DOCSLIB.ORG

Open PDF File, 1.77 MB, for Final Phosphorus TMDL Report for the Lower Charles River Basin

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Open PDF File, 1.77 MB, for Final Phosphorus TMDL Report for the Lower Charles River Basin Final – Nutrient TMDL Development for the Lower Charles River Basin, Massachusetts Final Total Maximum Daily Load for Nutrients In the Lower Charles River Basin, Massachusetts CN 301.0 Prepared by: The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection 627 Main Street Worcester Massachusetts & United States Environmental Protection Agency, New England Region 1 Congress Street Boston, Massachusetts With Support from: Tetra Tech, Inc. 10306 Eaton Place, Suite 340 Fairfax, VA 22030 June 2007 i Final – Nutrient TMDL Development for the Lower Charles River Basin, Massachusetts Acknowledgements This TMDL study was developed by the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection and the New England Region of the United Sates Environmental Protection Agency with support from Tetra Tech, Inc. in Fairfax, Virginia and Numeric Environmental Services in Beverly Farms, Massachusetts under EPA contract. A hydrodynamic and water quality model for the Lower Charles River used for this TMDL was developed by Tetra Tech, Inc. in Fairfax, Virginia and Numeric Environmental Services in Beverly Farms, Massachusetts under EPA contract. Model calibration and TMDL development were also supported by the Charles River Watershed Association through grants from the EPA and from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. EPA Region 1 support was provided by Mr. Mark Voorhees. Completion of this study depended on the generous informational and data support from various groups. Special acknowledgement is made to the following people and groups/organizations for the development of the TMDL model and TMDL: The Model Expert Review Panel: for their expert advice, technical guidance and reviews during development of the TMDL water quality model: Dr. Steven Chapra Tufts University, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Dr. Ferdi Hellweger Northeastern University, Civil and Environmental Engineering Department Dr. Ken Wagner ENSR Dr. Raymond Wright University of Rhode Island, Civil Engineering Department Charles River Watershed Association: for their technical and organizational support during development of the TMDL model. CRWA convened the Expert Review Panel and organized the larger model review committee: Ms. Kathy Baskin formerly of CRWA and now of MA Executive Office of Environmental Affairs Ms. Anna Eleria CWRA Dr. Nigel Pickering CWRA Mr. Robert Zimmerman CWRA Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection: Preparation of the TMDL Mr. Dennis Dunn Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Dr. Russell Isaac Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection U.S EPA: Assisted in the preparation of the TMDL, overall funding support, and extensive water quality monitoring activities conducted in direct support for developing the TMDL model. Mr. Tom Faber United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1 Mr. Mike Hill United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1 ii Final – Nutrient TMDL Development for the Lower Charles River Basin, Massachusetts Mr. Mark Voorhees United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1 Mr. Bill Walshrogalski United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1 Others: Ms. Laura Blake formerly of New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission Dr. Todd Callahan Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Dr. David Taylor Massachusetts Water Resources Authority iii Final – Nutrient TMDL Development for the Lower Charles River Basin, Massachusetts Key to Acronyms BMP – best management practice BU – Boston University BWSC – Boston Water and Sewer Commission CMR – Code of Massachusetts Regulations CRWA – Charles River Watershed Association CSO – combined sewer overflow CWA – Clean Water Act CZM – Coastal Zone Management EMC – event mean concentration EPA – Environmental Protection Agency EQIP – Environmental Quality Incentive Program IDDE – illicit discharge detection and elimination LA – load allocation MassDEP – Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection MAWQS – Massachusetts Water Quality Standards MEP – maximum extent practicable MEPA – Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act MGD – million gallons per day MOS – margin of safety MS4 – municipal separate storm sewer system NOI – notice of intent NPDES – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS – Natural Resources Conservation Service PI – prediction interval QAPP – Quality Assurance Project Plan SRF – State Revolving Fund SWMM – Storm Water Management Model TMDL – Total Maximum Daily Load TN – total nitrogen TP – total phosphorus UA – urbanized area USGS – United States Geological Survey WHO – World Health Organization WLA – wasteload allocation WSGP – watershed general permit WWTF – wastewater treatment facility iv Final – Nutrient TMDL Development for the Lower Charles River Basin, Massachusetts EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Water Quality Planning and Management Regulations (Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 130) require states to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for impaired waterbodies. A TMDL establishes the amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can assimilate without exceeding its water quality standard for that pollutant. TMDLs provide the scientific basis for a state to establish water quality-based controls to reduce pollution from both point and nonpoint sources to restore and maintain the quality of the state’s water resources (USEPA 1991). A TMDL for a given pollutant and waterbody is composed of the sum of individual wasteload allocations (WLAs) for point sources and load allocations (LAs) for nonpoint sources and natural background levels. In addition, the TMDL must include an implicit or explicit margin of safety (MOS) to account for the uncertainty in the relationship between pollutant loads and the quality of the receiving waterbody. The TMDL components are illustrated using the following equation: TMDL = ∑ WLAs + ∑ LAs + MOS The study area for this TMDL is the Lower Charles River, which flows through eastern Massachusetts. The river flows through 23 towns and cities and five counties. This TMDL report addresses the lower portion of the river, which is an impounded section of the Charles River referred to as the Lower Charles River in this report. The Lower Charles River is located at the downstream end of the Charles River Watershed and outlets to Boston Harbor and the Atlantic Ocean. The entire Charles River watershed drains a watershed area of 308 square miles. Two hundred and sixty-eight square miles of that watershed area drain over the Watertown Dam into the Lower Charles River. The remaining 40 square miles drain directly into the Lower Charles from small tributary streams that are mostly enclosed and piped stormwater drainage systems serving the surrounding communities. There is also a combined sewer drainage area near the downstream end of the Charles River. The Lower Charles River is in the heart of a highly urbanized area, bordered directly by the municipalities of Boston, Cambridge, Watertown, and Newton. The land uses surrounding the Lower Charles River are predominantly residential. This TMDL report addresses the nutrient and noxious aquatic plant impairments that were included on the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection’s (MassDEP) 2002 and 2004 section 303(d) lists (MAEOEA 2003 and 2004). The report also addresses associated water clarity impairments such as turbidity and taste, odor and color. Regular occurrences of severe algal blooms during the summer months reduce water clarity and contribute to anoxic bottom waters that do not support aquatic life. Water quality data indicate the Lower Charles River is undergoing cultural eutrophication, which is the process of producing excessive plant life because of excessive pollutant inputs from human activities. The algal v Final – Nutrient TMDL Development for the Lower Charles River Basin, Massachusetts blooms in the Lower Charles are directly responsible for degrading the aesthetic quality of the river, reducing water clarity, and impairing the designated uses. Additionally, eutrophication of the Lower Charles River has led to the occurrence of a very severe toxic algal bloom in the downstream portion of the Lower Charles during the summer of 2006. Monitoring conducted in the Lower Charles during August 2006 found cell counts of the toxic cyanobacteria (blue-green) organism, microcystes, to be so high that it caused the Massachusetts Department of Public Health to post warnings for the public and their pets to avoid contact with river. The Massachusetts Water Quality Standards identify the Lower Charles River as a Class B water that is designated to support aquatic life and recreational uses. The water quality criteria that apply to the Lower Charles River and were used to calculate the total allowable loads are presented in Table ES-1. Table ES-1. Applicable Massachusetts water quality criteria Pollutant Criteria Source Shall not be less than 5.0 mg/L in warm water fisheries unless background conditions are lower; Dissolved natural seasonal and daily variations above these 314 CMR: 4.05: Classes and Oxygen levels shall be maintained; and levels shall not be Criteria (3)(b) 1 lowered below 60 percent of saturation in warm water fisheries due to a discharge. Shall be in the range of 6.5 - 8.3 standard units and not more than 0.5 units outside of the background 314 CMR: 4.05: Classes and pH range. There shall be no change from background Criteria (3)(b) 3 conditions that would impair any use assigned
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Sudbury, Assabet and Concord Wild and Scenic River Conservation Plan
    The Sudbury, Assabet and Concord Wild and Scenic River Conservation Plan 2019 Update The Sudbury, Assabet and Concord Wild and Scenic River Conservation Plan May 2019 Update Sudbury, Assabet and Concord Wild and Scenic River Stewardship Council c/o National Park Service 15 State St Boston, MA 02109 617-223-5049 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................ 2 Map of the Watershed ................................................................................................... 3 I. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 4 History of the Wild and Scenic River Designation Management Principles of Partnership Wild and Scenic Rivers Achievements Resulting from Designation Changes in the Region Since 1996 Role of the River Stewardship Council Purpose and Process of the Update How to Use this Update II. The River Management Philosophy ........................................................................ 11 Goals of the Plan A watershed-wide Approach III. Updates to the Administrative Framework ............................................................. 13 IV. Threats to the Outstandingly Remarkable Resource Values .................................... 14 V. Resource Management .......................................................................................... 15 Overview Public and Private Lands Water Resources – Water Quality Water Resources – Water Quantity
    [Show full text]
  • 2021 Charles River Cleanup on the Esplanade Saturday, April 24, 2021 10Am to 12Pm
    2021 Charles River Cleanup on the Esplanade Saturday, April 24, 2021 10am to 12pm Join us for this year’s Charles River Cleanup on the Esplanade! Promote a sense of camaraderie and teamwork The Charles River Cleanup is annually the biggest amongst your employees while simultaneously volunteer cleanup event for the Esplanade promoting park stewardship and giving back to the Association, usually bringing between 400 local community through this year’s Charles River and 600 volunteers. Due to current volunteer Esplanade Cleanup! The 2021 Charles River Cleanup restrictions and guidelines set by both the CDC and on the Esplanade will take place on Saturday, April Massachusetts Department of Conservation and 24 from 10am to 12pm. Recreation, the number of volunteer participants in this year’s Charles River Earth Day Cleanup on Volunteering on the Esplanade this spring will the Esplanade will be limited to 150 people, further look similar to how we ran our volunteer days on divided into physically distant groups located at the Esplanade in fall 2020. We heard nothing but different volunteer project sites on the Charles River positive feedback from our volunteers last fall, Esplanade. who enjoyed spending time with their co-workers out on the Esplanade in a safe, physically-distant, Corporate group sizes will be limited to 25 people and rewarding setting. We adjusted our volunteer per site, with the option to bring more than one program to adhere to public health guidelines set group of 25 people on the Esplanade. Coordinating by the CDC and state park guidelines set by the the Charles River Cleanup has both operational and Massachusetts Department of Conservation and material costs for the Cleanup’s program partners.
    [Show full text]
  • Concord River Diadromous Fish Restoration FEASIBILITY STUDY
    Concord River Diadromous Fish Restoration FEASIBILITY STUDY Concord River, Massachusetts Talbot Mills Dam Centennial Falls Dam Middlesex Falls DRAFT REPORT FEBRUARY 2016 Prepared for: In partnership with: Prepared by: This page intentionally left blank. Executive Summary Concord River Diadromous Fish Restoration FEASIBILITY STUDY – DRAFT REPORT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Project Purpose The purpose of this project is to evaluate the feasibility of restoring populations of diadromous fish to the Concord, Sudbury, and Assabet Rivers, collectively known as the SuAsCo Watershed. The primary impediment to fish passage in the Concord River is the Talbot Mills Dam in Billerica, Massachusetts. Prior to reaching the dam, fish must first navigate potential obstacles at the Essex Dam (an active hydro dam with a fish elevator and an eel ladder) on the Merrimack River in Lawrence, Middlesex Falls (a natural bedrock falls and remnants of a breached dam) on the Concord River in Lowell, and Centennial Falls Dam (a hydropower dam with a fish ladder), also on the Concord River in Lowell. Blueback herring Alewife American shad American eel Sea lamprey Species targeted for restoration include both species of river herring (blueback herring and alewife), American shad, American eel, and sea lamprey, all of which are diadromous fish that depend upon passage between marine and freshwater habitats to complete their life cycle. Reasons The impact of diadromous fish species extends for pursuing fish passage restoration in the far beyond the scope of a single restoration Concord River watershed include the importance and historical presence of the project, as they have a broad migratory range target species, the connectivity of and along the Atlantic coast and benefit commercial significant potential habitat within the and recreational fisheries of other species.
    [Show full text]
  • Mystic River: a Quest for Climate Equity
    2019 INQUIRY CASE STUDY STUDY CASE INQUIRY Mystic River: A Quest for Climate Equity ANN RAPPAPORT LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLICY LINCOLN INSTITUTE OF LAND POLICY 1 TOPICS Climate Change, Environmental Management, Environmental Planning, Water TIMEFRAME 2000–2019 LEARNING GOALS • Understand the challenges and opportunities associated with bio-regional planning and sub-national climate adaptation and environmental policy • Identify and plan for diversity in vulnerability to climate change and capacity to act • Understand multi-criteria decision making • Use multiple sources of data to reveal landscapes of vulnerability PREREQUISITE KNOWLEDGE None S U M M A R Y Like many rivers in urban areas, the Mystic River has experienced abuse and neglect. A history of wetlands destruction, pollution-intensive industry, dense development, inadequate infrastructure and disparities in municipal fiscal capacity and physical vulnerability combine to make climate adaptation an urgent priority and monumental challenge for cities in the watershed. Despite progress building climate resilience, the clock is ticking. How can the distinctly different communities in the shared Mystic watershed avoid economic damage and loss of life from flooding and storm surges? And how can risk mitigation projects be funded? The case reveals tensions between community vulnerability and capacity to act, inviting consideration of both community-centric and collective solutions. Exclusive reliance on long term adaptation is insufficient. Case users develop approaches to engage diverse groups in risk management and investment discussions and propose strategies for identifying, developing, funding and, time permitting, implementing and assessing politically palatable and technically feasible solutions. 2 THE VALLEY OF ASHES CASE STUDY Mystic River’s headwaters begin in Reading, MA and form the Aberjona River, then flows into the Upper Mystic Lake in Winchester.
    [Show full text]
  • Wetlands Characterization B R Eliza Beth.Hertz@M a Ine.Gov)
    T N A R G S M R A E H D E L N E O H T C S k o T o A r k o B B An Approach to Conserving Maine's Natural o r LEGEND e Space for Plants, Animals, and People B k a n w s e T his m a p depicts a ll wetla nds shown on Na tiona l W etla nd Inventory (NW I) m a ps, but l o t t www..begiinniingwiitthhabiittatt..org d ca tegorized them ba sed on a subset of wetla nd functions. T his m a p a nd its depiction a a R e of wetla nd fea tures neither substitute for nor elim ina te the need to perform on-the- M Virginia ground wetla nd delinea tion a nd functiona l a ssessm ent. In no wa y sha ll use of this m a p Supplementary Map 7 G Lake r dim inish or a lter the regula tory protection tha t a ll wetla nds a re a ccorded under e a t a pplica ble S ta te a nd Federa l la ws. For m ore inform a tion a bout wetla nds cha ra cteriza tion, conta ct Eliza beth H ertz a t the Ma ine Depa rtm ent of Conserva tion (207-287-8061, Wetlands Characterization B r eliza beth.hertz@m a ine.gov). o o Lov ell k k o Keewaydin This map is non-regulatory and is intended for planning purposes only o T he W etla nds Cha ra cteriza tion m odel is a pla nning tool intended to help identify likely r Lake B wetla nd functions a ssocia ted with significa nt wetla nd resources a nd a dja cent upla nds.
    [Show full text]
  • Elevation of the March–April 2010 Flood High Water in Selected River Reaches in Central and Eastern Massachusetts
    Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Federal Emergency Management Agency Elevation of the March–April 2010 Flood High Water in Selected River Reaches in Central and Eastern Massachusetts Open-File Report 2010–1315 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Elevation of the March–April 2010 Flood High Water in Selected River Reaches in Central and Eastern Massachusetts By Phillip J. Zarriello and Gardner C. Bent Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Federal Emergency Management Agency Open-File Report 2010–1315 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior KEN SALAZAR, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey Marcia K. McNutt, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2011 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment, visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1-888-ASK-USGS For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod To order this and other USGS information products, visit http://store.usgs.gov Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report. Suggested citation: Zarriello, P.J., and Bent, G.C., 2011, Elevation of the March–April 2010 flood high water in selected river reaches in central and eastern Massachusetts: U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sudbury, Assabet, and Concord Rivers Developing a Report Card Stakeholder Workshop Newsletter Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge February - March 2018
    The Sudbury, Assabet, and Concord Rivers Developing a Report Card Stakeholder Workshop Newsletter Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge February - March 2018 Watersheds As part of the landscape that saw the start of both Assabet River Watershed LOWELL the American revolution and the industrial revolution, Concord River Watershed TEWKSBURY Sudbury River Watershed the Sudbury, Assabet, and Concord Rivers in Streams CHELMSFORD Massachusetts have a long history of use and abuse. Designated Wild & Scenic Restoring the health of these three interconnected Massachusetts BILLERICA WESTFORD r rivers has been the mission of OARS, the watershed e CARLISLE Riv d organization for the Sudbury, Assabet, and Concord or c n LITTLETON o Rivers, for 31 years. Restoration takes many years of C BOXBOROUGH BEDFORD committed work by local communities and support ACTON from many sources. Effective actions depend on HARVARD a sound understanding of the science and the local context, which must be broadly understood STOW CONCORD and communicated. BOLTON MAYNARD LINCOLN CLINTON BERLIN In 2018, OARS partnered with the Integration and SUDBURY r HUDSON WAYLAND Rive Application Network, University of Maryland Center et ab ss A for Environmental Science to initiate a river report BOYLSTON WESTON card for the region. The report card will provide a MARLBOROUGH snapshot of current river conditions and the historical NORTHBOROUGH FRAMINGHAM trends and context of those conditions. NATICK WESTBOROUGH SOUTHBOROUGH To start the process, two workshops were held at SHREWSBURY Sudbury River HOPKINTON Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge on 28 ASHLAND SHERBORN February and 1 March 2018, with key stakeholders GRAFTON from all three river basins. The initial workshop elicited UPTON what stakeholders value about the rivers, and the 10 mi N 10 km subsequent workshop focused on how to measure Location of the Sudbury, Assabet, and Concord River watersheds those values, and where to find data.
    [Show full text]
  • Index of Surface-Water Records
    ~EOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 138 July 1951 INDEX OF SURFACE-WATER RECORDS PART I.-NORTH ATLANTIC SLOPE BASINS TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1950 Prepared by Boston District UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Oscar L. Chapman, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY W. E. Wrather, Director Washington, 'J. C. Free on application to the Geological Survey, Washington 26, D. C. INDEX OF SURFACE-WATER RECORDS PART 1.-NORTH ATLANTIC SLOPE BASINS TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1950 EXPLANATION The index lists the stream-flow and reservoir stations in the North Atlantic Slope Basins for which records have been or are to be published for periods prior to Sept. 30, 1950. The stations are listed in downstream order. Tributary streams are indicated by indention. Station names are given in their most recently published forms. Parentheses around part of a station name indicate that the inclosed word or words were used in an earlier published name of the station or in a name under which records were published by some agency other than the Geological Survey. The drainage areas, in square miles, are the latest figures pu~lished or otherwise available at this time. Drainage areas that were obviously inconsistent with other drainage areas on the same stream have been omitted. Under "period of record" breaks of less than a 12-month period are not shown. A dash not followed immediately by a closing date shows that the station was in operation on September 30, 1950. The years given are calendar years. Periods·of records published by agencies other than the Geological Survey are listed in parentheses only when they contain more detailed information or are for periods not reported in publications of the Geological Survey.
    [Show full text]
  • Report of the Board of Metropolitan Park Commissioners (1898)
    A Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2013 http://archive.org/details/reportofboardofm00mass_4 PUBLIC DOCUMENT No. 48. REPORT ~ Board of Metropolitan Park Commissioners. J^ANUARY, 1899. BOSTON : W RIGHT & POTTER PRINTING CO., STATE PRINTERS, 18 Post Office Square. 1899. A CONTENTS. PAGE Report of the Commissioners, 5 Report of the Secretary, 18 Report of the Landscape Architects, 47 Report of the Engineer, 64 Financial Statement, . 86 Analysis of Payments, 99 Claims (chapter 366 of the Acts of 1898), 118 KEPOKT. The Metropolitan Park Commission presents herewith its sixth annual report. At the presentation of its last report the Board was preparing to continue the acquirement of the banks of Charles River, and was engaged in the investigation of avail- able shore frontages and of certain proposed boulevards. Towards the close of its last session the Legislature made an appropriation of $1,000,000 as an addition to the Metropolitan Parks Loan, but further takings were de- layed until the uncertainties of war were clearly passed. Acquirements of land and restrictions have been made or provided for however along Charles River as far as Hemlock Gorge, so that the banks for 19 miles, except where occu- pied by great manufacturing concerns, are in the control either of this Board or of some other public or quasi public body. A noble gift of about 700 acres of woods and beau- tiful intervales south of Blue Hills and almost surroundingr Ponkapog Pond has been accepted under the will of the late ' Henry L. Pierce. A field in Cambridge at the rear of « Elm- wood," bought as a memorial to James Russell Lowell, has been transferred to the care of this Board, one-third of the purchase price having been paid by the Commonwealth and the remaining two-thirds by popular subscription, and will be available if desired as part of a parkway from Charles River to Fresh Pond.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is a “Fish Ladder”? by the Numbers
    What is a “fish ladder”? By the numbers... A manmade structure There are 13 diadromous species in Massachusetts, (which often resembles including river herring, American eels, and rainbow smelt! a ladder with steps) that allows fish swimming upstream DMF designs and installs eel ramps in coastal rivers to Rainbow Smelt to get past barriers like dams, Smelt spawn at night in freshwater assist their upstream migrations. 9 have been installed in from early March through May. waterfalls, and locks. Massachusetts since 2007! Female rainbow smelt can lay VIEWING GUIDE Baffle fishways look just Weir pools are between 5,000 and 80,000 eggs! like ladders! Examples made up of a There are over 100 separate river herring runs in Each spring, MILLIONS of river herring migrate into Massachusetts waters, returning include Denil and Alaskan series of small pools Massachusetts! to their place of birth to create a new generation! This guide offers information on Steeppass. of regular length to create a long, sloping fifteen of our state’s busiest fish passage locations. channel for fish to travel upstream. Since 2013, 23,500 river herring have been stocked throughout the region by DMF! Life Cycle of a Herring River Herring swim very fast in short bursts to pass up the ladder, making for a spectacular show! diadromous, adj. [dahy·ad·ruh·muh s] American Eel Egg laying (spawning) 1. (of fish) migrating between fresh The only catadromous fish in North happens in the same Woolen Mill Dam and Fishway America, meaning it lives mostly in April 15 - May 15 and salt waters.
    [Show full text]
  • Find It and Fix It Stormwater Program in the Charles and Mystic River Watersheds
    FIND IT AND FIX IT STORMWATER PROGRAM IN THE CHARLES AND MYSTIC RIVER WATERSHEDS FINAL REPORT JUNE 2005 - AUGUST 2008 October 29, 2008 SUBMITTED TO: MASSACHUSETTS ENVIRONMENTAL TRUST EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS OFFICE OF GRANTS AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 100 CAMBRIDGE STREET, 9TH FLOOR BOSTON, MA 02114 SUBMITTED BY: CHARLES RIVER WATERSHED ASSOCIATION MYSTIC RIVER WATERSHED ASSOCIATION 190 PARK ROAD 20 ACADEMY STREET, SUITE 203 WESTON, MA 02493 ARLINGTON, MA 02476 Table of Contents List of Figures................................................................................................................................. 3 List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 5 Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 6 Organization of Report ................................................................................................................... 8 1.0 PROGRAM BACKGROUND............................................................................................ 9 1.1 Charles River.................................................................................................................. 9 1.1.1 Program Study Area................................................................................................ 9 1.1.2 Water Quality Issues............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Watertown-Cambridge Greenway Lighting Study
    CAMBRIDGE WATERTOWN GREENWAY PROPOSED LIGHTING DESIGN REVIEW CITY OF CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS KLEINFELDER PROJECT #: 20170208.010A JUNE 22, 2017 Copyright 2017 Kleinfelder All Rights Reserved ONLY THE CLIENT OR ITS DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVES MAY USE THIS DOCUMENT AND ONLY FOR THE SPECIFIC PROJECT FOR WHICH THIS REPORT WAS PREPARED. 20160744.001A/FISR24209 Page i of iii July 30, 2015 © 2015 Kleinfelder A Report Prepared for: Bill Deignan Transportation Program Manager Cambridge Community Development Department 344 Broadway Cambridge, MA 02139 CAMBRIDGE WATERTOWN GREENWAY PROPOSED LIGHTING DESIGN REVIEW CITY OF CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS Prepared by: Michael Newhouse Biologist, Wetland Scientist Reviewed by: David B. Tompkins, PWS, CWB® Senior Principal Professional KLEINFELDER 300 Westage Business Center, Suite 407 Fishkill, New York 12524 Phone: 845.231.2500 Fax: 845.897.2636 June 22, 2017 Kleinfelder Project No. 20170208.010A 20170208.010A/FIS17R61603 Page i of ii June 21, 2017 © 2017 Kleinfelder www.kleinfelder.com TABLE OF CONTENTS ____________________________________________________________________________ Section Page 1 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.....................................................................................1 2 METHODOLOGY ..............................................................................................................1 2.1 DESKTOP ANALYSIS ...........................................................................................1
    [Show full text]