pressure, sodium is toxic to certain I plants, especially fruits, and frequently causes problems in soil structure, infiltration, and permeability rates (Agriculture I Handbook #60, 1954). A high percentage of exchangeable sodium in I soils containing clays that swel1 when wet can cause a soil condition adverse to water movement and plant growth. The exchangeable-sodium percentage (ESP)* is an index of the sodium status of soils. An ESP of 10 to 15 percent is considered i excessive if a high percentage of swelling clay minerals is I present (Agricultural Handbook #60, 1954). For sensitive fruits, the tolerance for sodium for irrigation i water is for a sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) ** of about 4, whereas for general crops and forages a range of 8 to 18 is i generally considered usable (NTAC, 1968). It is emphasized that application of these factors must be interpreted in relation to i specific soil conditions existing in a given locale and therefore I frequently requires field investigation. Industrial requirements regarding the dissolved solids i content of raw waters is quite variable. Table 1O indicates i A-107 Table 10.-Total Dissolved Solids Concentrations of Surface ™ Waters That Have Been Used as Sources for Industrial Water Supplies • Industry/Use Maximum Concentration (mg/L) | Textile 150 * Pulp and Paper 1,080 • Chemical 2,500 Petroleum 3,500 j| Primary Metals 1,500 Boiler Make-up 35,000 IB I I i i i i i i i A-10G i I I maximum values accepted by various industries for process mt requirements (NAS, 1974). Since water of almost any dissolved solids concentration can be de-ionized to meet the most stringent • requirements, the economics of such treatment are the limiting factor for industry. | ' *ESP o 100 [a + b(SAR)] 1 [a + b(SAR)] where: a = intercept respresenting experimental ( error (ranges from -0.06 to 0.01) b =slope of regression line (ranges I from 0.014 to 0.016) **SAR = sodium adsorption ratio = Na § [0.5(Ca + Mg)]°'5 _ SAR is expressed as milliequivalents m (QUALITY CRITERIA FOR WATER, JULY 1976) PB-263943 SEE APPENDIX C FOR METHODOLOGY I i I i I I i i A-109 I I I 1 {Non-text Page) | i I i i i l I l I l l I A-110 i I I SELENIUM CRITERIA: • Aquatic Life H For total recoverable inorganic selenite the criterion to protect freshwater aquatic life as derived using the • Guidelines is 35 ug/L as a 24-hour average, and the concentration should not exceed 260 ug/L at any time. For total recoverable inorganic selenite the criterion to • protect saltwater aquatic life as derived using the Guidelines is 54 ug/L as a 24-hour average, and the concentration should not I exceed 410 ug/L at any. time. The available data for inorganic selenate indicate that acute m1 toxicity to freshwater aquatic 1 ife occurs • at concentrations as low as 760 ug/L and would occur at lower concentrations among . . I species that are more sensitive than those tested. No data are • available concerning the chronic toxicity of inorganic selenate to sensitive freshwater aquatic life. P No data are available concerning the toxicity of inorganic • selenate to saltwater aquatic life. A Human Health The ambient water quality criterion for selenium is •••w recommended to be identical to the existing water standard which If is 10 ug/L. Analysis of the toxic effects data resulted in a : I calculated level which.is protective of human health against the '' 1 ingestion of contaminated water and contaminated aquatic organisms. The calculated value is comparable to the present ™ i A-Hl standard. For this reason a selective criterion based on exposure solely from consumption of 6.5 grams of aquatic organisms was not derived. i i i i (45 F.R. 79318, November 28, 1980) SEE APPENDIX B FOR METHODOLOGY ^ i i I I i i i i i A-112 i I I SILVER CRITERIA: • Aquatic Life For freshwater aquatic life the concentration (in • ug/L) of total recoverable silver should not exceed the • numerical value given by e(i.72 [ In(hardness) ] -6.52) at any time. For example, at hardnesses of 50, 100, and 200 mg/L as • CaCO3, the concentration of total recoverable silver should not exceed 1.2, 4.1, and 13 ug/L, respectively, at any time. The 9 available data indicate that chronic toxicity to freshwater • aquatic life may occur at concentrations as low as 0.12 ug/L. For saltwater aquatic life the concentration of total J recoverable silver should not exceed 2.3 ug/L at any time. No — data are available concerning the chronic toxicity of silver to • sensitive saltwater aquatic life. i Human Health g The, ambient water qual ity criterion for silver is — recommended to be identical to the existing water standard, * which is 50 ug/L. Analysis of the toxic effects data resulted in • a calculated level which is protective of human health against the ingestion of contaminated water and contaminated aquatic Jy organisms. The calculated value is comparable to the present — standard. For this reason a selective criterion based on ™ exposure solely from consumption of 6.5 grams of aquatic fl organisms was not derived. (45 F.R. 79318, November 28, 1980} I SEE APPENDIX B FOR METHODOLOGY i A-113 I I I (non-text Paae) i i I i i i i i i i i i i i i A-114 i I SOLIDS (SUSPENDED, SETTLEABLE) AND TPRBIPITY • CRITERIA Freshwater fish and other aquatic life: I Settleable and suspended solids should not reduce the depth of the compensation point for photosynthetic activity by more than 10 percent from the seasonally established norm for i aquatic life. INTRODUCTION: ™ The term "suspended and. settleable solids" is descriptive of • the organic and inorganic particulate matter in water. The equivalent terminology used for solids in Standard Methods (APHA, • 1971) is total suspended matter for suspended solids, settleable matter for settleable solids, volatile suspended matter for " volatile solids and fixed suspended matter for fixed suspended • solids- The term "solids" is used in this discussion because of its more common use in the water pollution control literature. fl RATIONALE: Suspended solids and turbidity are important parameters in i both municipal and industrial water supply practices. Finished drinking waters have a maximum limit of 1 turbidity unit where i the water enters the distribution system. This limit is based on i health considerations as it relates to effective chlorine disinfection. Suspended matter provides areas where i microorganisms do not come into contact with the chlorine disinfectant (NAS,1974). The ability of common water treatment i processes (i.e., coagulation, sedimentation, filtration, and chlorination) to remove suspended matter to achieve acceptable i final turbidities is a function of the composition of the i material as well as its concentration. Because of the variability i A-115 of such removal efficiency, it is not possible to delineate a I general raw water criterion for these uses. • Turbid water interferes with recreational use and aesthetic enjoyment of water. Turbid waters can be dangerous for swimming, I especially if diving facilities are provided, because ofthe possibility of unseen submerged hazards and the difficulty in •• locating swimmers in danger of drowning (NAS, 1974). The less g turbid the water the more desirable it becomes for swimming and ^ other water contact sports. Other recreational pursuits such as I boating and fishing will be adequately protected by suspended solids criteria developed for protection of fish and other J| aquatic life. _ Fish and other aquatic life requirements concerning suspended ™ solids can be divided into those whose effect occurs in the water • column and those whose effect occurs following sedimentation to the bottom of the water body. Noted effects are similar for both • fresh and marine waters. The effects of suspended solids on fish have been reviewed by m the European Inland Fisheries Advisory Commission (EIFAC, 1965). • This review in 1965 identified four effects on the fish and fish food populations, namely: 8 (1) by acting directly on the fish swimming in water in which • solids are suspended, and either killing them or reducing their growth rate, resistance to disease, etc.; I (2) by preventing the successful development of fish eggs and larvae; i (3) by modifying natural movements and migrations of fish; i A-116 i p, (4) by reducing the abundance of food available to the _ fish;... I Settleable materials which blanket the bottom of water bodies P damage the invertebrate populations, block gravel spawning beds, — and if organic, remove dissolved oxygen from overlying waters • (EIFAC, 1965; Edberg and Hofsten, 1973). In a study downstream • from the discharge of a rock quarry where inert suspended solids were increased to 80 mg/L, the density of macroinvertebrates • decreased by 60 percent while in areas of sediment accumulation benthic invertebrate populations also decreased by 60 percent ^ regardless of the suspended sol id concantrations (Gammon, 197O). • Similar effects have been reported downstream from an area which was intensively logged. Major increases in stream suspended • solids (25 ppm turbidity upstream versus 39O ppm downstream) caused smothering of bottom invertebrates, reducing organism • - density to only 7.3 per square foot versus 25.5 per square foot g upstraam (Tebo, 1955). • When settleable solids block gravel spawning beds which • contain eggs, high mortalities result although there is evidence that some species of salmonids wil1 not spawn in such areas P (EIFAC, 1965). _ It has been postulated that silt attached to the eggs • prevents sufficient exchange of oxygen and carbon dioxide between the egg and the overlying water. The important variables are , jI particle size, stream velocity, and degree of turbulence (EIFAC, J| 1965). I I A-117 I Deposition of organic materials to the bottom sediments can cause imbalances in stream biota by increasing bottom animal • density principally worm populations, and diversity is reduced as pollution-sensitive forms disappear (Mackenthun, 1973). Algae • likewise flourish in such nutrient-rich areas although forms may • become less desirable (Tarzwell and Gaufin, 1953). Plankton and inorganic suspended materials reduce light • penetration into the water body, reducing the depth of thephotic zone. This reduces primary production and decreases fish food. | The NAS commitee in 1974 recommended that the depth of light M penetration not be reduced by more than 10 percent (NAS, 1974). ™ Additionally, the near surface waters are heated because of the • greater heat absorbency of the particulate material which tends to stabilize the water column and prevents vertical mixing (NAS, m 1974). Such mixing reductions decrease the dispersion of dissolved oxygen and nutrients to lower portions of the water » body. • One partially offsetting benefit of suspended inorganic material in water is the sorption of organic materials such as I pesticides. Following this sorption process subsequent sedimentation may remove these materials from the water column • into the sediments (NAS, 1974). " — Identifiable effects of suspended solids on irrigation use of * water include the formation of crusts on top of the soil which • inhibits water infiltration and plant emergence, and impedes soil aeration; the formation of films on plant leaves which blocks • sunlight and impedes photosynthesis and which may reduce the I A-11S i marketability of some leafy crops like lettuce, and finally the _ adverse effect on irrigation reservoir capacity, delivery canals, ™ and other distribution equipment (NAS, 1974). • The criterion for freshwater fish and other aquatic lifeare essentially that proposed by the National Academy of Sciences and • the Great Lakes Water Quality Board. i (QUALITY CRITERIA FOR WATER, JULY 1976) PB-263943 SEE APPENDIX C FOR METHODOLOGY i i i i i i i i i i A-119 I 1 (ITon-text Page) M i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i A-120 i I I TOXAPHENE I Summary The acute sensitivities of 36 freshwater species in 28 genera B ranged from 0.8 ug/L to 500 ug/L. Such important fish species as _ the channel catfish, largemouth bass, Chinook and coho salmon, ™ brook, brown and rainbow trout, striped bass, and bluegill had • acute senitivities ranging from 0.8 ug/L to 10.8 ug/L. Chronic values for four freshwater species range from less than 0.039 I ug/L for the brook trout to 0.1964 ug/L for the channel catfish. The growth of algae was affected at 100 to 1,000 ug/L, and m bioconcentration factors from laboratory tests ranged from 3,100 m to 90,000. Concentrations in lake trout in the Great Lakes have frequently exceeded the U.S. FDA action level of 5 mg/kg, even I though the concentrations in the water seem to be only 1 to 4 ng/L. These concentrations in lake water are thought to have | resulted from toxaphene being transported to the Great Lakes from _ remote sites, the locations of which are not well known. • The acute toxicity of toxaphene to 15 species of saltwater • animals ranges from 0.53 for pinfish, Laqodon rhomoides. to 460,000 ug/L for the adults of the clam, Hanoia cuneata. Except • for resistant species tested at concentrations greater than toxaphene's water solubility, acute values for most species were m within a factor of 10. The toxicity of toxaphene was found to • decrease slightly with increasing salinity for adult blue crabs, Callinectes sapidus. whereas no relationship between toxicity and m salinity was observed with the three spine stickleback, i fl A-121 I Gasterosteus aculeatus. Temperature significantly affected the I toxicity of toxaphene to blue crabs. • Early life-stage toxicity tests have been conducted with the sheepshead minnow» Cvprinodon variegatus, and the longnoae || killifish, Fundulus similis. whereas life-cycle tests have been conducted with the sheepshead minnow and a mysid. For the '" sheepahead minnow, chronic values of 1.658 ug/L from the early * life-stage test and 0.7141 ug/L from the life-cycle toxicity test are similar to the 96-hr LC50 of 1.1 ug/L. Killifish are more • chronically sensitive with effects noted at 0.3 ug/L. In the life-cycle test with the mysid, no adverse effects were observed m at the highest concentration tested, which was only slightly & below the 96-hr LC50, resulting in an acute-chronic ratio of * 1.132. • Toxaphene is bioconcentrated by an oyster, Crassostrea virainica. and two fishes, C. variegatua and F. aimilis. to • concentrations that range from 9,380 to 70,140 times that in the test solution. I National Criteria I The procedures described in the "Guidelines for Deriving fc Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of • Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses" indicate, that except possibly • where a locally important species is very sensitive, freshwater aquatic organisms and their uses should not be affected I unacceptably if the-four-day average concentration of toxaphene the average and if the one-hour average concentration does not — I A-122 i ' exceed 0.73 ug/L more than once every three years on the average. If the concentration of toxaphene does exceed 0.0002 ug/L, the edible portions of consumed species should be analyzed to determine whether the concentration of toxaphene exceeds the FDA action level of 5 mg/kg. If the channel catfish is as acutely sensitive as some data indicate it might be, it will not be protected by this criterion. | The procedures described in the "Guidelines for Deriving — . Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of • Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses" indicate, that except possibly • where a locally important species is very sensitive, saltwater aquatic organisms and their uses should not be affected • unacceptably if the four-day average concentration of toxaphene does not exceed 0.0002 ug/L more than once every three years on B the average and if the one-hour average concentration does not M exceed 0.21 ug/L more than once every three years on the average. If the concentration of toxaphene does exceed 0.0002 ug/L, the edible portions of consumed species . should be analyzed to • determine whether the concentration of toxaphene exceeds the FDA action level of 5 mg/kg. m Three years is the Agency's best scientific judgment of the • average amount of time aquatic ecosystems should be provided • between excursions. The resiliences of ecosystems and their i abilities to recover differ greatly, however, and site-specific m allowed excursion frequencies may be established if adequate justification is provided. Use of criteria for developing water quality-based permit i limits and for designing waste treatment facilities requires i A-123 selection of an appropriate wasteload allocation model. Dynamic * models are preferred for the application of these criteria. • Limited data or other considerations might make their use impractical, in which case one must rely on a steady-state model. I (51 F.R. 43665. December 3. 1986) SEE APPENDIX A FOR METHODOLOGY • I i i i i i i i i i i i i A-124 • I I ZINC I Summary Acute toxicity values are available for 43 species of • freshwater animals and data for eight species indicate that acute M toxicity decreases as hardness increases. When adjusted to a hardness of 50 mg/L, sensitivities range from 50.70 ug/L for B Ceriodaphnia reticulata to 88,960 ug/L for a damselfly. Additional data indicate that toxicity increases as temperature • increases. Chronic toxicity data are available for nine freshwater species. Chronic values for two invertebrates ranged • from 46.73 ug/L for Daphnia ma on a to >5,243 ug/L for the • caddisfly, Clistoronia maonificia. Chronic values for seven fish species ranged from 36.41 ug/L for the flagfish, Jordanella • floridae. to 854.7 ug/L for the brook trout, Salvelinus fontinalis. Acute-chronic ratios ranged from 0.2614 to 41.20, but the ratios for the sensitive species were all less than 7.3. £ The sensitivity range of freshwater plants to zinc is greater • than that for animals. Growth of the alga, Selenastrum fl capriocornutum. was inhibited by 30 ug/L. On the other hand, with several other species of green algae, 4-day ECSOs exceeded • 200,000 ug/L. Zinc was found to bioaccumulate in freshwater animal tissues from 51 to 1,130 times the concentration present ." in the water. Acceptable acute toxicity values for zinc are available for I 33 species of saltwater animals including 26 invertebrates and 7 '• fish. LCSOs range from 191.5 ug/L for cabezon, Scorpanichthys i A-125 martnoratus to 320,400 ug/L for adults of another clam, Macoma I balthica. Early life stages of saltwater invertebrates and "* fishes are generally more sensitive to zinc than juveniles and • adults. Temperature has variable and inconsistent effects on. the m sensitivity of saltwater invertebrates to zinc. The sensitivity of saltwater vertebrate animals to zinc depreases with increasing I salinity, but the magnitude of the effect is species-specific. A life-cycle test with the mysid, Mvsidopsia bahia. found | unacceptable effects at 120 ug/L, but not at 231 ug/L, and the f acute-chronic ratio was 2.997. Seven species of saltwater plants * were affected at concentrations ranging from 19 to 10,100 ug/L. • Bioaccumulation data for zinc are available for seven species of saltwater algae and five species of saltwater animals. Steady- • state zinc bioconcentration factors for the twelve species range from 3.692 to 23,820. I National Criteria | The procedures described in the "Guidelines for Deriving m Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of W Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses" indicate, that except possibly • where a locally important species is very sensitive, freshwater aquatic organisms and their uses should not be affected I unacceptably if the four-day average concentration of zinc (in ug/L) does not exceed the numerical value given bye (°-8473[ln | (hardness1 ) 1+0.7614) MM fc. ... ' ' more than once every three years on the — average and if the one-hour average concentration (in ug/L) does • not exceed the numerical value given by e(0.84731 In — (hardness) 1+0.8604) more ^^ once every ^^ yearg on thm t A-126 i I average. For example, at hardnesses of 50, 100, and 200 mg/L as • CaCO., the four-day average concentrations of zinc are 59, 110 and I 190 ug/L, respectively, and the one-hour average concentrations are 65, 120, and 210 ug/L. If the striped bass is as sensitive I \ as some data . indicate, it will not be protected by thls • criterion. The procedures described in the "Guidelines for Deriving • Numerical National Water Quality Criteria for the Protection of £. Aquatic Organisms and Their Uses" indicate, that except possibly where a locally important species is very sensitive, saltwater • aquatic organisms and their uses should not be affected unacceptably if the four-day average concentration of zinc does | not exceed 86 ug/L more than once every three years on the _ average and if the one-hour average concentration does not exceed • 95 ug/L more than once every three years on the average. • "Acid-soluble" is probably the best measurement at present for expressing criteria for metals and the criteria for zinc were • developed on this btisis. However, at this time no EPA approved method for such a measurement is available to implement criteria • for metals through the regulatory programs of the Agency and the m States. The Agency is considering development and approval of a method for a measurement such as "acid-soluble." Until one is I approved, however, EPA recommends applying criteria for metals using the total recoverable method. This has two impacts: (1) | certain species of some metals cannot be measured because the total recoverable method cannot distinguish between individual • oxidation States, and (2) in some cases these criteria might be I overly protective when based on the total recoverable method. I A-127 Three years is the Agency's best scientific judgment of the I average amount of time aquatic ecosystems should be provided between excursions. The resiliences of ecosystems and their I abilities to recover differ greatly, however, and site-specific ft allowed excursion frequencies may be established if adequate justification is provided. . g Use of criteria for developing water quality-based permit limits and for designing waste treatment facilities requires • selection of an appropriate wasteload allocation model. Dynamic j| models are preferred for the application of these criteria. Limited data or other considerations might make their use • impractical, in which case one must rely on a steady-state model. (52 F.R. 6213, March 2, 1987) SEE APPENDIX A FOR METHODOLOGY i i I i i i i i i A-12G i Appendix B Phytoplankton Identification and Enumeration TABLE B-l PHYTOPLANKTON IDENTIFICATION AND ENUMERATION OF WEDGE POND Biweekly Sample Cell Counts (cells/milliliter) Algae (4/16/87) (4/30/87) (5/13/87) (5/28/87) (6/9/87) (6/22/87) DIVISION: CHRYSQPHYTA Class: Chrysophycjeae uYellow^green algae) Order : oekrolnomadales Dinobryon sp. 350 32 115 4,764 262 Mallomonas sp . ------52 105 gynura sp. 1,600 785 Class : Bacillariophyceae i (Diatoms) I-1 Order : Centrales Cvclotella sp. 200 17 -- Me lo sir a sp. 100 -- _. 65 Unidentified ------49 Order: Pennales -- Achnanthes sp. j-""" "~ —— =< J_-.— -L; Asterionella sp. (^"973503 ^~~107950^-^7 X£~^ 2 , 978^^ 1 , 256^P 157 Cymbella sp. -- 16 bl -- 52 Piatoma sp. -- 145 187 115 -- Fragilaria sp. ("T725(£>_- 353 ~C_2,.017^> 60_ 6_ Gomphonema sp. 16 17 " " Navicula sp . 100 16 ._ -- Nitzschia sp. 150 16 441 16 -- Svnedra sp. 50 112 729 295 52 -- Tabellaria sp. ------Unidentified 48 49 52 Subtotals 13,150 12,872 14,426 4,288 6,961 576 TABLE B-l (cont.) PHYTOPLANKTON IDENTIFICATION AND ENUMERATION OF WEDGE POND Biweekly Sample Cell Counts (cells/milliliter) Algae (4/16/87) (4/30/87) (5/13/87) (5/28/87) (6/9/87) (6/22/87) DIVISION: CHLOROPHYTA (Green Algae) Class : Chlorophyceae Order : Ulotr ichales Ulothrlx sp. 64 881 229 . -- Order : Chlorococcales Anklstrodesmus sp. 100 96 51 65 52 Cd Crucipenia sp. i Elakatothrlx sp . 157 Golenkinia sp . 16 68 Oocystls sp. 471 1,675 Quadrlgula sp . 327 681 Scenedesmus sp. 209 220 98 209 Schroederla sp. 100 471 Sphaerocystls sp. -- • 245 1832 Order : Zygnematales Closterlum sp . 16 Cosmarlum sp. 52 Staurastrum sp . 52 Subtotals 200 401 1,220 964 3,402 13,296 TABLE B-l (cont.) PHYTOPLANKTON IDENTIFICATION AND ENUMERATION OF WEDGE POND Biweekly Sample Cell Counts (cells/mllliliter) „—"• Algae (4/16/87) (4/30/87) (5/13/87) (5/28/87) (6/9/87) (6/22/87) DIVISION: EUGLENOPHYTA (Euglenolds) Class: Euglenophyceae Order: Euglenales Lepocinclis sp. 50 Subtotals 50 DIVISION: CRYPTOPHYTA (Cryptomonads) Class: Cryptophyceae to Order: Cryptomonadales i to Cryptomonas sp. 50 33 Subtotals 50 33 DIVISION: PYRROPHYTA (Dinoflagellates) Class: Dinophyceae Order: Peridlnlales Perldlnium sp. 50 Subtotals 50 TABLE B-l PHYTOPLANKTON IDENTIFICATION AND ENUMERATION OF WEDGE POND Biweekly Sample Cell Counts (cells/milliliter) Algae (4/16/87) (4/30/87) (5/13/87) (5/28/87) (6/9/87) (6/22/87) DIVISION: CYANOPHYTA (Blue-Green Algae) Class : Cyanophyceae Order : Chroococcales Aphanothece sp. v. ^157 -- -- -.- (^ 1 , 88.5> Chroococcus sp. ^1^(61^ Gloeocapsa sp. . -- 64 -- -- x"~"41-9 -- Gpmpho spha e r 1 a sp . ^ >- - - 187 ( 8 , 847^ 314 Microcvstis sp. f 4,350\ -- 119 196 V2^042/ -- Unidentifed I / S*— " colonial \U,7£0 558 ( 2,848-^ 65 1,675 471 td v. >/ I Order: Nostocales ^ ^ Anabaena sp. -- <^WL} -- Anabaenopsis sp. -- Unidentified filament 150 -- 153 49 — Subtotals 16,250 622 3,307 310 18,899 2,303 OTHER Unidentified filament _. -- Unidentified flagellates 50 48 34 16 209 -- Unidentified unicellular algae 150 225 220 115 576 838 Subtotals 200 273 254 131 785 838 Algal Totals 29,950 14,168 19,207 5,726 30,047 17,013 TABLE B-l (cont.) PHYTOPLANKTON IDENTIFICATION AND ENUMERATION OF WEDGE POND Biweekly Sample Cell Counts (cells/milliliter) Algae (7/9/87) (7/22/87) (8/4/87) (8/18/87) (9/3/87) (9/15/87) (9/30/87) DIVISION: CHRYSOPHYTA r Class: Chrysophyceae (XYell^ir- green / sitgae) Order : Ochromomadales w /^ S* "* s^~^ 1 Uroelenoosls sp. 2,735 (24,562y> f 13,988} ' -- (1, 940 ^725 ~^) 229 Ul -^V. ^/ Class: Bacillariophyceae (Diatoms) Order: Heterococcales Characidiopsls sp. 18 Feroniella sp. 18 Order: Pennales Asterlonella sp. 11 35 23 Gomphonema sp. 23 Navicula sp. 21 Nitzschla sp. 21 Synedra sp. 18 Subtotals 2,746 24,562 14,030 89 1,940 6,725 275 TABLE B-l (cont.) PHYTOPLANKTON IDENTIFICATION AND ENUMERATION OF WEDGE POND Biweekly Sample Cell Counts (cells/milliliter) Algae (7/9/87) (7/22/87) (8/4/87) (8/18/87) (9/3/87) (9/15/87) (9/30/87) DIVISION: CHLOROPHYTA (Green Algae) Class : Chlorophyceae Order : Tetrasporales Gloeocystis sp . 82 -- -- Order: Ulotrichales Ulothrix sp. 1,552 953 -- td I Order : Chlorococcales , Ankistrodesmus so. 134 348 225 124 53 35 68 Golenkinla sp. 53 Mi cr actinium sp. 177 -- -- 617 137 Oocvstis so. -- -- 194 /^2778V~^ 70 46 Ouadrigula sp. 16 77 82 =-=— Scenedesmus sp. 35 -- 327 -- 194 Schroederia sp. 106 35 Sphaerocvstis sp. 79 -- 82 35 -- 621 Tetraedron sp. 97 Order : Zygnematales Mouaeotia sp. 77 41 Subtotals 441 599 839 2,575 4,093 761 251 TABLE B-l (cont.) PHYTOPLANKTON IDENTIFICATION AND ENUMERATION OF WEDGE POND Biweekly Sample Cell Counts (cells/mllliliter) Algae (7/9/87) (7/22/87) (8/4/87) (8/18/87) (9/3/87) (9/15/87) (9/30/87) DIVISION; PYRROPHYTA (Dlnoflagellates) Class: Dinophyceae Order: Peridlniales Ceratium sp. 35 Peridlnium sp. 39 35 Subtotals 39 70 CO DIVISION: CRYPTOPHYTA i -j (Cryptomonads) Class: Cryptophyceae Order: Cryptomonadales Cryptomonas sp. 18 Subtotals 18 TABLE B-l (cont.) PHYTOPLANKTON IDENTIFICATION AND ENUMERATION OF WEDGE POND Biweekly Sample Cell Counts (cells/milliliter) Algae (7/9/87) (7/22/87) (8/4/87) (8/18/87) (9/3/87) (9/15/87) (9/30/87) DIVISION: CYANOPHYTA (Blue -Green Algae) Class : Cyanophyceae Order: Chroococcales ' Aphanocapsa sp. 409 8,200 205 : 2,046 _- Aphanotbece sp . -- -- 71 124 106 869 Ch,roococcus sp. -. - 2.822 -- Gloeocapsa sp. <^f7812 309 1.575 1,92—3 1.85—2 5,000 l.lzff? Gompbosphaeria sp. 620 4,700 -- 459 950 _--_ Merismopedia sp. 103 754 -- 1,217 Microcystis sp. (^3,468 7..Q99 32,536 61,387 s^aas 27,808 _^91p Unidentified colonial 521 426 450 141 -- 2,TI?6 td oo Order: Nostocales Anabaena sp. f 4,080 2,514 19,632 20,515 4,296 21,896~ 1 Aphanizomenon sp. 1 3,577 6,092 27,955 11,484 353 387 2,517 Unidentified filament I 849 1,605 3,374 194 35 370 ---— ) Order : Oscillatoriales Oscillatoria sp. 222 1,296 2,045 2,240 739 -- Subtotals 15,661 33,825 90,594 101,677 8,362 39,656 29,803 OTHER 46 Unidentified flagellates — 353 Unidentified unicellular 493 135 327 35 229 599 252 Subtotals 493 135 327 388 229 599 298 Algal Totals 19,341 59,160 105,790 104,747 J 14,624 47,811 30,627 TABLE B-l (cont.) PHYTOPLANKTON IDENTIFICATION AND ENUMERATION OF WEDGE POND Sample Cell Counts (cells/milliliter) Algae (11/23/87) (12/15/87) (3/17/88) (3/29/88) DIVISION: CHRYSOPHYTA Class: Chryjsgphyceae XYellpw- green (— algae) Order: Ochromomadales Chrysopbaerella sp. 18 215 90 90 Dinobryon sp. 18 Hallomonas sp. 18 18 609 609 Class : Bacillarlophyceae (Diatoms) to I Order : Centrales 10 Helosira sp. 1 18 36 Order: Pentiales Asterionella sp. Cymbella sp. ^--— 18 18 Fragilaria sp. 72 18 36 251 Navlcula sp. 18 18 90 72 Pinnula.rla sp. 18 Subtotals 1,129 1,218 3,439 4,405 TABLE B-l (cont.) PHYTOPLANKTON IDENTIFICATION AND ENUMERATION OF WEDGE POND Sample Cell Counts (cells/milliliter) Algae (11/23/87) (12/15/87) (3/17/88) (3/29/88) DIVISION: CHLOROPHYTA (Green Algae) Class: Chlorophyceae Order: Chlorococcales Scenedesmus sp. 18 Order: Zygnematales i M o Staurastrum sp. 18 Subtotals 18 18 DIVISION: CYANOPHYTA (Blue-Green Algae) Class: Cyanophyceae Order: Nostocales Anabaena sp. 18 Raphidippsls sp. 36 Order: Oscillatoriales Osclllatoria sp. 627 698 233 161 Subtotals 628 734 233 179 Algal Totals 1,775 1,935 3,672 4,602 Appendix C Major Conclusions of NURP Stuch I I I FIGURE C-l MAJOR CONCLUSIONS OF NURP STUDY I GENERAL CONCLUSIONS o Heavy metals (especially copper, lead, and zinc) are by far the most prevalent priority pollutant constituents found in I urban runoff. End-of-pipe concentrations exceed EPA ambient water quality criteria and drinking water standards in many instances. Some of the metals are present often enough and in high enough concentrations to be potential threats to I beneficial uses. o The organic priority pollutants were detected less frequently I and at lower concentrations than the heavy metals. o Coliform bacteria are present at high levels in urban runoff and can be expected to exceed EPA water quality criteria I during and immediately after storm events in many surface waters, even those providing high degrees of dilution. o Nutrients are generally present in urban runoff, but with a I few individual site exceptions, concentrations do not appear to be high in comparison with other possible discharges to I receiving water bodies. o Oxygen demand substances are present in urban runoff at concentrations approximating those in secondary treatment plant discharges. If dissolved oxygen problems are present in I receiving waters of interest, consideration of urban runoff controls as well as advance waste treatment appears to be warranted. I o Total suspended solids concentrations in urban runoff are fairly high in comparison with treatment plant discharges. Urban runoff control is strongly indicated where water quality I problems associated with TSS, including build-up of contaminated sediments, exist. I RIVERS AND STREAMS o Frequent exceedances of heavy metals ambient water quality criteria for freshwater aquatic life are prohibited by urban I runoff. o Although a significant number of problem situations could result from heavy metals in urban runoff, levels of freshwater I aquatic life use impairment suggested by the magnitude and I frequency of ambient criteria exceedances were not observed. I I c-i I I I RIVERS AND STREAMS o Copper, lead, and zinc appear to pose a significant threat to aquatic life uses in some areas of the country. Copper is I suggested to be the most significant of the three. o organic priority pollutants in urban runoff do not appear to I pose a general threat to freshwater aquatic life. o The physical aspects of urban runoff, e.g., erosion and scour, can be a significant cause of habitat disruption and can affect the type of fishery present. However, this area was I studied only incidentally by several of the projects under the NURP program and more concentrated study is necessary. I o Several projects identified possible problems in the sediments because of the build-up of priority pollutants contributed wholly or in part by urban runoff. However, the NURP studies in this area were few in number and limited in scope, and the I findings must be considered only indicative of the need for further study, particularly as to long-term impacts. o Coliform bacteria are present at high levels in urban runoff I and can be expected to exceed EPA water quality criteria during and immediately after storm events in most rivers and I streams. o Domestic water supply systems with intakes located on streams in close proximity to urban runoff discharges are encouraged to check for priority pollutants which have been detected in I urban runoff, particularly those in the organic category. I LAKES o Nutrients in urban runoff may accelerate eutrophication I problems and severely limit recreational uses, especially in lakes. However, NURP*s lake projects indicate that the degree of beneficial use impairment varies widely, as does the I significance of the urban runoff component. o Coliform bacteria discharges in urban runoff have a I significant negative impact on the recreational uses of lakes. I I I I C-2 Appendix D Priority Pollutant Scan 1 1 WHITMAN & HOWARD, INC. 45 William Street Wellesley, MA 02181 1 LABORATORY REPORT 1 October 5, 1987 PROJECT: Wedge Pond, Winchester, MA SAMPLE: Sediments Samples - 1 #1 Opposite Park #2 Deep Hole 1 SAMPLE COLLECTED DATE: 9/15/87 1 Results of Analysis* #1 Opposite Park #2 Deer> Hole 1^H Arsenic mg/1 <0,002 <0.002 Barium mg/1 0.28 0.22 Camium mg/1 <0.002 <0.002 Lead mg/1 0.009 0.007 Mercury mg/1 * EP (Extraction Procedure) Toxicity Test conduct in accordance 1 with "Test Methods for Evaluating Solid Waste," SW-846, 1980 EPA 1 t 1 1 AnalyzeH Hy ^^^^"^Chin-Chun^ Li ^u^ 1 1 1 D-l 1 I I Arnold Greene Nondestructive • Chemical • Pollution • Metallurgical Inspection • Evaluation • -lysis Testing Laboratories Research • Development Branch lAboratnriaa,: East Natfc* Industrial Pa* SprtngfleW, Mass. 01109 Auburn, Mass. 01501 I (413) 7344548 (817)632-5500 6 Huron Prim • Nafck, MA 01780 017) 2&733Q, 6536960 Teto 945*58 QREENELAB MHK I California, Texas, Illinois, Pertnsytvania, Otto TO: NHITHAN & HOWRD INC DATE: 10/13/87 MATERIAL: SLUDGE I 45 HILUMf STREET . mm. 799B1-2 BOOK NO. 306-40-Jfl MELLESLEV HA 02181 LAB m. 6836 SPECIFICATIONS: NONE QCTH.H01-P1 I flTTN: ORDER NO. NONE I SAMPLE ID: 2 SLUDGE SAMPLES DATE REC'D: 9/16 EXTRACTED: 9/29 ANALYZED: 10/7/87 - PlfflPOSE: To determine the presences oi and quantification oi any Base/Neutral or Acid Extractaole coipounds. I KETHOD: The Maples Here soxhlet/soxhlet extracted in accordance «th the EPA's Analytical procedure for fiase/Meutral Ei tract able coipaunds and Acid Extractable conountfs. The extracts were then analyzed by Sas Otroiatooraphic/ttass I Spectrnetric techntpue. (EPA Method 625J This saule(s) was tested for all the cotpounds on the enclosed list(s). I All coioounds eiceot those listed beloi) «re non-detected. I RESULTS: II. Opposite Part B6/KS Anthracene Trace Pyrena Trace Huoranthene Trace i Chrysene Trace BeniofBlfluoranthene Trace i COFfffENT: The detection litit is 20 to/kg except for 2,4 Dinitro-phenol and 4.6 Dinitro-o-cresol vhich is 200 ta/kg wet wioht. i RESULTS: 12. Deeo Hole HS/K6 tiaae Detected i The detection liiit is 200 H/kq net Neioht, except for 2,4 Dinitro-pnenol and 4.6 Dinitro-o-cresol Nhich is 200 ig/kg net Height. IN WITNESS HHEREOF. I HAVE HEREUNTO SET HV HAND THIS i 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1987 ARNOLD SREENE TESTING LABORATORIES i DIVISION OF CONAH INSE Jues J. BaVll. Aanaoer UNLESS STOULATtD IN WRFTINa BV YOU. ALL SAMFU3 WILL BE HETAINEO FOM 3D DAYS AND THtM DISPOSED OF- HITtS RENDERED UTON THE CONDITION THAT (T IS NOT TO « KEntODUCED VVMOUV OR tH fUTt tOK AOVEflTmNO ANO/ i njWOSES OVCfl OUR SIQNATUm OH m CONNCCnON WITH OUB NAMEwrmoUT OUH SKOAL mOOSSIOH IN WMT1MO. i D-2 I I Nondestructive • Chemical • Pollution • Metallurgical Arnold Greene Inspection • Evaluation ]ityaia Testing Laboratories Research • Development .•' Branch Laboratory*: I Eaat Natfck Industrial Park Sprtngfletd. Mass. 01109 Auburn. Mass. 01501 (413f 734-65*8 (617)632-5500 6 Huron Qriw • Natfck. MA 01700 (BIT) 236-7330.66MKB CONMJVI I Tata 9M4SB QREBiaAB WT1K California. Texas, IWnoi*, Pennayfrania, Onto TO: HHITtUN t HOWARD. INC. DATE: 9/30/B7 KATERIAt: MTER I 45 «LUM STAEH JUS NO. 99981-2 BOOK NO. 309-22 5J MEU£a£YNA 021BJ LAB HO. 6S36 SPECIFICATIONS: EPA NETHOD a24 SEPK.W3-P! I ATTN: ORDER NO. NONE SAMPLE IS: 2 MATER SAHPLE5 DflTE REC'D: 9/16/87 KATE ANALYZED: 9/I7/B7 I ID: 1. OPPOSITE PARK-tCOfiE PONO COHPOUND OUANT. CONC. CDflNENTS I ION U6/L Chlorwethane NO I Oicttiortnii f Luoroetttuae NO BroMMttiine ND I Vinyl Chloride NO Chlnroftdwe ND Ntthylene Chloride ND Tri chlorof 1 uortnethane NO I lTl-Dichloroethyl«te ND 1.1-Dicliioroettiine ND I 1,2-Oidilorwthvlent Isoters NO Chlorofori ND I 1.2-Dichloroettiane ND 1,1,1-Trictilororthue ND I Carbon Tetrubloride NO Braniti cftl or oaethane ND I 1,2-Dichloroprooane NO Trani-1 ,3-Dichl oropropene ND I Trichioroethylene ND UNLESS STIPULATED IN WKTwa BY YOU. ALL SAMPLES WILL BI "(TAOttD KM 90 DAYS AND THIN DISPOSED OF. I PURPOSES OVER OUM SUMATUM OM IN CONNECTION VWTM OUft NAME WTTHOOT OUR SPEOAL fOOMSVOH IN WMrTtNO. D-3 I I I Arnold Gre*ne Nondestructive. Chamicai • Pollution * Metallurgical Inspection • Evaluation ilyais Testing Laboratories Research • Development Branch LabontortM: EaM Natfck MuatrtaJ Pwk SprtngiieM, Maaa. 01109 Auburn, Mass. 01901 I (413) 734*6548 (817)632-5500 « Huron Mw • Nattck, MA 01780 (817) 236-7330, 6S3-G960. I UMMiawiLfKJN late IMMUI UHLLNLLAU NTIK California, Taxaa. llBnoia. Pvtnaytvanta. OWo PflSE 2 WITMH HQMARD I JOS IWWl-2 11. OPPOSITE PftRK-WEOSE POND COMPOUND WANT. CONC, CONNENTS I ION US/L Dibroncnl or oietnane m I Ci s-1 f 3-8i chloroorooenB ND i,lt2-Tricnloroithane HD I Benzene ND 2-Chloroetnyl vinyl Etner ND I Bronfon NO TetracWoroithylene ND I 1,1 ,2,2-Tetradiloroetfcjne NO Toluene NO I CAlorotaNzene ND Ethrl benzene W I Acrolein NO Acrylooitrile ND Non-Priority Pollutants: I Irlenei Total NO Others: I KEY DETECTION LEVELS (opb) 5 J- Appreciation 0= Concentration is lower Priority Pollutants K= Less Thiit than detection level HAcrolein t Arrylortitrile 25 L» More Than because of cowotwds' I NO* None Detected •ore sensitive response. ] IN WITNESS NHEAEDF, I HAVE HEREUNTO SET NY HAND THIS I 30TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1987 ARNOLD 6HEENE TE57IN6 LABORATORIES I DIVSION OF CONAH INSPECT] Jues J. 0$jn, flanaoer UNLESS STIPULATED IN WMTING BY YOU. ALL SAMPLES WILL BE RETAINED FOR 30 DAYS AND THEN DISPOSED Of- AT tS RENDERED UPON THE CONDfTION THAT FT IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED WHOLLY OR IN PART FOR ADVEKTtSINO AND' I PURPOSES OveH OUR SIGNATURE OR IN CONNECTION WITH OUH NAME WITHOUT OUR SKOAL PERMISSION IN WRfTWG, I . D-4 . I I Nondestructive > Chemical,. Pollution • Metallurgical Arnold Greene Inspection • Evaluation < ilysis Testing Lavatories Research * Development Branch laboratories: I East Mattck MurtrW Pvfc Springfield, Mass. 01109 Auburn, Mass. 01501 (413) 734-6548 (617)832-5900 » Hum Driw * NMtefc. MA 017BO 017) 235-733018534950 I Tata »«469 QREB4BAB MT1K California, Texas, Illinois, Psonsyhwita. OMo TO: ttHTMM * HOWARD, IE. MTE: 9/30/87 MATERIAL; HATER I 45 UUIttl STREET JOB HO. 99W-2 BOOK NO. 309-22 SJ KLLESLEY Hfl 02181 UIBNO. 6836 SPECIFICATIONS: EPA tfETHOD 624 SEPK.W3-P3 I ATTN: ORDER NO. WNE SAKPtf 10: 2 WATER SAMPLES MTE REC'O: 9/IA/S7 DATE ANALYZED: 9/17/87 I ID: 2. DEEP HDLE-HED&E POND CORFOUW BUANT. CONC. COM1ENTS 1 ' ION U6/L ChlorotetJjaoe ND I 0i cftl orodifl uorowtlwne ND Bronaettiane NO I Vinyl Chloride ND ttloroettiane ND I Hethyien* Chloride ND Tri rill orof 1 uorotethine ND I 1,1-ftidilorHtlirlm » 1.1-fhcMcroettiant K6 I 1,2-OictiloroethylBne Isowrs ND CJilwirfort ND I 1.2-Oichlorwtfiane ND 1 , 1. I-Tricdloroethane ND I Cvboo Tctrachlortde ND Browdi cnloroaettiuie ND I 1 .2-fli tfiloropropane ND Trans-l,3-DichlwoprBpent ND I TrichlDroethvlene ND UNLESS STIPULATED IN WRITING BY YOU. ALL SAMPU3 WILL SI KCTAINCO FOB 30 DAYS AND THEN IMPOSED OF. mr is HENDeiED UPON THE coNomow THAT rr is NOT TO K NTHOOUCB) WHOLLY on m nun- mt ADvemsMQ AND/ I PIWPOSES ovet oun SIGNATURE OH IN CONNECTION WITH OUR NAM WITHOUT OUR SPECIAL PRMSSKM M wHrrwa I D-5 I I Nondestructive • Chemical Pollution • Metallurgical Arnold Greene Inspection • Evaluation ~~~ vlysis Testing Laboratories Research • Development Branch Laboratories: I Ea*t Natfck Industrial Pa* Springfield. Mass. 01109 Auburn. Mass. 01501 (413) 734-6548 (617) 832-5500 . 8 Huron MM • Natfck, MA 01780 (BIT) 2357330,8536B5Q I Tflta MMSBQREBiaAB NT1K California, Texas, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Onto PA6E 2 KHITNAN HOttfRD I JQ8 W9981-2 12. DEEP HOU-fctDSE POM COHPQUSD WANT. CMC. cowers I 10* U6/L Di broMchl aroietaane NO I Ci s-1,3-Dichloropraoefte 1,1.2-Trichlororthine I Benzeflfl 2-ChloroetfiyMnvi Ether I fironfan TetrachUroethviene m i i,if2.2-TetrachIoroetinne NO Toluene i Clilorobnzefle NO EtttvllmzMe NO i Acroleiti flcrvlonitrile i ttan-Priority Pollututs: Irlenn Total ND Others: i KEY DETECTION LEVELS (ppbJ 5 J= Aaproxiution 0= ConcintratiDn it loner Priority Poilutwts X,= Less Than than detection lerel HAcroiein k AcrvJonitrile 25 i i" ftore Than because of compounds' NO* None Detected tort sensitive response. IN NITNE5S HHEREOF. I HAVE HEREUNTO SET ITT HAND THIS 30TH OAY OF SEPTEMBER 19B7 ARNOLD BREENE TESTING LABORATORIES i OF CONAN INSPECT! Jues J. UNLESS STIPULATED IN WRITING BY YOU. ALL SAMPLES WILL BE RETAINED FOR 90 DAYS AMD THEN DISPOSED OF. MT IS RENDERED UPON THE CONDITION THAT IT IS NOT TO BE REPRODUCED WHOLLY OR IN PART FOR ADVERTISING AND/ i PURPOSES OVER OUR SIGNATURE OR IN CONNECTION WITH OUR NAME WITHOUT OUR SPCCIAL POMfSSION IN WKTWO. i D-6 1 - — 1 f^v Arnold Greene Nondestructive • Chemical • Pollution - Metallurgical JS@SE&L Inspection • Evaluation • " %lysis ffl&ttuH JKW Testing Lavatories ReMarch • Development ,.. «^Sgr Blanch Labofatortaci • 1 j9M% Eaat Naflck MuaMal Pafk Springfield, Mass. 01109 Auburn, Mass. 01501 (413) 734-6548 . (617) 832-5500 ^^•la^ (BIT) 2357330, 6534860 UMUMMTirnON ii TT1 1 CaUtornia. Texaa, Intnoia. panraytvania, OMo : TO: NJJITHAN I HOWfiD INC. DATE: 10/9 /B7 MATERIAL: SLt/OGE K niUlil STREET . JOB NO. 9WB1-2 BOOK NO. 311-31-RH-JB NEOESLEY. flfl 02181 LAB KO. 683* SPECIFIMTIONS: octg.v02 ATTNl DOUGLAS VI6NEAU ORDER NO. NONE SAMPLE ID: 2 SLUDSE SAHPLE5 DATE REC'D: 9/16/87 1 •A' DEEP HQLf-tlEflSE POND '8' OPPOSITE PARK 1 PURPOSE: To detenine the concentration of pesticides and PCS in the sludge satpln suotitted for analysis. PROCEDURE; The sanies *rre sofhlet/soxnlet extracted in accordance Kith the EPA Analytical Procedure for 1 Chlorinated Hydrocarbon Pesticides. The extract MS analyzed hy SC/ECD (EPA Hethod aOB). RESULTS: 'A' •B' 1 US/KB 'U6/K6 Heptacnlor (2.4 <2.4 1 Aldrin - ; u«L£ss«T»w>TiomwwTnioBvvoo. ALL SAHVUS WILL sirarAWED FOH 30 DATS AND TMN otsrasei or. 1 PUftPOSES OVB* OUH SIGNATURE CM IN CONNECTION WITH OUH NAM WITHOUT OUH SKOAL PSMKSBKM IN WWTMQ. D-7 - 1 I I Arnold Nondestructive • Chemical > Pollution • Metallurgical Inspection • Evaluation • ~'~*tyais Testing la*. Jratories Research* Development - I Brancn Laboratories: Eact Natt* Industrial Park SprlrtgflekJ. Mass. 01109 Aubum, Mass. 01501 8 Hum MM • ttattak, MA 01700 (413> (BIT) 236-7330,65MKO Tata 84846B QREENELAB KT1K I CalWorrta. Texas. Illinois, Pennaytwnia, Oho PA6E 2 I NHITHAN t HONAflD JOB 199981-2 I •A' ; 'B- HEOSE POND •fl1 I U6/KS U6/K6 b-EnduwHan <2.0 <2.0 I Endosulfan Sulfits <4.0 Endrin Aldehyde I Lindane I CCHHEVT: Date extracted: 9/21 Date analyzed: 7/23 I I I IN WITNESS HHERE0F. I HAVE HEREUNTO SET NV HAND THIS 9TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1987 ARNOLD SREENE TESTING LABORATORIES I DIVISION OF CQNAfl INSPE I Jans J. Bar I UNLESS STIPULATED IN WHITING BY YOU. ALL SAMPLES WILL M HETAINIO FOR 30 DAYS AND THtM MSPOSn OF. I D-8 Appendix E Hydrologic Budget Calculations I APPENDIX E I SUMMARY OF HYDROLOGIC BUDGET DETERMINANTS Table E-l summarizes the methods and values associated with I the hydrologic budget for the Wedge Pond Watershed. I TABLE E-l Hydrologic Budget I Components Determinants/Values Precipitation Date Source: NOAA, Reading Station April 1987 to March 1988 I Precipitation: = 45.51 in. (115.60 cm) = 963.85 mgy I 3.65 x Direct Runoff Direct runoff was determined using runoff coefficients which are based on watershed characteristics (e.g., soils, and land I use). Runoff coefficients are calculated in the Hvdroloaic Notations section of this appendix. I Direct runoff: = 424.30 mgy 1.61 x m3/yr I Total Runoff Total runoff takes into account the precipitation falling on the pond. Precipitation (less evaporation) is added to direct runoff to come up with total I runoff for the entire watershed area. Pond precipitation less evaporation: = 11.06 mgy I = 0.04 x io6 m3/yr Total runoff: = 435.35 mgy I 1.65 x 106 m3/yr Evapotranspiration Evapotranspiration was determined using the Thornthwaite method as described by I Mather and Rodriguez (1978). This method uses mean monthly air temperatures to estimate the amount of energy available for evapotranspiration. Actual monthly I evapotranspiration is estimated based on enerqy potential, availability of I precipitation, and soil moisture content. Table E-3 depicts the monthly breakdown for potential evapotranspiration. Specific methodologies and equations for I this calculation are contained in Mather and Rodriguez (1978). Tables E-4 through E-8 summarize calculations for actual evapotranspiration per I subwatershed. I E-l I I TABLE E-l (cont.) Hydrologic Budget I Components Determinants/Values Evapotranspiration: 300.04 mgy I 1.14 x 10$ m3/yr Infiltration Groundwater quantity is estimated as the difference between total precipitation I and runoff, plus evapotranspiration. Infiltration: 212,33 mgy I 0.80 x 106 m3/yr Direct Evaporation Direct evaporation from Wedge Pond is roughly equal to 27 inches. This value I is appropriate for shallow Massachusetts lakes and ponds (Linsley et al., 1975). This corresponds to 49.5 acre-feet for I Wedge Pond. Direct Evaporation: = 16.13 mgy I = 0.06 10s m3/yr Inflow from the Horn The Horn Pond watershed is tributary to - Pond Watershed Wedge Pond via Horn Pond Brook. The flow I from this watershed (actually outflow from Horn Pond) was taken from the D/F Study of Horn Pond (W&H, 1987). The outflow volume of Horn Pond was weighted, I based on the amount of rainfall measured during the current study (45.51 inches) versus the amount of rainfall measured during the Horn Pond D/F study (41.32 I inches). The resultant volume was considered an input to the hydrologic I budget of Wedge Pond. Inflow from the Horn Pond Watershed 1,324.77 mgy I 5.01 x 106 m Outflow from Wedge The outflow from Wedge Pond was Pond determined on the basis of the hydrologic I budget formula stated in Section 9. This volume of outflow is the sum of the total runoff, infiltration, and inflow from the I Horn Pond watershed. Outflow from Wedge Pond 1,972.45 mgy I 7.47 x 106 m I I E-2 I I HYDROLOGIC NOTATIONS The Rational Method was used to calculate direct runoff from I the watershed. The formula is represented below: I Q = ciA Where: Q = Flow c = Runoff Coefficient i = Rainfall Intensity I A = Watershed Area Runoff coefficients (c) are based on the degree of I impermeability of a given land surface with respect to land use I and soil characteristics. Runoff coefficients for various land uses were taken from the Manual for Practice - No. 9 (Water I Pollution Control, Federation, 1969). These referenced values were used in conjunction with the Rational Method to calculate I direct runoff for each subwatershed. Because each subwatershed has many land uses within it, an overall c value had to be I determined. An example, using the Middlesex Street subwatershed, follows: I Step 1: Calculate an overall (weighted) hydrologic soil group for the subwatershed based on its soil characteristics. Weights are based on the degree of impermeability of the soil; Group A soils are the least impermeable and I Group D soils are the most impermeable. The overall hydrologic soil group is used to select referenced c values from the Manual of Practice (e.g., a Group A I soil might have a different set of associated c values per land use than a Group D soil would). Percentage Product of I Hydrologic within last two columns Soil Group Subwatershed Weight A 43 4 172 I B 0 3 0 C 0 2 0 I D 57 1 57 I Totals: 100 229 I I E-3 I I The overall hydrologic soil group for this subwatershed is I 2.29 (229 divided by 100). This translates to a B/C soil group. Step 2: Now that an overall soil group has been determined for I the subwatershed, c values can be obtained from the Manual of Practice. Percentage Referenced Product of I Land Use within Runoff last two columns Category Subwatershed Coefficient % I Residential 18 0.40 7.20 Commercial 5 0.80 4.00 Industrial o 0.80 0.00 Forest 9 0.15 1.35 I Acjriculture/open 68 0.35 28.80 I Totals: 100 36.35 The overall c value for this particular subwatershed equals I 0.36 (36.35 divided by 100). Runoff coefficients for the five subwatersheds are: Middlesex Street 0.36 I Palmer Street 0.38 Vine Street 0.50 Horn Pond Brook 0.44 I Russell Brook 0.48 Another component used in calculating the hydrologic budget I is soil moisture content. These values are determined by using the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) methodology outlined in the I Engineering Field Manual (SCS, 1975). The SCS developed "CN" I values that correspond to various land uses. The following example, using the Middlesex Street subwatershed, shows how an I overall "CN" value is calculated: Hydrologic Product in acres Land Use Area Soil "CN" (of columns one il Category (Acres) Group Value and three) Residential 10 A 61 610 Commercial 3 A 89 267 Industrial 0 A 81 0 I Forest 5 180 A 36 Agriculture/ Open 38 D 78 2,964 I 4,021 I E-4 I I The overall "CN" value is 72 which is 4,021 acres divided by 56 acres. This value is then used to look up the maximum soil I moisture content for the particular soil type. Maximum soil moisture contents and overall "CN" values for each subwatershed I are: Overall Maximum Soil I Subwatershed "CN" Value Moisture Content finches) Middlesex Street 72 3.89 Palmer Street 66 5.15 Vine Street 76 3.16 I Horn Pond Brook 74 3.51 I Russell Brook 81 2.34 I I I I I I I I I I I I E-5 TABLE E-2 SUMMARY OF WATER BALANCE COMPONENTS Direct Evapotrans- Infiltration to Area Precipitation Runoff piration Groundwater , Subwatershed (acres) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (acre-feet) (see note a.) (see note b.) (see note d.) Middlesex Street 56 212 .38 76.44 75 .69 60.25 Palmer Street 76 288 .23 109. 53 109 .76 68.97 Vine Street 19 72.06 36.02 22 .78 13.26 Horn Pond Brook 147 557.50 242. 66 186 .69 128. 14 f Russell Brook 460 1,744 .55 837. 56 525 .93 381.04 ON Wedge Pond* 22 83 .43 33.93 49 .50 N/A (see note c.) Totals : 780 2,958 .15 1.336.14 970.35 651. 66 Notes: (a) Precipitation (acre-feet) is calculated as subvatershed area (acres) times the amount of precipitation (feet). (b) Direct runoff (acre-feet) is calculated as precipitation (acre-feet) times runoff coefficient (Tables E-4 through E-8). (c) Wedge Fond, although not a subwatershed, has been added to this table so that total values could be calculated for the watershed. (d) Evapotranspiration value of 49.50 for Wedge Pond represents direct evaporation from the pond surface. 1 TABLE E-3 POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION (PET) CALCULATIONS WEDGE POND WINCHESTER, MASSACHUSETTS APRIL 1987 TO MARCH 1987 1 Mean(a) Monthly Monthly(b) Unadjusted(c) Day(d) Temperature Heat PET Length PET(e> 1 Month (°F) Index (Inches) Factor (inches) April 45.9 1,93 0.04 33.6 1.35 1 May 57.7 4.89 0.09 37.8 3.40 June 66,2 7.55 0.12 38.1 4.57 1 July 71.7 9.45 0.14 38.4 5.38 August 67.6 8.02 0.13 35.7 4.64 September 61.6 6.06 0.10 31.2 3.12 1 October 48.9 2.60 0.06 28.5 1.71 November 40 . 6 0.93 0 . 02 24.6 0.49 1 December 32.6 0.02 0.00 23.7 0.00 January 24.2 0.00 0.00 24.8 0.00 1 Febraury 28.6 0.00 0.00 24.5 0.00 March 37.2 0.43 0.02 30.9 0.62 NOTES : (a) Mean Monthly Temperatures are taken from NOAA, Reading Station 1 (1987-1988). (b) Monthly Heat Index (i) is taken from Appendix I , Mather & Rodriguez (1987). (c) Unadjusted Potential Evapotranspiration is taken from Appendix II, Mather & Rodriguez (1978). (d) Daylength Correction Factor is taken from Appendix III , Mather & Rodriguez (1978). I (e) PET is derived from multiplying the unadjusted PET by Day Length Factor. PET is the potential evapotranspiration by month and is used in Table E-4 • through E-8 to compute the water balance. I l I E-7 TABLE E-4 MIDDLESEX STREET SUBVATERSHED HATER BALANCE Components^ Apr Mav June July Aug Seot Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Mean Monthly Temp. 45.9 57.7 66.2 71.7 67.6 61.6 48.9 40.6 32.6 24.2 28.6 37.2 Potential Evapo- transpiratlon (PET) 1.35 3.40 4.57 5.38 4.64 3.12 1.71 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 Precipitation (P) 10.11 1.44 1,72 1.00 3.72 7.81 2.76 3.43 2.84 2.72 4.21 3.75 Direct Runoff (R) 3.64 0.52 0.62 0.36 1.34 2.81 0.99 1.23 1.02 0.98 1.52 1.35 Effective Free. (EP) 6.47 0.92 1.10 0.64 2.38 5.00 1.77 2.20 1.82 1.74 2.69 2.40 EP-PET 5.12 -2.48 -3.47 -4.74 -2.26 1.88 0.06 1.71 1,82 1.74 2.69 1.78 I O> Storage Capacity 3.89 1.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.88 1.94 3.65 3.89 3.89 3.89 3.89 Storage Change 0.00 -2.48 -1.41 0.00 0.00 1.88 0.06 1.71 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 Actual Evapotran- spiration (AE) 1.35 3.40 2.51 0.64 2.38 3.12 1.71 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 Surplus 5.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.58 1.74 2.69 1.78 NOTES; PET = 25.28 inches/year. This is a summation of the monthly PET values, as per Table E-3. AE » 16.22 inches/year = 75.69 acre-feet. This is a summation of the monthly AE values. Mean Monthly Temperatures are taken from NOAA, Reading Station, April 1987 to March 1988. P values are taken from NOAA, Reading Station, April 1987 to March 1988. Direct Runoff is calculated as P times the runoff coefficient (calculated for each subwatershed in Hvdroloeic Notations^, EP equals P less Direct Runoff EP-PET equals the amount of precipitation available for storage/surplus. Storage Capacity is the amount of moisture soil can store based on its physical properties. Maximum Storage Capacity for this subwatershed equals 3.89 inches. Storage Change is the amount of change in soil moisture from the previous month. Surpluses are available in months vere EP exceeds PET. All values in inches except Mean Monthly Temperature in °F. TABLE E-5 PALMER STREET SUBWATERSHED WATER BALANCE Components Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Mean Monthly Temp. 45.9 57.7 66.2 71.7 67.6 61.6 48.9 40.6 32.6 24.2 28.6 37.2 Potential Evapo- transpiration (PET) 1.35 3.40 4.57 5.38 4.64 3.12 1.71 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 Precipitation (P) 10.11 1.44 1.72 1.00 3.72 7.81 2.76 3.43 2.84 2.72 4.21 3.75 Direct Runoff (R) 3.84 0.55 0.65 0.38 1.41 2.97 1.05 1.30 1.08 1.03 1.60 1.43 Effective Prec. (EP> 6.27 0.89 1.07 0.62 2.31 4.84 1.71 2.13 1.76 1.69 2.61 2.32 EP-PET 4.92 -2.51 -3.50 -4.76 -2.33 1.72 0.00 1.64 1.76 1.69 2.61 1.70 KJ I Storage Capacity 5.15 2.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.72 1.72 3.36 5.12 5.15 5.15 5.15 Storage Change 0.00 -2.51 -2.64 0.00 0.00 1.72 0.00 1.64 1.76 0.03 0.00 0.00 Actual Evapotran- splration (AE) 1.35 3.40 3.71 0.62 2.31 3.12 1.71 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 Surplus 4.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.66 2.61 1.70 NOTES: PET = 25.28 inches/year. This is a summation of the monthly PET values, as per Table E-3. AE = 17.33 inches/year ~ 109.76 acre-feet. This is a summation of the monthly AE values. Mean Monthly Temperatures are taken from NOAA, Reading Station, April 1987 to March 1988. P values are taken from NOAA, Reading Station, April 1987 to March 1988. Direct Runoff is calculated as P times the runoff coefficient (calculated for each subvatershed in Hydrologic Notations. EP equals P less Direct Runoff EP-PET equals the amount of precipitation available for storage surplus. Storage Capacity is the amount of moisture soil can store based on its physical properties. Maximum Storage Capacity for this subwatershed equals 5.15 inches. Storage Change is the amount of change in soil moisture from the previous month. Surpluses are available in months where EP exceeds PET. All values in inches except Mean Monthly Temperature in °F. TABLE £-6 VINE STREET SUBWATERSHED WATER BALANCE Components Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Mean Monthly Temp. 45.9 57.7 66.2 71.7 67.6 61.6 48.9 40.6 32.6 24.2 28.6 37.2 Potential Evapo- transpiration (PET) 1.35 3.40 4.57 5.38 4.64 3.12 1.71 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 Precipitation (P) 10.11 1.44 1.72 1.00 3.72 7.81 2.76 3.43 2.84 2.72 4.21 3.75 Direct Runoff (R) 5.06 0.72 0.86 0.50 1.86 3.90 1.38 1.72 1.42 1.36 2.10 1.87 Effective Free. (EP) 5.05 0.72 0.86 0.50 1.86 3.91 1.38 1.71 1.42 1.36 2.11 1.88 EP-PET 3.70 -2.68 -3.71 -4.88-2.78 0.79-0.33 1.22 1.42 1.36 2.11 1.26 M I Storage Capacity 3.16 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.79 0.46 1.68 3.10 3.16 3.16 3.16 Storage Change 0.00 -2.68 -0.48 0.00 0.00 0.79 -0.33 1.22 1.42 0.06 0.00 0.00 Actual Evapotran- spiration (AE) 1.35 3.40 1.34 0.50 1.86 3.12 1.71 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 Surplus 3.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.30 2.11 1.26 NOTES: PET - 25.28 inches/year. This is a summation of the monthly PET values, as per Table E-3. AE => 14.39 inches/year = 22.78 acre-feet. This is a summation fo the monthly AE values. Mean Monthly Temperatures are taken from NOAA, Reading Station, April 1987 to March 1988. P values are taken from NOAA, Reading Station, April 1987 to March 1988. Direct Runoff is calculated as P times the runoff coefficient (calculated for each subwatershed in Hvdrologic Notations.) EP equals P less Direct Runoff EP-PET equals the amount of precipitation available for storage/surplus. Storage Capacity is the amount of moisture soil can store based on its physical properties. Maximum Storage Capacity for this subwatershed equals 3.16 inches. Storage Change is the amount of change in soil moisture from the previous month. Surpluses are available in months where EP exceeds PET. All values in inches except Mean Monthly Temperature in °F. TABLE E-7 HORN FOND BROOK SUBWATERSHED WATER BALANCE CoraDonents Aor May June Julv Aue Scot Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Mean Monthly Temp. 45.9 57.7 66.2 71.7 67.6 61.6 48.9 40.6 32.6 24.2 28.6 37.2 Potential Evapo- transpiration (PET) 1.35 3.40 4.57 5.38 4.64 3.12 1.71 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 Precipitation (P) 10.11 1.44 1.72 1.00 3.72 7.81 2.76 3.43 2.84 2.72 4.21 3.75 Direct Runoff (R) 4.40 0.63 0.75 0.44 1.62 3.40 1.20 1.49 1.24 1.18 1.83 1.63 Effective Prec. (EP) 5.71 0.81 0.97 0.56 2.10 4.41 1.56 1.94 1.60 1.54 2.38 2.12 EP-PET 4.36 -2.59 -3.60 -4.82-2.54 1.29 -0.15 1.45 1.60 1.54 2.38 1.50 en i H Storage Capacity 3.51 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.29 1.14 2.59 3.51 3.51 3.51 3.51 M Storage Change 0.00 -2.59 -0.92 0.00 0.00 1.29 -0.15 1.45 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 Actual Evapo tran- spiration (AE) 1.35 3.40 1.89 0.56 2.10 3.12 1.71 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 Surplus 4.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 1.54 2.38 1.50 NOTES : PET = 25.28 inches/year. This is a summation of the monthly PET values, as per Table E-3. AE «= 15.24 inches/year = 186.69 acre-feet. This is a summation of the monthly AE values. Mean Monthly Temperatures are taken from NOAA, Reading Station, April 1987 to March 1988. P values are taken from NOAA, Reading Station, April 1987 to March 1988. Direct Runoff is calculated as P times the runoff coefficient (calculated for each subvatershed in Hvdrologic Notations.) EP equals P less Direct Runoff EP-PET equals the amount of precipitation available for storage/surplus. Storage Capacity is the amount of moisture soil can store based on its physical properties. Maximum Storage Capacity for this subwatershed equals 3.51 inches. Storage Change is the amount of change in soil moisture from the previous month. Surpluses are available in months where EP exceeds PET. All values in inches except Mean Monthly Temperature in °F. TABLE E-8 RUSSELL BROOK SUBWATERSHED WATER BALANCE Components Apr May June July Aue Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Mean Monthly Temp. 45.9 57.7 66.2 71.7 67.6 61.6 48.9 40.6 32.6 24.2 28.6 37.2 Potential Evapo- transplratlon (PET) 1.35 3.40 4.57 5.38 4.64 3.12 1.71 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 Precipitation (P) 10.11 1.44 1.72 1.00 3.72 7.81 2.76 3.43 2.84 2.72 4.21 3.75 Direct Runoff (R) 4.85 0.69 0.83 0,481.79 3.75 1.32 1.65 1.36 1.31 2.02 1.80 Effective Prec. (EP) 5.26 0.75 0.89 0.52 1.93 4.06 1.44 1.78 1.48 1.41 2.19 1.95 EP-PET 3.91 -2.65 -3.68 -4.86-2.71 0.94-0.27 1.29 1.48 1.41 2.19 1.33 Storage Capacity 2.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.94 0.67 1.96 2.34 2.34 2.34 2.34 M I Storage Change 0.00 -2.34 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.94 -0.27 1.29 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 Actual Evapotran- splration (AC) 1.35 3.09 0.89 0.52 1.93 3.12 1.71 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 Surplus 3.91 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.10 1.41 2.19 1.33 NOTES: PET = 25.28 inches/year. This is a summation of monthly PET values, as per Table E-3. AE = 13.72 inches/year = 525.936 acre-feet. This is a summation of the monthly AE Values. Mean Monthly Temperatures are taken from NOAA, Reading Station, April 1987 to March 1988. P values are taken from NOAA, Reading Station, April 1987 to March 1988. Direct Runoff is calculated as P times the runoff coefficient (calculated for each subwatershed in HvdrologJc Notations.) EP equals P less Direct Runoff EP-PET equals the amount of precipitation available for storage/surplus. Storage Capacity is the amount of moisture soil can store based on its physical properties. Maximum Storage Capacity for this subwatershed equals 2.34 inches. Storage Change is the amount of change in soil moisture from the previous month. Surpluses are available in months where EP exceeds PET. All values in inches except Mean Monthly Temperature in °F. Appendix F Environmental Notification Form I I ENVIRONMENTAL NOTIFICATION FORM I I. SUMMARY A. Project Identification I 1 Proiect Name Clean Lakes Restoration Project Wedge Pond located adjacent to Lake Street and Main Street, Winchester MA I City/Town Winchester 2. Project Pmpnn«tit Department of Public Works Address 15 Lake Street, Winchester, MA 3. Eat. Commencement Fall 1989 £st. Completion Fall 19 #T I 5 Approx. Cost $ 518,340 Status of Project Design <* 4. Amount (if any) of bordering vegetated wetlands, salt marsh, or tidelands to be dredged, filled, removed, qr altered (other than by receipt of runoff) as a result of the project. I ~ acres ~ square feet. 5. This project is categorically included and therefore requires preparation of an EIR. I Yes No x ? B. Narrative Project Description Describe project and site. Wedge Pond is a hypereutrophic pond within the Town of Winchester. In the I past, the pond was an active recreation area used for swimming, fishing, and boat- ing. However, more recently the pond has been closed to swimming due to viola- tions of bathing beach standards set by the Department of Public Health. I Data collected during the diagnostic study of the pond show the following: o Dense algal blooms frequent the pond. In particular, blue-green algae predominate the algal population in the summer months. Algae may have I been responsible for waterfowl kills in the pond. o The hypolimnion is anoxic for most of the summer. I o Horn Pond Brook, in conjunction with storm drain discharges, contributes high nutrient and sediment loads to Wedge Pond. I o Elevated bacterial counts were measured during storm flows from storm drains. Fecal coliform to fecal streptococcus ratios were suggestive of ; sewer surcharging conditions. I The proposed restoration program is aimed at reversing the trophic state of the pond by controlling the major factors responsible for the poor water quality. The restoration program consists of the following components: (1) treatment on inflow from Horn Pond Brook by the use of a wetland treatment system, (2) nutrient inactd I vation through the application of alum, (3) erosion control measures along the I shoreline of Wedge Pond, and (4) watershed management. Copies of the complete ENF may be obtained from (proponent or agent); „ , „ I Name: Jodie M. Schlott Rrm/Amr. WnitTtian & Howard, Inc William Street, Wellesley, . MAph^M No Ibi/J I 1986 THIS IS AN IMPORTANT NOTICE COMMENT PERIOD IS LIMITED. I For Information, call (617) 727-5830 I PJ2 . " f "", C. List the State or Federal agencies from which permits or other actions have been/will be sought: Agency Name Permit Date filed; file no. DEQE/Winchester Conservation 1 Commission NOI/Order of Conditions DEQE Water Quality Certification DEQE Chapter 91 license 1 Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Permit 0. List any government agencies or programs from which the proponent wilt seek financial assistance 1 for this project: Agency Name Funding Amount 1 DEQE/Division of Water Pollution Control $325,500 1 (Clean Lakes Grant) E. Areas of potential impact (complete Sections II and HI first, before completing this section). 1 1. Check all areas in which, in the proponent's judgment, an impact of this project may occur. Positive impacts, as weil as adverse impacts, may be indicated. 1 Construction Long Term Impacts Impacts Inland Wrtlnnris creation of wetland ponds " x beneficial 1 * Traffic x potentially but minor 1 Oppn Space/Recreation x x beneficial nshrrip-i/Wiidlif* ,_ * ,-,.. x beneficial 1 Venptnrinn /Trees x x Water Pollution . , , , , x , „ „ , x beneficial 1 Solid Waitp earth excavation, organic debris x Hazardous Materials , , , __ ^_^ 1 Noise , , , , • , . x Wind/Shadow Aesthetics ' , , , , x x beneficial 1 Community/Housing and the 1 n.k- <*,?— ifr.) recreation x x beneficial 1 2. List the alternatives which have been considered. 1 No actipns other than no action have been considered. 1 I P.3 x I F. Has this project been filed with EOEA before? No Yes EOEA No. I G. WETLANDS AND WATERWAYS I 1. Will an Order of Conditions under the Wetlands Protection Act (c.l31s.40) or a License under the Waterways Act (c.91) be required? Yes_Jl_No . ' I 2. • Has a local Order of Conditions been: a. issued? Date of issuance __ ; DEQE File No. __ . b. appealed? Yes __; No I 3. Will a variance from the Wetlands or Waterways Regulations be required? Yes ^_^_; I No II PROJECT DESCRIPTION I A. Map; site plan. Include an original 8% x 11 inch or larger section of the most recent U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute series scale topographic map with the project area location and boundaries clearly I shown. If available, attach a site plan of the proposed project. Please refer to Figure ,1-1 22 (pond area) I B. State total area of project: acres. Estimate the number of acres (to the nearest 1/10 acre) directly affected that are currently: 1. Developed acres 6. Tidelands acres I 2. Open Space/ 7. Productive Resources Woodlands/Recreation ^2 acres Agriculture .. acres 3. Wetlands acres Forestry _ acres 4. Flood plain ____ acres 8. Other ,„ acres I 5. Coastal Area _—- acres I C. Provide the following dimensions, if applicable: Existing Increase Total N/A I Length in miles Number of Housing Units N/A Number of Stories N/A Gross Floor Area in square feet N/A I Number of parking spaces , N/A Total of Daily vehicle trips to and from site * 24 24 (Total Trip Ends) I Estimated Average Daily Traffic on road(s) N/A serving site 1 I 2 _ 3 *The proposed project will roughly involve a four-person crew and one utility truck. Total trip ends are expected to be four per person and eight per the utility truck. I This is a total of 24 total trip ends, (note: front end loader, backhoe, etc. to** 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 -none required- ** remain on site. Locus of proposed wetland treatment system Proposed Location of Wetland Treatment System Whitman & Howard, Inc Figure. 1-1 MAKEPEACE 1-3 I P.4 i III. ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Instructions: Explain direct and indirect adverse impacts, including those arising from general i construction and operations. For every answer explain why significant adverse impact is 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 • area? Yes. During the construction phases of the project, the ' Explanation gnd Source: condition and potentially the use of Wedge Pond will be minimally compromised. However, the pond is currently in a poor trophic condition , and the use of the beach has been curtailed due to violations in bathing beach require I ments. The overall project is intended to improve the pond to a condition that it can 2. Is the project site within 500 feet of any public open space, recreation, or conservation land? _ . . , - *aeain be used as a recreational resource. Explanation and Source: "***•"* i Yes. Wedge Pond is the object of the proposed project but as stated previously, i the entire intent of the project is to improve the water quality of the pond. 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.) Explanation and Source: Based on a consultation with the Massachusetts Historic Commission (MHC), no i known site or structure of historic significance will be affected by the proposed project. i 2. Might any archaeological site be affected by the project? (Prior consultation with Massachusetts Historical Commission is advised.) Explanation and Source: i Based on a consultation with the MHC, no known archaeological site will be affected l by the proposed project. 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). Explanation and Source: Based on consultation with the Natural Heritage Program (NHP), no rare or endangered species of fish or wildlife will be affected by the pro- posed project. Project construction will involve both shoreline stabilization and i excavation for the wetland treatment system. However, this will not significantly affect fisheries or wildlife. The intent of these projects is to decrease the negativ impacts of shoreline erosion and nutrient loading on the biological communities in the i pond. Additionally, mitigation measures such as hay bales and/or siltation fences wil be used during all construction activities. Alum treatments will be carefully tested in the lab prior to application to avoid any impacts to fisheries. Wildlife in the i the vicinity of the wetland treatment system will be short term in nature and wildlife will have other open space areas to which they can migrate in the interim. • I P.S 2. Might the project significantly affect vegetation, especially any rare or endangered species I of plant? (Prior consultation with the Massachusetts Natural Heritage Program is advised.) (Estimate approximate number of mature trees to be removed: ___^__^^) I Explanation and Source: Based on consultation with the NHP, no rare or endangered species of plant or note- worthy community will be affected by the proposed project. Watershed management and the alum treatment will not necessitate the removal of any vegetation, either I terrestrial or aquatic. Construction of the wetland treatment system will require brush clearing at the proposed project site. At this location, upland vegetation I will be replaced with three wetland ponds which will be planted with cat-tails. 3. Agricultural Land. Has any portion of the site been in agricultural use within the last 15 years? If yes, specify use and acreage. I Explanation, and Source: I No portion of the site has been in agricultural use within the last 15 years. I 0. Water Quality and Quantity 1. Might the project result in significant changes in drainage patterns? I Explanation and Source: The proposed project will not involve significant changes in drainage patterns. However, the project will involve a change in the routing of fj_ow from Horn Pond I Brook to Wedge Pond. Namely, Horn Pond Brook will be diverted .through a wetland treatment system. This will reduce the amount of nutrient and sediment loading the I brook carries to the pond. 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: Throughout project construction, mitigation measures such as hay bale barriers I and/or siltation fences will be used to avoid the potential impacts of siltation in Wedge Pond. The completed project will reduce the amounts of organic and I inorganic pollutants currently entering Wedge Pond. 3. Does the project involve any dredging? No Yes Volume —,.. . If 10,000 I 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 No portion of the .project will involve dredging. i I I I I P.6 4. Will any part of the project be located in flowed or filled tidelands, Great Ponds, or other I waterways? (Prior consultation with the DEQE and CZM is advised.) Explanation and Source: I Wedge Pond is a 22-acre, municipally-owned, Great Pond. I X 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 (b) Public sewerage systems (location; average and peak daily flows to I treatment works) Yes __ No _^_ Explanation and Source: I The project will not generate or convey sanitary sewage. I 6. Might the project result in an increase in paved or impervious surface over a sole source I aquifer or an aquifer recognized as an important present or future source of water supply? Explanation and Source: I The project will not result in an increase in paved or impervious surface over a sole source aquifer or an aquifer recognized as an important present or future I source of water supply. I 7. Is the project in the watershed of any surface water body used as a drinking water supply? Explanation and Source: I Wedge Pond lies immediately downstream of Horn Pond, Woburn. Horn Pond is used as a public water supply. However, because the proposed project is downstream it I will not affect this water supply. S. Are there any public or private drinking water wells within a 1/2-mile radius of the proposed I project? Explanation and Source: I There are no known water wells within a ^-mile radius of the proposed project. I I I I P.7 I 9. Does the operation of the project result in any increased consumption of water? Approximate consumption • gallons per day. Ukely water source(s) __ i Explanation and Source: The project will not result in any increased consumption of water. I I Solid Waste and Hazardous Materials 1. Estimate types and approximate amounts of waste materials generated, e.g., industrial, domestic, hospital, sewage sludge, construction debris from demolished structures. How/ I where will such waste be disposed of? Explanation and Source: Most likely, the proposed project will require the removal of rock, tree I parts and other "trash" debris which have collected along the shoreline. This debris will have to be cleared prior to the construction of the gabion I walls which are intended to control shoreline erosion. I 2. Might the project involve the generation, use, transportation, storage, release, or disposal of potentially hazardous materials? Explanation and Source: I The project will not involve the generation, use, transportation, storage, I release, or disposal of potentially hazardous materials. I 3. Has the site previously been used for the use, generation, transportation, storage, release, or disposal of potentially hazardous materials? Explanation and Source: I During the industrial period, both Horn Pond Brook and Wedge Pond were the reci- pients of industrial pollutants. Any materials deposited in the pond and brook £ that time may still be present in bottom sediments'. However, since no dredging c I sediments is involved with the proposed project, it is not anticipated that any environmental impacts will occur. (Note: Sediment analyses indicate that the ch« ical and physical makeup of the sediment allows for its disposal as per require- ments of Category #3 and Category C type dredge material under 314 CMR 9.00). I F. Energy Use and Air Quality 1. Will space heating be provided for the project? If so, describe the type, energy source, and approximate energy consumption. I Explanation and Source: I No space heating will be provided for the project. I I I P.8 2. Will the project require process heat or steam? If so, describe the proposed system, the fuel i , type, and approximate fuel usage. i Explanation and Source: The project will not require process heat or steam. i i 3. Does the project include industrial processes that swill release air contaminants to the atmosphere? If so, describe the process (type, material released, and quantity released). Explanation and Source: i The project does not include industrial processes that will release air i contaminants to the atmosphere. 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 Some construction dust may be generated but this will be minimal. 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: An apartment complex and the town park lie in close proximity to the work area at which gabion wall construction will occur. However, residents will not be i affected by the proposed project, as construction dust will be minimal. 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.) Explanation and Source: i Yes. Noise will be generated by construction equipment (e.g., backhoe, front-end i loader, and dump truck). io i I P.9 I 2. Are there any sensitive receptors (e.g., hospitals, schools, residential areas) which would be affected by any noise caused by the project? I Explanation and Source; The proposed project components lie within a mixture of residential and commercial properties. However, project construction will only take place during normal, daylight working hours. It is not anticipated that construction I noise will significantly impact local residents. I 3. Is the project a sensitive receptor, sited in an area of significant ambient noise? I Explanation and Source: The project is not a sensitive receptor sited in an area of significant I ambient noise. I H. Wind and Shadow 1. Might the project cause wind and shadow impacts on adjacent properties? I Explanation and Source: Adjacent properties will not be impacted by either wind or shadow I effects as a result of the proposed project. I Aesthetics 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 I significant differences in land use? Explanation and Source: There are no proposed structures which will be incompatible with existing I structures or land uses within proximity to the proposed project. I I 2. Might the project impair visual access to waterfront or other scenic areas? I Explanation and Source: The project will not impair visual access to the waterfront or other I scenic area. I I I I P. 10 I IV. CONSISTENCY WITH PRESENT PLANNING Discuss consistency with current federal, state and local land use, transportation, open space, I recreation and environmental plans and policies. Consult with local or regional planning authorities where appropriate. I The restoration program is being conducted under the Clean Lakes Program which is administered by the DEQE/DWPC. There are no known inconsistencies in regards to the proposed project and current federal, state, and local land I use, transportation, open space, recreation, and environmental plans and policies. I I I I V. FINDINGS AND CERTIFICATION A. The public notice of environmental review has been/will be published in the following I newspapers): I (NAME) Winchester Star (Date) I 3 Church Street Winchester, MA 01890 (617) 729-7653 I B. This form has been circulated to all agencies and persons as required by 301 CMR 11.24. I I Date Signature of Responsible Officer Date Signature of person preparing I or Project proponent ENF (if different from above) Mr. Dominic Serratore, Director Jodie M." Schlott Name (print or type) Name (print or type) Department of Public Works Whitman & Howard, Inc. I 45 Address 15 Lake Street Address William Street Winchester, MA 01890 Jellesley, MA 02181 I Telephone Number (617) 721-7100 237-^)00 I 301 CMR: EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS I FqRMS,pr NOTICE;,...... ,,.. ...ia-.... t (l) PUBUC NOTICE OF ENVtRONMENTAL REVIEW PROrECT: I I FORMS OF NOTICE (1) PUBUC NOTICE OH ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW . ; ... I ... _ Clean Lakes Restoration Project of VTedge Pond PROJECT: .«— ^ __^__ (Bn»i d«»cnpitM el protect) TVedcre Pond i- Lake and Main Streets, Winchester, MA I LOCATION: --* - _ PROPONENT: Town of Winchester, Department of Public Works _ I The undersigned is submitting an Environmental Notification. Form rENF") to th« Secretary of Environmental Attain on or before______— _. ._ •'...-• * •/••--' <&•*•> I This will initial* review o( the above project pursuant to the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act CMEPA", <3.L c. 30, sees. 61, S2-62M). Copies of the HNF may be pbutned from: I Jodie Schlott, Whitnan & 'Howard, 45 William St, Wellesley, H& 237-5000 Copies o/ the £NF are aJco being sent to th* Can*ervaiion Commission and Planning Board of Winchester (MuMdpaiiivi where they may be inspected. The Secretary of Environmental Affairs will publish notice of the ENF in the Environmental Monitor, will receive I public comments on the project for twenty -days, and will then decide, within ten days, if an Environmental Impact Report is needed. A site visit and consultation session on the project may also be scheduled. All persons wishing to comment on the project, or to be notified of a site visit or consultation session, should write to the Secretary of Environmental Affairs, 100 Cambridge Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02202, Attention: MEPA Unit, referencing I the above project. Denartment of Public Works By, I I I i I I J • ' ' * :/g/87 301 CMR-Hi I